In Hegel’s “Phenomenology of Spirit,” he mentions the concept of sense-certainty, delving into the depth of the “now” and the “here.” He then explains that it is an inadequate concept in reality because the “now” and the “here” are constantly changing. When one says they are doing something in the immediate “now,” it is already in the past after that individual finishes saying the word “now.” An example illustrating this fallacy is the presence of wet paint signs in our subway system. When personally traveling underground in New York City, and encountering a wet paint sign taped to subway beams, countless individuals would avoid even bracing on the beam in fear that there is wet paint. However, when directly placing a finger on the beam, one hundred percent of the time, the paint would be dry, revealing the limitations of relying solely on sense-certainty. Hegel explains this perfectly by stating, “This itself. To the question: ‘What is the Now?’ we answer, for example, ‘The ‘now’ is the night.’ To put the truth of this sensuous-certainty to the test, a simple experiment will suffice. We write down this truth. A truth cannot be lost by being written down any more than it can be lost by our preserving it, and if now, this midday, we look at this truth that has been written down, we will have to say that it has become rather stale.” In other words, he is explaining that when it is night if it were to be the morning or a different time of day and look back at the phrase “The ‘now’ is the night,” that phrase would be false because it would be a different time of day, which is not the “night.” The same applies to the wet paint scenario. Is the paint really wet when it’s already dry? Hegel does a good job clarifying this fallacy with the now and here.
Your example of the wet paint signs in the subway accurately describes how our immediate sense perception can sometimes lead us astray. Hegel’s notion that the “here” and “now” are constantly changing goes against our conventional understanding of time and space, which highlights the deception of our senses overall. There’s a very strong correlation between the irony of wet paint signs and the fleeting nature of present time/sense. I thought this example was perfectly fitting and so obvious yet so discrete. Honestly, your interpretation of Hegel’s concept here made it so much easier to understand what he was saying, it could’ve arguably saved me a lot of time and effort.
You really hits the nail on the head with take on sense-certainty. Hegel would have a field day with this because it’s exactly what he’s on about—the “now” and the “here” we think we’ve got nailed down are actually super slippery. The wet paint signs in the New York City subway serve as a fitting metaphor for this philosophical point. The sign suggests an immediate reality—”wet paint”—yet the actual experience often contradicts it, with the paint being dry upon touch. This exemplifies Hegel’s critique that sense-certainty is not the solid ground it appears to be; instead, it is a transient moment that cannot withstand the test of time, much like the outdated truth of the written “now.”
As the others commented, yes, this is a great illustration of Hegel’s ‘experiment’ of ‘writing down’ a sense-certain truth.
One criticism–directed at all 🙂 –is to make sure to indicate the exact source when using a direct quotation from the text.
Things to explore:
First, I’d highlight a little more the pitch-perfect coincidence b/w Hegel’s ‘writing down’ the fleeting truth and the MTA’s ‘writing down’ of the paint’s fleeting truth. Dig into that! E.g., Hegel uses this only as a *thought* experiment (asking us to imagine such a temporal truth written down); whereas the MTA actually writes it down (presumably as a warning). Explore these and other similarities and differences!
Second, is it more of an instance of ‘Now’ (wetness being a fleeting temporal state) or of ‘Here’ (this paint right here is wet)? Is there a difference? (also see the next point).
Third, as you suggest, people take such a sign seriously. That’s presumably because at least for a while (soon after it goes up), its message is true. The paint *is* wet! So, the sign isn’t as useless as Hegel’s ‘Now is night’. Why? Well, for one, both of course are true for a while. Interestingly, ‘Now is night’ will be true again (tonight). That’s not the same for the paint. This points to another difference: paint is a kind of thing, wetness is a kind of property. Paint is a ‘thing with properties.’ So, in a way, Latchman’s MTA example is straddling the divide b/w Sensuous Certainty and Perceiving. “Wet Paint” is not simply a sensuous truth. In fact, come to think of it, you *need* the sign because you *cannot* see the sensuous truth of the paint’s wetness. I’m not sure where this might take you, but my point is that for the paper, it’s worth exploring what temporality does to ‘written down’ perceptual truths.