someone explain the master slave dialectic to me

>>10015931
https://www.amazon.com/Phenomenology-Spirit-G-W-Hegel/dp/0198245971/ref=pd_lpo_sbs_14_t_0?_encoding=UTF8&psc=1&refRID=V2T1ZT2YN7ZBBGBYW5F9

https://www.amazon.com/Hegels-Ladder-Commentary-Phenomenology-Spirit/dp/0872202798/ref=sr_1_1?s=books&ie=UTF8&qid=1505268209&sr=1-1&keywords=hegels+ladder

https://www.amazon.com/Hegel-Charles-Taylor/dp/0521291992/ref=sr_1_1?s=books&ie=UTF8&qid=1505268224&sr=1-1&keywords=hegel+charles+taylor

https://www.amazon.com/Plato-Complete-Works/dp/0872203492/ref=sr_1_1?s=books&ie=UTF8&qid=1505268246&sr=1-1&keywords=complete+works+of+plato

https://www.amazon.com/Ancilla-Pre-Socratic-Philosophers-Translation-Vorsokratiker/dp/0674035011/ref=sr_1_2?s=books&ie=UTF8&qid=1505268277&sr=1-2&keywords=pre-socratic

https://www.amazon.com/Holy-Bible-King-James-Version/dp/0310941784/ref=sr_1_1?s=books&ie=UTF8&qid=1505268318&sr=1-1&keywords=king+james+bible

There are a lot of interpretations of it. Kojeve's it the most famous but Kojeve is almost universally considered to be idiosyncratic. It also heavily depends whether you view the Phenomenology as an ascent through hypothetical "minimal conditions for intelligible shapes of consciousness," or as an historical narrative of different stages of consciousness that have been achieved, or a mixture of both. Modern pragmatist interpretations tend to emphasise the more ahistorical sort of interpretation, where it's taken as a thought experiment in the rational insufficiency of consciousness without recognition of the intrinsic intersubjective element of consciousness - that is, of the need for recognition.

On this argument, because consciousness is self-consciousness, reason-governed and reason-governing (by "giving reasons," by rationally "self-legislating"), it is incoherent unless we ask: FOR WHOM are we giving reasons? It doesn't make sense to give reasons if we take others merely as objects - as slaves - because that also objectifies us. Recognition, by an equal whom we also recognise, is the rational, necessarily intersubjective ground of subjectivity.

>>10015952
hegels ladder pdf. All 1,560 pages of it

https://www.scribd.com/doc/290710013/Harris-H-S-Hegel-s-Ladder-Vol-1-Vol-2

>>10015931
Go read a copy of Kojeve's 'Introduction to the reading of Hegel' He sums it up nicely in the first 30 pages, or the first 'lecture'

https://u.osu.edu/dialecticseastandwest/files/2016/02/KOJEVE-introduction-to-the-reading-of-hegel-zg6tm7.pdf

>>10015959
give me the basic gestalt on what Kojeve has to say about it

>>10015931
On the side of consciousness: Masters demand recognition of their consciousness, the irony is that they don't take slaves to be conscious like them and thus they never get the satisfaction of getting the recognition of someone they deem worthy. Because the master recognizes no one else as conscious they do not have "self-consciousness," meaning that they do not have consciousness for an object of knowledge in another. Self-consciousness is tongue-in-cheek, it is taken to literally be the fact of consciousness which has consciousness for its object of knowledge. The master-slave exist at a point prior to internal self-reflection and are only self-conscious through another conscious being which is their object of knowledge.

The slave gives up the demand to be recognized as consciousness and chooses life over recognition. There is an inversion, however, in that the slave is self-conscious because the master is recognized as a consciousness, thus the slave is a consciousness that has consciousness as its object.

On the side of material mastery, that is, the content of mastery: The slave works and through work gains knowledge of objects in general. They begin to think conceptually because work necessitates them to use reason and reflect upon it to improve workmanship, thus slaves gain the capacity of thinking in concepts and make possible the internal reflective turn of what we understand as self-consciousness. The slave becomes master in content, they are the true engine running the show for Masters who on their own side are mere parasites unable to do anything themselves and depending on the slave for everything. Masters bark orders, they have the form of master, but the reality of those orders is in the hand of the slave who has the real content of the master.

The Master is the loser in the relation in the end and is overtaken by the slave because 1) the slave is the one that gets self-consciousness in the end despite getting no recognition from the master 2) the slave gains material and conceptual mastery over objects through work, they actually gain the capacities for true independence while the Master just sits around being a useless slob and just consuming the slave's products.