1. First of all, the word owner does not appear in this sentence. The owner is your own subjective guess. Slave refers to the state of relative freedom caused by subjective prejudice.
2. Hegel's so-called prejudice here is a subjective understanding that does not conform to objective existence.
3. "Independent consciousness" refers to the consciousness that has nothing to do with objective existence obtained through subjective speculation. The so-called cognitive truth thus obtained cannot bring freedom, so it is like a slave.
If we only understand Hegel through Hegel, then we can never surpass Hegel. If Hegel can fully understand what he said in his own way, then our guess can only be farther and farther away from him. (My explanation above can't be completely in line with Hegel's understanding of himself, and the translation we received is only the understanding result of a person who is bound by the existence of China culture itself).
First, let's look at some things in Hegel's theory.
What can you think of without touching his so-called subjective and objective concepts? Is subjectivity really divorced from objective existence? Is it the way of objective existence? That is to say, the consciousness of being divorced from objective existence is also subjective? Or we can ask: Can consciousness have self-consciousness without the words defined by Hegel? Hegel is actually a dualism. He believes that subjectivity and objectivity are separated. He does not admit that subjective consciousness is a part of objective existence.
There must be opposition if there is duality, so freedom must be an illusory pursuit, that is, freedom is always in the distance. This is just a variant of the so-called other shore or heaven in religion.
All his thoughts can be said to be rooted in this, and the worship of him in later generations and all the chaos caused by this are also due to this.
If we can have ideological limitations, not to say that we have objective and subjective understanding. Not to mention that practice is the only criterion for testing truth, human history may develop in a more stable state.
For example, let me give you an example: if a person says "I am prone to violence", he will think that there is a higher self, and this higher self can realize that he is prone to violence. So do I really exist when I realize my violence? In other words, is there anyone who can analyze myself? Or am I actually just extracting this self-analysis from a complete consciousness? When a farmer analyzes himself, doesn't he use his small-scale peasant consciousness, which he honed on an acre of land?
In fact, this problem can evolve into many problems.