These videos have been great. I used to hate Hegel and his obscure writing, but you have brought him alive to me, so thank you professor. Making these videos must have been a huge work so I appreciate what you have done here!
Here's installment ten of the Half-Hour Hegel series - so that means we're roughly 5 hours into study of the Preface to the Phenomenology of Spirit, and that the full study of the Preface will be around 14-15 hours (about 30 videos). I'm thinking of doing something like an online seminar reviewing and perhaps going deeper into each main portion of the text as we go through it -- so the first one sometime in the summer. Not quite sure how I'm going to structure or deliver that. . . or whether we're going to charge a (inexpensive) price for it. . . so, more on that later down the line
Gaston Alpha Heidegger only discusses the first portions of the text. I enjoy Heidegger's discussion of Hegel, but when you read Heidegger on X, you're often getting more Heidegger than the X
+lyndon bailey Working on the video series itself is demanding a good bit of time on my part. I've been doing monthly G+ Q&A Hangouts for Patreon supporters, and last month started doing ones for the general public as well
I'm taking a philosophy seminar on Hegel and you helped me big time in reading the Phenomenology of Spirit. Although we've gone past the preface, still I really appreciate the analysis and vocabulary clarification. I'm loving the reading experience now. Thank you Thank you Thank you
The first portion of this video reminds of Nietzsche. His critique on Christianity was different compared to many other critiques. Nietzsche really tried to understand the way Christianity works in many aspects of society like aesthetics, ethics, culture, psychology, history, etc. Then, he pointed out its flaws in those ways. I think it's why for many that his critique hits so deeply compared to other critiques.
"Thinking dialectically does not mean positing to a a sentence an opinion from outside, but to bring the thought to the point where it effectively acknowledges its own finiteness, its own falsity and thus pushes itself above itself." - Adorno, Introduction to Dialectics (own translation) Adorno also uses a great example for this way of immanent critique; Marx did not criticize capitalism by contrasting it with an utopia, an ideal socialist society, from outside, but his critique instead uses its own claims against it.
I interpreted this a little differently so thought I'd share. Immediately preceding this he basically says that the notion of God or the absolute as subject is self-defeating because it supposes God is an inert point instead of self-movement. If we're thinking of God in the way I think Hegel is, as in absolute reality, then a scientific approach analogous to the methodological one used in the natural sciences is most appropriate for philosophy as well. But this also has the seemingly contradictory consequence that even true propositions are also false in that they don't apprehend the actuality of God. When studying the natural universe, refutations of principles once taken to be true don't refute the entirety of the natural sciences or the scientific method, but in fact draw us closer to what can be regarded as true. I'm a biologist so I'm thinking a lot about peoples' objections to Darwin here and everything Hegel is saying really makes sense in that light, but he's making it way more general in a way that I think very absolutely works. (Anyways sorry about the super long comment, more just to work through this passage. My immediate reaction to it was pretty hostile but I re-read it AND rewatched your video and think that reaction was wrong hahahaha. I think I'm less objecting to your specific interpretation and more just working through it for myself. Thank you so much for these videos they are incredibly helpful.)
No, I wouldn't try to summarize matters like that. Probably the best thing for you to do is to look at the passages - and there's quite a few of them - where Hegel is contrasting something with bring (Sein), and then look for common connections between the treatments in those passages. Then, check out the discussions in the videos discussing those paragraphs Alternately, if you want to work through this 1-on-1, here's my tutorials page - reasonio.wordpress.com/tutorials/
I've decided to read the Preface and watch your corresponding videos after reading your reply to one of my earlier comments. Unrelated Question: How much of Nietzsche's work have you read?
I have been too back and forth with studying Hegel, starting in on it, then feeling inadequate and stopping. So, instead of watching your videos after reading the same sections, I read the entire preface (twice: once with a translation and commentary by Kaufmann and once by Miller) and am now coming back to watch the videos. But I have a question about Spirit/Geist. It seemed that Spirit is self-mediating and that it is for us, but is Spirit in a way a force that moves us? That is to say, that we can affect change while other things can only be changed by us. Is this an aspect of Spirit? I just find Spirit to be one of the hazy things I find myself encountering in Hegel.
The idea you are questioning is only a general principle, or its beginning, and the answer you seek will only work itself out through further development in actuality.
First off, thanks for making these videos. I decided to re-read (2nd time through) the Phenomenology and found this by searching RUclips and hoping to find exactly this sort of thing. On the subject of Descartes, I was always struck by how well Lacan understood what motivated him. In Lacan's "Four Fundamental Concepts of Psychoanalysis" he talks about the "subject of certainty." That's the key to Descartes' entire enterprise. Certainty trumps all other concerns. It's interesting to note this, because this would not make him a rationalist, at least to me, because underlying all of it you find the concepts of belief and maybe even faith.
Well. . . certainty is something that Descartes is focused upon, that's for sure (pun intended). I wouldn't say that it's the key to his entire enterprise. He's also wanting to be able to do science, and to have the mind radically different from and free from mechanism. He'd even like to be able to work out a moral theory (as he does somewhat in the Passions of the Soul) One can always look in from the outside reductively and say: well, that position really rests on faith, so how it is any different from any other faith position. That really doesn't work for quite a few philosophical positions, including Descartes -- precisely because of the reflexive nature of thought. It's not just a certainty that one can rest upon, and not think about -- it's a certainty that one knows to be such, precisely by the act of thinking. . . .So, Descartes really is a rationalist. He might have missed some aspects or blind spots -- that's where Lacan can be useful -- but it's not just resting on concepts of belief or faith.
Gregory B. Sadler I suppose that was too bold of a statement. To be perfectly honest I have only read The Discourse on Method, so I should not judge the entirety of his works based on that text alone. I would also not say all faith based positions are equal. Descartes, at least as I understand him, still belongs to the era when many people were still trying to arrive at the tenants of Christianity rationally. There was this idea that you could use reason to provide a firmer foundation for these ideas, something which is somewhat foreign to us today when it is automatically assumed faith and rationality are diametrically opposed. I'm a much bigger fan of Spinoza than Descartes, and that definitely set the tone for my previous comment. He was right not to see the soul as separate from the body, and Descartes need to separate them once again stems from his need to find a firmer foundation for Christian concepts....in this case the soul. Spinoza was truly modern, and you can already see the precursor to what would become psychology in the Ethics.
No. . . Descartes isn't really much of a Christian, actually. Nor is he really interested in doing Natural Theology (precisely why Pascal criticizes his use of God) Read more of his texts, and some of the scholarship, and that'll become quite evident. He wants the mind separate because he thinks that's right -- i.e. becuse he has some thought out philosophical reasons to think so -- not because he's some in-name-Christian (really a Deist).
Gregory B. Sadler It appears we have different interpretations of Descartes' project. There's a Flannery O'Connor novel called Wiseblood where a man starts a church called "The Church of Christ Without Christ." Not that it has anything to do with Descartes, but that's the way I remember the Discourse on Method. Perhaps he was trying to move away from Christianity, but he is still beholden to its concepts. I'd call it "The Concepts of Christianity Without Christ." I don't think the distinction between Christian and Deist is particularly important here, at least not for this specific debate. I maintain that his insistence on the mind/body duality stems from this need to think the mind (soul) can continue to exist after the body dies. That's why the two have to be separate for him. He doesn't ever explicitly state this, at least not as I remember, but it's there just the same. I'd agree he was attempting to move beyond this. I also remember having a similar argument during the reading of the text. I also know Spinoza would have been inconceivable without Cartesian thought, so there's that as well.
Gregory B. Sadler Also, full confession: I have never read Pascal. The Pensees is on a very long reading list of mine. So many works and so little time.
I am glad you brought up the two meanings of ‘Geist’ as both, mind and spirit. I am not at all comfortable with the translation of ‘das Geistige’ as ‘the spiritual’. This might be misunderstood and interpreted as some kind of new age or as a purely religious term. ‘Das Geistige, as I understand it in German, is firstly our mind, - ‘mein geistiger Zustand’ - would mean my state of mind it does not necessarily imply anything spiritual. It refers to my cognitive ability. There is however something in the word ‘Geist’ which ‘also’ means something transcendent, the not physical; this ‘might’ be called the spiritual. Our mind is in a way this physical transcending ‘Geist’. Reason is spirit, or in other words spirit is the will to discover the truth. Geist might also be understood as a supra-individual phenomenon, as in Zeitgeist, or world-spirit, or the spirit of, for example, Christianity or of capitalism. In this sense it is something common, collective. I could imagine that this difficulty in translation might lead to misinterpretations.
Yep. We have a similar problem -- only even more complicated -- with the French, "esprit", which can mean "mind", "spirit", or even "wit" or "joke". Really, though, for Hegel, Geist does mean something "spiritual" -- or rather a whole range of things of that nature, which, yes, are supra-individual. He's not carrying out a reduction that would confine the "geistige" to what we call in English the "mental", as opposed to "spiritual". I think so long as one just keeps the different senses of the term in mind, it's not really a major problem for English readers.
Gregory B. Sadler You are of course right in that it means a whole range of things, I just wanted to point out that I am not very happy with the reduction to ‘spiritual’. I guess it depends on how we define spiritual. I think it safe to assume that Hegel did not mean something otherworldly but rather human nature or human consciousness and I agree when you say that this does not mean a reduction to the mental.
Yes, a reduction to just "spiritual" would be as off as one to just "mental". I think we'd want to say immanent and mediated, rather than not otherworldly -- the seemingly otherworldly does get incorporated into the system
What an amazing journey Dr. Sadler. I have lingered here in this section for quite some time. Not a moment wasted. I prefer the Kaufmann translation, do you have any misgivings concerning his translation- aside from it being limited to just the Preface? I am beginning to think "begriff" and "Geist" are as untranslatable as "ubermench."
Well, I think that one can stay with -- or return to -- a portion of the text as long as one wants to. There are parts of Aristotle's works that I keep returning to, and finding new stuff there, after nearly 15 years of reading it in the Greek! So, untranslatability.. . . it depends on what you're looking for from a translation, I expect. I don't look to have a perfect 1-1 correspondence between terms as the criterion for a successful translation. Sometimes you have to use multiple corresponding words, or provide glosses -- but I think all three of those terms are translatable, so long as your expectations of translation aren't over-high. I am pretty lazy when it comes to translations, I have to say. Unless a translation is particularly ham-fisted or misleading, I don't worry about it too much, since I can always just go back to the original. So, I'm a bad one to ask about which translations would be better, which worse, etc. Unless I've used them recently, or take the time to scrutinize them, I'm not really a good judge of quality
Is there a particular tradition that Hegel is using in his complex ambiguous concepts : Negativity, mediation etc etc which can be understood 4 or 5 different ways? It is a really interesting way to write but I havent seen it in other philosophers yet
Wait, so is Hegel saying that every system has its own conscious spirit to the degree to which it's for-itself? So he has a theory of consciousness that covers like robots, the internet, the government etc?
Oh good grief! Sometimes Hegel and his pet, Helob the tarantula Spirit, are just too tedious to bear! Only one thing matters, the completion of His web. Don’t worry about all the little contradictions contained in true-untrue-square-like sections. Once you get seduced into forming one for Him, Helob will come right away and sublimate you, and then all will be well- your little section of the web that you left behind will thus become Absolutely perfect! My apologies Dr. Sadler, I needed some comic relief! (Credits for imagery borrowed from Nietzsche and Tolkien)
This approach ended up being criticised in Marxists when applied to materialism and history, those Marxists who saw fascism and Nazism as 'Just a point along the road' until the extirpation of class-based society. I Don't think that Hegel would have thought it in those terms though, and its hard to know what he would have thought of the Marxist inversion although it is an interesting question.
***** No. Not everything that we call "science" can be translated as "Wissenschaft" in the sense Hegel uses the term. It is a common German translation, though, for "science"
I mean, in the transation you (and I) have, can I assume that Science always means Wissenschaft. It's the sort of thing I'd look up in the translators notes, but there doesn't seem to be any.
There's almost no doubt Aristotle would double down on his position on women. He would take the current state of our civilization as compelling evidence.
It's funny you'd be so confident about that. As someone who has ben studying him, teaching him, and writing on him for over 2 decades, I can say that you're wrong in your assessment here. Good luck with your studies
@@GregoryBSadler I'm not openly hostile to your take, but there's a large contingent of men that both appreciate women as women and agree with Aristotle and see his words as confirmed by modern science (personality factors and proclivity for conflict) and politics (and we have the evidence since we chose to enfranchise them). So, the question I have for you is, why do you think Aristotle would cave to modern equality narratives? What did you find in the margins that I missed?
@@billmartins6555 I've given enough of my time to this. The very way you've framed things is tendentious, and clearly renders any discussion with you at present a waste of my time. Like I wrote: good luck with your studies. End of conversation.
@@GregoryBSadler It's fair to call it tendentious, but that doesn't mean I'm not receptive to argument. Here I am, 7 or so hours into a 271 part lecture series you made, testament to receptivity and patience. Your time is to do with what you will, but if you would be so kind, perhaps you can answer in a one-sided way that doesn't require reading any more comments from me. That is, maybe you can link me to an article or video you've made on the topic so that I can share it with my crowd for discourse.
"Jinky-jinky" was a good moment.
Thanks for making this text easier to understand! Loving this series so far!
These videos have been great. I used to hate Hegel and his obscure writing, but you have brought him alive to me, so thank you professor. Making these videos must have been a huge work so I appreciate what you have done here!
Glad they're proving helpful for you!
Here's installment ten of the Half-Hour Hegel series - so that means we're roughly 5 hours into study of the Preface to the Phenomenology of Spirit, and that the full study of the Preface will be around 14-15 hours (about 30 videos).
I'm thinking of doing something like an online seminar reviewing and perhaps going deeper into each main portion of the text as we go through it -- so the first one sometime in the summer. Not quite sure how I'm going to structure or deliver that. . . or whether we're going to charge a (inexpensive) price for it. . . so, more on that later down the line
Gaston Alpha
Heidegger only discusses the first portions of the text. I enjoy Heidegger's discussion of Hegel, but when you read Heidegger on X, you're often getting more Heidegger than the X
Any update on this?
+lyndon bailey Working on the video series itself is demanding a good bit of time on my part. I've been doing monthly G+ Q&A Hangouts for Patreon supporters, and last month started doing ones for the general public as well
@@GregoryBSadler have these ever taken place?
@@michelc1200 A few, yes
I'm taking a philosophy seminar on Hegel and you helped me big time in reading the Phenomenology of Spirit. Although we've gone past the preface, still I really appreciate the analysis and vocabulary clarification. I'm loving the reading experience now. Thank you Thank you Thank you
That's what I like to hear the most -- "I'm loving the reading experience now"
Thank you professor Sadler! These commentaries really open up the text
Glad they’re helpful for ypu
Thanks so much for doing these. I've read POS once through and I am re-reading it currently, but these really help.
+Matthew “Cuttlebone Books” Eman Glad that the videos are useful for you!
The first portion of this video reminds of Nietzsche. His critique on Christianity was different compared to many other critiques. Nietzsche really tried to understand the way Christianity works in many aspects of society like aesthetics, ethics, culture, psychology, history, etc. Then, he pointed out its flaws in those ways. I think it's why for many that his critique hits so deeply compared to other critiques.
"Thinking dialectically does not mean positing to a a sentence an opinion from outside, but to bring the thought to the point where it effectively acknowledges its own finiteness, its own falsity and thus pushes itself above itself." - Adorno, Introduction to Dialectics (own translation)
Adorno also uses a great example for this way of immanent critique; Marx did not criticize capitalism by contrasting it with an utopia, an ideal socialist society, from outside, but his critique instead uses its own claims against it.
Preface, sec 24-25 thank you.
I interpreted this a little differently so thought I'd share. Immediately preceding this he basically says that the notion of God or the absolute as subject is self-defeating because it supposes God is an inert point instead of self-movement. If we're thinking of God in the way I think Hegel is, as in absolute reality, then a scientific approach analogous to the methodological one used in the natural sciences is most appropriate for philosophy as well. But this also has the seemingly contradictory consequence that even true propositions are also false in that they don't apprehend the actuality of God. When studying the natural universe, refutations of principles once taken to be true don't refute the entirety of the natural sciences or the scientific method, but in fact draw us closer to what can be regarded as true. I'm a biologist so I'm thinking a lot about peoples' objections to Darwin here and everything Hegel is saying really makes sense in that light, but he's making it way more general in a way that I think very absolutely works. (Anyways sorry about the super long comment, more just to work through this passage. My immediate reaction to it was pretty hostile but I re-read it AND rewatched your video and think that reaction was wrong hahahaha. I think I'm less objecting to your specific interpretation and more just working through it for myself. Thank you so much for these videos they are incredibly helpful.)
^this is all on 24 btw, I'm still working through 25 cuz boy is there a lot going on there xD
Hi Greg, thanks for your great work. Can you tell us what is the difference between Being and Spirit ?
That's a longish conversation
Can we summarize the difference by saying that Being is a quality or a substance that can be changed while Spirit is what drives or fuels that change?
No, I wouldn't try to summarize matters like that. Probably the best thing for you to do is to look at the passages - and there's quite a few of them - where Hegel is contrasting something with bring (Sein), and then look for common connections between the treatments in those passages. Then, check out the discussions in the videos discussing those paragraphs
Alternately, if you want to work through this 1-on-1, here's my tutorials page - reasonio.wordpress.com/tutorials/
Thanks again and again Dr.Sadler.
What is the differences between the Popperian point of view about theories development and Hegelian one?
I've decided to read the Preface and watch your corresponding videos after reading your reply to one of my earlier comments.
Unrelated Question: How much of Nietzsche's work have you read?
All of the books, at one time or another.
I have been too back and forth with studying Hegel, starting in on it, then feeling inadequate and stopping. So, instead of watching your videos after reading the same sections, I read the entire preface (twice: once with a translation and commentary by Kaufmann and once by Miller) and am now coming back to watch the videos.
But I have a question about Spirit/Geist. It seemed that Spirit is self-mediating and that it is for us, but is Spirit in a way a force that moves us? That is to say, that we can affect change while other things can only be changed by us. Is this an aspect of Spirit? I just find Spirit to be one of the hazy things I find myself encountering in Hegel.
The idea you are questioning is only a general principle, or its beginning, and the answer you seek will only work itself out through further development in actuality.
First off, thanks for making these videos. I decided to re-read (2nd time through) the Phenomenology and found this by searching RUclips and hoping to find exactly this sort of thing.
On the subject of Descartes, I was always struck by how well Lacan understood what motivated him. In Lacan's "Four Fundamental Concepts of Psychoanalysis" he talks about the "subject of certainty." That's the key to Descartes' entire enterprise. Certainty trumps all other concerns. It's interesting to note this, because this would not make him a rationalist, at least to me, because underlying all of it you find the concepts of belief and maybe even faith.
Well. . . certainty is something that Descartes is focused upon, that's for sure (pun intended). I wouldn't say that it's the key to his entire enterprise. He's also wanting to be able to do science, and to have the mind radically different from and free from mechanism. He'd even like to be able to work out a moral theory (as he does somewhat in the Passions of the Soul)
One can always look in from the outside reductively and say: well, that position really rests on faith, so how it is any different from any other faith position. That really doesn't work for quite a few philosophical positions, including Descartes -- precisely because of the reflexive nature of thought. It's not just a certainty that one can rest upon, and not think about -- it's a certainty that one knows to be such, precisely by the act of thinking. . . .So, Descartes really is a rationalist. He might have missed some aspects or blind spots -- that's where Lacan can be useful -- but it's not just resting on concepts of belief or faith.
Gregory B. Sadler
I suppose that was too bold of a statement. To be perfectly honest I have only read The Discourse on Method, so I should not judge the entirety of his works based on that text alone.
I would also not say all faith based positions are equal. Descartes, at least as I understand him, still belongs to the era when many people were still trying to arrive at the tenants of Christianity rationally. There was this idea that you could use reason to provide a firmer foundation for these ideas, something which is somewhat foreign to us today when it is automatically assumed faith and rationality are diametrically opposed. I'm a much bigger fan of Spinoza than Descartes, and that definitely set the tone for my previous comment. He was right not to see the soul as separate from the body, and Descartes need to separate them once again stems from his need to find a firmer foundation for Christian concepts....in this case the soul. Spinoza was truly modern, and you can already see the precursor to what would become psychology in the Ethics.
No. . . Descartes isn't really much of a Christian, actually. Nor is he really interested in doing Natural Theology (precisely why Pascal criticizes his use of God)
Read more of his texts, and some of the scholarship, and that'll become quite evident. He wants the mind separate because he thinks that's right -- i.e. becuse he has some thought out philosophical reasons to think so -- not because he's some in-name-Christian (really a Deist).
Gregory B. Sadler
It appears we have different interpretations of Descartes' project. There's a Flannery O'Connor novel called Wiseblood where a man starts a church called "The Church of Christ Without Christ." Not that it has anything to do with Descartes, but that's the way I remember the Discourse on Method. Perhaps he was trying to move away from Christianity, but he is still beholden to its concepts. I'd call it "The Concepts of Christianity Without Christ." I don't think the distinction between Christian and Deist is particularly important here, at least not for this specific debate. I maintain that his insistence on the mind/body duality stems from this need to think the mind (soul) can continue to exist after the body dies. That's why the two have to be separate for him. He doesn't ever explicitly state this, at least not as I remember, but it's there just the same.
I'd agree he was attempting to move beyond this. I also remember having a similar argument during the reading of the text. I also know Spinoza would have been inconceivable without Cartesian thought, so there's that as well.
Gregory B. Sadler
Also, full confession: I have never read Pascal. The Pensees is on a very long reading list of mine. So many works and so little time.
I am glad you brought up the two meanings of ‘Geist’ as both, mind and spirit. I am not at all comfortable with the translation of ‘das Geistige’ as ‘the spiritual’. This might be misunderstood and interpreted as some kind of new age or as a purely religious term. ‘Das Geistige, as I understand it in German, is firstly our mind, - ‘mein geistiger Zustand’ - would mean my state of mind it does not necessarily imply anything spiritual. It refers to my cognitive ability. There is however something in the word ‘Geist’ which ‘also’ means something transcendent, the not physical; this ‘might’ be called the spiritual. Our mind is in a way this physical transcending ‘Geist’. Reason is spirit, or in other words spirit is the will to discover the truth. Geist might also be understood as a supra-individual phenomenon, as in Zeitgeist, or world-spirit, or the spirit of, for example, Christianity or of capitalism. In this sense it is something common, collective. I could imagine that this difficulty in translation might lead to misinterpretations.
Yep. We have a similar problem -- only even more complicated -- with the French, "esprit", which can mean "mind", "spirit", or even "wit" or "joke".
Really, though, for Hegel, Geist does mean something "spiritual" -- or rather a whole range of things of that nature, which, yes, are supra-individual. He's not carrying out a reduction that would confine the "geistige" to what we call in English the "mental", as opposed to "spiritual".
I think so long as one just keeps the different senses of the term in mind, it's not really a major problem for English readers.
Gregory B. Sadler
You are of course right in that it means a whole range of things, I just wanted to point out that I am not very happy with the reduction to ‘spiritual’. I guess it depends on how we define spiritual. I think it safe to assume that Hegel did not mean something otherworldly but rather human nature or human consciousness and I agree when you say that this does not mean a reduction to the mental.
Yes, a reduction to just "spiritual" would be as off as one to just "mental". I think we'd want to say immanent and mediated, rather than not otherworldly -- the seemingly otherworldly does get incorporated into the system
What an amazing journey Dr. Sadler. I have lingered here in this section for quite some time. Not a moment wasted. I prefer the Kaufmann translation, do you have any misgivings concerning his translation- aside from it being limited to just the Preface?
I am beginning to think "begriff" and "Geist" are as untranslatable as "ubermench."
Well, I think that one can stay with -- or return to -- a portion of the text as long as one wants to. There are parts of Aristotle's works that I keep returning to, and finding new stuff there, after nearly 15 years of reading it in the Greek!
So, untranslatability.. . . it depends on what you're looking for from a translation, I expect. I don't look to have a perfect 1-1 correspondence between terms as the criterion for a successful translation. Sometimes you have to use multiple corresponding words, or provide glosses -- but I think all three of those terms are translatable, so long as your expectations of translation aren't over-high.
I am pretty lazy when it comes to translations, I have to say. Unless a translation is particularly ham-fisted or misleading, I don't worry about it too much, since I can always just go back to the original. So, I'm a bad one to ask about which translations would be better, which worse, etc. Unless I've used them recently, or take the time to scrutinize them, I'm not really a good judge of quality
Is there a particular tradition that Hegel is using in his complex ambiguous concepts : Negativity, mediation etc etc which can be understood 4 or 5 different ways? It is a really interesting way to write but I havent seen it in other philosophers yet
Just keep reading. . . .
Could 24 apply to later Wittgenstein's notion of a language-game?
Wait, so is Hegel saying that every system has its own conscious spirit to the degree to which it's for-itself?
So he has a theory of consciousness that covers like robots, the internet, the government etc?
Thanks
you're welcome
Oh good grief! Sometimes Hegel and his pet, Helob the tarantula Spirit, are just too tedious to bear! Only one thing matters, the completion of His web. Don’t worry about all the little contradictions contained in true-untrue-square-like sections. Once you get seduced into forming one for Him, Helob will come right away and sublimate you, and then all will be well- your little section of the web that you left behind will thus become Absolutely perfect! My apologies Dr. Sadler, I needed some comic relief! (Credits for imagery borrowed from Nietzsche and Tolkien)
I am a bit sad that i discovered Hegel at the age of 50. Having wondered in these paths with out the clear understanding phenomenology
That's quite all right. You have years left that you can use for whatever study you'd like
This approach ended up being criticised in Marxists when applied to materialism and history, those Marxists who saw fascism and Nazism as 'Just a point along the road' until the extirpation of class-based society. I Don't think that Hegel would have thought it in those terms though, and its hard to know what he would have thought of the Marxist inversion although it is an interesting question.
Is Science always a translation of Wissenschaft?
Wissenschaft is translated as "Science", yes
I meant the other way, as in, I should always think Wissenschaft when I see Science, rather than sometimes.
***** No. Not everything that we call "science" can be translated as "Wissenschaft" in the sense Hegel uses the term. It is a common German translation, though, for "science"
I mean, in the transation you (and I) have, can I assume that Science always means Wissenschaft. It's the sort of thing I'd look up in the translators notes, but there doesn't seem to be any.
Yes, you can assume that "science" was the translation for "Wissenschaft"
Spirit = Science = Absolute? 25 is so confusing
Give it a slow reread or two
"random thoughts and counter assertions": sounds like twitter!
A good portion of it. Depends, of course, on who you follow there
There's almost no doubt Aristotle would double down on his position on women. He would take the current state of our civilization as compelling evidence.
It's funny you'd be so confident about that. As someone who has ben studying him, teaching him, and writing on him for over 2 decades, I can say that you're wrong in your assessment here. Good luck with your studies
@@GregoryBSadler I'm not openly hostile to your take, but there's a large contingent of men that both appreciate women as women and agree with Aristotle and see his words as confirmed by modern science (personality factors and proclivity for conflict) and politics (and we have the evidence since we chose to enfranchise them).
So, the question I have for you is, why do you think Aristotle would cave to modern equality narratives? What did you find in the margins that I missed?
@@billmartins6555 I've given enough of my time to this. The very way you've framed things is tendentious, and clearly renders any discussion with you at present a waste of my time. Like I wrote: good luck with your studies. End of conversation.
@@GregoryBSadler It's fair to call it tendentious, but that doesn't mean I'm not receptive to argument. Here I am, 7 or so hours into a 271 part lecture series you made, testament to receptivity and patience.
Your time is to do with what you will, but if you would be so kind, perhaps you can answer in a one-sided way that doesn't require reading any more comments from me. That is, maybe you can link me to an article or video you've made on the topic so that I can share it with my crowd for discourse.