I am very happy that you keep bringing up the German terms. I am reading the text in parallel in German and Swedish (my mother tongue). However, I actually enjoy having additional commentary in a third language (English), because I find that thinking about translation choices forces one to continuously consider: what actually goes into this concept? and what is implicit in my linguistic baggage? Like in this case, why "picture thinking" for Vorstellung, rather than "representation" used when translating Kant? A hint that something else in going on here (if you're curious, it's "föreställning" in Swedish in both cases, which is just a learned borrowing from German). Props for highlighting this for your audience and students who can't access the original text due to the language barrier.
@@GregoryBSadler Thank you for the reply. That is interesting, but I don't understand the text well enough (yet) to have a reasonable hypothesis as to why Miller would use that translation. I am still a bit confused whom Hegel is criticizing when he talks about the limitations of Vorstellungen. Do you suppose that he has a certain thinker in mind? For Kant, both concepts and intuitions are species of representations, so if the claim here is that "picture thinkers" only grasp the Notion as clusters of properties, that hardly fits Kant - although if the main thrust is to recognize the agency of the subject and how it passes into the properties and their negations (which I am still struggling to understand), then Kant could surely be a target. However, he appears to fit better with Hegel's critique of "formalists", with his logical structure of subsuming concepts under each other in a sort of hierarchy following set categories. There is no real place for "Wesen" there... Or perhaps Hegel is criticizing more traditional empiricists like Locke here, or some post-Kantians. Did the idea of "Vorstellungen" change in German idealism leading up to Hegel? Whom should I read to catch up on those Hegel are sparring with?
Very interesting, keep up the good work! Noticed you recently updated the first episode of the actual introduction! xD But may I ask you a question, how do you manage to get the time to prepare so much for each 30 minute session on top of the preparations for all the other videos and your other work? Your ability to work with the text amazes me, you must have a combination of a very good memory, a good knowledge of thorough sources and a very efficient ability at finding thoughts surrounding this text... or maybe you're just amazingly cleaver at interpretation xD I don't know, I just need to wrap my head around how you manage to work so well and thoroughly with the text.
Yep, we're now starting to go through the Introduction -- feels good to get moving on that! So, preparation -- I'm fortunate that I can draw upon a really good philosophical formation at SIUC. At the Ph.D. level, in addition to normal coursework, we had to take some really tough "prelim" exams -- one on metaphysics/philosophy of religion, one on epistemology/philosophy of science, one on ethics/political theory/aesthetics, and one special thinker exam. Hegel was the person I selected for my "special thinker" -- and my prep for it was basically memorizing the entire structure of the Phenomenology (and bits of the Science of Logic). That gave me a good foundation that I can draw upon . . .
This was made years ago....I do not know if you will get this message prof. Sadler, but I am playing catch up on these lessons...The coolest thing is I have tried to read Hegel, and finished this text you are teaching, and I made up my own mind about how understood it. Now I listen to your commentary and I love so much how you do your chalk talk on it. I also feel so cool when I find your conclusions match my own. But going through this again with you, I am rethinking and with the little bit of understanding where this will go, I can't wait to get to some of the things that stuck out as things that were not just typical logic in thinking....mostly from here for a while I will agree with natural realities of thinking....when we get to that part about fathers and mothers sisters and sons I am curious to how we go once we get there? But no spoilers please!!! I am having fun with your lessons....you rock and I will be sending you a donation to take your loved ones out to eat....tell them it is from a friend from RUclips and people in this world love you beyond even what you know.
Glad you find the videos useful. You might want to consider, instead of the donation, becoming a Patreon supporter - there's quite a few good perks, including free entrance to the Half Hour Hegel course site - www.patreon.com/drgbsadler
Why is he using the word subject instead of substance like Aristotle? Why separate accident and predicate? How is object different from subject? What is a passive subject ?I have so many questions.........is he trying to bring new meanings to these words? I remember in previous paragraph he says that "[these words]are uncritically taken for granted as familiar,/established as valid, and made into fixed points for starting and stopping"
Yes, and these - keep in mind - are paragraphs within a larger section and work. It's not all likely going to be clear the first time through. Keep on reading the work, and some of those ideas will start to make more sense as you see what Hegel is doing with them. To answer the one question - in some cases, he is indeed trying to give the terms a new meaning, though Hegel would like say that he's rather uncovering a meaning that previous thinkers weren't quite getting at
I am very happy that you keep bringing up the German terms. I am reading the text in parallel in German and Swedish (my mother tongue). However, I actually enjoy having additional commentary in a third language (English), because I find that thinking about translation choices forces one to continuously consider: what actually goes into this concept? and what is implicit in my linguistic baggage? Like in this case, why "picture thinking" for Vorstellung, rather than "representation" used when translating Kant? A hint that something else in going on here (if you're curious, it's "föreställning" in Swedish in both cases, which is just a learned borrowing from German). Props for highlighting this for your audience and students who can't access the original text due to the language barrier.
You know, other more recent translators don't go for "picture language", like Miller strangely chose to. I don't really know why he opted for that
@@GregoryBSadler Thank you for the reply. That is interesting, but I don't understand the text well enough (yet) to have a reasonable hypothesis as to why Miller would use that translation. I am still a bit confused whom Hegel is criticizing when he talks about the limitations of Vorstellungen. Do you suppose that he has a certain thinker in mind? For Kant, both concepts and intuitions are species of representations, so if the claim here is that "picture thinkers" only grasp the Notion as clusters of properties, that hardly fits Kant - although if the main thrust is to recognize the agency of the subject and how it passes into the properties and their negations (which I am still struggling to understand), then Kant could surely be a target. However, he appears to fit better with Hegel's critique of "formalists", with his logical structure of subsuming concepts under each other in a sort of hierarchy following set categories. There is no real place for "Wesen" there... Or perhaps Hegel is criticizing more traditional empiricists like Locke here, or some post-Kantians. Did the idea of "Vorstellungen" change in German idealism leading up to Hegel? Whom should I read to catch up on those Hegel are sparring with?
You'll see his fuller discussion of this contrast between Vorstellung and Begriff in the Religion section
Very interesting, keep up the good work! Noticed you recently updated the first episode of the actual introduction! xD
But may I ask you a question, how do you manage to get the time to prepare so much for each 30 minute session on top of the preparations for all the other videos and your other work?
Your ability to work with the text amazes me, you must have a combination of a very good memory, a good knowledge of thorough sources and a very efficient ability at finding thoughts surrounding this text... or maybe you're just amazingly cleaver at interpretation xD I don't know, I just need to wrap my head around how you manage to work so well and thoroughly with the text.
Yep, we're now starting to go through the Introduction -- feels good to get moving on that!
So, preparation -- I'm fortunate that I can draw upon a really good philosophical formation at SIUC. At the Ph.D. level, in addition to normal coursework, we had to take some really tough "prelim" exams -- one on metaphysics/philosophy of religion, one on epistemology/philosophy of science, one on ethics/political theory/aesthetics, and one special thinker exam. Hegel was the person I selected for my "special thinker" -- and my prep for it was basically memorizing the entire structure of the Phenomenology (and bits of the Science of Logic).
That gave me a good foundation that I can draw upon . . .
x) cool!
@@GregoryBSadler "memorizing the entire structure of the Phenomenology" Wow.
next installation in the series
thank you. Is Plato's eidos an example of picture thinking?
No, see the paragraphs discussed in the last video, where Hegel discusses Eidos/Form
This was made years ago....I do not know if you will get this message prof. Sadler, but I am playing catch up on these lessons...The coolest thing is I have tried to read Hegel, and finished this text you are teaching, and I made up my own mind about how understood it. Now I listen to your commentary and I love so much how you do your chalk talk on it. I also feel so cool when I find your conclusions match my own. But going through this again with you, I am rethinking and with the little bit of understanding where this will go, I can't wait to get to some of the things that stuck out as things that were not just typical logic in thinking....mostly from here for a while I will agree with natural realities of thinking....when we get to that part about fathers and mothers sisters and sons I am curious to how we go once we get there? But no spoilers please!!! I am having fun with your lessons....you rock and I will be sending you a donation to take your loved ones out to eat....tell them it is from a friend from RUclips and people in this world love you beyond even what you know.
Glad you find the videos useful. You might want to consider, instead of the donation, becoming a Patreon supporter - there's quite a few good perks, including free entrance to the Half Hour Hegel course site - www.patreon.com/drgbsadler
I think I did it right and sent you 25$. Wish I could sent you more. You deserve so much for the work you do.
Thank you for these wonderful lectures.
kadmonzohar2 You're very welcome! And thanks!
Richard Dawkins comes intuitively to mind when thinking about Rasoneiren
Why is he using the word subject instead of substance like Aristotle? Why separate accident and predicate? How is object different from subject? What is a passive subject ?I have so many questions.........is he trying to bring new meanings to these words? I remember in previous paragraph he says that "[these words]are uncritically taken for granted as familiar,/established as valid, and made into fixed points for starting and stopping"
Yes, and these - keep in mind - are paragraphs within a larger section and work. It's not all likely going to be clear the first time through. Keep on reading the work, and some of those ideas will start to make more sense as you see what Hegel is doing with them.
To answer the one question - in some cases, he is indeed trying to give the terms a new meaning, though Hegel would like say that he's rather uncovering a meaning that previous thinkers weren't quite getting at
Dope suit.