For what it's worth, I must say that you have an extremely effective and engaging style of teaching, thanks for sharing it. This applies to all of your videos. Cheers.
+Gregory B. Sadler If I weren't a beyond broke college kid, I totally would. In the meantime, I will try to like and comment more often and push my fellow dorks (of means) your way
Hahaha! Thanks! This one's just a few weeks old -- you'll notice the comments slowly start to pile up (and some of them repeat previous comments, unknowingly) -- one of the effects of asynchronous viewing of these materials
I think I get it all, being an engineer I'm well aquainted with how we "reduce" things and the weaknesses of schematism. I'm mostly interested in philosophy of science. I don't like the fact that people have faith in science.
"It is not a pleasant experience to see ignorance, and a crudity without form or taste, which cannot focus its thought on a single abstract proposition, still less on a connected chain of them, claiming at one moment to be freedom of thought and toleration, and at the next to be even genius." It was devastating to read this in 2022. Especially in the United States, such attitudes seem to be increasing, even celebrated, when real hard problems (which will require philosophy) loom on the horizon.
67 beautifully summarizes the brick wall currently blocking almost every discussion today about both politics & religion, whether in or out of the classroom. I'm sure it's not limited to either of those subjects. Even in daily conversation this wall makes its appearance which unfortunately isn't a cameo.
The end discussion about genius and work is a fascinating one that extends well beyond philosophy. To produce something of any substance is a function of work and talent; however talent only gets you so far because it is immature and directionless talent if no work has been made to develop that talent. Looking at philosophy surely takes a long view of human history but for those that want to see it in closer to real time I suggest sports athletes. No matter how talented the player is, it is the athlete that works that succeeds. Many do not see all the hard work in the background because it is not as sexy and glitzy as when the developed talent is manifested. I see many talented young ladies (I coach softball) whom do not develop their talent because those around them became star struck from the raw talent and praised them for that. They feel they are done and finished. I feel the same with all branches of knowledge (sciences and philosophy particularly for me) in which the talented (read genius) has some intuition and thinks that just because they have reached the intuition they have the answer. I guess this is why Hegel addressed the inadequacy of intuition in the preface.
Hey Greg another great video. As an optimistic, self-confessed philosophical dilettante some good perspective on what is necessary for productive work & life. BTW I intend to read the Hegel's text and others after the videos but for now this is my intro. PS. I do my own interpretation of what Hegel is saying as we go along. But believe me that generally makes me more grateful for your commentary.
David Roberts Glad you're getting something out of the videos -- it is probably better to read the text along with the videos, rather than just after. Hegel's thought coheres and develops from paragraph to paragraph. . . .
There's no need to bash Bertrand Russell's History of Western Philosophy. That and the funny book by Luciano De Crescenzo called Storia della filosofia Greca - I presocratici, are what made me interested in philosophy in the first place. And I'm now on your twenty-ninth video on Hegel. I certainly wouldn't be here if I started right away with Hegel. It would be too hard. So everything has it's own time and place. BTW, you are doing the great job, I am really enjoying your videos. Keep up the good work!
+laudanum81 It's not "bashing" to point out the pretty well-acknowledged inadequacy of Russell's history of philosophy. There's far better histories of philosophy readily available. It's nice that it got you into philosophy - The Durant's abut equally bad Story of Philosophy was an important work for me, to get introduced to and interested in some thinkers as well. So, you can get into philosophy through mediocre works, but that doesn't make them no longer mediocre. In fact, as you progress, you tend to recognize which works you can leave behind. Glad you're enjoying the videos. Nobody suggests anyone has to start philosophy with Hegel.
good point within about people discussing philosophy that know little about it. i have a degree in philosophy. that doesn't mean i know it all. but i certainly understand words like soundness, validity, sufficiency, etc. i tell someone they are unsound and they get offended. i ask them if they know what soundness is, or validity. They get more offended. If you point out the difference between pontification and philosophy they get even more offended still. the main subjects of philosophy (ethics, epistemology, and metaphysics) are not themselves philosophy. it is how they are approached.
I'm not sure if Hegel explains this later, but if we take the A to B to C to D diagram of "the long process of culture" for section 68 discussion, how do we know that what we call D is the correct follow up for C? Is this why we need to look at the entire process, like checking our work to make sure we calculated correctly?
Since the letters represent the different forms of consciousness throughout history, if you have effectively distinguished these different forms of consciousness, then you can place them in order of their appearance. It isn't just that each form flows "logically" (dialectically, really) out of the previous, but that it occured in a historical succession.
I would imagine that the brand of critic that cries "essentialist" and then smugly walks away may fall under the argumentative camp... Speaking of which, Nietzsche seems to be the power of the negative personified. I was reading "3 Rival Versions of Moral Inquiry" and the thought occurred to me that all the geneologist has to do to be consistent is not make any positive propositions, much less any universal ones, at all. Simply run whatever comes your way through the geneological saw mill and see what gets cut to ribbons and what doesn't.
Sometime -- though a lot of those critics do have some positive position of their own -- they're often crying "Essentialist" to ward off any criticism of their own position. It's pretty rare to see a genealogist who can avoid universalizing their account -- Nietzsche certainly doesn't do that successfully, nor does Foucault. .
would this idea of "genius" apply to the concept of genius in immanuel kant's third critique? It seems that, for Kant, the emergence of the truly new, thru genius in the third critique, the revolution of the will in the religion, etc., are all... "sublated" into a logic for hegel? As in, like for Kant's universal history w/ a cosmopolitan point of view, Kant says we have to hope that by establishing the conditions of the possibility of universality, or perpetual peace, or whatever, that we hope in the "third term" so to speak... is it merely just the playing out of the logic of history for hegel?
new Half-Hour Hegel video for a Saturday night
thank you very much.
You're welcome
This is my favorite one so far Dr. Sadler. I am really enjoying these lectures
Glad you're finding them useful!
For what it's worth, I must say that you have an extremely effective and engaging style of teaching, thanks for sharing it. This applies to all of your videos. Cheers.
I'm approaching the end of the preface, and I have about 50 pages of notes. I'm really looking forward to the main event!
I seriously cannot thank you enough for these
You're very welcome!
You might consider becoming a supporter of the project - www.patreon.com/drgbsadler
+Gregory B. Sadler If I weren't a beyond broke college kid, I totally would. In the meantime, I will try to like and comment more often and push my fellow dorks (of means) your way
Chris Gatewood No problem - and remember, we do monthly free Q&A Hegel hangouts - open to anyone
+Gregory B. Sadler Awesome. Good to know! Thanks!
I'm still with you, I'm watching theses until the end. I'm surprised about the low number of comments and wanted to let you know I was watching.
Hahaha! Thanks! This one's just a few weeks old -- you'll notice the comments slowly start to pile up (and some of them repeat previous comments, unknowingly) -- one of the effects of asynchronous viewing of these materials
I think I get it all, being an engineer I'm well aquainted with how we "reduce" things and the weaknesses of schematism. I'm mostly interested in philosophy of science. I don't like the fact that people have faith in science.
"It is not a pleasant experience to see ignorance, and a crudity without form or taste, which cannot focus its thought on a single abstract proposition, still less on a connected chain of them, claiming at one moment to be freedom of thought and toleration, and at the next to be even genius."
It was devastating to read this in 2022. Especially in the United States, such attitudes seem to be increasing, even celebrated, when real hard problems (which will require philosophy) loom on the horizon.
67 beautifully summarizes the brick wall currently blocking almost every discussion today about both politics & religion, whether in or out of the classroom. I'm sure it's not limited to either of those subjects. Even in daily conversation this wall makes its appearance which unfortunately isn't a cameo.
The end discussion about genius and work is a fascinating one that extends well beyond philosophy. To produce something of any substance is a function of work and talent; however talent only gets you so far because it is immature and directionless talent if no work has been made to develop that talent. Looking at philosophy surely takes a long view of human history but for those that want to see it in closer to real time I suggest sports athletes. No matter how talented the player is, it is the athlete that works that succeeds. Many do not see all the hard work in the background because it is not as sexy and glitzy as when the developed talent is manifested. I see many talented young ladies (I coach softball) whom do not develop their talent because those around them became star struck from the raw talent and praised them for that. They feel they are done and finished. I feel the same with all branches of knowledge (sciences and philosophy particularly for me) in which the talented (read genius) has some intuition and thinks that just because they have reached the intuition they have the answer. I guess this is why Hegel addressed the inadequacy of intuition in the preface.
Hey Greg another great video. As an optimistic, self-confessed philosophical dilettante some good perspective on what is necessary for productive work & life. BTW I intend to read the Hegel's text and others after the videos but for now this is my intro.
PS. I do my own interpretation of what Hegel is saying as we go along. But believe me that generally makes me more grateful for your commentary.
David Roberts Glad you're getting something out of the videos -- it is probably better to read the text along with the videos, rather than just after. Hegel's thought coheres and develops from paragraph to paragraph. . . .
There's no need to bash Bertrand Russell's History of Western Philosophy. That and the funny book by Luciano De Crescenzo called Storia della filosofia Greca - I presocratici, are what made me interested in philosophy in the first place. And I'm now on your twenty-ninth video on Hegel. I certainly wouldn't be here if I started right away with Hegel. It would be too hard. So everything has it's own time and place.
BTW, you are doing the great job, I am really enjoying your videos. Keep up the good work!
+laudanum81 It's not "bashing" to point out the pretty well-acknowledged inadequacy of Russell's history of philosophy. There's far better histories of philosophy readily available.
It's nice that it got you into philosophy - The Durant's abut equally bad Story of Philosophy was an important work for me, to get introduced to and interested in some thinkers as well. So, you can get into philosophy through mediocre works, but that doesn't make them no longer mediocre. In fact, as you progress, you tend to recognize which works you can leave behind.
Glad you're enjoying the videos. Nobody suggests anyone has to start philosophy with Hegel.
good point within about people discussing philosophy that know little about it. i have a degree in philosophy. that doesn't mean i know it all. but i certainly understand words like soundness, validity, sufficiency, etc. i tell someone they are unsound and they get offended. i ask them if they know what soundness is, or validity. They get more offended. If you point out the difference between pontification and philosophy they get even more offended still. the main subjects of philosophy (ethics, epistemology, and metaphysics) are not themselves philosophy. it is how they are approached.
Yep, I have had those sorts of experiences quite a lot myself!
Wow, a dig at upworthy, I feel happy
Yes - we'll see whether, ten years down the line (assuming RUclips still exists), Upworthy still exists and the reference still makes sense!
Terrific effort and very funny Mr Sadler!!
Thanks!
That might be the most clearly stated passage in the whole preface!
It could. there's quite a few gems in there
I'm not sure if Hegel explains this later, but if we take the A to B to C to D diagram of "the long process of culture" for section 68 discussion, how do we know that what we call D is the correct follow up for C? Is this why we need to look at the entire process, like checking our work to make sure we calculated correctly?
Since the letters represent the different forms of consciousness throughout history, if you have effectively distinguished these different forms of consciousness, then you can place them in order of their appearance. It isn't just that each form flows "logically" (dialectically, really) out of the previous, but that it occured in a historical succession.
This video is, for want of a more formal expression, KICK ASS! I thoroughly enjoyed it.
Glad to read it!
Would relativists be in the line of fire for the skepticism charge?
I would imagine that the brand of critic that cries "essentialist" and then smugly walks away may fall under the argumentative camp...
Speaking of which, Nietzsche seems to be the power of the negative personified. I was reading "3 Rival Versions of Moral Inquiry" and the thought occurred to me that all the geneologist has to do to be consistent is not make any positive propositions, much less any universal ones, at all. Simply run whatever comes your way through the geneological saw mill and see what gets cut to ribbons and what doesn't.
Sometime -- though a lot of those critics do have some positive position of their own -- they're often crying "Essentialist" to ward off any criticism of their own position.
It's pretty rare to see a genealogist who can avoid universalizing their account -- Nietzsche certainly doesn't do that successfully, nor does Foucault. .
would this idea of "genius" apply to the concept of genius in immanuel kant's third critique? It seems that, for Kant, the emergence of the truly new, thru genius in the third critique, the revolution of the will in the religion, etc., are all... "sublated" into a logic for hegel? As in, like for Kant's universal history w/ a cosmopolitan point of view, Kant says we have to hope that by establishing the conditions of the possibility of universality, or perpetual peace, or whatever, that we hope in the "third term" so to speak... is it merely just the playing out of the logic of history for hegel?
What's the difference between the Geist and the Gestalt?
ruclips.net/video/kSnxvnrCHLw/видео.html