"The owl of Minerva spreads its wings only with the setting of dusk!" I'm going to start slipping that into conversations in place of "hindsight is 20/20" and see if people notice.
G.W.F. Hegel 0:54 Father of Modern Historicism 2:06 Historical Change 3:16 Historicism: Each cultural has its own internal coherence (Every Culture is Contextual) 4:23 Hegel sees Intelligence, Cultural Ideas 💡
Sorry, but I cannot abide you full credit; it seems you did not listen carefully, and/or did not fully understand the content: your omission of Hegel‘s Philosophy of History (5:45) is an egregious omission…
Dr. Darren, may I just state for the record that you have our respect, you have our admiration, and you have our love! You are a bright light in a world of darkness. Thank you, thank you, thank you!
Ah, yes... I've been waiting for this one. When I finally got around to reading Hegel (and many comments about his impenetrability and opaque writing style kept me from doing so for quite a while), I was especially impressed with his philosophical anthropology and his discussion of the centrality of religion in human culture. I'm especially curious to see what Professor Staloff's comments on recognition will be here.
My foray into Hegel had been similarly hindered by those who made his writing seem impenetrable. I find him to be actually fairly tame compared to many modern thinkers such as Heidegger, Sartre, Deleuze, etc.
His discussion of The Absolute for some reason brings to mind almost an inverse of Plato's Forms, in that the latter states "worldly" manifestations or instances of objects (art, etc. ) are merely representations of the perfect form, Hegel is saying that (good) art, for example, IS that "form," i.e., perfect (absolute) instantiation -- not merely a derivative. (This is what makes good art "good," it is genuinely new novel and "creative.")
Firstly, wonderful lecture, and thank you for posting this. Secondly, after listening to Hegel, Nietzsche, and Marx it becomes apparent that most of their ideas are re-branded Plato; then they add a twist by removing any type of personal agency or conscious of the individual and replacing it with either some type of abstract poppycock such as the will to power, history, homo favor or some other conceptual abstraction. I do find some valuable observations that these philosophers have made, but the foundation of their philosophies seems flawed.
It’s very obvious that certain philosophers are incredibly egotistical. If you have to use 9 commas in a sentence to get your point across, just start over. Inaccessible writing is a turn off for people of average intelligence to get into philosophy
@@post-structuralist don’t you think it would be beneficial to have these ideas presented in a way that doesn’t cut out people who don’t have the patience for such ponderous writing? Just feels like it hurts a great subject
@@bathcat3759 It's supposed to leave people at the gate. You just want a cleaner format, and I don't blame you either. But you're instead calling for all of it to be this way. I disagree with that, this isn't for regular people anyways. Hegel assumes you've read the major philosophies before him .
Only Schopenhauer understood and built upon Kant. Fichte, Schelling, and Hegel are idiots. If you want good process philosophy which talks about the coincidence of opposites, read Whitehead and Hartshorne. Hegel thought the Prussian state and constitutional monarchy were the pinnacle of political theory. Kant's philosophy is better because he's responding to the serious intellectual challenge posed by Hume. Hegel is just asserting things. At best, you can see him as a historian like Thomas Carlyle, trying to understand themes in history. But does anyone seriously believe that national geists have ontological existence? Stirner would call Hegel's "metaphysics" a spook.
One of my favorite authors has always been CG Jung. Up until recently, however, I didn't realize how much of Jung is actually retooled and repackaged Hegel, whether Jung knew it or not. I do realize Jung would have disdained my thesis here, but it seems to me that Jung's idea of the Collective Unconscious is just a new name stamped on the "World Spirit." Hegel also seems to have been the first "thinker" to articulate and express the idea of individuation.
Jung was working off of Hegel just as much as Lacan, Marx, Popper + most other important philosphers after Hegel except maybe Wittgenstein. If you came to Jung from Robert Peterson it seems that he likes to skip over historical dialectics (and the fact that he basically bastardizes most of western philosophy) because it would wind up introducing his listeners to Marx and Engel. He is trying to fight the cultural Marxists after all and it would be too existential for his Cyrenaics to realize they are truly just fighting themselves... If you didnt arrive at Jung through Peterson the same still kind of applies in a way.
This happens alot in philosophy. For example, Hegel's "World spirit" could be seen as what Schopenhauer would call the socio-cultural manifestation of the Will. The collective unconscious is just the collective will in that sense, and interestingly Schopenhauer is credited for introducing the concept of unconscious will into the west at that time, which the science of psychology then developed from.
No. Jung would totally agree with you. IMHO all of the German Idealists were as authentic as their cultures allowed. And those same cultural inhibitors included survival mechanisms that attenuated the selflessness required to attain a lifestyle sans ego attachments. Every one of them expanded the visions of their predecessors. Every one of them would agree with the statement: “The only reason I could see further than others is because I was standing on the shoulders of giants”. Young was so prolific, he didn’t need to include retrospection, as you suggest, because he synthesized so much, few have been able to get their brains around his work, even to this day.
I am guessing that you are not familiar with Heidegger, Hermeneutics, or Gadamer. This onion has many layers! Every German Idealist philosopher, starting with Kant, laid the foundation for their successors. I honestly don’t believe you can understand Jung without understanding Heidegger, and understanding Heidegger is a real pain in the neck! He rightfully understood the semantic limitations of natural language, so he invented his own! Heidegger’s word “Dasein” is one case in point: en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dasein#Heidegger's_reinterpretation Heideggerian Terminology: en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Heideggerian_terminology
Right on man. I'm a big Jung fan myself but after Sugrue-Staloff lectures and Campbell's, "Hero Of With A Thousand Faces" I've kind of had my perspective changed where I see Jung as more of a, "wise old man" himself rather than a prophet giving us the, "calculus of old wise men." His work ends up being valuable more as prose-poetry than, "science."
Not only was Hegel a genious but also very generous.. His convoluted vocabulary has been keeping philosophers employed now for centuries. Allowing them to get paid for deciphering his theory to students and meanwhile have the time and money to create a little theory themselves.
@@TheArmchairNerd I was being complimentary. I am a scientist so often when there is a great breakthrough in a discipline the next 200 years or so is just occupied by people working to flesh out the theory. Ben Shapiro is an idiot I much prefer Hegel.
Thesis antithesis and synthesis are not the moments of the Hegelian dialectic as these words were never uttered by Hegelian a single time. These are the erroneously attributed interpretations of Fichte and schelling on the Kantian system.
6:50 Hegel’s “Absolute Perspective” is nothing more than (Or, shall I say “simply“) a synonym for the Akashic record. It is affirmation of Advaita Vedanta, and, at the same time, condemnation of Trinitarianism. Unfortunately, it seems that The Good Doctor Darren is not familiar with Advaita Vedanta, and does not include it in his gloss. 7:50 Like Heidegger, Hegel struggled with the semantic limitations of (his) Natural Language (German). Dr. Darren declares Hegel’s Philosophy of History as impenetrable, but it seems pretty clear to me that is a problem for him because he knows not of the Akashic records and Advaita Vedanta…
The loss of certain liberties here is directly proportional to the amount of Catholics recently appointed to the Supreme Court. Hegelian principles are tautological in THAT regard.
THE HEGEL CONTENT WE CRAVE
Antithesis: THE HEGEL CONTENT WE DO NOT CRAVE
Synthesis: THE HEGEL CONTENT SOME OF US CRAVE
😂😂😂😂
Bagel
Duuuude
😂
"The owl of Minerva spreads its wings only with the setting of dusk!" I'm going to start slipping that into conversations in place of "hindsight is 20/20" and see if people notice.
G.W.F. Hegel
0:54 Father of Modern Historicism
2:06 Historical Change
3:16 Historicism: Each cultural has its own internal coherence (Every Culture is Contextual)
4:23 Hegel sees Intelligence, Cultural Ideas 💡
5:48 Hegel´s philosophy of History
8:46 Dr Staloff´s translation
@@studywithmir1994 Sorry, but I can’t abide you full credit; the proper timestamp would be 5:45. YW!
Sorry, but I cannot abide you full credit; it seems you did not listen carefully, and/or did not fully understand the content: your omission of Hegel‘s Philosophy of History (5:45) is an egregious omission…
This was superb!
Dr. Darren, may I just state for the record that you have our respect, you have our admiration, and you have our love! You are a bright light in a world of darkness. Thank you, thank you, thank you!
רק לא ממש יש דפ יש ו
Word!
Ah, yes... I've been waiting for this one. When I finally got around to reading Hegel (and many comments about his impenetrability and opaque writing style kept me from doing so for quite a while), I was especially impressed with his philosophical anthropology and his discussion of the centrality of religion in human culture. I'm especially curious to see what Professor Staloff's comments on recognition will be here.
My foray into Hegel had been similarly hindered by those who made his writing seem impenetrable. I find him to be actually fairly tame compared to many modern thinkers such as Heidegger, Sartre, Deleuze, etc.
Hegel: "The owl of Minerva flies at dusk".
Also Hegel: "I know what the Enlightenment means and I know what all of human history means"
quite an accomplishment before the invention of LSD
This is incredibly helpful
His discussion of The Absolute for some reason brings to mind almost an inverse of Plato's Forms, in that the latter states "worldly" manifestations or instances of objects (art, etc. ) are merely representations of the perfect form, Hegel is saying that (good) art, for example, IS that "form," i.e., perfect (absolute) instantiation -- not merely a derivative. (This is what makes good art "good," it is genuinely new novel and "creative.")
Thought you were gonna say Martin Luther king Jr.. phew… you said Martin Luther
Any philosopher or historian that does not know the difference between Martin Luther and Martin Luther King, Jr., should be flogged.
Thnks!!!
👏
23:10 The passion of the Christ
Lewis Donna Walker Gary Lewis Edward
Taylor Laura Rodriguez Angela Young Michael
Firstly, wonderful lecture, and thank you for posting this. Secondly, after listening to Hegel, Nietzsche, and Marx it becomes apparent that most of their ideas are re-branded Plato; then they add a twist by removing any type of personal agency or conscious of the individual and replacing it with either some type of abstract poppycock such as the will to power, history, homo favor or some other conceptual abstraction. I do find some valuable observations that these philosophers have made, but the foundation of their philosophies seems flawed.
That would make perfect sense, conserving the foundation of philosophy itself is flawed.
embrace hegel reject plato
Martinez Gary White Anna Clark Larry
It’s very obvious that certain philosophers are incredibly egotistical. If you have to use 9 commas in a sentence to get your point across, just start over. Inaccessible writing is a turn off for people of average intelligence to get into philosophy
Let people write how they want. By the way, they aren't writing for your average chum either. They are writing to those already in the sphere.
@@post-structuralist don’t you think it would be beneficial to have these ideas presented in a way that doesn’t cut out people who don’t have the patience for such ponderous writing? Just feels like it hurts a great subject
@@bathcat3759 It's supposed to leave people at the gate. You just want a cleaner format, and I don't blame you either. But you're instead calling for all of it to be this way. I disagree with that, this isn't for regular people anyways. Hegel assumes you've read the major philosophies before him .
@@bathcat3759 And to answer your question, no. It's fine by me, writing styles would be too monotonous after awhile.
I enjoy it this way even.
It’s just how he writes. If you want it in a more digestible form, that’s why places like this channel exist
Only Schopenhauer understood and built upon Kant. Fichte, Schelling, and Hegel are idiots. If you want good process philosophy which talks about the coincidence of opposites, read Whitehead and Hartshorne. Hegel thought the Prussian state and constitutional monarchy were the pinnacle of political theory. Kant's philosophy is better because he's responding to the serious intellectual challenge posed by Hume. Hegel is just asserting things. At best, you can see him as a historian like Thomas Carlyle, trying to understand themes in history. But does anyone seriously believe that national geists have ontological existence? Stirner would call Hegel's "metaphysics" a spook.
Amazing ideas, awful outfit!
Best part of the day is here!!
My consolation to you for your friend’s death… May he rest in peace
One of my favorite authors has always been CG Jung. Up until recently, however, I didn't realize how much of Jung is actually retooled and repackaged Hegel, whether Jung knew it or not. I do realize Jung would have disdained my thesis here, but it seems to me that Jung's idea of the Collective Unconscious is just a new name stamped on the "World Spirit." Hegel also seems to have been the first "thinker" to articulate and express the idea of individuation.
Jung was working off of Hegel just as much as Lacan, Marx, Popper + most other important philosphers after Hegel except maybe Wittgenstein. If you came to Jung from Robert Peterson it seems that he likes to skip over historical dialectics (and the fact that he basically bastardizes most of western philosophy) because it would wind up introducing his listeners to Marx and Engel. He is trying to fight the cultural Marxists after all and it would be too existential for his Cyrenaics to realize they are truly just fighting themselves... If you didnt arrive at Jung through Peterson the same still kind of applies in a way.
This happens alot in philosophy. For example, Hegel's "World spirit" could be seen as what Schopenhauer would call the socio-cultural manifestation of the Will. The collective unconscious is just the collective will in that sense, and interestingly Schopenhauer is credited for introducing the concept of unconscious will into the west at that time, which the science of psychology then developed from.
No. Jung would totally agree with you.
IMHO all of the German Idealists were as authentic as their cultures allowed. And those same cultural inhibitors included survival mechanisms that attenuated the selflessness required to attain a lifestyle sans ego attachments. Every one of them expanded the visions of their predecessors.
Every one of them would agree with the statement: “The only reason I could see further than others is because I was standing on the shoulders of giants”.
Young was so prolific, he didn’t need to include retrospection, as you suggest, because he synthesized so much, few have been able to get their brains around his work, even to this day.
I am guessing that you are not familiar with Heidegger, Hermeneutics, or Gadamer. This onion has many layers!
Every German Idealist philosopher, starting with Kant, laid the foundation for their successors. I honestly don’t believe you can understand Jung without understanding Heidegger, and understanding Heidegger is a real pain in the neck! He rightfully understood the semantic limitations of natural language, so he invented his own! Heidegger’s word “Dasein” is one case in point:
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dasein#Heidegger's_reinterpretation
Heideggerian Terminology:
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Heideggerian_terminology
Right on man. I'm a big Jung fan myself but after Sugrue-Staloff lectures and Campbell's, "Hero Of With A Thousand Faces" I've kind of had my perspective changed where I see Jung as more of a, "wise old man" himself rather than a prophet giving us the, "calculus of old wise men." His work ends up being valuable more as prose-poetry than, "science."
He swaggy in that fit
Nice!
So happy this channel is uploading
Not only was Hegel a genious but also very generous.. His convoluted vocabulary has been keeping philosophers employed now for centuries. Allowing them to get paid for deciphering his theory to students and meanwhile have the time and money to create a little theory themselves.
Why don't you take this snide easy crap to a channel that is about that, maybe Ben Shapiro's. This is a channel about ideas. Some ideas are difficult.
@@TheArmchairNerd I was being complimentary. I am a scientist so often when there is a great breakthrough in a discipline the next 200 years or so is just occupied by people working to flesh out the theory. Ben Shapiro is an idiot I much prefer Hegel.
@@TheArmchairNerd Ben Shapiro pwns the libs.
@@rockycomet4587Take ALL the victories you guys can get . And savor them.
@@ttacking_you Oh, you know we do.
Perez Richard Lopez Susan Robinson Richard
Thesis antithesis and synthesis are not the moments of the Hegelian dialectic as these words were never uttered by Hegelian a single time. These are the erroneously attributed interpretations of Fichte and schelling on the Kantian system.
Rodriguez Sandra Martinez Anthony Hernandez Melissa
Lee Charles Davis Mary Hernandez Charles
Williams Matthew Miller Ruth White Elizabeth
Staloff's podcast on the american revolution is excellent as well.
Fantastic!
Thank you Darren Staloff!
I absolutely love centaurs ❤
A great resource made freely available
6:50 Hegel’s “Absolute Perspective” is nothing more than (Or, shall I say “simply“) a synonym for the Akashic record. It is affirmation of Advaita Vedanta, and, at the same time, condemnation of Trinitarianism.
Unfortunately, it seems that The Good Doctor Darren is not familiar with Advaita Vedanta, and does not include it in his gloss.
7:50 Like Heidegger, Hegel struggled with the semantic limitations of (his) Natural Language (German).
Dr. Darren declares Hegel’s Philosophy of History as impenetrable, but it seems pretty clear to me that is a problem for him because he knows not of the Akashic records and Advaita Vedanta…
Hegel was dumb in history.
The loss of certain liberties here is directly proportional to the amount of Catholics recently appointed to the Supreme Court. Hegelian principles are tautological in THAT regard.
The loss of your right to murder a child?
@@Nick-qf7vt unless the child is your pregnant daughter, I guess, huh?
@@Nick-qf7vt and honestly you Jesus freaks need to quit being totalitarian assholes.