When I read this initially, I read it as Hegel basically stating that the difference between mathematics and philosophy is that for math, once we have worked out a method, previous methods and the problems that led whatever someone to devise the new method have become superseded and redundant. You still need to understand the method and internalise the method; you still need to know how it works, why we bother using it... But it's historical genesis is little more than a curiosity or a novelty, or inessential to it. A method is basically a static formula to be applied to content from which it stands apart. Philosophy doesn't work like that because the shapes philosophy takes are not so much methods as form of consciousness, where the knower them self is implicated in the content of the philosophy. We therefore need to know where that thinker is coming from (in a consciousness sense, not in an empirically historical sense) to figure out what their worldview actually means, how they relate to their world as a subject. Static formulas cannot achieve this kind of knowledge.
I'm so glad I came across this series! I don't know how I would've gotten my head around paragraph 42 otherwise. Great stuff! The text and the explanations.
In the first section, when Hegel criticizes the notion that the true is in a proposition, is analytic style of philosophy under this notion? There seems to be a lot of value in some analytic philosophy, but there also is an emphasis on clarity and propositions. It seems to treat philosophy almost as mathematics.
That's amazing. Really! Random, unrelated question, in your 10 works for a desert island video you have a book behind you labeled 'Empire'. I'm curious, is that Hardt and Negri's Empire? If so, what did you think? I'm about to read it myself and would love some basic characterization
Trying to reconcile his comments about dogmatism here with his objection to arbitrary objections to the foundation stones of philosophical systems in general earlier in the preface. Is it that he would accept there is a certain minimal dogmaticism at the outset of a belief system?
AI is a new theatre of philosophy. An example in repect to this lecture: a gazillion datapoints in an abstract "3d" matrix so it can predict only the next word in an LLM type. It only proves what Hegel says. As far as peasants and plebs go I defer to Shapiro "Facts dont care bout your feelings" being facetious ofc
As for the aside piece, I would say yes it is desirable for people to get to grips with maths (providing they want to) however you are never going to escape the gap between peasant and expert no matter how you ratchet up educational standards...I would suspect the answer lies in something much more general, the questioning of the idolatry in general, although, admittedly, I do not have the foggiest idea about how to go about fixing this.It is an interesting aside anyway.
![ROSÉ (로제) - number one girl [더 시즌즈-이영지의 레인보우] | KBS 241129 방송](http://i.ytimg.com/vi/A9oByH9Ci24/mqdefault.jpg)
When I read this initially, I read it as Hegel basically stating that the difference between mathematics and philosophy is that for math, once we have worked out a method, previous methods and the problems that led whatever someone to devise the new method have become superseded and redundant. You still need to understand the method and internalise the method; you still need to know how it works, why we bother using it... But it's historical genesis is little more than a curiosity or a novelty, or inessential to it. A method is basically a static formula to be applied to content from which it stands apart.
Philosophy doesn't work like that because the shapes philosophy takes are not so much methods as form of consciousness, where the knower them self is implicated in the content of the philosophy. We therefore need to know where that thinker is coming from (in a consciousness sense, not in an empirically historical sense) to figure out what their worldview actually means, how they relate to their world as a subject. Static formulas cannot achieve this kind of knowledge.
Yep, dead-on
We now start looking at Hegel's early discussions of historical and mathematical modes of cognition
I'm so glad I came across this series! I don't know how I would've gotten my head around paragraph 42 otherwise. Great stuff! The text and the explanations.
Glad it’s helpful for you
Preface, sec 40-42 thank you
You're welcome
5:47 "you don't need to do philosophy in order to talk about coffee" - very true, but I find that the opposite is often the case.
Sure. I tend to drink two pots per day
You may not need philosophy to understand coffee, but I do need coffee to practice philosophy :p
It's useful to be sure
In the first section, when Hegel criticizes the notion that the true is in a proposition, is analytic style of philosophy under this notion? There seems to be a lot of value in some analytic philosophy, but there also is an emphasis on clarity and propositions. It seems to treat philosophy almost as mathematics.
This series is a fantastic supplement to my readings and secondary sources. Thanks for uploading them! Do you plan on doing the entire phenomenology?
Yes, I plan on going through the entire work -- it'll take 2-3 years
That's amazing. Really!
Random, unrelated question, in your 10 works for a desert island video you have a book behind you labeled 'Empire'. I'm curious, is that Hardt and Negri's Empire? If so, what did you think? I'm about to read it myself and would love some basic characterization
Yep, it's that Empire. It's all right, but I don't think it'll end up a classic. It's been a long time since I read it, I have to admit
Thanks!
I can play any video on my Android device except these Half Hour Hegel videos. I can play other lectures from Sadler, all I have tried have been MP4.
Trying to reconcile his comments about dogmatism here with his objection to arbitrary objections to the foundation stones of philosophical systems in general earlier in the preface. Is it that he would accept there is a certain minimal dogmaticism at the outset of a belief system?
+lyndon bailey No, since "dogmatism" doesn't simply mean making some assumptions or having some starting point
Ok, so dogmaticisms give a fixed answer, have a terminal character that is not representative of starting points in general
This is the best anime ever made. You will beat One Piece at this rate.
I'll have to take your word for that, as I don't read anime
Thanks
You're welcome
Could believing consciousness to be a force lead to Psolipsism?
Nevermind, you address this in the next video.
+Chris Epperson Hahaha! Well, there you go!
AI is a new theatre of philosophy. An example in repect to this lecture: a gazillion datapoints in an abstract "3d" matrix so it can predict only the next word in an LLM type. It only proves what Hegel says. As far as peasants and plebs go I defer to Shapiro "Facts dont care bout your feelings" being facetious ofc
You lost me at invoking that moron Shapiro
@@GregoryBSadler Apologies Dr. Sadler. I was just using the negative as juxtapositon. Perhaps sarcasm should be passe
@@goldboolean6819 Sarcasm doesn't signal itself in comments, as you know.
As for the aside piece, I would say yes it is desirable for people to get to grips with maths (providing they want to) however you are never going to escape the gap between peasant and expert no matter how you ratchet up educational standards...I would suspect the answer lies in something much more general, the questioning of the idolatry in general, although, admittedly, I do not have the foggiest idea about how to go about fixing this.It is an interesting aside anyway.