Incredible! Somehow stumbled on this. The explanation is deep & touches chord on a subconscious level, almost mirroring the inherent contradiction & the resulting turmoil in the perpetual process of our being. The whole message seemed so providential in my own moment of thesis & antithesis in the deep recesses of my existence! Thank you
no worries, God's Disciple. we are delighted that you find our videos helpful. God bless you too! and sure, we will continue making more videos in philosphy.
I thought I understood Hegel's, until I tried to understand it more. 🤣 Every time I listen to a more in depth explanation, I doubt more what I thought I knew.
I have now understood how the Hegelian thesis of law, relates to that of the understanding of historicism. I never had such a hard time in understanding any philosophical theory than I had in deciphering Hegelian’s. Thanks very much indeed for such a wonderful and worthy elucidation.
Hegelian dialectics in aphoristic style: You must be ready to burn yourself in your own flame; how could you rise anew if you have not first become ashes? Friedrich Nietzsche, Thus Spoke Zarathustra
I think that this is far closer to the maoist interpretation of dialectical materialism than to the original ideas of Hegel as presented in the phenomenology of spirit. As far as I understand it, the dialectic is not said to be a property of the world, but of the way spirit works. It's not the world that is dialectical for Hegel, but the way we come to terms with it necessarily is.
Thanks too for your very inspiring comments, Bhawana Mishra. We are glad you found our video on Hegel's concept of the dialectic helpful. We wish you all the best!
Hi there, I checked out the video transcript and found that you site ‘seeds for its own ineluctable destruction and transformation’ as 'Schmidt, “Existential Ontology”, 15.', but I'm unable to find this work anywhere- it's just a great quote I'm looking to reference, thank you!
What do YOU think? View The Christian Atheist playlist on RUclips here ruclips.net/user/johnandjennywiseplaylists It is our mission to uncover and speak TRUTH in the pursuit of meaning, no matter where that takes us. The Christian Atheist ... To believe or not to believe - that is the question.
Thank you . it made Hegel's dialectical method more clear . @philo notes- please explain the contradiction/negation process .how does it take place ? please explain if possible using examples . in case of seed example what negation initially it had ? What negation do human have ? is negation a quality ? if yes please give some examples of qualities .as per this videos ,Being will be destroyed on actualization of potential(synthesis),what will be destroyed in case this process of negation ,takes place inside human ? what will be destroyed in us ? sorry for long question ,I wanted to make it as clear as possible .
many thanks gaurav for your very inspiring comments. take, for example, a person who always procrastinates. now, when the person decides to change totally and do away with procrastination and become a better person, he destroys his old self, which gives way to a new self, that is, a person who no longer procrastinates. i hope this helps.
many thanks InnocentBystandard69 for your comments. however, we are not in the position to answer your question because we are not familiar with physics or quantum physics. thanks anyway for the question. cheers!
It has no application to real wold phenomenon. it is similar to what is taught by Aleister Crowely in using "negativity" to achieve your aims in society and is related to the way Democrats ALWAYS tell the opposite from the truth and ALWAYS blame their political opponents of what THEY THEMSELVES are guilty. It's obviously a political strategy which fools NO ONE anymore, but they still use it because they are disciples of Satan and don't know what else to do.
I am here just because of change in my writing pattern an year ago I used to write Good songs with deep meaning and metaphors but now I am just making catchy hooks and straight bars Now the problem is previously I got very less views 2 - 3 k a song but now it going like 30 - 50 k a video ya I learnt a lot new rules and tricks for this new kind of music ( new for me at least) So, Now I want to know where these two totally different personalities of mine will take me what I will be in the near future Please suggest any other theories or philosophy which can help me Understand myself better 😇
Hi thank you for your Great Explanation. You uses essence in two differnt places. 1.esssnece = constant process of change ,of constant negation and not of that which makes a thing truly a thing 2.When it contrdict it self it express its essence. Does Both place have 2 differnt meaning for Essence
no worries, Kasun. anyway, that means Hegel is not an essentialist. in other words, there is no such thing as "essence" for Hegel that defines every being because everything is in the process of change, of developing its potentialities. i hope this helps.
@@PHILOnotes Thank you for your quick reply. can you eloborate this line ""When it contrdict it self it express its essence."".In this sentences what does word essence mean .pardon my English
@@kasun0071 as mentioned in the video, when Hegel talks about "Wessens" or "essence" in English, he does not refer to that nature or essence that remains contant in beings/things. Hegel refers to the potentiality of beings. For example, the potentiality of a seed to become seedling. In other words, the "essence" of seed is to turn itself into a seedling. So, the use of the word "essence" here is not from the perspective of essentialism. I hope this helps.
furthermore, the tensions are not actually opposites, so we can't clearly identify what a thing will change into. Nor can we say when the change in quantity will become a change in quality, thus in conclusion, things will change into something, we are not sure what, and we don't know when it will happen. This sounds like some pretty weak science. Can somebody clear this up?
i've listened to half a dozen explanations of this and I still can't understand it. It is so uninteresting I can't pay attention to it. Everyone has to blabber on for several minutes using the most complicated language they can until they get to a real world example and when they do it doesn't make sense. So frustrated and I have to do an essay about this crap.
Thank you! It took me rewatching and pausing a few times, but now I feel that I finally have a basic understanding of the dialectic. Really appreciate you making this possible through a 9+ min video, so I don't have to watch a 2h long lecture.
Many thanks for your generous comments, DEVI R. We are just pointing out that the proletarians cannot be viewed as the contradiction to the bourgeoisie because, as we learned from Hegel, the contradiction to the bourgeoisie is inherent in the bourgeoisie themselves, for example, their own mistakes and weaknesses. I hope this helps, DEVI R. All the best then!
@@PHILOnotes Where is the line drawn though, for the thing that the dialectic is about, or does it even matter, as in perhaps Hegel's model works in either case? Is it that the dialectic concerns the bourgeoisie, who are powerful (thesis), have weaknesses (antithesis) and are thus dethroned by the proletariat (synthesis) ... OR ... is it that the dialectic concerns the capitalist society itself, and has the bourgeoisie as the ruling class (thesis), the dissatisfied proletariat as a counterbalance (antithesis) and the overtaking of the bourgeoisie by the proletariat (synthesis)? Or is it simply, again, the fact that it doesn't matter what "thing" we consider, because the dialectic of that "thing" as proposed by Hegel, will be accurate regardless, I mean, whether we decide to look at the dialectic of the 'thing that is the capitalist society', or at the dialectic of the 'thing that is the bourgeoisie'? A bear resisting a wolfpack (thesis), becomes old (antithesis), and is eaten (synthesis) ... or if we look at the dialectic of the system which is bear + wolfpack: bear is strong while wolves are few (thesis), bear ages while wolves become greater in numbers (antithesis), wolves eat the bear (synthesis) ....
Hi Daski69, many thanks for your long and very substantial comments. In the first, there is no line that divides Being, Non-Being, and Becoming. As we already mentioned in the video, those three moments are present in the same being. Thus, the idea of "contradiction" is not external to Being. In the case of the bourgeoisie, its contradiction (Non-Being or Antithesis) could refer to the internal contradictions, including its weaknesses, within bourgeoisie itself. Here, the proletariat cannot be the synthesis. As said, the role of the proletariat is to only arrest the situation; indeed, they can only take advantage of the situation. So, the "synthesis" is what the bourgeoisie is going to become (Synthesis or Becoming) after it self-destructs itself. And if one asks what it is, for sure no one can tell. I hope this helps, Daski69.
@@PHILOnotes Thanks for the response. I wasn't actually referring to a line between Being, Non-Being and Becoming, rather a line between one Being and another Being. I mean, one could look at the Bourgeoisie as one 'thing', one Being, that has Being, Non-Being and Becoming. The bourgeoisie could be said to contain the three stages within itself. My question is if we instead could consider the entire Capitalist system as one single Being having Being, Non-Being and Becoming, or maybe our whole planet. My question is where we draw the line between one Being and another. The seed is one Being, having the three stages. I'm wondering if we could expand the limits of one Being, and instead say for example that the ecosystem of the seed is one being. If we define the seed as one Being, then its contradiction cannot be outside of the seed itself, that I understand. But my question is where do we draw the line between one being and another. Would the dialectic not work if we called the seed along with its ecosystem one single Being? Isn't it arbitrary to say that the seed is one Being, period? We could look at a person as a Being, or the entire tribe, or the country, or the continent as one Being. As with the bourgeoisie, what determines that the bourgeoisie is one Being, instead of the whole Capitalist system, or maybe just one person in the bourgeoisie, or just one cell of one of the persons of the bourgeoisie? Where is the circle, that envelopes one Being, drawn? Does it matter even, or would the Dialectic work regardless, wherever we drew the line? Hope it's clear. Thank you.
@@Daski69 in my understanding, the dialectic could be applied to all beings, and that means anything that exists, e.g., trees, persons, bourgeoisie, capitalism, etc. Hence, we can consider the whole ecosystem as one being just as all things found in it are individual beings. i think that's how we draw the line between and among all beings. i hope this helps.
See how a thinker can present a profound concept and create a following. Hegel basically introduces the life and death drive and represents to me,the world as will and representation whereby the clash of wills is both the antagonist and protagonist in the agency for change/ progress. No one is likely to elect to perish for the sake of progress/ change for the greater good. Especially if we are all equal as a species. And yes human nature does exist in the application of life and death and yes the essence for all living things is to thrive and replace lesser species for more of what it needs to reproduce and diminate. The Proletariat once in power would revert back to power politics and the acquisition of wealth at the expense of the people to ensure it is in a position to continue to negate the population that represents the new dialectics. Hegel is too a matter of fact objective about dialectics as if it occurs organically. Perhaps it does after a considerable amount of time but not without suffering and not necessarily a change for the better.
they are synonymous in Hegel's dialectic. when being negates itself that means it contradicts itself. hence, in Hegel's dialectic, contradiction implies negation and negation implies contradiction. i hope this helps.
If you assume being as resultant of a process (take your pick) as Hegel does, then non-being does not exist rationally and no synthesis can be had. Or?
Full transcript of this video is available at our website, philonotes.com or philonotes.com/index.php/2018/04/11/hegelian-dialectic/ ... if that's what you mean by the "note". :)
I really think Christianity should more explicitly relate to this. St Paul talks about the seed destroying itself to become the seedling the way the physical body is destroyed to become the spiritual. The father is being, the eternal virginity of Mary represents non-being and Jesus is the *living* word of god unfolding as becoming.
Here's an experiment in Hegelian Dialectic. Put two sticks of chewing gum in your mouth, and chew until it's at a proper chewing consistency. That's ‘thesis’. Now place a pad of butter in your mouth and chew it into the gum. That's ‘antithesis’. Now do what any sane person would do, spit that Hegelian dialect crap out! .
Sorry too. Because of constructive criticisms like yours, we removed the background music in most of our videos. Apologies for the inconvenience, Krzysztof.
This is a very good explanation of a very bad, and seriously flawed, idea. It reminds me of a story I read 30 years ago about the abysmal quality of new teaching recruits, with one example being an inner-city teacher who told the class that a tadpole was the opposite of a frog. I doubt she got that from Hagel, but they were thinking along the same lines. Not that there is nothing worth salvaging here; at least when considering the universe as a system, it can be argued that its current state completely defines all of its earlier states and that each of those states completely define its current state. But the notion that every being becomes its opposite is a gross oversimplification of the concept of transformation.
hi Fearofthemonster, the full transcript is now available. please visit philonotes.com and then go to the "Other Notes" menu, and go to "Political Philosophy" submenu; there you can find the full transcript. i hope this helps.
Hmm... This state of "non-being" seems to be just the next phase of evolution of something, not really a non-being. However the opposite of human life is his death, not some butterfly. I understand how this might be helpful while looking at capitalism for example, but it seems to be such a narrow look. I suspect that if Hegel was born after Darwin, Hegel would word his theories differently.
Thesis is dual to anti-thesis creates converging thesis or synthesis -- the time independent Hegelian dialectic. Being is dual to non being creates becoming -- The duality of Plato. Noumenal is dual to phenomenal -- Immanuel Kant. Hume's fork: Absolute truth is dual to relative truth, the "relation of ideas" is dual to the "matter of facts". Mind is dual to matter -- Descartes. First cause (efficient cause) is dual to final cause creates material and formal cause -- Aristotle. The Hegelian dialectic can be traced back to Socrates (the dialectic method), Plato & Aristotle! "Philosophy is dead" -- the philosophy or duality of Stephen Hawking. The subjective opinions, beliefs or 'philosophy' of Stephen Hawking concludes that philosophy is dead. Stephen Hawking is negating or refuting his own philosophy or contradicting his own ideas -- cognitive dissonance or duality! You cannot use philosophical ideas to refute philosophy this is a logical fallacy. Schrodinger's cat: Alive (thesis, being) is dual to not alive (anti-thesis, non being) -- Hegel's or Plato's cat. Schrodinger's cat is based upon the philosophy of Hegel, physicists who use Schrodinger's cat are using philosophical ideas (which are not allowed according to Stephen Hawking). Gravitation is equivalent or dual to acceleration -- Einstein's happiest thought, the principle of equivalence (duality). Energy is dual to mass -- Einstein Dark energy is dual to dark matter. "Always two there are" -- Yoda.
The commentator shouldn't be using the word "idea" around 1:45, since the Idea is the most developed form of the Concept which incorporates empirical reality.
Amazing i only had to rewind 2 dif parts at 1 time meaning the parts wouldnt have progressed unless it destroyed its self and then was rewinded into its original form to then be played again at regular speed till it transformed into the next part lol nah lemme stop i really thought this video was awsome and logical
Thesis is dual to anti-thesis creates converging thesis or synthesis -- the time independent Hegelian dialectic. Being is dual to non being creates becoming -- The duality of Plato. Noumenal is dual to phenomenal -- Immanuel Kant. Hume's fork: Absolute truth is dual to relative truth, the "relation of ideas" is dual to the "matter of facts". Mind is dual to matter -- Descartes. First cause (efficient cause) is dual to final cause creates material and formal cause -- Aristotle. The Hegelian dialectic can be traced back to Socrates (the dialectic method), Plato & Aristotle! "Philosophy is dead" -- the philosophy or duality of Stephen Hawking. The subjective opinions, beliefs or 'philosophy' of Stephen Hawking concludes that philosophy is dead. Stephen Hawking is negating or refuting his own philosophy or contradicting his own ideas -- cognitive dissonance or duality! You cannot use philosophical ideas to refute philosophy this is a logical fallacy. Schrodinger's cat: Alive (thesis, being) is dual to not alive (anti-thesis, non being) -- Hegel's or Plato's cat. Schrodinger's cat is based upon the philosophy of Hegel, physicists who use Schrodinger's cat are using philosophical ideas (which are not allowed according to Stephen Hawking). Gravitation is equivalent or dual to acceleration -- Einstein's happiest thought, the principle of equivalence (duality). Energy is dual to mass -- Einstein Dark energy is dual to dark matter. "Always two there are" -- Yoda.
@@PHILOnotes Syntropy (prediction) is dual to increasing entropy -- the 4th law of thermodynamics. "Through imagination and reason we turn experience (knowledge) into foresight (prediction)" -- Spinoza describing syntropy. Teleological physics is dual to non-teleological physics (entropy). Randomness (entropy) is dual to order (predictability) -- Shannon's coding theorem. Optimized predictions are used to track targets and goals, intentionality or teleology. The conservation of duality (Energy) is the 5th law of thermodynamics. Energy is duality, duality is energy. Potential energy is dual to kinetic energy, gravitational energy is dual. Electro is dual to magnetic, electro magnetic energy is dual. Pure energy (photons) conform to wave/particle or quantum duality. Positive charge is dual to negative charge -- electric fields. Magnets: north poles are dual to south poles. Thinking or the process of creating thought forms leads to optimizing your predictions -- syntropy, or converging thesis, synthesis (Hegel). Entropy is dual to evolution (syntropy) -- Janna Levin, physicist. Watch the following:- ruclips.net/video/SRKSUNkAhqY/видео.html
Thesis is dual to anti-thesis creates converging thesis or synthesis -- the time independent Hegelian dialectic. Being is dual to non being creates becoming -- The duality of Plato. Noumenal is dual to phenomenal -- Immanuel Kant. Hume's fork: Absolute truth is dual to relative truth, the "relation of ideas" is dual to the "matter of facts". Mind is dual to matter -- Descartes. First cause (efficient cause) is dual to final cause creates material and formal cause -- Aristotle. The Hegelian dialectic can be traced back to Socrates (the dialectic method), Plato & Aristotle! "Philosophy is dead" -- the philosophy or duality of Stephen Hawking. The subjective opinions, beliefs or 'philosophy' of Stephen Hawking concludes that philosophy is dead. Stephen Hawking is negating or refuting his own philosophy or contradicting his own ideas -- cognitive dissonance or duality! You cannot use philosophical ideas to refute philosophy this is a logical fallacy. Schrodinger's cat: Alive (thesis, being) is dual to not alive (anti-thesis, non being) -- Hegel's or Plato's cat. Schrodinger's cat is based upon the philosophy of Hegel, physicists who use Schrodinger's cat are using philosophical ideas (which are not allowed according to Stephen Hawking). Gravitation is equivalent or dual to acceleration -- Einstein's happiest thought, the principle of equivalence (duality). Energy is dual to mass -- Einstein Dark energy is dual to dark matter. "Always two there are" -- Yoda.
@@StefanTravis The British empire was/is based upon the Hegelian dialectic and this evolved into the American empire! Being is dual to non-being synthesizes becoming -- Plato. Hegel stole the dialectic method from Plato who in turn got it from the Socratic method, he stole it from the Greeks! Potential energy is dual to kinetic energy. Apples fall to the ground because they are conserving duality. The conservation of duality is the 5th law of thermodynamics. Energy is duality, duality is energy. Duality creates reality. "Always two there are" -- Yoda.
Thesis is dual to anti-thesis creates converging thesis or synthesis -- the time independent Hegelian dialectic. Being is dual to non being creates becoming -- The duality of Plato. Noumenal is dual to phenomenal -- Immanuel Kant. Hume's fork: Absolute truth is dual to relative truth, the "relation of ideas" is dual to the "matter of facts". Mind is dual to matter -- Descartes. First cause (efficient cause) is dual to final cause creates material and formal cause -- Aristotle. The Hegelian dialectic can be traced back to Socrates (the dialectic method), Plato & Aristotle! "Philosophy is dead" -- the philosophy or duality of Stephen Hawking. The subjective opinions, beliefs or 'philosophy' of Stephen Hawking concludes that philosophy is dead. Stephen Hawking is negating or refuting his own philosophy or contradicting his own ideas -- cognitive dissonance or duality! You cannot use philosophical ideas to refute philosophy this is a logical fallacy. Schrodinger's cat: Alive (thesis, being) is dual to not alive (anti-thesis, non being) -- Hegel's or Plato's cat. Schrodinger's cat is based upon the philosophy of Hegel, physicists who use Schrodinger's cat are using philosophical ideas (which are not allowed according to Stephen Hawking). Gravitation is equivalent or dual to acceleration -- Einstein's happiest thought, the principle of equivalence (duality). Energy is dual to mass -- Einstein Dark energy is dual to dark matter. "Always two there are" -- Yoda.
Wait: A seed is a mechanism for producing a tree, not the negation of a tree or the opposite of a tree. Feudalism, as an economic example, is negated to create Mercantilism but they are not opposites. Capitalism is not a stratified hierarchy as in the illustration, while socialism is. Capitalism is an infinitely complex network of relationships where even low level workers get dividends through shared ownership in the means of production. Investing is like a second job to some workers. Bus drivers can retire with assets over $1 million if they work at it.
Hi Ed. Farr, thank you for your comments. Please note though that we did not say that the seed is a negation of the tree. Again, negation or contradiction is internal to being. Hence, the negation of the seed comes the its internal and complex dynamics. And once the seed contradicts (negates) itself, it will give way (Becoming/Synthesis) to the seedling, and when the seedling contradicts (negates) itself, it will give way to a tree. I hope this helps. Cheers!
awful ly wordy...meant nothing - watching this killed me...and at 6:50 the characterization of self destruction is unnatural & objectionable. The seed DOES NOT SELF DESTRUCT IT ONLY TRANSFORMS OR METAMORPHIZES...OR EVOLVES.
We, at PHILO-notes, totally respect the thoughts of our viewers. :) Thanks a lot for taking the time to watch our video and express your self. Cheers! :)
im thankful for your attempt to make Hegel understandable. Please add more on
thanks heaps, Yikunoamlak for your very inspiring comments. yes, we are in the process of making more videos. best wishes!
Incredible!
Somehow stumbled on this. The explanation is deep & touches chord on a subconscious level, almost mirroring the inherent contradiction & the resulting turmoil in the perpetual process of our being. The whole message seemed so providential in my own moment of thesis & antithesis in the deep recesses of my existence! Thank you
Many thanks, Sid Sid for your generous and very touching comments. You inspired us so much! We wish you all the best!
Thesis antithesis synthesis comes from Schilling
thank you so much. I understand it better now. God bless and continue doing the good work.
no worries, God's Disciple. we are delighted that you find our videos helpful. God bless you too! and sure, we will continue making more videos in philosphy.
Thank you. Really appreciate how u made the connection with Marx's concepts at the end.
Thanks for the compliment :)
I love it! For some reason, I feel like it's not enough. Can you talk more about Hegel?
Hi Dulla, we are delighted to learn that you love our video. Sure, we will make more videos on Hegel soon.
Thank you!
I thought I understood Hegel's, until I tried to understand it more. 🤣 Every time I listen to a more in depth explanation, I doubt more what I thought I knew.
@@brandonmiles8174 Yes, just as Alan watts would state, this is the beginning meditation.
Read him then.
Thank you so much; I am a composer and the Hegelian concept of aufhebung serves as an underlying impetus to my creative work!
Hi Jonas Baes, we are glad that you like our video. Thank you so much, too!
@@PHILOnotes ruclips.net/video/igG9XCoORbY/видео.html
We can't gif it here
I have now understood how the Hegelian thesis of law, relates to that of the understanding of historicism. I never had such a hard time in understanding any philosophical theory than I had in deciphering Hegelian’s. Thanks very much indeed for such a wonderful and worthy elucidation.
Many thanks Mohammed for your wonderful feedback. Cheers!
PHILO-notes cheers.
Excellent summation .
I HAVE SOME CONFUSION ON THIS CONCEPT NOW I HAVE GOT IT.THANK YOU VERY MUCH.
no worries, Etsay. we are glad that you found our videos helpful. we will be uploading more videos soon, after a month of hiatus. all the best then!
Hegelian dialectics in aphoristic style:
You must be ready to burn yourself in your own flame;
how could you rise anew if you have not first become ashes?
Friedrich Nietzsche, Thus Spoke Zarathustra
yeah, great!
@@PHILOnotes 😊
@@siddalingasedamkar1564 thanks
Love that!
U do not manipulate the process in order to create the solution
I think that this is far closer to the maoist interpretation of dialectical materialism than to the original ideas of Hegel as presented in the phenomenology of spirit. As far as I understand it, the dialectic is not said to be a property of the world, but of the way spirit works. It's not the world that is dialectical for Hegel, but the way we come to terms with it necessarily is.
hmmm...okay, thanks
❤️❤️❤️ Hoping for more videos about Hegel's philosophy!
sure, we will make more!
I loved it........ your voice is giving me trance
Many thanks for your inspiring comments, Nani Hobo. Best wishes!
Thank you. It was very easy to understand. Good work.
Thanks too for your very inspiring comments, Bhawana Mishra. We are glad you found our video on Hegel's concept of the dialectic helpful. We wish you all the best!
Great video! Thanks! Helped me in my assignment!
Thank you, Jave!
Beautiful and comprehensible video
Many thanks, Damien, for your sweet and very inspiring comments! Cheers!
Thank you very much maam I understand it better now
No worries, Seth. We are glad you found our videos helpful. Best wishes!
Everyday norm should watch this.....
I thought you were A.I. speaking at first. You speak very clearly and concisely. Thanks for the lesson.
oh thanks, Gypsy, for your very inspiring comments. you're welcome. cheers!
Thanks
no worries, Teacup. best wishes!
I'd like to see a comparison of the Hero's Journey and the Dialectic.
Hi there, I checked out the video transcript and found that you site ‘seeds for its own ineluctable destruction and transformation’ as 'Schmidt, “Existential Ontology”, 15.', but I'm unable to find this work anywhere- it's just a great quote I'm looking to reference, thank you!
hi Abby, please check this link for the source: www.kritike.org/journal/issue_4/ocay_december2008.pdf
What do YOU think? View The Christian Atheist playlist on RUclips here
ruclips.net/user/johnandjennywiseplaylists
It is our mission to uncover and speak TRUTH in the pursuit of meaning, no matter where that takes us.
The Christian Atheist ... To believe or not to believe - that is the question.
I wish I could thank you in person for this..😭😭😭😭❤️
No worries, mate. Best wishes!
Thank you . it made Hegel's dialectical method more clear . @philo notes- please explain the contradiction/negation process .how does it take place ? please explain if possible using examples . in case of seed example what negation initially it had ? What negation do human have ? is negation a quality ? if yes please give some examples of qualities .as per this videos ,Being will be destroyed on actualization of potential(synthesis),what will be destroyed in case this process of negation ,takes place inside human ? what will be destroyed in us ? sorry for long question ,I wanted to make it as clear as possible .
many thanks gaurav for your very inspiring comments. take, for example, a person who always procrastinates. now, when the person decides to change totally and do away with procrastination and become a better person, he destroys his old self, which gives way to a new self, that is, a person who no longer procrastinates. i hope this helps.
Awesome
Thank you!
This is so purely explained.... Sending good wishes from INDIA.
Hi Shikha, many thanks for your kind and sweet comments. Best wishes too!
Very nice video.it is very helpful for me
We're glad to hear that, Aniruddh! Thank you!
yes yes very nice
I am loving your videos. Thanks for making philosophy easy and understandable. Good wishes ! :)
manyt thanks for Rakhshinda Shakir for your very inspiring comments. best wishes!
Great video. How would one apply the dialectic to physical phenomena (i.e. atoms, gravitational fields, stars, radiation, etc.)
many thanks InnocentBystandard69 for your comments. however, we are not in the position to answer your question because we are not familiar with physics or quantum physics. thanks anyway for the question. cheers!
Oh okay. Maybe someone will come along later
@@PHILOnotes
yeah, i hope someone will address that concern. thanks again, InnocentBystandard69.
Did you get am answer yet
It has no application to real wold phenomenon. it is similar to what is taught by Aleister Crowely in using "negativity" to achieve your aims in society and is related to the way Democrats ALWAYS tell the opposite from the truth and ALWAYS blame their political opponents of what THEY THEMSELVES are guilty. It's obviously a political strategy which fools NO ONE anymore, but they still use it because they are disciples of Satan and don't know what else to do.
I am here just because of change in my writing pattern an year ago I used to write Good songs with deep meaning and metaphors but now I am just making catchy hooks and straight bars
Now the problem is previously I got very less views 2 - 3 k a song but now it going like 30 - 50 k a video ya I learnt a lot new rules and tricks for this new kind of music ( new for me at least)
So, Now I want to know where these two totally different personalities of mine will take me what I will be in the near future
Please suggest any other theories or philosophy which can help me
Understand myself better 😇
thanks, Rapper. you may try Freud or Nietzsche. best wishes!
The is video is awesome 😎
Many thanks, Kewl!
Thank you so much! Amazing ideas! By the way, what is the name of the background music?
Sorry, we already forgot the name of the bg music since we're no longer using it in our recent videos :)
Very nice analysis of his theory....
Glad you liked it!
This makes me wonder, if I oppose communism and socialist ideals, should I be taking apart Hegelian ideas?
thank you for sharing.
No worries, Teddy John. We are glad that you found our video on Hegel helpful. We wish you all the best. Cheers!
Hi thank you for your Great Explanation.
You uses essence in two differnt places.
1.esssnece = constant process of change ,of constant negation and not of that which makes a thing truly a thing
2.When it contrdict it self it express its essence.
Does Both place have 2 differnt meaning for Essence
no worries, Kasun. anyway, that means Hegel is not an essentialist. in other words, there is no such thing as "essence" for Hegel that defines every being because everything is in the process of change, of developing its potentialities. i hope this helps.
@@PHILOnotes Thank you for your quick reply. can you eloborate this line ""When it contrdict it self it express its essence."".In this sentences what does word essence mean .pardon my English
@@kasun0071 as mentioned in the video, when Hegel talks about "Wessens" or "essence" in English, he does not refer to that nature or essence that remains contant in beings/things. Hegel refers to the potentiality of beings. For example, the potentiality of a seed to become seedling. In other words, the "essence" of seed is to turn itself into a seedling. So, the use of the word "essence" here is not from the perspective of essentialism. I hope this helps.
@@PHILOnotes Thank you very much
@@kasun0071 no worries, Kasun. cheers!
i love it ! Thanks alot !
No worries, Haider Koreja. We are delighted that you find our video on Hegel's dialectic helpful. We wish you all the best!
Keep making more 💛💛 you made philosophy easy for me
Sure, Haider. We are constantly making videos in philosophy. Cheers!
WOW! Thank you!!!
No worries, Laura! Cheers!
So things have the potential to become other things, but they have to be ready to, and the conditions have to be ripe -- a trivial observation.
furthermore, the tensions are not actually opposites, so we can't clearly identify what a thing will change into. Nor can we say when the change in quantity will become a change in quality, thus in conclusion, things will change into something, we are not sure what, and we don't know when it will happen. This sounds like some pretty weak science. Can somebody clear this up?
yeah, thanks
i've listened to half a dozen explanations of this and I still can't understand it. It is so uninteresting I can't pay attention to it. Everyone has to blabber on for several minutes using the most complicated language they can until they get to a real world example and when they do it doesn't make sense. So frustrated and I have to do an essay about this crap.
Thank you! It took me rewatching and pausing a few times, but now I feel that I finally have a basic understanding of the dialectic. Really appreciate you making this possible through a 9+ min video, so I don't have to watch a 2h long lecture.
thank you too, JustinSeizure, for your very inspiring comments. we wish you all the best!
great music
thanks Del. cheers!
Wonderfully clear! Thank you!
Hegel “never used “ the triad of Being-NonBeing- and Becoming? Check a copy of the Logik.
Yes, I agree. In fact, I explained that in the video lecture.
@@PHILOnotes It was unclear initially but eventually the three categories were encircled as a single unity.
a very attracting and interesting
thanks Michael. cheers!
It's superb mam... But I couldn't understand the portion u say about that proletariat with that image..
Many thanks for your generous comments, DEVI R. We are just pointing out that the proletarians cannot be viewed as the contradiction to the bourgeoisie because, as we learned from Hegel, the contradiction to the bourgeoisie is inherent in the bourgeoisie themselves, for example, their own mistakes and weaknesses. I hope this helps, DEVI R. All the best then!
@@PHILOnotes Where is the line drawn though, for the thing that the dialectic is about, or does it even matter, as in perhaps Hegel's model works in either case?
Is it that the dialectic concerns the bourgeoisie, who are powerful (thesis), have weaknesses (antithesis) and are thus dethroned by the proletariat (synthesis) ... OR ... is it that the dialectic concerns the capitalist society itself, and has the bourgeoisie as the ruling class (thesis), the dissatisfied proletariat as a counterbalance (antithesis) and the overtaking of the bourgeoisie by the proletariat (synthesis)?
Or is it simply, again, the fact that it doesn't matter what "thing" we consider, because the dialectic of that "thing" as proposed by Hegel, will be accurate regardless, I mean, whether we decide to look at the dialectic of the 'thing that is the capitalist society', or at the dialectic of the 'thing that is the bourgeoisie'?
A bear resisting a wolfpack (thesis), becomes old (antithesis), and is eaten (synthesis) ... or if we look at the dialectic of the system which is bear + wolfpack: bear is strong while wolves are few (thesis), bear ages while wolves become greater in numbers (antithesis), wolves eat the bear (synthesis) ....
Hi Daski69, many thanks for your long and very substantial comments. In the first, there is no line that divides Being, Non-Being, and Becoming. As we already mentioned in the video, those three moments are present in the same being. Thus, the idea of "contradiction" is not external to Being. In the case of the bourgeoisie, its contradiction (Non-Being or Antithesis) could refer to the internal contradictions, including its weaknesses, within bourgeoisie itself. Here, the proletariat cannot be the synthesis. As said, the role of the proletariat is to only arrest the situation; indeed, they can only take advantage of the situation. So, the "synthesis" is what the bourgeoisie is going to become (Synthesis or Becoming) after it self-destructs itself. And if one asks what it is, for sure no one can tell. I hope this helps, Daski69.
@@PHILOnotes Thanks for the response.
I wasn't actually referring to a line between Being, Non-Being and Becoming, rather a line between one Being and another Being.
I mean, one could look at the Bourgeoisie as one 'thing', one Being, that has Being, Non-Being and Becoming. The bourgeoisie could be said to contain the three stages within itself. My question is if we instead could consider the entire Capitalist system as one single Being having Being, Non-Being and Becoming, or maybe our whole planet.
My question is where we draw the line between one Being and another. The seed is one Being, having the three stages. I'm wondering if we could expand the limits of one Being, and instead say for example that the ecosystem of the seed is one being. If we define the seed as one Being, then its contradiction cannot be outside of the seed itself, that I understand. But my question is where do we draw the line between one being and another. Would the dialectic not work if we called the seed along with its ecosystem one single Being? Isn't it arbitrary to say that the seed is one Being, period? We could look at a person as a Being, or the entire tribe, or the country, or the continent as one Being. As with the bourgeoisie, what determines that the bourgeoisie is one Being, instead of the whole Capitalist system, or maybe just one person in the bourgeoisie, or just one cell of one of the persons of the bourgeoisie? Where is the circle, that envelopes one Being, drawn? Does it matter even, or would the Dialectic work regardless, wherever we drew the line?
Hope it's clear.
Thank you.
@@Daski69 in my understanding, the dialectic could be applied to all beings, and that means anything that exists, e.g., trees, persons, bourgeoisie, capitalism, etc. Hence, we can consider the whole ecosystem as one being just as all things found in it are individual beings. i think that's how we draw the line between and among all beings. i hope this helps.
Awesome video . Your video is really helpful for new beginners like me👍👍👍
Many thanks for your very inspiring comments, Mark. All the best!
So in a nutshell, hate yourself , then hate the self which hated yourself to become the one who loves youeself ?
the contradiction is fine, but whether it's called love needs further clarification
See how a thinker can present a profound concept and create a following. Hegel basically introduces the life and death drive and represents to me,the world as will and representation whereby the clash of wills is both the antagonist and protagonist in the agency for change/ progress. No one is likely to elect to perish for the sake of progress/ change for the greater good. Especially if we are all equal as a species. And yes human nature does exist in the application of life and death and yes the essence for all living things is to thrive and replace lesser species for more of what it needs to reproduce and diminate. The Proletariat once in power would revert back to power politics and the acquisition of wealth at the expense of the people to ensure it is in a position to continue to negate the population that represents the new dialectics. Hegel is too a matter of fact objective about dialectics as if it occurs organically. Perhaps it does after a considerable amount of time but not without suffering and not necessarily a change for the better.
brilliant thoughts, Marc. cheers!
Can you explain what is the difference between contradiction vs Negation.
they are synonymous in Hegel's dialectic. when being negates itself that means it contradicts itself. hence, in Hegel's dialectic, contradiction implies negation and negation implies contradiction. i hope this helps.
@@PHILOnotes" It s Material realisation was excluded by prevailing form of being" Can you simplify this sentence as well
@@kasun0071 the potentiality of being is not yet actualized in the existing being
If you assume being as resultant of a process (take your pick) as Hegel does, then non-being does not exist rationally and no synthesis can be had. Or?
hmmmm...
Maam can u plz provides a note
hi Lakshmi, what do you exactly mean by "note"?
Full transcript of this video is available at our website, philonotes.com or philonotes.com/index.php/2018/04/11/hegelian-dialectic/ ... if that's what you mean by the "note". :)
Next time just ask for a source not a note, it's less confusing.
Why oh why can people never discuss Hegel without bringing Marx into it.
it's like bread and butter
Can I use this video for educational purpose only as part of my presentation? I am student though
Sure, Ricky. So, go ahead by all means. Glad our video helps. Cheers!
I really think Christianity should more explicitly relate to this. St Paul talks about the seed destroying itself to become the seedling the way the physical body is destroyed to become the spiritual. The father is being, the eternal virginity of Mary represents non-being and Jesus is the *living* word of god unfolding as becoming.
Yeah. Thabks Tj
Here's an experiment in Hegelian Dialectic. Put two sticks of chewing gum in your mouth, and chew until it's at a proper chewing consistency. That's ‘thesis’. Now place a pad of butter in your mouth and chew it into the gum. That's ‘antithesis’. Now do what any sane person would do, spit that Hegelian dialect crap out! .
Couldn't have said it better myself.
Sorry but I can't focus with this music in the foreground.
Sorry too. Because of constructive criticisms like yours, we removed the background music in most of our videos. Apologies for the inconvenience, Krzysztof.
So it isn’t personal animosity?
yeah...
This is a very good explanation of a very bad, and seriously flawed, idea. It reminds me of a story I read 30 years ago about the abysmal quality of new teaching recruits, with one example being an inner-city teacher who told the class that a tadpole was the opposite of a frog. I doubt she got that from Hagel, but they were thinking along the same lines. Not that there is nothing worth salvaging here; at least when considering the universe as a system, it can be argued that its current state completely defines all of its earlier states and that each of those states completely define its current state. But the notion that every being becomes its opposite is a gross oversimplification of the concept of transformation.
full transcript link is not working
oh, we will work on it asap. thanks for the reminder, Fearofthemonster!
hi Fearofthemonster, the full transcript is now available. please visit philonotes.com and then go to the "Other Notes" menu, and go to "Political Philosophy" submenu; there you can find the full transcript. i hope this helps.
Hmm... This state of "non-being" seems to be just the next phase of evolution of something, not really a non-being. However the opposite of human life is his death, not some butterfly. I understand how this might be helpful while looking at capitalism for example, but it seems to be such a narrow look. I suspect that if Hegel was born after Darwin, Hegel would word his theories differently.
yeah, thanks Karol Leszek for your thoughts on the subject.
Thesis is dual to anti-thesis creates converging thesis or synthesis -- the time independent Hegelian dialectic.
Being is dual to non being creates becoming -- The duality of Plato.
Noumenal is dual to phenomenal -- Immanuel Kant.
Hume's fork: Absolute truth is dual to relative truth, the "relation of ideas" is dual to the "matter of facts".
Mind is dual to matter -- Descartes.
First cause (efficient cause) is dual to final cause creates material and formal cause -- Aristotle.
The Hegelian dialectic can be traced back to Socrates (the dialectic method), Plato & Aristotle!
"Philosophy is dead" -- the philosophy or duality of Stephen Hawking.
The subjective opinions, beliefs or 'philosophy' of Stephen Hawking concludes that philosophy is dead.
Stephen Hawking is negating or refuting his own philosophy or contradicting his own ideas -- cognitive dissonance or duality! You cannot use philosophical ideas to refute philosophy this is a logical fallacy.
Schrodinger's cat: Alive (thesis, being) is dual to not alive (anti-thesis, non being) -- Hegel's or Plato's cat.
Schrodinger's cat is based upon the philosophy of Hegel, physicists who use Schrodinger's cat are using philosophical ideas (which are not allowed according to Stephen Hawking).
Gravitation is equivalent or dual to acceleration -- Einstein's happiest thought, the principle of equivalence (duality).
Energy is dual to mass -- Einstein
Dark energy is dual to dark matter.
"Always two there are" -- Yoda.
I love your accent...
Thanks! :)
God does not 'contain within Himself His negation!'
"..unless a kernel of wheat fall to the ground.." 👾
yeah...
Pardon my language but dammit this is a great video!
thank you so much for your generous comments, Domo Roboto! Cheers!
The commentator shouldn't be using the word "idea" around 1:45, since the Idea is the most developed form of the Concept which incorporates empirical reality.
Thank you so much, Traumaturgist. This greatly helps!
Amazing i only had to rewind 2 dif parts at 1 time meaning the parts wouldnt have progressed unless it destroyed its self and then was rewinded into its original form to then be played again at regular speed till it transformed into the next part lol nah lemme stop i really thought this video was awsome and logical
thanks mate
Thesis is dual to anti-thesis creates converging thesis or synthesis -- the time independent Hegelian dialectic.
Being is dual to non being creates becoming -- The duality of Plato.
Noumenal is dual to phenomenal -- Immanuel Kant.
Hume's fork: Absolute truth is dual to relative truth, the "relation of ideas" is dual to the "matter of facts".
Mind is dual to matter -- Descartes.
First cause (efficient cause) is dual to final cause creates material and formal cause -- Aristotle.
The Hegelian dialectic can be traced back to Socrates (the dialectic method), Plato & Aristotle!
"Philosophy is dead" -- the philosophy or duality of Stephen Hawking.
The subjective opinions, beliefs or 'philosophy' of Stephen Hawking concludes that philosophy is dead.
Stephen Hawking is negating or refuting his own philosophy or contradicting his own ideas -- cognitive dissonance or duality! You cannot use philosophical ideas to refute philosophy this is a logical fallacy.
Schrodinger's cat: Alive (thesis, being) is dual to not alive (anti-thesis, non being) -- Hegel's or Plato's cat.
Schrodinger's cat is based upon the philosophy of Hegel, physicists who use Schrodinger's cat are using philosophical ideas (which are not allowed according to Stephen Hawking).
Gravitation is equivalent or dual to acceleration -- Einstein's happiest thought, the principle of equivalence (duality).
Energy is dual to mass -- Einstein
Dark energy is dual to dark matter.
"Always two there are" -- Yoda.
yeah, thanks
@@PHILOnotes Syntropy (prediction) is dual to increasing entropy -- the 4th law of thermodynamics.
"Through imagination and reason we turn experience (knowledge) into foresight (prediction)" -- Spinoza describing syntropy.
Teleological physics is dual to non-teleological physics (entropy).
Randomness (entropy) is dual to order (predictability) -- Shannon's coding theorem.
Optimized predictions are used to track targets and goals, intentionality or teleology.
The conservation of duality (Energy) is the 5th law of thermodynamics.
Energy is duality, duality is energy.
Potential energy is dual to kinetic energy, gravitational energy is dual.
Electro is dual to magnetic, electro magnetic energy is dual.
Pure energy (photons) conform to wave/particle or quantum duality.
Positive charge is dual to negative charge -- electric fields.
Magnets: north poles are dual to south poles.
Thinking or the process of creating thought forms leads to optimizing your predictions -- syntropy, or converging thesis, synthesis (Hegel).
Entropy is dual to evolution (syntropy) -- Janna Levin, physicist. Watch the following:-
ruclips.net/video/SRKSUNkAhqY/видео.html
Utopian Dystopin = Peace
yeah...thanks
So the pathological murderer is not able to be sentenced? Good news for the Reactionaries and Socialists.
Congratulations, you've managed to take Marx's misunderstanding of Hegel... and mystify it.
Many thanks, Stefan! Best wishes!
Thesis is dual to anti-thesis creates converging thesis or synthesis -- the time independent Hegelian dialectic.
Being is dual to non being creates becoming -- The duality of Plato.
Noumenal is dual to phenomenal -- Immanuel Kant.
Hume's fork: Absolute truth is dual to relative truth, the "relation of ideas" is dual to the "matter of facts".
Mind is dual to matter -- Descartes.
First cause (efficient cause) is dual to final cause creates material and formal cause -- Aristotle.
The Hegelian dialectic can be traced back to Socrates (the dialectic method), Plato & Aristotle!
"Philosophy is dead" -- the philosophy or duality of Stephen Hawking.
The subjective opinions, beliefs or 'philosophy' of Stephen Hawking concludes that philosophy is dead.
Stephen Hawking is negating or refuting his own philosophy or contradicting his own ideas -- cognitive dissonance or duality! You cannot use philosophical ideas to refute philosophy this is a logical fallacy.
Schrodinger's cat: Alive (thesis, being) is dual to not alive (anti-thesis, non being) -- Hegel's or Plato's cat.
Schrodinger's cat is based upon the philosophy of Hegel, physicists who use Schrodinger's cat are using philosophical ideas (which are not allowed according to Stephen Hawking).
Gravitation is equivalent or dual to acceleration -- Einstein's happiest thought, the principle of equivalence (duality).
Energy is dual to mass -- Einstein
Dark energy is dual to dark matter.
"Always two there are" -- Yoda.
@@hyperduality2838 _"Hegelian dialectic"_
...is not in Hegel. It's in Fichte. But Marx didn't know that. Which means Marx didn't read Hegel.
@@StefanTravis The British empire was/is based upon the Hegelian dialectic and this evolved into the American empire!
Being is dual to non-being synthesizes becoming -- Plato.
Hegel stole the dialectic method from Plato who in turn got it from the Socratic method, he stole it from the Greeks!
Potential energy is dual to kinetic energy.
Apples fall to the ground because they are conserving duality.
The conservation of duality is the 5th law of thermodynamics.
Energy is duality, duality is energy.
Duality creates reality.
"Always two there are" -- Yoda.
@@hyperduality2838 When Poe's law applies to the marxist theory of everything....
Oh no…not Marcuses interpretation
Will someone give me 10 examples of anything that is it’s own negation?
anything that you can see around you, including yourself, is an example of a determinate being that negates (contradicts) itself.
religion and irreligion
Thesis is dual to anti-thesis creates converging thesis or synthesis -- the time independent Hegelian dialectic.
Being is dual to non being creates becoming -- The duality of Plato.
Noumenal is dual to phenomenal -- Immanuel Kant.
Hume's fork: Absolute truth is dual to relative truth, the "relation of ideas" is dual to the "matter of facts".
Mind is dual to matter -- Descartes.
First cause (efficient cause) is dual to final cause creates material and formal cause -- Aristotle.
The Hegelian dialectic can be traced back to Socrates (the dialectic method), Plato & Aristotle!
"Philosophy is dead" -- the philosophy or duality of Stephen Hawking.
The subjective opinions, beliefs or 'philosophy' of Stephen Hawking concludes that philosophy is dead.
Stephen Hawking is negating or refuting his own philosophy or contradicting his own ideas -- cognitive dissonance or duality! You cannot use philosophical ideas to refute philosophy this is a logical fallacy.
Schrodinger's cat: Alive (thesis, being) is dual to not alive (anti-thesis, non being) -- Hegel's or Plato's cat.
Schrodinger's cat is based upon the philosophy of Hegel, physicists who use Schrodinger's cat are using philosophical ideas (which are not allowed according to Stephen Hawking).
Gravitation is equivalent or dual to acceleration -- Einstein's happiest thought, the principle of equivalence (duality).
Energy is dual to mass -- Einstein
Dark energy is dual to dark matter.
"Always two there are" -- Yoda.
2020?
yeah?
Wait: A seed is a mechanism for producing a tree, not the negation of a tree or the opposite of a tree. Feudalism, as an economic example, is negated to create Mercantilism but they are not opposites. Capitalism is not a stratified hierarchy as in the illustration, while socialism is. Capitalism is an infinitely complex network of relationships where even low level workers get dividends through shared ownership in the means of production. Investing is like a second job to some workers. Bus drivers can retire with assets over $1 million if they work at it.
Hi Ed. Farr, thank you for your comments. Please note though that we did not say that the seed is a negation of the tree. Again, negation or contradiction is internal to being. Hence, the negation of the seed comes the its internal and complex dynamics. And once the seed contradicts (negates) itself, it will give way (Becoming/Synthesis) to the seedling, and when the seedling contradicts (negates) itself, it will give way to a tree. I hope this helps. Cheers!
😶 maybe this is not for an amateur like me..i will come back later..or not..
no worriesm Abdulssalam. best wishes!
@@PHILOnotes thanks. 💓
@@truthseeker7041 ;-)
Hegel was a Nihilist then?
No
My guess, Hegel didn't have any relationship with the living God
yeah, maybe.
Who is markussi?
is it marxs or markussi? on the caption it says markussi. what is the correct? please enlight me.
it's Herbert Marcuse. Karl Marx is another philosopher
awful ly wordy...meant nothing - watching this killed me...and at 6:50 the characterization of self destruction is unnatural & objectionable. The seed DOES NOT SELF DESTRUCT IT ONLY TRANSFORMS OR METAMORPHIZES...OR EVOLVES.
We, at PHILO-notes, totally respect the thoughts of our viewers. :) Thanks a lot for taking the time to watch our video and express your self. Cheers! :)
D minus.
...
hi Kezziah!
Anybody understand this gibberish?
many of us do. thanks.
@@PHILOnotes Forgive me for being rude. But it just seemed as though the narrator was speaking in circles.
@@mikeJohnson2222 it's fine. but that's really the nature of philosophy, especially Hegel's.