The point of the self-fulfilment in you enriching my experience through these videos hasn't eluded me. Thanks again for that! I will "work" on it. I see that you, me, Hegel, or Einstein in regards to an existential angst or crisis really really really(zoolander) desire the grasp of some Unified Theory (that Hegel's science). You should be close to my age as of now; and now as I read something I wrote some years ago, the one thought that stands out is "did I really know that??". My confession now is, that I haven't read little to no Philosophical text, other than some Maimonedes. I'll go back and read this.
Heisenberg: "[In modern physics[ one has now divided the world not into different groups of objects but into different groups of connections...What can be distinguished is the kind of connection which is primarily important in a certain phenomenon."
It's unfortunate that Hegel -- who was interested in pretty much everything he could get his hands on at the time -- died close to two centuries ago. Who knows what he'd have made of many newer developments (the same goes for Aristotle and Thomas Aquinas)
I see the interchange and overlap of the terminology but yet see the antithesis of their distinction as well. It's so strange how a native or learned language influences thought and reality. This is expanding my view of recursion already🙂
I am getting quite confused by the terminology here. Before proceeding, some clarifications are necessary. The terms in question are the following: I - substance - essence - being - subject - the self - object - notion Hegel in this paragraph seems to imply the following: There is a distinction, the negative, in consciousness between the ‘I’ and substance. Substance is the object of the ‘I’, in other words: substance = object. Therefore negativity, initially, is the disparity between the ‘I’ and the object as well as substance with itself or what seems to be the same the object with itself. Substance which is object shows itself to be essentially subject. Substance=object=subject and therefore =’I’ The spirit made his existence into parity with its essence. Existence = essence Spirit (you also used being?) has made its existence (Dasein) identical with its essence, it is object to itself. He seems to say that essence and object in this case are the same? Being is the property of the ‘I’ it is the concept. Being=Concept The negative is the self (which is the ‘I’). The spirit’s object is spirit itself I am looking for a simplification of what is said but the complexity of the matter is just absolutely overwhelming. It seems that terms start out in a certain way but then become something else and in the end everything seems to become one. I=substance=object=subject=self=negativity, Spirit=essence=existence, Being belongs to the I and is equal with concept. I am probably somewhat wrong here, but my confusion cannot only be mine since we are all together in this adventure or struggle of the spirit. I consulted Michael Inwood’s Hegel Dictionary, but unfortunately that did not help much. What mainly concerned me was the definition of: I - substance - essence - being. I = I , both because self-identity is all that can be ascribed to it, and because it is essentially self-reflexive: it exists only in virtue of, and produces itself by, its awareness of itself. I-awareness is both necessary and sufficient for one to be (or have) an I. Thus the I is not a THING or SUBSTANCE. The I is at bottom identical to the universal thoughts or concepts that it deploys: I cannot coherently distance myself from my thoughts. The ‘I’ or subject requires an object distinct from itself. Substance - Matter, a persisting independent thing, the persisting essence of a thing, property. It contrasts with the subject, the concept and Spirit. The absolute is both subject and substance, substance becomes subject. Substance appears in its accidents they are its appearance. Essence - A being, entity, the essential nature of a thing in contrast to its appearance. it is correlative to the understanding. It contrasts with appearance but then moves to parity with it. Being becomes essence. In short Hegel has a whole range of uses of essence. The difference between essence and substance is not entirely clear to me. Being - Refers to the being or existence of things in general. It is in contrast to essence and the concept. It denotes the immediate surface features of things, both qualitative and quantitative, in contrast to their inner essence and their conceptual structure. It is the antithesis of thinking and the concept. To apply being to anything is simply to say that it is, without ascribing to it any qualitative determinacy. Being amounts to nothing, being and nothing each become the other and constitute the concept of becoming. Becoming collapses into Dasein. What I am trying to reach here, if possible, is: A simple definition of the terms. How this terms relate to each other and to me How they evolve or change during the movement of the self (the negative and/or Logic, speculative philosophy?) of the phenomenology. Any help would be appreciated. Thanks.
You just don't get simple definitions in Hegelian philosophy. So, yes, you'll need to go over the text multiple times, and follow out the process of dynamic thought -- which doesn't necessarily stay fixed. It's tough, but there are no shortcuts
maybe a tangential q, but is 'knowledge-production' a defensible translation of 'wissenschaft', or a helpful way to think of it outside our connotations of 'science'?
I'm not sure I am completely clear on objectivity vs knowing, if I understand it right, he means knowing= subjective appropriation, objectivity= something like kants noumena except that it CAN be known eventually. p.s. I just bought the miller translation (randomly sandwiched between Badiou, Foucault, Baudrillard and Sartre in the store)..finally.
Gregory B. Sadler When I hear you talk about the second paragraph here, I can't help but sense a bit of an origin to Postmodernism here, talking about different "shapes of consciousness". Now I don't really "know" postmodernism per se, and explanations are often not very good, but isn't a central point of Postmodernism that you retain multiple frameworks of ideas or multiple perspectives all at once in order to generate some kind of integrated "whole" of many wholes that works better than having fragmented "wholes" trying to compete for domination? Could Hegel be a source for an origin of Postmodernity? What do you think, what pops into your head when you read me?
Well, Hegel is certainly someone important in post-modern theory, but it is tough to say just what "post-modern" means, since those who like to use it often do so with varied senses. There is one thing that they do tend to agree upon, though, and that is rejecting any sort of integrated perspectives. Thanks for the contribution!
if I analyze the completed loaf of bread with a knife I will never find the process by which bread is made. I will only have sliced bread. to know the bread you must bake a loaf. buying bread will not make you understand bread. stapling the slices together, even if one gets the series correct still will not teach one how to bake. to know oneself as a baker comes in understanding the steps in baking bread, and having real loaves. Preface, sec 35-36 thank you
Jurgen Moltmann is one Christian theologian who appropriated the dialectical process in his theology effectively. I think that Christianity has not overcome its Platonic shell.
Hi, it is v difficult to commit to this series in the full knowledge that one does not agree with its premise, viz. Geist [and most other abstract nouns in the book] Nevertheless duty, in the interests of a knowledge of the " history of ideas", calls. Thnx for these v. helpful vids and the text [which, were, b.t.y. going to be my way of reading the book but this has turned out to be impractical as regards the computer, necessitating , finally, a modest outlay for the aforementioned book.] Thnx again.
I don't see why you need "commit" to the series -- that's what's nice about RUclips. I shoot them, and then, if you want, you watch when you decide (I expect that there will be some people starting the series ten years from now. . . ) Yes, it's fortunately a relatively cheap translation of the book. If you want to get the most out of it, though, the book should be the primary focus, not the videos. He intended it to be read moving from paragraph to paragraph, just like we'd do with ordinary books
we love god with the love he left behind. When we love god, the love we have for god is really gods love for us. our eros is gods agape. whle I am not god, and god is not I, my eros for god is the continuity between between I and god. this limit between myself and god is the demarcation that marks the continuity and distinction between us. this limit that divides and unites (like how one fence makes two yards) makes three elements in the continuity . me, the fence that marks my terminus and the terminus of the other, and the other. the totality of the three in one is the reality of mans relation ot god, and gods relation to man. Am I Hegelian? Am I a heretic? Preface, sec 37 thank you
This gets weird when you look at it from Marxist point of view, like, the working class had its best interests alienated from it, via capitalism, then from this position, the currrent ideology needs to be made alien, so that the working class can re-incorporate its best interests to itself by mediating it through marxism. I know I am mixing together Hegel and Marx here sloppily.
The sixteenth video in the series on Hegel's Phenomenology -- we're now passing the halfway point of the Preface.
Yes, that's the plan -- the whole Phenomenology
Thank you for not skipping any paragraphs, good sir.
You’re welcome!
He uses the word "Gegenstand". It is really nice how that word fits into what he tries to say.
The point of the self-fulfilment in you enriching my experience through these videos hasn't eluded me. Thanks again for that! I will "work" on it. I see that you, me, Hegel, or Einstein in regards to an existential angst or crisis really really really(zoolander) desire the grasp of some Unified Theory (that Hegel's science). You should be close to my age as of now; and now as I read something I wrote some years ago, the one thought that stands out is "did I really know that??". My confession now is, that I haven't read little to no Philosophical text, other than some Maimonedes. I'll go back and read this.
I enjoy the scribbles and spirals.
Well, good thing someone does!
hegel as kabbalist and dialectics as many unfurling ilanot
Heisenberg: "[In modern physics[ one has now divided the world not into different groups of objects but into different groups of connections...What can be distinguished is the kind of connection which is primarily important in a certain phenomenon."
It's unfortunate that Hegel -- who was interested in pretty much everything he could get his hands on at the time -- died close to two centuries ago. Who knows what he'd have made of many newer developments (the same goes for Aristotle and Thomas Aquinas)
I see the interchange and overlap of the terminology but yet see the antithesis of their distinction as well. It's so strange how a native or learned language influences thought and reality. This is expanding my view of recursion already🙂
“You are not a drop in the ocean. You are the entire ocean in a drop.”
― Rumi
i'm so interested in understanding or seeing further into what he meant by the negative!
We will definitely NOT be learning more about the negative in sessions coming up -- or rather, not Not. . . . .
I am getting quite confused by the terminology here. Before proceeding, some clarifications are necessary. The terms in question are the following:
I - substance - essence - being - subject - the self - object - notion
Hegel in this paragraph seems to imply the following:
There is a distinction, the negative, in consciousness between the ‘I’ and substance.
Substance is the object of the ‘I’, in other words: substance = object.
Therefore negativity, initially, is the disparity between the ‘I’ and the object as well as substance with itself or what seems to be the same the object with itself.
Substance which is object shows itself to be essentially subject. Substance=object=subject and therefore =’I’
The spirit made his existence into parity with its essence. Existence = essence
Spirit (you also used being?) has made its existence (Dasein) identical with its essence, it is object to itself. He seems to say that essence and object in this case are the same?
Being is the property of the ‘I’ it is the concept. Being=Concept
The negative is the self (which is the ‘I’). The spirit’s object is spirit itself
I am looking for a simplification of what is said but the complexity of the matter is just absolutely overwhelming. It seems that terms start out in a certain way but then become something else and in the end everything seems to become one. I=substance=object=subject=self=negativity, Spirit=essence=existence, Being belongs to the I and is equal with concept. I am probably somewhat wrong here, but my confusion cannot only be mine since we are all together in this adventure or struggle of the spirit.
I consulted Michael Inwood’s Hegel Dictionary, but unfortunately that did not help much. What mainly concerned me was the definition of:
I - substance - essence - being.
I = I , both because self-identity is all that can be ascribed to it, and because it is essentially self-reflexive: it exists only in virtue of, and produces itself by, its awareness of itself. I-awareness is both necessary and sufficient for one to be (or have) an I. Thus the I is not a THING or SUBSTANCE. The I is at bottom identical to the universal thoughts or concepts that it deploys: I cannot coherently distance myself from my thoughts. The ‘I’ or subject requires an object distinct from itself.
Substance - Matter, a persisting independent thing, the persisting essence of a thing, property. It contrasts with the subject, the concept and Spirit. The absolute is both subject and substance, substance becomes subject. Substance appears in its accidents they are its appearance.
Essence - A being, entity, the essential nature of a thing in contrast to its appearance. it is correlative to the understanding. It contrasts with appearance but then moves to parity with it. Being becomes essence. In short Hegel has a whole range of uses of essence. The difference between essence and substance is not entirely clear to me.
Being - Refers to the being or existence of things in general. It is in contrast to essence and the concept. It denotes the immediate surface features of things, both qualitative and quantitative, in contrast to their inner essence and their conceptual structure. It is the antithesis of thinking and the concept. To apply being to anything is simply to say that it is, without ascribing to it any qualitative determinacy. Being amounts to nothing, being and nothing each become the other and constitute the concept of becoming. Becoming collapses into Dasein.
What I am trying to reach here, if possible, is:
A simple definition of the terms.
How this terms relate to each other and to me
How they evolve or change during the movement of the self (the negative and/or Logic, speculative philosophy?) of the phenomenology.
Any help would be appreciated.
Thanks.
You just don't get simple definitions in Hegelian philosophy. So, yes, you'll need to go over the text multiple times, and follow out the process of dynamic thought -- which doesn't necessarily stay fixed. It's tough, but there are no shortcuts
I'm still far away from completing this book, but what further readings would you recommend on Phenomenology of Spirit?
I'd say Hyppolite is a good companion piece - amzn.to/2zVdyXB
Thank you very much!
Thanks
You’re welcome
maybe a tangential q, but is 'knowledge-production' a defensible translation of 'wissenschaft', or a helpful way to think of it outside our connotations of 'science'?
No, not really
As in psychosis. the subject hears a voice as something external, but it is part of himself. but, the psychotic does not reconcile
I'm not sure I am completely clear on objectivity vs knowing, if I understand it right, he means knowing= subjective appropriation, objectivity= something like kants noumena except that it CAN be known eventually.
p.s. I just bought the miller translation (randomly sandwiched between Badiou, Foucault, Baudrillard and Sartre in the store)..finally.
Gregory B. Sadler When I hear you talk about the second paragraph here, I can't help but sense a bit of an origin to Postmodernism here, talking about different "shapes of consciousness". Now I don't really "know" postmodernism per se, and explanations are often not very good, but isn't a central point of Postmodernism that you retain multiple frameworks of ideas or multiple perspectives all at once in order to generate some kind of integrated "whole" of many wholes that works better than having fragmented "wholes" trying to compete for domination?
Could Hegel be a source for an origin of Postmodernity? What do you think, what pops into your head when you read me?
btw, finally got my PayPal to work! So finally I got to ship off that 5 dollar drink for you xD
Well, Hegel is certainly someone important in post-modern theory, but it is tough to say just what "post-modern" means, since those who like to use it often do so with varied senses. There is one thing that they do tend to agree upon, though, and that is rejecting any sort of integrated perspectives.
Thanks for the contribution!
Ah, okay, thank you x)
if I analyze the completed loaf of bread with a knife I will never find the process by which bread is made. I will only have sliced bread. to know the bread you must bake a loaf. buying bread will not make you understand bread. stapling the slices together, even if one gets the series correct still will not teach one how to bake. to know oneself as a baker comes in understanding the steps in baking bread, and having real loaves.
Preface, sec 35-36 thank you
That's an interesting analogy. I'll have to share that one with some of the culinary students I run into
Jurgen Moltmann is one Christian theologian who appropriated the dialectical process in his theology effectively. I think that Christianity has not overcome its Platonic shell.
Hi, it is v difficult to commit to this series in the full knowledge that one does not agree with its premise, viz. Geist [and most other abstract nouns in the book] Nevertheless duty, in the interests of a knowledge of the " history of ideas", calls. Thnx for these v. helpful vids and the text [which, were, b.t.y. going to be my way of reading the book but this has turned out to be impractical as regards the computer, necessitating , finally, a modest outlay for the aforementioned book.] Thnx again.
I don't see why you need "commit" to the series -- that's what's nice about RUclips. I shoot them, and then, if you want, you watch when you decide (I expect that there will be some people starting the series ten years from now. . . )
Yes, it's fortunately a relatively cheap translation of the book. If you want to get the most out of it, though, the book should be the primary focus, not the videos. He intended it to be read moving from paragraph to paragraph, just like we'd do with ordinary books
we love god with the love he left behind. When we love god, the love we have for god is really gods love for us. our eros is gods agape. whle I am not god, and god is not I, my eros for god is the continuity between between I and god. this limit between myself and god is the demarcation that marks the continuity and distinction between us. this limit that divides and unites (like how one fence makes two yards) makes three elements in the continuity . me, the fence that marks my terminus and the terminus of the other, and the other. the totality of the three in one is the reality of mans relation ot god, and gods relation to man. Am I Hegelian? Am I a heretic?
Preface, sec 37 thank you
This gets weird when you look at it from Marxist point of view, like, the working class had its best interests alienated from it, via capitalism, then from this position, the currrent ideology needs to be made alien, so that the working class can re-incorporate its best interests to itself by mediating it through marxism. I know I am mixing together Hegel and Marx here sloppily.
+lyndon bailey Well, it's certainly an adaptation, rather than straight out Hegel, that's for certain