your comments on philosophies of otherness being slavish, dangerous and atomizing spoke to me. it was really touching to hear someone else echo such a woefully unpopular opinion which I sometimes feel alone in, with the same amount of hostility and passion.
I am slowly making my way through the SoL and whenever it gets tough it’s great to know I can return to these introductions, and especially this video, for affirmation and inspiration
Thank you for the compliment. I try my best, and no one else had done what I have, so I figured it was up to me to make what I had wished had been there when I started.
I disagree on the discussion of freedom in Indian philosophy as focusing on negative kind of freedom. The Brahmanical and Buddhist traditions do talk about negative freedom, but this is what is thoroughly criticized by Tantric traditions. Abhinavagupta totally criticised the patanjala yoga systems for meditation for its negative tendencies, Quoting Torella "withdrawing the senses from their objects results in reinforcing the bondage instead of loosening it, in that it suggests the idea that consciousness resides in some places and not in other". Mark Dyczkowski, said if Advaita is freedom from Maya, then Pratyabhijna system is about freedom through the maya. Plus, the whole intellectual sphere around 9th century Kashmir was inspired around the positive aspects of freedom which culminated in Abhinavagupta hyper-existential intellectual attitude. Plus, the metaphysical idealism which they propounded has freedom as the core concept(Svatantrayavada). Utpaladeva participates in hindu-buddhist dialogue by criticising both by saying that the theory of identity they have is itself wrong. Consciousness is not this inert pure atman, instead what makes it different is its plasticity. It can be anything yet be itself, that is its freedom. A rock becoming soil loses its identity of being a rock, consciousness cannot. This freedom to become anything was the core doctrine of the intellectual movement of Kashmiri tantric traditions. I think that parallel tantric and even other philosophical schools might have diverse thinking, just that Kashmiri intellectuals were at par with brahmins-buddhist in their intellectual involvement.
@@AntonioWolfphilosophy I have to admit, I have been coming back to this specific video twice just because of this thought of teaching Hegel's ideas of the science of logic during the standard education. Now I made a note, I hope I will not forget it later in life. Who knows where this thought will end up. I don't have any intentions in going towards shaping education though, but maybe the thought will be passed on nonetheless.
I thought Levinas' philosophy was somewhat twisted what with its obsession with a purely negative "freedom of the other from me", reducing all positively-productive activity of spirit to the realm of the same (not sure if that's what it's called in the English translation, in German it's das Selbe). Would you mind going into some more depth as to where exactly you think the problem can be located in the way the other is conceptualized? Or do you think giving a purely negative notion this much of a central place in a philosophy automatically turns it into a kind of empty, all-encompassing scepticism? Really cool idea for an online reading circle, I'll try to catch up with these videos so I can participate at least to some extent.
The issue with Levinas's view of the other is that he cannot even let it *be* other. He can only let it be an infinite indeterminate abstraction, not a concrete other which would appear to me as an infinite individuality with a rich internal life (whether I comprehended it or not). This produces a very lonely world in which no one ever knows anyone, God cannot be known by us, nor in turn can God know us (but Levinas surely makes the exception that God may achieve the unintelligible and impossible).
your comments on philosophies of otherness being slavish, dangerous and atomizing spoke to me. it was really touching to hear someone else echo such a woefully unpopular opinion which I sometimes feel alone in, with the same amount of hostility and passion.
I am slowly making my way through the SoL and whenever it gets tough it’s great to know I can return to these introductions, and especially this video, for affirmation and inspiration
Antonio Wolf is by far the best on Hegel. He makes all other almost irrelevant. Thank you so much. Going beyond this you must be able to read German.
Thank you for the compliment. I try my best, and no one else had done what I have, so I figured it was up to me to make what I had wished had been there when I started.
I disagree on the discussion of freedom in Indian philosophy as focusing on negative kind of freedom. The Brahmanical and Buddhist traditions do talk about negative freedom, but this is what is thoroughly criticized by Tantric traditions. Abhinavagupta totally criticised the patanjala yoga systems for meditation for its negative tendencies, Quoting Torella "withdrawing the senses from their objects results in reinforcing the bondage instead of
loosening it, in that it suggests the idea that consciousness resides
in some places and not in other". Mark Dyczkowski, said if Advaita is freedom from Maya, then Pratyabhijna system is about freedom through the maya. Plus, the whole intellectual sphere around 9th century Kashmir was inspired around the positive aspects of freedom which culminated in Abhinavagupta hyper-existential intellectual attitude. Plus, the metaphysical idealism which they propounded has freedom as the core concept(Svatantrayavada).
Utpaladeva participates in hindu-buddhist dialogue by criticising both by saying that the theory of identity they have is itself wrong. Consciousness is not this inert pure atman, instead what makes it different is its plasticity. It can be anything yet be itself, that is its freedom. A rock becoming soil loses its identity of being a rock, consciousness cannot. This freedom to become anything was the core doctrine of the intellectual movement of Kashmiri tantric traditions.
I think that parallel tantric and even other philosophical schools might have diverse thinking, just that Kashmiri intellectuals were at par with brahmins-buddhist in their intellectual involvement.
Good points, and I'll look into Indian philosophy eventually.
Thanks Antonio, will watch this attentively!! Good luck with the rest of your reading of Science of logic!!
What a banger series. Would tap dis Logic.
I wished I had learned this book over the course of my childhood education. One can only hope for future generations
Yeah, it's a kind of thinking that really would do well in a very drawn out and rich education.
@@AntonioWolfphilosophy I have to admit, I have been coming back to this specific video twice just because of this thought of teaching Hegel's ideas of the science of logic during the standard education. Now I made a note, I hope I will not forget it later in life. Who knows where this thought will end up. I don't have any intentions in going towards shaping education though, but maybe the thought will be passed on nonetheless.
@@LibertarianLeninistRants "maybe the thought will be passed on..."
...And it has, as I and others, will come upon. ☺️
im learning it in my early 20's so ur hope is well-directed :)
@@AntonioWolfphilosophy thanks for educating~!!
I thought Levinas' philosophy was somewhat twisted what with its obsession with a purely negative "freedom of the other from me", reducing all positively-productive activity of spirit to the realm of the same (not sure if that's what it's called in the English translation, in German it's das Selbe).
Would you mind going into some more depth as to where exactly you think the problem can be located in the way the other is conceptualized? Or do you think giving a purely negative notion this much of a central place in a philosophy automatically turns it into a kind of empty, all-encompassing scepticism?
Really cool idea for an online reading circle, I'll try to catch up with these videos so I can participate at least to some extent.
The issue with Levinas's view of the other is that he cannot even let it *be* other. He can only let it be an infinite indeterminate abstraction, not a concrete other which would appear to me as an infinite individuality with a rich internal life (whether I comprehended it or not). This produces a very lonely world in which no one ever knows anyone, God cannot be known by us, nor in turn can God know us (but Levinas surely makes the exception that God may achieve the unintelligible and impossible).
thanks man, really cool project!
Congratulations .. Very ambitious project of yours .. not easy .. but sciences of logic deserves I guess
What will the schedule of this be?
Thank you Antonio!!
Starts at 6:50
does it now?
@@handyhandetohandle dont believe me, im a true liar...
@@yacine_mkhlf I can believe that! Or can I?