I couple years ago I began to really become enamoured by the concept of recursion. I started to learn Haskell language just to "see" the concept. I was listening to Arthur Holmes' history and the spiel about Hegel. It hit me like a brickwall. I mean I listened to Sam Harris describe reality etc. but hearing Hegel describe reality as something like a flowing dynamism I was beside myself. Now I have recursion in a dynamism! I feel like I'm starting off on the Appalachian Trail of Philosophy.
This section of the Preface really struck me, because it clarifies both how Hegel influenced Husserl, and where Husserl departs (based on my partial understanding of later phenomenology). The idea of how the ancients philosophized, encountering every phenomenon directly, is part of what Husserl wants us to recover in Die Krisis, in order to make all of Wissenschaft scientific again - transcending narrow scientism and reclaiming die Sache of philosophy, a comprehensive philosophy of all human endeavour, something we allegedly lost since Galilei. This seems to build on Hegel's understanding of the history of ideas, while also departing from Hegel, since the (supposed) ancient way of philosophizing is not a moment in historical consciousness unfolding, but rather something lost in a less dialectic way - history is moving in the wrong direction, and does not build on its past foundation. Philosophy has obscured Geist, rather than being its vehicle. Many of Hegel's presuppositions would be bracketed in Husserl's radical shift back towards the immediate, but there is also Husserl's paradoxical systematizing (for all his bracketing) and I start to see a ghost of Hegel there... I am noting this to see whether or not these thoughts make sense, or whether I have to revise all of this, as I get further into the Phenomenology of Spirit. Thank you for the lectures!
That's pretty late Husserl stuff.Earlier Husserl isn't really influenced by Hegel, and what they're calling by the same term "phenomenology" isn't really the same sort of approach. That notion of "transcending narrow scientism and reclaiming die Sache of philosophy, a comprehensive philosophy of all human endeavour", there's lots of people in the 19th and 20th century besides Hegel and Husserl doing that
@@GregoryBSadler Thank you for taking the time to answer, Dr. Sadler! I am reading Hegel because until now, there has been a large Hegel-sized gap in my education. With so many later thinkers wrestling with him, I can't really access their thought fully without knowing what they are up against. You are certainly right - I didn't mean to imply that Husserlian phenomenology builds on Hegelian phenomenology, I am rather trying to contrast their respective turns towards phenomena, and see what the differences are. The only writings of Husserl I have studied in-depth are Krisis and Cartesian Meditations, and the latter has none of this stuff, as you say. This is more Krisis stuff, and a lot of that went over my head. Are there any other interesting thinkers you could recommend from this time period who are sceptical towards scientism, and pursuing alternative understandings of science?
@@GregoryBSadlerMany thanks, I only really new Bergson out of these, and have yet to read him, but he is being consistently nudged up my list. If only we had three more lifetimes to spend reading...
i like around 3min - when you say, "it is able to estrange itself, or extricate itself" from the matrix which it belongs to- so this would be- 'over-against itself ' /i've read that term before, and that helped me to clarify it and imagine what this means
It means to be able to remove oneself from the realm of dogmatic routine, and to have the dialectic notion of self-reflection from the current age of abstraction of the dynamic pure universality of self-movement in order to examine/re-correct oneself.
Hegel and Kierkegaard have some similar notion which is to de-familiarize the norms that has been established by the current age of abstraction from the dynamic pure universality of self-movement of the a priori and a posteri. Slight differences are the ability to break down/reduction of the whole into "I" reflecting the "concept," and the dialectic nature of self-reflection into the rigorous fixed yet dynamic notion of universality (Hegel), and the notion of self-authentication of the truth into one's own life (subjectivity of the truth in Kierkegaard's term)
Hegel focused on providing a rigorous framework for scientific methodology to operate in secular society whereas Kierkegaard focused on Christianity which grounds all things and via the Socratic method in appropriating the truth in our life. Hegel regards history as perpetual whereby the self-movement and the essence of the universality in that particular era can be brought forth to the next era whereas Kierkegaard believed that history is meaningless if it devoid the objective nature of a priori and a posteri truth, and notion found in the society. Kierkegaard does not believe to critic for the sake of criticizing but however like Socratic, he is trying to rid the dogmatic notion of tradition that are self-refuting and ingenuinous.
Except that they are written -- when it comes down to whether things can be conceptualized, articulated, communicated or not, you'll find Hegel coming down consistently on the side of Yes
![Twenty One Pilots - “The Line” (from Arcane Season 2) [Official Music Video]](http://i.ytimg.com/vi/E2Rj2gQAyPA/mqdefault.jpg)
I couple years ago I began to really become enamoured by the concept of recursion. I started to learn Haskell language just to "see" the concept. I was listening to Arthur Holmes' history and the spiel about Hegel. It hit me like a brickwall. I mean I listened to Sam Harris describe reality etc. but hearing Hegel describe reality as something like a flowing dynamism I was beside myself. Now I have recursion in a dynamism! I feel like I'm starting off on the Appalachian Trail of Philosophy.
The next installation of the series -- almost at the halfway point of the Preface
Preface, sec 33-34 thank you
This section of the Preface really struck me, because it clarifies both how Hegel influenced Husserl, and where Husserl departs (based on my partial understanding of later phenomenology). The idea of how the ancients philosophized, encountering every phenomenon directly, is part of what Husserl wants us to recover in Die Krisis, in order to make all of Wissenschaft scientific again - transcending narrow scientism and reclaiming die Sache of philosophy, a comprehensive philosophy of all human endeavour, something we allegedly lost since Galilei. This seems to build on Hegel's understanding of the history of ideas, while also departing from Hegel, since the (supposed) ancient way of philosophizing is not a moment in historical consciousness unfolding, but rather something lost in a less dialectic way - history is moving in the wrong direction, and does not build on its past foundation. Philosophy has obscured Geist, rather than being its vehicle. Many of Hegel's presuppositions would be bracketed in Husserl's radical shift back towards the immediate, but there is also Husserl's paradoxical systematizing (for all his bracketing) and I start to see a ghost of Hegel there... I am noting this to see whether or not these thoughts make sense, or whether I have to revise all of this, as I get further into the Phenomenology of Spirit. Thank you for the lectures!
That's pretty late Husserl stuff.Earlier Husserl isn't really influenced by Hegel, and what they're calling by the same term "phenomenology" isn't really the same sort of approach.
That notion of "transcending narrow scientism and reclaiming die Sache of philosophy, a comprehensive philosophy of all human endeavour", there's lots of people in the 19th and 20th century besides Hegel and Husserl doing that
@@GregoryBSadler Thank you for taking the time to answer, Dr. Sadler! I am reading Hegel because until now, there has been a large Hegel-sized gap in my education. With so many later thinkers wrestling with him, I can't really access their thought fully without knowing what they are up against. You are certainly right - I didn't mean to imply that Husserlian phenomenology builds on Hegelian phenomenology, I am rather trying to contrast their respective turns towards phenomena, and see what the differences are. The only writings of Husserl I have studied in-depth are Krisis and Cartesian Meditations, and the latter has none of this stuff, as you say. This is more Krisis stuff, and a lot of that went over my head. Are there any other interesting thinkers you could recommend from this time period who are sceptical towards scientism, and pursuing alternative understandings of science?
There are many. Maurice Blondel, Henri Bergson, Gabriel Marcel, Max Scheler. That's enough to get you started, I think
@@GregoryBSadlerMany thanks, I only really new Bergson out of these, and have yet to read him, but he is being consistently nudged up my list. If only we had three more lifetimes to spend reading...
i like around 3min - when you say, "it is able to estrange itself, or extricate itself" from the matrix which it belongs to- so this would be- 'over-against itself ' /i've read that term before, and that helped me to clarify it and imagine what this means
It means to be able to remove oneself from the realm of dogmatic routine, and to have the dialectic notion of self-reflection from the current age of abstraction of the dynamic pure universality of self-movement in order to examine/re-correct oneself.
Hegel and Kierkegaard have some similar notion which is to de-familiarize the norms that has been established by the current age of abstraction from the dynamic pure universality of self-movement of the a priori and a posteri.
Slight differences are the ability to break down/reduction of the whole into "I" reflecting the "concept," and the dialectic nature of self-reflection into the rigorous fixed yet dynamic notion of universality (Hegel), and the notion of self-authentication of the truth into one's own life (subjectivity of the truth in Kierkegaard's term)
Big differences are their views of what faith does in the process -- and whether History has basically ended
Hegel focused on providing a rigorous framework for scientific methodology to operate in secular society whereas Kierkegaard focused on Christianity which grounds all things and via the Socratic method in appropriating the truth in our life.
Hegel regards history as perpetual whereby the self-movement and the essence of the universality in that particular era can be brought forth to the next era whereas Kierkegaard believed that history is meaningless if it devoid the objective nature of a priori and a posteri truth, and notion found in the society. Kierkegaard does not believe to critic for the sake of criticizing but however like Socratic, he is trying to rid the dogmatic notion of tradition that are self-refuting and ingenuinous.
Fantastic! Thanks so much!
This part reminds me of Nietszche and postmodernism
+lyndon bailey Well, there's certainly some affinities between Hegel and even those later thinkers who reject the System
Thanks
You're welcome!
Fifteen video about preface. Hegel was quite good in writing things that can't be written.
Except that they are written -- when it comes down to whether things can be conceptualized, articulated, communicated or not, you'll find Hegel coming down consistently on the side of Yes
what doth life?
10:29 that is a deep cut, getting too real