Is it some sort of unspoken rule of philosophy that if you mention Hegel more than three times in a talk you have to audibly sniff every three sentences.
The point of Sense Certainty has nothing to do with Capital's development. It is meant to point out to the poverty to knowledge which cannot keep true to its object due to the denial that there is anything to say other than that the object is now and here.
Definitely. He didn't understand what the point of unity of thought and being was. He was also ignorant of what exactly the point of the Logic is. He seems to think Hegel is Kant and thinks that the Logic proves a transcendental mind generates real being, something that one would easily dispel by acknowledging Hegel's statements that the Logic is merely about thought thinking itself, and therefore can only at the point of the Logic be about thought, and not about anything >not< thought. The Logic grounds the capacity of reason to know for itself that it indeed >can< conceive of an objective and independent entity because thought itself shares that very same structure. This is the ground of Marx's otherwise dogmatic claim that the mental is a reflection of the material. How could it ever be true that the mental can reconstruct the material if it wasn't the case that the concept and object share the same structure?
@@kyledurnof2622 whats ironic Here Is that he contradicts His conclusion, read through Marx, earlier on when he Points Out exactly how Hegel moved beyond Kant by way of thought being generated Out of its historical Relations to what WE say is. I assume he Just refuses to make that final step away from tankie to a real expositor of Hegel.
@@kyledurnof2622 I posit that you are unfortunately right. Thought does shape reality, not the other way around, and modern neuroscience (not heavily biased or funded by special groups) is pointing to this. This was Marx's great mistake from the start. He simply did not absorb the logic and Phenomenology in their full depth. He was an Hegelian as much as the youth today are "original marxists" lol. This is also where Zizek fails and why he eventually arrived at the pessimistic conclusion about history and the world today. Zizek has tasked himself with taking Marx back to Hegel and realizing the idealism in absolute materialism, but thats a futile endeavor even from a Laconia framework. Zizek fails to admonish the fundamental foundation to Hegel's framework, which is his theology and metaphysics as a marriage of Platonic and Aristotlean systems. I hope the west survives the end of history and realize the omission of Hegel proved to be the grandest mistake in intellectual inquiry history. We are lucky NeoHegelians are beginning to spring up and summon courage to take up the tasks of at least giving him a chance. Everyone before the late 20th century just approached his work through Marx and Gentiles which proved to be an even graver mistake as history has shown. So I posit, the most indivisible form of essence is the "idea". Each human is an ecosystem of multiple ideas possessing multiple instances of said human beings existence and being. And as Hegel rightfully stated, the most effective way to reconcile these caccoon of ideas is through the 'Logic', which is unfortunately missing in western culture today.
Exzellent! One remark, re cunning of reason: Bojo still bumbling through Kiev and bringing the world to the brink of destruction. It is still not decided , who's cunning is stronger, Bojo or history 😉
Hi, I offer myself to translate this to Spanish and other videos of your channel. I will need formal permission to modificate the subtitules. Can you give it to me? Greetings, Sebastián.
It seems to me that Marx’ critical analysis of capitalism is basically accurate except that he fails to accept that machines can and do create value. But I think Marx’ philosophy of history, with its inevitability of proletarian revolution leading to socialism and the final resolution of capitalism’s contradictions, is utopian. Marxism insists on the inevitability of proletarian revolution in much the same way as Christians insist on the second coming of Jesus. It’s really an article of faith.
That didn't age well. Since Bojo is still not destroyed by the objective force of history. The bumbling buffoon is still putting our lives at risk, while killing 10Ks of Ukras and 1000s of Russians on the behest of empire.
He cunningly conceals the main influence of Hegel on Marx: Marx's belief that history would necessarily lead to perfect rationality in society is a rationalistic-idealistic burst in Marx's purported materialism, and a failed end-of-history prophecy.
No, Marx’s prediction that the contradictions of capitalism would resolve in socialism is not rationalist and idealistic - it’s a projection based on a critical analysis of the capitalist mode of production and the development of the material forces of production within that system. For Marx, the driving force of history is class conflict, not reason.
![Understanding Marxism: Q&A with Richard D. Wolff [June 2019]](http://i.ytimg.com/vi/eU-AkeOyiOQ/mqdefault.jpg)
![Seungmin "그렇게, 천천히, 우리(As we are)" | [Stray Kids : SKZ-PLAYER]](http://i.ytimg.com/vi/kAzmhLHePqU/mqdefault.jpg)
One of the best lectures.
Excellent analysis 👏
Is it some sort of unspoken rule of philosophy that if you mention Hegel more than three times in a talk you have to audibly sniff every three sentences.
Nicely done talk. We need more discussion on Marx's methodology and the application of the dialectical method.
fizywig
I noticed his understanding of Hegel was fairly over-simplified, and he struggled to present some basic Hegelian concepts.
The point of Sense Certainty has nothing to do with Capital's development. It is meant to point out to the poverty to knowledge which cannot keep true to its object due to the denial that there is anything to say other than that the object is now and here.
Definitely. He didn't understand what the point of unity of thought and being was. He was also ignorant of what exactly the point of the Logic is. He seems to think Hegel is Kant and thinks that the Logic proves a transcendental mind generates real being, something that one would easily dispel by acknowledging Hegel's statements that the Logic is merely about thought thinking itself, and therefore can only at the point of the Logic be about thought, and not about anything >not< thought. The Logic grounds the capacity of reason to know for itself that it indeed >can< conceive of an objective and independent entity because thought itself shares that very same structure. This is the ground of Marx's otherwise dogmatic claim that the mental is a reflection of the material. How could it ever be true that the mental can reconstruct the material if it wasn't the case that the concept and object share the same structure?
@@kyledurnof2622 whats ironic Here Is that he contradicts His conclusion, read through Marx, earlier on when he Points Out exactly how Hegel moved beyond Kant by way of thought being generated Out of its historical Relations to what WE say is. I assume he Just refuses to make that final step away from tankie to a real expositor of Hegel.
@@kyledurnof2622 I posit that you are unfortunately right. Thought does shape reality, not the other way around, and modern neuroscience (not heavily biased or funded by special groups) is pointing to this. This was Marx's great mistake from the start. He simply did not absorb the logic and Phenomenology in their full depth. He was an Hegelian as much as the youth today are "original marxists" lol. This is also where Zizek fails and why he eventually arrived at the pessimistic conclusion about history and the world today. Zizek has tasked himself with taking Marx back to Hegel and realizing the idealism in absolute materialism, but thats a futile endeavor even from a Laconia framework. Zizek fails to admonish the fundamental foundation to Hegel's framework, which is his theology and metaphysics as a marriage of Platonic and Aristotlean systems.
I hope the west survives the end of history and realize the omission of Hegel proved to be the grandest mistake in intellectual inquiry history. We are lucky NeoHegelians are beginning to spring up and summon courage to take up the tasks of at least giving him a chance. Everyone before the late 20th century just approached his work through Marx and Gentiles which proved to be an even graver mistake as history has shown.
So I posit, the most indivisible form of essence is the "idea". Each human is an ecosystem of multiple ideas possessing multiple instances of said human beings existence and being. And as Hegel rightfully stated, the most effective way to reconcile these caccoon of ideas is through the 'Logic', which is unfortunately missing in western culture today.
Exzellent!
One remark, re cunning of reason: Bojo still bumbling through Kiev and bringing the world to the brink of destruction. It is still not decided , who's cunning is stronger, Bojo or history 😉
Hi, I offer myself to translate this to Spanish and other videos of your channel. I will need formal permission to modificate the subtitules. Can you give it to me? Greetings, Sebastián.
It seems to me that Marx’ critical analysis of capitalism is basically accurate except that he fails to accept that machines can and do create value. But I think Marx’ philosophy of history, with its inevitability of proletarian revolution leading to socialism and the final resolution of capitalism’s contradictions, is utopian. Marxism insists on the inevitability of proletarian revolution in much the same way as Christians insist on the second coming of Jesus. It’s really an article of faith.
Not true. Rosa Luxembourg: either socialism or barbarism (as in capitalism will end life on this planet)
Whoever said "Hegel is Crap" was totally right!
14 mins brilliant poke about BoJo thinking he is Churchill
That didn't age well. Since Bojo is still not destroyed by the objective force of history. The bumbling buffoon is still putting our lives at risk, while killing 10Ks of Ukras and 1000s of Russians on the behest of empire.
He cunningly conceals the main influence of Hegel on Marx: Marx's belief that history would necessarily lead to perfect rationality in society is a rationalistic-idealistic burst in Marx's purported materialism, and a failed end-of-history prophecy.
No, Marx’s prediction that the contradictions of capitalism would resolve in socialism is not rationalist and idealistic - it’s a projection based on a critical analysis of the capitalist mode of production and the development of the material forces of production within that system. For Marx, the driving force of history is class conflict, not reason.
@@syourke3 Yeah, sure: it was a critical analysis of Economy what took him to predict the advent of a perfectly rational society over the night. Sure.
I think it's the reverse: Hegel is alright, but Marx I don't like
Awesome but could you not stand right at your chair go and take the stage jesus, these shy hegelians