What you say here matches my experience. I'm not a trained philosopher, and I had heard the thesis-antithesis-synthesis summary of Hegel since I was in college. But finally at age 57 I picked up the Phenomenology of Spirit, which I had never heard of before, and started to work through it. It was hard at first, but after I started to understand how he was using his vocabulary, I realized it was a simple, big idea about the journey of self-consciousness's self-discovery, very different from the bumper sticker quip I had always heard about him. And, yes, Kant, whose Critique of Pure Reason I masochistically was working through at the same time, was much harder. While working through Kant felt like getting beat up with brutally written formal logic, Hegel felt like taking a journey through a poetic masterpiece. And most of the videos I've watched about Hegel don't reflect much what Hegel himself seemed to be saying in the Phenomenology.
I'm calling 7 - you can't do that; well, get out of here then: oh look, I just cut it in half. The grandfather clock; while Kant topples a synthesis by writing way more, his is all nonsense. Either way, I went to the bypass into Heidegger's continental ontology. It is believed Hegel wrote it at the same time as a war, and they just do it. Kant ain't from there. It was some weird school with a bunch of them. This looks spirit thing knew that.
This lecture along with the contradictions posed by the audience is really worth listening to. Most important is that grasping Hegel's work is made difficult by several phenomena. The fact he didn't directly write a lot of the content himself and predominant but mostly false views e.g. thesis-antithesis-synthesis have taken flight. The impact of commentators is increased because Hegel is irrefutably hard to read. Though this is exaggerated. If you struggle with Hegel, not reading him and going to commentators won't help much. Then again a lot of philosophy is hard to read and, especially with German sentence structure, can be trying. This is not unique to Hegel but you can sometimes feel like it's hard going. Part of the technical difficulty in Hegel is because of his audience - university students of philosophy well versed in Kant and other technical philosophers. That is, he is grappling with the problems and results of Kantian philosophy. Few of us are well versed in the philosophers of Hegel's time which his immediate hearers were and with whom he was in intellectual dialogue.
The great thing about Hegel is that, in a way, he'd already explained why very short introductions and bullet point summaries of his thought will miss the point in the first few paragraphs to the preface of Phenomenology of Spirit.
The preface of Phenomenology of Spirit, about Hegel, explained why very short introductions and bullet point summaries of his thought will miss the point during the Phenomenology of the Spirit. And we have Gary to read those things.
I think the most insightful observation of the lecturer was his observation that of symbolic art, classical art and romantic art that, "if we were looking for some kind of synthesis in this group it actually occurs in the middle". I think that was Hegel's whole point. The mistake(?) Marx made was trying to transform this synthesis into a historic process? Maybe Hegel, like those other travelers of the phenomenology of mind, the Buddhist mediators, Hegel was conceptualizing outside of the limitations of time? Hegel's synthesis was a 'convergence' rather than a 'resolution in the western mind sense'. A paradox that does indeed extend to a transcendence beyond a conflict without overpowering the independence of the conflicting states of being. History, therefore is not the 'test' of Hegel's dialectic, it is the 'opportunity' for a transcendence, which is why, also paradoxically, Hegel's transcendence or "ideal" is interpreted as static, i.e. "the end of" rather than dynamic, the synthesis being experienced independent to/of time? Just a thought.
There is a synthesis in Kant's dialectic...that's like the whole point of the antimony, in refuting two claims that are both logically sound you assert something through their negatation. What he asserts is the limitations of analysis which means we are only permitted to assert some things problematically, but even then these problematic claims can be justified
The power of Hegel is surely that he thought for himself - not just hard - but giving himself totally to it. (So was no doubt the case with Heidegger) So this is surely what we should do. Not spend all our time trying to understand him or others' attempts at trying to understand him. But rather to think as deeply and as hard as we possibly can for ourselves. For it is ourselves who we have to live and die with and become free from. The whole world is yourself. Or maybe we go beyond that and become someone like Hegel. Forgive me for my indulgent musings!
Summary statement at 44:7-20 In essence we are told to read Hegel yourself and avoid commentators. Not sure I needed three quarters of an hour to learn that.
I'm grateful to the speaker to voice a view that I held for a long time. Wow, I'm not alone. Hegel is hard because he gives a systematic elaboration of the insights formulated in the Dao De King without letting you know. www.gutenberg.org/files/216/216-h/216-h.htm Lin Ma examines "wether Dao could be a guide word for Heidegger's path of thinking". core.ac.uk/download/pdf/34482433.pdf I think it was for Hegel. Hegel's Phenomenology becomes transparent and enlightening if one approaches it with the expectation that it is a treatise on the Dao. I read Hegel way before I had read the DaoDeJing. The starting point of both is the same. You cannot name/express the Dao/Absolute. Yet poetry helps and systematic articulation of its movements and development can convey it. Hegel's knowledge is like Lao-Tse's insight is about our ability of being one with all. In those favourable circumstances when the effort of teachings are almost superfous, or when the pupil is ready for the master to appear, one does not need to read neither to know that. In fact if these ideas are not prefigured in the reader through experience, words cannot be indeces to them. Although both can be most helpful on the journey of one's spirit.
Very interesting idea that the misreading of Hegel's system as thesis-antithesis-synthesis comes from (and/or was popularised by) Marx. And presumably the other left-hegelians. Perhaps the only reason Hegel isn't forgotten today is that a strawman version was praised by a widespread political movement.
Hegels actual dialectical ideas across his works are far more interesting that the rigid thesis-antithesis-synthesis commonly and erroneously attributed to him - i believe it was Fichte who put this forth before Hegels. Hegels dialectic is not so hermetic sealed either, there are added elements to the process and a elements left open His work can be difficult in places but this is down to his prose style and also how some of his work was not intended as a published self contained work but rather was a study supplement or something to accompany his lectures - such works are best only if they are well annotated to fill out the details on what the lectures would have covered Walter Kaufmanns little works on Hegel are very good for an introduction that goes beyond all other typical introductions
On the last seconds, a question about commentators of Hegel is raised. On it, Dr. Burke responds that he's found some good comments, for example Heidegger's seminar on the Phenomenology of Spirit, but my question is: how did he come to realize that there are good commentators of Hegel? Is it because, first, he read only Hegel and then when he got what Hegel is really about, did he found good commentators? I ask because one could argue about a hermeneutical aspect of it, that every good commentator could be those that resonate with your own lecture on a matter, which does not necessarily mean that is a good one. In other words, can we actually say that there are good commentators of a philosophy when, by declaring such thing, might confirm or clear up the path that we've already worked on?
In my copy of an English Das Kapital, Marx writes that he stood him up right (Hegel). Not the usual flipped him on his head that I always hear. Dunno how much is in the translation.
I took 15 years to read his phenomenology of spirit. Science of logic, philosophy of right and Introductory lectures on aesthetics. What you have said is correct. Hegel's idea is aufhebung. It is negation assimilation and growing into next stage. Marxists interpreted it as negation of negation. Engels used the concept-×-= plus. This is a great mistake. Because the sign negative indicate direction and not quantity. Negative multiplied by negative is 360 degree rotation in number axis. It is not growth but axial rotation. Those who fancied by Engels followed Marxist theory to understand Hegel. His fusion of Universal and particular is the basis of existentialism.He rejected Kant's categorical imperative and includes subjective dimensions in ethics. Each paragraph in his works are gold mine 🙏
@@emmanueloluga9770 I cannot explain everything in single paragraph. Just consider-×-=+. You draw number line in the floor of your room. Towards right side mark + 1,2,3,4,etc. Towards left mark -1,-2,-3,etc. Write 0 in the centre. Then stand on zero facing right side. × means repeat(multiply) . Then turn 180 degree, then you are facing negative axis. Repeat it, that means again turn 180 degree, then you are facing towards+ axis. This is -×- =+. So this example cannot used to explain growth. Hegel explain about growth of history towards an ideal society. In this ideal society individual freedom and social cohesion exist together. No one can escape from the definition of Hegel about society and state. Because that is truth. This definition is first given by Aristotle is first chapter of Nicomachean ethics. Engels copied down this definition and gave the name communism. It is originally developed by Christian Trinity concept. God is three free individuals having one existence. 🙏The concrete freedom requires that personal individually and its particular interests should reach their full development and gain recognition of the right for itself and also that they should, on the one hand, pass over of their own accord into the interest of the universal(society), and on the other knowingly and willingly acknowledge this universal (Social interest) as their own substantial spirit, and actively pursue it as their ultimate end” Hegel, philosophy of Right, , section 260. 🙏
this video was good for a laugh. The commentator sounds so serious about his subject, but is so obviously speaking from a position of ignorance, simply goofy bro 😂
Hegel wants to know the true existential knowledge of the human self. To know what he means by that requires very strict discipline. He believed every word includes a rule or order. Every word counts. Existence is not a particular property. So when a word denotes existence it cannot be a part....and a part cannot exist. No one single existence has a monopoly on existence. Absolute knowledge has to do with the unity of the subject, what exists, and what does not exist, the particular properties or the objective Nature of knowledge. He's got 2 natures...the ordinary scientific one...what exists outside of human interference with the natural order...and the philosophical nature of the existence of knowledge. To exist or to be are doing words or actual. What he says is in evidence and proof....it's not a theory. He beats Kant's unknowable thing in itself. I should add what he says is demonstrably true....but that doesn't mean he provides causal explanations...if that is what you are looking for.
"EVERYTHING YOU KNOW ABOUT HEGEL IS WRONG" - the most arrogant intellectual statement, I have seen. He is telling us to find the source of the notion, "thesis, antithesis and synthesis". If you really care, you would have found it out and build a stronger story. I did not learn much from this lecture. He effectively says, every single Hegelian scholar is a joke. He is the only one who understood Hegel. I have to admit, that is Hegelian.
He also makes this very broad generalisation boarding on the verge of shear opinion, “… to give an example of how useless the thesis, antithesis and synthesis formula is …”. I believe this was his intention all a long; to cast doubt on the dialectic. I would not be surprised to find out he is a libertarian, anti-Marxist scholar.
tbh, I think he has a point. after a thought, thesis, antithesis, synthesis is promoted by marx. marx said he put hegel upside down. hegel idea is symbolic art, classical art and romantic art. the triangle is upside down.
The lecturer seems to like making a series of bold assertions as if I'm supposed to take him seriously. Kinda makes you wonder since he's so cynical about Hegel why he even bothered to speak about him.
I don’t get the point. Like who actually thinks that they understand Hegel (or any other thinker who is worth anything) after reading short introduction or after watching 90 minute vid? But the thing is, you have to start somewhere and most of the people won’t be able to tackle Hegel directly from the begining, doing that would be just pointless. But if they’re interested they can continue to read more and eventually will end up reading him directly and form their own interpretations. I like how he considers the fact that Hegel doesn’t mention Thesis/Antithesis/Syntethis to be shocking, but even most of philosophy undergrads know that and they have hardly read anything by Hegel
E = MC². Truth and it's worth in clarifying something isn't correlated with it's complexity to be absorbed or explained. Hegel is just "complicated" because he is bottomless, smoke and mirrors.
The speaker says a lot about what he asserts Hegel did not say; but so far as I could tell he said nothing about what Hegel did say. Still it was an interesting lecture. Thanks
Yeah, but i didn't know what he didnt say before. And there's a lot he didn't say, aparently, except, as the speakers rightly states, you can't prove a negative...
Another thing... What irritates me about this talk is that thesis-antithesis-sythesis was never supposed to explain every aspect of Hegel's thought. As the first commenter suggests it is a way into understanding dialectical movements like negation of negation and sublation. A schematic and unsatisfactory way of explaining Hegel's dialectic, admittedly. But you need to begin somewhere. No offence, but complaining that it isn't immediately reflected in the chapter structure of Hegel's Aesthetics doesn't tell us anything at all about why it is unsatisfactory.
OK I'm gonna give this Hegel guy another go around and then slowly walk away since it appears nobody seems to know what he was either saying or trying to say. Even Zizek can't seem to peg the guy! Is he even for real? Could there have been such an intellect that all others after him die at his doorsteps? Nearly everything I've heard thus far is about how other people got Hegel wrong - can we then hear now who got him right?
Whether anyone has gotten Hegel right isn't much of an issue, it's a contingent factor which will never settle as history moves on and new occasions meet his texts and create new conceptual relations to be drawn out that not even Hegel himself could have seen in his own texts. Many people aren't even interested in what Hegel thought himself, rather in what we can use his thought for in new interpretations which are coherent even if not systematic, hence the difference between the Phenomenology of Spirit as a separate system itself that is not part of the system of the Science of Logic, the theological readings, the atheistic readings, the ethical readings, etc. Hegel's work spans such wide breadth that one can see innumerable things in it which surely were not intended, but are nonetheless interesting. But can you get a view of Hegel as he wanted to make himself understood, more or less? Yeah, it's the Science of Logic's purpose. The work is the most explicit and upfront exposition of how every other part of the system is meant to develop, connect, and aim at. It is the presentation of Hegel's concept of a concept, and how a concept comes to be, the conditions for the possibility of concepts; it is a presentation of logic in the sense of being the first proof of the valid form of thought, thought which is not arbitrary and merely accepted as given, and by virtue of being the form of truth and concepts, logic is not just the structure of so-called valid thought according to a detached system of arbitrary rules of inference, but is also the same as ontology: the structure of the world. The "dialectic" is merely reason working through inner contradictions of thought, and is the structure of the world as well as the structure of thought whether we ever recognize it or not.
You might be the one who gets Hegel Anogoya after you read all his material. It wouldn't be the first time a big group of experts got everything wrong. It happens all the time. There is a big tendency to learn things second hand and third hand. It isn't only happening with Hegel. Just remember it was not edited by Hegel. He was dead so it is chaotic. Sounds like someone would need quite a lot of time and energy to do it.
+Gabriel Francis "literal", Websters dictionary, true or accurate - perhaps , "more" is bad grammar - but - this is not English 101 - (as the acadamian ammazoids would say) it's the world wide internet - good grades and tenure do not apply here - if you understood my comment but decided to correct my grammar then your comment is out of context and has no meaning or value - other then you are good at English grammar, perhaps? In other words you understood what I had to say or communicate - for example, phuk hew - :-) I hire good spellers and grammar people there a dime a dozen and for the most part are good at very little else - in real time -
Annie, normally I do not come down on people but quite frankly it's rude to correct someone over the internet - I mean on the world wide internet it's no body's business how I spell or talk, period, English could be my second langue - That's a small petty thing, that someone does to grammar school children - I subscribe to Grammarly on the internet, to the free version - I love it - They alert me to commas in the right place or advise me on a better word in place of the one I just used - and the paid version will rewrite your whole composition, if you like - (check them out and if you mention me you get a discount I believe or you can just use the free one) - Here's another analogy - I had a girlfriend who was a third-grade teacher, (Grammarly just popped up and notified me that I needed to place a -, between, third & Grade), . This is how she use to speak to me, with a child like condescending voice "And what would you like to do today Sonny"; and this went on all day long - this was a brilliant woman and for me to have corrected her in any way would have meant that I was the kind of person who was a good speller and not the kind of person who cuts the "good spellers" check - and being a "doochbag", might not be so bad, depending :-)
There are many many good secondary sources by respectable scholars who don't attribute the thesis, anti-thesis, and synthesis notion to Hegel....Robert Solomon, Terry Pinkard, Frederick Beiser, Walter Kaufmann....to name only a few....Quite a pretentious intro...and as one commentator here says--tell us, who has gotten Hegel right...
I think to understand higal better you need to read Arthur Schopenhauer that can help you share light over the position of higal as government employees holding the philosophy seat in university of Berlin while is the highest possible rank at the best possible time for philosophers he needed to to navigate between higal the philosopher the man and higal the position and the duty he has for the seat
Pretty sure schopenhauer was the crudest/lleast sophisticated and worst german idealist, the shit at the end of the tunnel. Hegel was a CONSTITUTIONAL MONARCHIST and JACOBIN, and he was once insulted by the Prussian monarch himself
Agree with you Hegel was the most bright intellectual brain of all times but for the world that could be rolled by reason but pessimism Is realistic for creature build for death that what Schopenhauer was saying in very humble Way he was great philosopher and very deep human being expecting the human condition and taking about it
@@201421 pessimism is edgy shit that I got over at age 15. Schopenhauer did not have the synthetic and unitary system of hegel. He could not refute hegel in any way. Schopenhauer was a grumpy old fuck whos main contribution was to be overshadowed by nietzsche, who is only a little bit better.
idk i'm not a fan of the way he proclaims himself higher than literally everyone, as if he were Hegel himself. Don't get me wrong, he's probably smart but i honestly learned nothing of hegel in this other than he dosent do the thesis-antithesis-synthesis. to me it seems as if hes gatekeeping Hegel, maybe hegel is just too esoteric for me...
The fact that the speaker starts by saying that Hegel's title of his book is a misnomer - because he questions what aesthetics is, made me stop listening at that very point. This presentation is Garbage. Or at least very misleading.
Can you explain why you think this presentation is garbage? I agree with the commenter above who seeks anyone who 'does' understand Hegel> Instead of standing in awe of Hegel, can anyone actually explain Hegel in ways that are non-mystifying?
Given Hegel loved the Germán Monarchy what more can we say 🕳️👎🏽 besides Karl Popper explains very well why and how Hegelian philosophy is an enemy of open free society
The lecturer would've done well to mention that a lot of the misconceptions really stems from people conflating a lot of the German idealists into Hegel. For example the dialectical triad came from Fichte not Hegel. It was used as a crutch to better elucidate Hegels logic but forgetting where it actually came from.
10 seconds in and it begins with a bunch of self-congratulatory bile about how courageous the narrator is. I wonder what direction this will take, is the poster/narrator a smug atheist with a fedora? Or is he a conspiracy theorist nutcase that believe everyone is a sheeple for not believing crackpot theories on the internet? Let's find out...
+GodOfTheInternets Philosophers usually don't concern themselves with humility. The fact that he comes across as smug might say more about your feelings than anything he said.
+Mac Smith his feelings are such probably because of previous experiences. its much easier to find bad history, bad philosophy, bad political analysis - mostly done by amateurs by which OP is fed up with. We all are and should be.
Mac Smith well, I openly said that those comments were made before I watched anything he said about ideas, etc., and that I was wrong ('thank god, it appears to be neither')
What I get from Hegel, is that his importance lay in his personality more than in his actual thought. He was a new type of philosopher who was breaking with stuffy traditions, hence became a totem for the young Hegelians. He was the first intellectual superstar as it were - something like the Sartre or Foucault of his day, men whose personas were far more interesting than their ideas But this is not to maker light of Hegel, philosophy was never just about writing - there was always a heavy element of show business. As stated Socrates never wrote, what he represented to those that followed was far more important.
You've most likely read a copy (or a translation of a copy) of Plato's dialogues, but have you ever read anything written by Plato himself? Can you be sure that Plato's dialogues were put down on papyrus by Plato himself, rather than by somebody who transcribed them as he acted them out?
"Everything you know about Hegel is wrong" this nomenclature is speculative and a bit arrogant. There is however much truth in reading original material and not rely only on web lectures.
15 minutes in--and not a word so far about anything that Hegel actually said or wrote: Sufficient proof, I should say, of what fraudulent nonsense this lecture, and its subject, is.
"Dr." Justin Burke? Where did this man acquire his PhD? This talk was horrible. Thesis - antithesis - synthesis is wrong, ok, but tell me why? Giving me an example about classical art and whathaveyou doesn't elucidate the proper way to conceive of Hegel. This comes off as whiny bullshit: nobody knows hegel but hegel n me, sry scrubs
that's not at all what negative means for hegel though. the negative is understood in the logical sense. the negative of x is not-x, just like the negative of being is nothing. the foundation of hegel's philosophy is that thought is recursive: one senses, then one thinks. the transition from sense to thought *is* the dialectic, and the truth of them is their unity.
scholars have pointed out that the thesis-antithesis-synthesis model can't consistently be applied to hegelian thought, and hegel himself never tries to characterize his work as following such a model. I wasn't trying to defend that specific interpretation, I was moreso trash-talking the lecturer for having done a pisspoor job of criticizing it. You can see how people would get the idea from reading his Encyclopedia, or wherever he talks about 'sublation' (which people interpret as synthesis). Check his science of logic, or the encyclopedia. i couldn't tell you where, specifically
but with that being said, the first movement in hegel's deduction of the categories paints a pretty comprehensive picture (again, check the enc. or the science of logic). Being = the thesis. The negative, i.e. not-being, is nothing = antithesis. Becoming is the concept which contains them both (something passing over into nothing, but a nothing which again remains a something). Becoming is the 'synthesis' of the two--but again, hegel never uses the 3-step model as if he's beholden to it. the dialectic in hegel is directly in response to his belief that thought is discursive: we sense, then think. truth is the unity of the two, and therefore the 'synthesis' of them.
Stephen Houlgate has some really lucid explanations of Hegel's thought, so I'd check out some of his work if you're just diving into it. Personally, I found the easiest place to start with Hegel was his lectures on the philosophy of history. Central to Hegel's thought is his notion of development--and what a lot of people miss is that this development *is* the dialectic. The introduction, specifically, to the lectures on the philosophy of history is really clear, and then you'll have much less trouble tackling the Phenomenology. My apologies, I didn't know you were unfamiliar, and so yes you're right the science of logic is def not the easiest entry point (nor the encyclopedia, for that matter). Try the lectures on history, then make your way to the phenomenology. Houlgate provides a lot of help, as does Alexander Magee (who even has a Hegel dictionary!). If you haven't read Kant, don't bother either way, because you seriously can't understand Hegel without Kant (Fichte and Schelling help, too).
sorry for the late reply! but I use A.V. Miller's. Terry Pinkard has one, as well, I believe (though, he might have only translated the preface. I can't remember, exactly.)
Impossible to get past the pretentious tone of gibber jabber the first 3 minutes. My first thought was, who is this guy? And the second thought, who cares? Good luck for those who wish to brave forward.
![Sean Rii, Karyon, Sharzkii - Taungule [My Love] (Official Music Video)](http://i.ytimg.com/vi/eJoMuypbSzQ/mqdefault.jpg)
What you say here matches my experience. I'm not a trained philosopher, and I had heard the thesis-antithesis-synthesis summary of Hegel since I was in college. But finally at age 57 I picked up the Phenomenology of Spirit, which I had never heard of before, and started to work through it. It was hard at first, but after I started to understand how he was using his vocabulary, I realized it was a simple, big idea about the journey of self-consciousness's self-discovery, very different from the bumper sticker quip I had always heard about him. And, yes, Kant, whose Critique of Pure Reason I masochistically was working through at the same time, was much harder. While working through Kant felt like getting beat up with brutally written formal logic, Hegel felt like taking a journey through a poetic masterpiece. And most of the videos I've watched about Hegel don't reflect much what Hegel himself seemed to be saying in the Phenomenology.
Exactly, he discussed some important ideas that never leave the book. Perhaps, the bigger ideas are not understood by the people
I'm amazed that people can actually understand what's written in either of those books.
I'm calling 7 - you can't do that; well, get out of here then: oh look, I just cut it in half. The grandfather clock; while Kant topples a synthesis by writing way more, his is all nonsense. Either way, I went to the bypass into Heidegger's continental ontology. It is believed Hegel wrote it at the same time as a war, and they just do it. Kant ain't from there. It was some weird school with a bunch of them. This looks spirit thing knew that.
I know nothing about Hegel. I never even heard of the name, I never even thought of the individual.
Therefore my knowledge about him is never wrong.
Knowledge about whom?
This lecture along with the contradictions posed by the audience is really worth listening to.
Most important is that grasping Hegel's work is made difficult by several phenomena. The fact he didn't directly write a lot of the content himself and predominant but mostly false views e.g. thesis-antithesis-synthesis have taken flight.
The impact of commentators is increased because Hegel is irrefutably hard to read. Though this is exaggerated. If you struggle with Hegel, not reading him and going to commentators won't help much.
Then again a lot of philosophy is hard to read and, especially with German sentence structure, can be trying. This is not unique to Hegel but you can sometimes feel like it's hard going.
Part of the technical difficulty in Hegel is because of his audience - university students of philosophy well versed in Kant and other technical philosophers. That is, he is grappling with the problems and results of Kantian philosophy.
Few of us are well versed in the philosophers of Hegel's time which his immediate hearers were and with whom he was in intellectual dialogue.
The great thing about Hegel is that, in a way, he'd already explained why very short introductions and bullet point summaries of his thought will miss the point in the first few paragraphs to the preface of Phenomenology of Spirit.
the question is it's own answer. Yup, another one who gets it. I like Kojeve's reading of hegel myself. Like a frickin bible to me.
It is the path not the point
@@NwZ2 one of the worst books on hegel lmao
The preface of Phenomenology of Spirit, about Hegel, explained why very short introductions and bullet point summaries of his thought will miss the point during the Phenomenology of the Spirit. And we have Gary to read those things.
@@hajrullah8855 what's a better book?
I think the most insightful observation of the lecturer was his observation that of symbolic art, classical art and romantic art that, "if we were looking for some kind of synthesis in this group it actually occurs in the middle". I think that was Hegel's whole point. The mistake(?) Marx made was trying to transform this synthesis into a historic process? Maybe Hegel, like those other travelers of the phenomenology of mind, the Buddhist mediators, Hegel was conceptualizing outside of the limitations of time? Hegel's synthesis was a 'convergence' rather than a 'resolution in the western mind sense'. A paradox that does indeed extend to a transcendence beyond a conflict without overpowering the independence of the conflicting states of being. History, therefore is not the 'test' of Hegel's dialectic, it is the 'opportunity' for a transcendence, which is why, also paradoxically, Hegel's transcendence or "ideal" is interpreted as static, i.e. "the end of" rather than dynamic, the synthesis being experienced independent to/of time? Just a thought.
This guy...he gets it. Yup, you make a heck of a point.
The interesting part is when that static 'end' begins to undulates the 'dynamics' of the idea slowly invade your mind.
Uggh. I'm burnt out.
Your comment is hundred percent correct. Aufheben really mean negation+ assimilating+transcending.But most often aufheben is translated as negation.
thanks for your comments. very critical and insightful.
EVERYTHING YOU KNOW ABOUT HEGEL IS WRONG
For me he is the best to learn love, truth, and freedom..
There is a synthesis in Kant's dialectic...that's like the whole point of the antimony, in refuting two claims that are both logically sound you assert something through their negatation. What he asserts is the limitations of analysis which means we are only permitted to assert some things problematically, but even then these problematic claims can be justified
Asserting that pure reason had limits.
The whole(actually just the first part) of phenomenology of spirit has just been published in hebrew for the first time (took them time).
The power of Hegel is surely that he thought for himself - not just hard - but giving himself totally to it. (So was no doubt the case with Heidegger) So this is surely what we should do. Not spend all our time trying to understand him or others' attempts at trying to understand him. But rather to think as deeply and as hard as we possibly can for ourselves. For it is ourselves who we have to live and die with and become free from. The whole world is yourself. Or maybe we go beyond that and become someone like Hegel.
Forgive me for my indulgent musings!
+David Watermeyer I actually enjoyed it; thanks!
Being there in the youniverse to find the Other, to understand and to be understood.
I like your comment, and consider it a nice and light way to say that Hegel's books are worthless, hhhhhh
Summary statement at 44:7-20 In essence we are told to read Hegel yourself and avoid commentators. Not sure I needed three quarters of an hour to learn that.
I'm grateful to the speaker to voice a view that I held for a long time. Wow, I'm not alone.
Hegel is hard because he gives a systematic elaboration of the insights formulated in the Dao De King without letting you know. www.gutenberg.org/files/216/216-h/216-h.htm Lin Ma examines "wether Dao could be a guide word for Heidegger's path of thinking". core.ac.uk/download/pdf/34482433.pdf
I think it was for Hegel. Hegel's Phenomenology becomes transparent and enlightening if one approaches it with the expectation that it is a treatise on the Dao. I read Hegel way before I had read the DaoDeJing. The starting point of both is the same. You cannot name/express the Dao/Absolute. Yet poetry helps and systematic articulation of its movements and development can convey it.
Hegel's knowledge is like Lao-Tse's insight is about our ability of being one with all. In those favourable circumstances when the effort of teachings are almost superfous, or when the pupil is ready for the master to appear, one does not need to read neither to know that. In fact if these ideas are not prefigured in the reader through experience, words cannot be indeces to them. Although both can be most helpful on the journey of one's spirit.
You're the real mvp in this thread.
Monism.
Facts
Very interesting idea that the misreading of Hegel's system as thesis-antithesis-synthesis comes from (and/or was popularised by) Marx. And presumably the other left-hegelians. Perhaps the only reason Hegel isn't forgotten today is that a strawman version was praised by a widespread political movement.
Hegels actual dialectical ideas across his works are far more interesting that the rigid thesis-antithesis-synthesis commonly and erroneously attributed to him - i believe it was Fichte who put this forth before Hegels. Hegels dialectic is not so hermetic sealed either, there are added elements to the process and a elements left open
His work can be difficult in places but this is down to his prose style and also how some of his work was not intended as a published self contained work but rather was a study supplement or something to accompany his lectures - such works are best only if they are well annotated to fill out the details on what the lectures would have covered
Walter Kaufmanns little works on Hegel are very good for an introduction that goes beyond all other typical introductions
That intro was wonderfully delusional.
On the last seconds, a question about commentators of Hegel is raised. On it, Dr. Burke responds that he's found some good comments, for example Heidegger's seminar on the Phenomenology of Spirit, but my question is: how did he come to realize that there are good commentators of Hegel? Is it because, first, he read only Hegel and then when he got what Hegel is really about, did he found good commentators? I ask because one could argue about a hermeneutical aspect of it, that every good commentator could be those that resonate with your own lecture on a matter, which does not necessarily mean that is a good one.
In other words, can we actually say that there are good commentators of a philosophy when, by declaring such thing, might confirm or clear up the path that we've already worked on?
as well though as his 2 published books and course notes, he did have alot of essays throughout his whole life, so there is all that
In my copy of an English Das Kapital, Marx writes that he stood him up right (Hegel). Not the usual flipped him on his head that I always hear. Dunno how much is in the translation.
Actually this lecture has done just the opposite to what its title suggests, confirming me in everything I had known about Hegel.
I took 15 years to read his phenomenology of spirit. Science of logic, philosophy of right and Introductory lectures on aesthetics. What you have said is correct.
Hegel's idea is aufhebung. It is negation assimilation and growing into next stage. Marxists interpreted it as negation of negation. Engels used the concept-×-= plus. This is a great mistake. Because the sign negative indicate direction and not quantity. Negative multiplied by negative is 360 degree rotation in number axis. It is not growth but axial rotation. Those who fancied by Engels followed Marxist theory to understand Hegel.
His fusion of Universal and particular is the basis of existentialism.He rejected Kant's categorical imperative and includes subjective dimensions in ethics.
Each paragraph in his works are gold mine 🙏
This is interesting, please can you elaborate
@@emmanueloluga9770 I cannot explain everything in single paragraph. Just consider-×-=+. You draw number line in the floor of your room. Towards right side mark + 1,2,3,4,etc. Towards left mark -1,-2,-3,etc. Write 0 in the centre. Then stand on zero facing right side. × means repeat(multiply) . Then turn 180 degree, then you are facing negative axis. Repeat it, that means again turn 180 degree, then you are facing towards+ axis. This is -×- =+. So this example cannot used to explain growth.
Hegel explain about growth of history towards an ideal society. In this ideal society individual freedom and social cohesion exist together. No one can escape from the definition of Hegel about society and state. Because that is truth. This definition is first given by Aristotle is first chapter of Nicomachean ethics. Engels copied down this definition and gave the name communism. It is originally developed by Christian Trinity concept. God is three free individuals having one existence. 🙏The concrete freedom requires that personal individually and its particular interests should reach their full development and gain recognition of the right for itself and also that they should, on the one hand, pass over of their own accord into the interest of the universal(society), and on the other knowingly and willingly acknowledge this universal (Social interest) as their own substantial spirit, and actively pursue it as their ultimate end” Hegel, philosophy of Right, , section 260. 🙏
this video was good for a laugh. The commentator sounds so serious about his subject, but is so obviously speaking from a position of ignorance, simply goofy bro 😂
Great video, thank you very much , note to self(nts) watched all of it 45:42
Hegel wants to know the true existential knowledge of the human self. To know what he means by that requires very strict discipline. He believed every word includes a rule or order. Every word counts. Existence is not a particular property. So when a word denotes existence it cannot be a part....and a part cannot exist. No one single existence has a monopoly on existence. Absolute knowledge has to do with the unity of the subject, what exists, and what does not exist, the particular properties or the objective Nature of knowledge. He's got 2 natures...the ordinary scientific one...what exists outside of human interference with the natural order...and the philosophical nature of the existence of knowledge. To exist or to be are doing words or actual. What he says is in evidence and proof....it's not a theory. He beats Kant's unknowable thing in itself. I should add what he says is demonstrably true....but that doesn't mean he provides causal explanations...if that is what you are looking for.
James Graham
Exactly
I'll just stick with my senses m8
@@masked321321 No worries pal. You've started in the right place. The only way is up for you.
@@jamesgraham4242 haha
@@masked321321 Marx is better than Hegel. Long Live Stalin.
"EVERYTHING YOU KNOW ABOUT HEGEL IS WRONG" - the most arrogant intellectual statement, I have seen. He is telling us to find the source of the notion, "thesis, antithesis and synthesis". If you really care, you would have found it out and build a stronger story. I did not learn much from this lecture.
He effectively says, every single Hegelian scholar is a joke. He is the only one who understood Hegel. I have to admit, that is Hegelian.
He also makes this very broad generalisation boarding on the verge of shear opinion,
“… to give an example of how useless the thesis, antithesis and synthesis formula is …”.
I believe this was his intention all a long; to cast doubt on the dialectic. I would not be surprised to find out he is a libertarian, anti-Marxist scholar.
I've met Dr. Burke. He is arrogant and self-entitled like y'all have picked-up here.
tbh, I think he has a point. after a thought, thesis, antithesis, synthesis is promoted by marx. marx said he put hegel upside down. hegel idea is symbolic art, classical art and romantic art. the triangle is upside down.
Robert Solomon, In the spirit of Hegel
Does Hegel claim that nothing just IS, but everything is becomming? Does he also claim that change is contradictory?
absorbing lecture
The lecturer seems to like making a series of bold assertions as if I'm supposed to take him seriously. Kinda makes you wonder since he's so cynical about Hegel why he even bothered to speak about him.
I don’t get the point. Like who actually thinks that they understand Hegel (or any other thinker who is worth anything) after reading short introduction or after watching 90 minute vid? But the thing is, you have to start somewhere and most of the people won’t be able to tackle Hegel directly from the begining, doing that would be just pointless. But if they’re interested they can continue to read more and eventually will end up reading him directly and form their own interpretations. I like how he considers the fact that Hegel doesn’t mention Thesis/Antithesis/Syntethis to be shocking, but even most of philosophy undergrads know that and they have hardly read anything by Hegel
E = MC². Truth and it's worth in clarifying something isn't correlated with it's complexity to be absorbed or explained. Hegel is just "complicated" because he is bottomless, smoke and mirrors.
Including this lecture :)
Marcel Proust thought Art was te meaning in life.
The speaker says a lot about what he asserts Hegel did not say; but so far as I could tell he said nothing about what Hegel did say. Still it was an interesting lecture. Thanks
That's not interesting but misleading.
Yeah, but i didn't know what he didnt say before. And there's a lot he didn't say, aparently, except, as the speakers rightly states, you can't prove a negative...
why do you have comments off? anyway, I'm glad you explain this. Marx bstrdized Fichte and had nothing to do with Hegel!
Another thing... What irritates me about this talk is that thesis-antithesis-sythesis was never supposed to explain every aspect of Hegel's thought. As the first commenter suggests it is a way into understanding dialectical movements like negation of negation and sublation. A schematic and unsatisfactory way of explaining Hegel's dialectic, admittedly. But you need to begin somewhere.
No offence, but complaining that it isn't immediately reflected in the chapter structure of Hegel's Aesthetics doesn't tell us anything at all about why it is unsatisfactory.
He says at 16 minutes that the synthesis is not supposed to explain his thought. He agrees with you on that
What a crazy introduction.
Thank you for clarifying this these-myth-Bullshit❣
Well, I guess I'm glad I never bothered to learn anything about Hegel, if it would have all been wrong anyway.
Have you known of anyone who worked out these concepts independently with knowing of Hegel?
Yes.
16:05 thesis
OK I'm gonna give this Hegel guy another go around and then slowly walk away since it appears nobody seems to know what he was either saying or trying to say. Even Zizek can't seem to peg the guy! Is he even for real? Could there have been such an intellect that all others after him die at his doorsteps? Nearly everything I've heard thus far is about how other people got Hegel wrong - can we then hear now who got him right?
+Anogoya Dagaati I'd suggest Peter Singer's Introduction to Hegel, it's a great overview of his ideas and an easy read
Whether anyone has gotten Hegel right isn't much of an issue, it's a contingent factor which will never settle as history moves on and new occasions meet his texts and create new conceptual relations to be drawn out that not even Hegel himself could have seen in his own texts. Many people aren't even interested in what Hegel thought himself, rather in what we can use his thought for in new interpretations which are coherent even if not systematic, hence the difference between the Phenomenology of Spirit as a separate system itself that is not part of the system of the Science of Logic, the theological readings, the atheistic readings, the ethical readings, etc. Hegel's work spans such wide breadth that one can see innumerable things in it which surely were not intended, but are nonetheless interesting.
But can you get a view of Hegel as he wanted to make himself understood, more or less? Yeah, it's the Science of Logic's purpose. The work is the most explicit and upfront exposition of how every other part of the system is meant to develop, connect, and aim at. It is the presentation of Hegel's concept of a concept, and how a concept comes to be, the conditions for the possibility of concepts; it is a presentation of logic in the sense of being the first proof of the valid form of thought, thought which is not arbitrary and merely accepted as given, and by virtue of being the form of truth and concepts, logic is not just the structure of so-called valid thought according to a detached system of arbitrary rules of inference, but is also the same as ontology: the structure of the world. The "dialectic" is merely reason working through inner contradictions of thought, and is the structure of the world as well as the structure of thought whether we ever recognize it or not.
You might be the one who gets Hegel Anogoya after you read all his material. It wouldn't be the first time a big group of experts got everything wrong. It happens all the time. There is a big tendency to learn things second hand and third hand. It isn't only happening with Hegel. Just remember it was not edited by Hegel. He was dead so it is chaotic. Sounds like someone would need quite a lot of time and energy to do it.
Its all hegel-di-peggle-di.
Check Husserl and Foucalt. Both carried the dialectic with them.
Slavery, in terms of the categorical imperative, and social utility is bad, in terms of Capitalist imperialism, it is GOOD ! WHAT IS IN PRACTICE?
Wasn't as bad as the comments would lead you to believe, still a little off the mark though
I should have taken the title of this lecture more literal -
+Sonny Corbi literally
+Gabriel Francis "literal", Websters dictionary, true or accurate - perhaps , "more" is bad grammar - but - this is not English 101 - (as the acadamian ammazoids would say) it's the world wide internet - good grades and tenure do not apply here - if you understood my comment but decided to correct my grammar then your comment is out of context and has no meaning or value - other then you are good at English grammar, perhaps?
In other words you understood what I had to say or communicate -
for example, phuk hew - :-)
I hire good spellers and grammar people there a dime a dozen and for the most part are good at very little else - in real time -
U ser r a totel doochbag!!!
Annie, normally I do not come down on people but quite frankly it's rude to correct someone over the internet - I mean on the world wide internet it's no body's business how I spell or talk, period, English could be my second langue - That's a small petty thing, that someone does to grammar school children -
I subscribe to Grammarly on the internet, to the free version - I love it - They alert me to commas in the right place or advise me on a better word in place of the one I just used - and the paid version will rewrite your whole composition, if you like - (check them out and if you mention me you get a discount I believe or you can just use the free one) -
Here's another analogy - I had a girlfriend who was a third-grade teacher, (Grammarly just popped up and notified me that I needed to place a -, between, third & Grade), . This is how she use to speak to me, with a child like condescending voice "And what would you like to do today Sonny"; and this went on all day long - this was a brilliant woman and for me to have corrected her in any way would have meant that I was the kind of person who was a good speller and not the kind of person who cuts the "good spellers" check -
and being a "doochbag", might not be so bad, depending :-)
There are many many good secondary sources by respectable scholars who don't attribute the thesis, anti-thesis, and synthesis notion to Hegel....Robert Solomon, Terry Pinkard, Frederick Beiser, Walter Kaufmann....to name only a few....Quite a pretentious intro...and as one commentator here says--tell us, who has gotten Hegel right...
Sweet!, I'm a fine artist!
I think to understand higal better you need to read Arthur Schopenhauer that can help you share light over the position of higal as government employees holding the philosophy seat in university of Berlin while is the highest possible rank at the best possible time for philosophers he needed to to navigate between higal the philosopher the man and higal the position and the duty he has for the seat
Pretty sure schopenhauer was the crudest/lleast sophisticated and worst german idealist, the shit at the end of the tunnel. Hegel was a CONSTITUTIONAL MONARCHIST and JACOBIN, and he was once insulted by the Prussian monarch himself
Agree with you Hegel was the most bright intellectual brain of all times but for the world that could be rolled by reason but pessimism
Is realistic for creature build for death that what Schopenhauer was saying in very humble
Way he was great philosopher and very deep human being expecting the human condition and taking about it
@@201421 pessimism is edgy shit that I got over at age 15. Schopenhauer did not have the synthetic and unitary system of hegel. He could not refute hegel in any way. Schopenhauer was a grumpy old fuck whos main contribution was to be overshadowed by nietzsche, who is only a little bit better.
Schopenhauer is the last place to go for understanding Hegel.
@@timber750 a man is defined by his enemy’s
idk i'm not a fan of the way he proclaims himself higher than literally everyone, as if he were Hegel himself. Don't get me wrong, he's probably smart but i honestly learned nothing of hegel in this other than he dosent do the thesis-antithesis-synthesis. to me it seems as if hes gatekeeping Hegel, maybe hegel is just too esoteric for me...
form is not dialectic as content
Apparently, Hegel said that "German is an angel of satan". Does anyone know the source?
The fact that the speaker starts by saying that Hegel's title of his book is a misnomer - because he questions what aesthetics is, made me stop listening at that very point. This presentation is Garbage. Or at least very misleading.
Sounds like someone else added that title and not Hegel himself
Can you explain why you think this presentation is garbage? I agree with the commenter above who seeks anyone who 'does' understand Hegel> Instead of standing in awe of Hegel, can anyone actually explain Hegel in ways that are non-mystifying?
perhaps he means in commercial culture person Art dies, and your just buying other people propaganda
no one believes this guy. And I would say art has definitely been a process.
Haha Burke made a lot of Marxists in the audience mad lol
@Critique Everything They start to ask questions of a certain kind
*Everything you know about Jesus is wrong.*
\\][//
Greates trickster of all time
?
huh, I was under the impression that everything I knew about Hegel was right. Maybe I can extract some truth from this dialectic :)
Not everything we know about Hegel can be wrong. That is a lame statement.
Given Hegel loved the Germán Monarchy what more can we say 🕳️👎🏽 besides Karl Popper explains very well why and how Hegelian philosophy is an enemy of open free society
Open free society is a joke upon morality and goodness. Karl Popper was a hew so it makes sense where his globhomo views were coming fro.
Where does popper talk about this
Hegel was a comedian lol
Nagging made science and weaponized
Dislike for pompous click-bait title.
The lecturer would've done well to mention that a lot of the misconceptions really stems from people conflating a lot of the German idealists into Hegel. For example the dialectical triad came from Fichte not Hegel. It was used as a crutch to better elucidate Hegels logic but forgetting where it actually came from.
10 seconds in and it begins with a bunch of self-congratulatory bile about how courageous the narrator is. I wonder what direction this will take, is the poster/narrator a smug atheist with a fedora? Or is he a conspiracy theorist nutcase that believe everyone is a sheeple for not believing crackpot theories on the internet? Let's find out...
+GodOfTheInternets Thank god it appears to be neither
+GodOfTheInternets Philosophers usually don't concern themselves with humility. The fact that he comes across as smug might say more about your feelings than anything he said.
+Mac Smith his feelings are such probably because of previous experiences. its much easier to find bad history, bad philosophy, bad political analysis - mostly done by amateurs by which OP is fed up with. We all are and should be.
Mac Smith well, I openly said that those comments were made before I watched anything he said about ideas, etc., and that I was wrong ('thank god, it appears to be neither')
Yeah, it was just a conspiracy theory in your mind, you smug, self congratulatory twit.
This so so, this lecturer does not have a thorough command of the conceptual apparatus of hegelianism.
What I get from Hegel, is that his importance lay in his personality more than in his actual thought.
He was a new type of philosopher who was breaking with stuffy traditions, hence became a totem for the young Hegelians.
He was the first intellectual superstar as it were - something like the Sartre or Foucault of his day, men whose personas were far more interesting than their ideas
But this is not to maker light of Hegel, philosophy was never just about writing - there was always a heavy element of show business. As stated Socrates never wrote, what he represented to those that followed
was far more important.
Socrates did not write anything, Plato wrote
You've most likely read a copy (or a translation of a copy) of Plato's dialogues, but have you ever read anything written by Plato himself? Can you be sure that Plato's dialogues were put down on papyrus by Plato himself, rather than by somebody who transcribed them as he acted them out?
Absolute state of masturbatory philosophy. With no regard for the idea of reality. Like collecting farts in a jar but fancier.
"Everything you know about Hegel is wrong" this nomenclature is speculative and a bit arrogant. There is however much truth in reading original material and not rely only on web lectures.
15 minutes in--and not a word so far about anything that Hegel actually said or wrote: Sufficient proof, I should say, of what fraudulent nonsense this lecture, and its subject, is.
This is 45 minutes on what Hegel's philosophy isn't, without even a minute spent on what it is. As such, it's not very helpful.
"Dr." Justin Burke? Where did this man acquire his PhD? This talk was horrible. Thesis - antithesis - synthesis is wrong, ok, but tell me why? Giving me an example about classical art and whathaveyou doesn't elucidate the proper way to conceive of Hegel. This comes off as whiny bullshit: nobody knows hegel but hegel n me, sry scrubs
that's not at all what negative means for hegel though. the negative is understood in the logical sense. the negative of x is not-x, just like the negative of being is nothing. the foundation of hegel's philosophy is that thought is recursive: one senses, then one thinks. the transition from sense to thought *is* the dialectic, and the truth of them is their unity.
scholars have pointed out that the thesis-antithesis-synthesis model can't consistently be applied to hegelian thought, and hegel himself never tries to characterize his work as following such a model. I wasn't trying to defend that specific interpretation, I was moreso trash-talking the lecturer for having done a pisspoor job of criticizing it. You can see how people would get the idea from reading his Encyclopedia, or wherever he talks about 'sublation' (which people interpret as synthesis). Check his science of logic, or the encyclopedia. i couldn't tell you where, specifically
but with that being said, the first movement in hegel's deduction of the categories paints a pretty comprehensive picture (again, check the enc. or the science of logic). Being = the thesis. The negative, i.e. not-being, is nothing = antithesis. Becoming is the concept which contains them both (something passing over into nothing, but a nothing which again remains a something). Becoming is the 'synthesis' of the two--but again, hegel never uses the 3-step model as if he's beholden to it. the dialectic in hegel is directly in response to his belief that thought is discursive: we sense, then think. truth is the unity of the two, and therefore the 'synthesis' of them.
Stephen Houlgate has some really lucid explanations of Hegel's thought, so I'd check out some of his work if you're just diving into it. Personally, I found the easiest place to start with Hegel was his lectures on the philosophy of history. Central to Hegel's thought is his notion of development--and what a lot of people miss is that this development *is* the dialectic. The introduction, specifically, to the lectures on the philosophy of history is really clear, and then you'll have much less trouble tackling the Phenomenology. My apologies, I didn't know you were unfamiliar, and so yes you're right the science of logic is def not the easiest entry point (nor the encyclopedia, for that matter). Try the lectures on history, then make your way to the phenomenology. Houlgate provides a lot of help, as does Alexander Magee (who even has a Hegel dictionary!). If you haven't read Kant, don't bother either way, because you seriously can't understand Hegel without Kant (Fichte and Schelling help, too).
sorry for the late reply! but I use A.V. Miller's. Terry Pinkard has one, as well, I believe (though, he might have only translated the preface. I can't remember, exactly.)
Impossible to get past the pretentious tone of gibber jabber the first 3 minutes. My first thought was, who is this guy?
And the second thought, who cares? Good luck for those who wish to brave forward.
Thanks