I think this was also a big part of Marx's theory. The relationship that the "servant" has with his work. When the capitalist takes that "surplus" of the servant's work, they are taking "the person" or "their humanity". Because of that bond created between the servant/worker and its work (the work is now an extension of the person) . He learned that from Hegel.
Exactly right. This is why it’s important to read philosophy in chronological order. I made the mistake of diving in mid-Locke and was completely lost. I went back to Plato then Aristotle etc.
In sense of one consciousness, There are many who use passion as to present an argument to be honest. Yet what sways all is the time of youthful desires to the reasons of wisdom. It is of invocation which is later to be judged. Just as theoretical physicists have their hypotheses in science. Philosophers probe into their own minds and certain thoughts of others around them. Basically, Each argument has been fed to a young mind, and that which grows from ignorance is another branch to stretch outward to be closer to the Sun.
What’s messed up about marx is he disagrees with Hegel, believes Hegels ideas should be “flipped on their head” but then still continues to use Hegels dialectics. Ultimately, as a society we still use Hegels method in search for the truth. Most of the “issues” marx spotted with capitalism have already been reverted or solved in some in some way. Class separation is a lot different now than it was in Marx’s time too. Being a neo-marxists in todays society requires a strict degree of not caring about the well being of others at all. Objectively, his ideas might be the foundation for a society ran by science, but humans aren’t objects, we’re free willed subjects. Where freedom exists, a man exists who thinks he deserves more freedom than everyone else. It’s just nature, and Marx’s rebuttal to Hegel is only another layer of evidence that Hegels dialectics are written into nature.
agreed. The way she explains how the fight between master and slave (a Knecht is more like an indentured serve) comes about is different from other Hegel interpreters such as Kojeve
I keep trying to go back and read phenomenology of the spirit and its just such a thick read. Thank you for these videos to help me understand and start an internal dialogue of what I read or am going to read. Motivates me to pick it back up and continue.
One cannot expect a better explanation than this. I read about this yesterday but I missed a lot because the writer assumes a lot from the reader. As for the part that elucidate the master-slave dialectics in Hegel's Phenomenology, I could not keep up with those long "monsters of abstraction". Hegel stated that he wanted to make philosophy speak German. His writing certainly testifies his struggle lol
Wow, that was such a great video! The older translation is really problematic (the newer one as "master and servant", too, in my opinion). Originally, Hegel used "Herr" (Lord?) and Knecht (a farm worker, not a servant - that would be "Diener" in German). The wording relates to the the very intimate relationships of owners and workers in a rural setting of a pre-modern society and thereby puts so much more weight into the "recognition" of the theory. "Master and Servant" always sounds like Jane Austen, who describes a rural world were those above the stairs and those below the stairs were already very disconnected.
Perhaps it could be translated as lord/serf as in feudal society. "Serf" exists in English and French and this would keep the rural connotation even if it also allows a reading as servant.
Thank you for the help, I began reading Hegel's Independence, Dependence and Self-consciousness section and found it quite tricky, this vid is a great help to go back and re read. thanks!
Came here from reading a reference to Hegel in "The Bonds of Love: Psychoanalysis, Feminism, and The Problem of Domination" by Jessica Benjamin. The ideas seem very obvious but complicated at the same time.
Great coverage of that section. It is definitely one of the more salient sections. That and the one that tells about individuality and university. Great video
The assumption Hegel makes in a consciousness encountering another consciousness with an immediate sense of hostility strikes me as a perspective rooted in cultural biases. I'm not saying it doesn't still have value in what he is able to derive from the dialectic, but I find it worthwhile to consider that this shouldn't be taken as an absolute. In an environment where there is the tighter bonds of community established and a prioritization of the community, one could as easily look at another consciousness with a sense of comfort and security. We are a social creature, and as much as we are clearly our own worst enemies, simultaneously we require each other for community, legacy, and meaningfulness. What good is it to tell a joke, should no one be around to laugh at it?
The immediate sense of “hostility” refers to opposition, which in itself does not indicate hostility nor harmony. It is simply a statement of indicate tension. As such, opposition in all things does make sense and it is inevitable for two consciousnesses to “fight” to the death.
just ran into these videos. pretty dope so far. there is an interesting class dichotomy between manager and worker. obviously these kind of dynamics are materially gone into further with marx. but in terms of spirit, which is what interested hegel more, it is interesting that it is tangibly noticeable that workers generally seem like more rounded human beings, just more soulful, developed as people; while managers are generally more culturally, politically educated. this idea has always been present it seems to me, based on reading literature, and obviously hegel's theory.
I was thinking about what the master-servant dialectic meant and literally hoping your channel specifically had a video about it. It was the first one to show up after searching!
This reminds me of a psychological and personal struggle widely discussed as the "narcissist & empath" dynamic, which in essence refers to a co-dependent relationship dynamic... Thank you for your amazing content btw!
Reading Hegel is like trying to drink the ocean through a straw... and then dying of dehydration. I'm qualified to say this because I've read the first 3 pages of PoS. And by read, I mean I listened to it on audible while doing dishes.
This was a wonderful video. For me, there's an assumption that human behavior is inherently narcissistic, i.e. that there exists in all people a desire to elevate oneself over others as a form of true independence, or to be recognized by others as a form of validation of self. But this kind of Hegelian dichotomy doesn't touch on ideas from Eastern philosophy or religion which might suggest that humans at an individual level are capable of detaching themselves from narcissistic impulses. For example, why does the servant require validation from the master or from the state as proxy for the master? The servant might simply move to the woods by themselves and not care about anything, especially as they have achieved a level of self-awareness that the master has not. And then there's the issue of whether the "state" as proxy for the master might be a more harmful entity than the original master was.
I agree with you and I don't understand why the two consciousnesses have to fight to the death in the first place. It always felt to me like the origin of conflict between any living being is the desire to survive and gain power more than the desire to be recognized as a consciousness. I don't even understand how the desire to be recognized as conscious relates to the desire to be served by the other consciousness. I know it's just a summary of a very complicated book but things just don't seem to follow and that makes it hard to agree with the conclusions.
I'm wondering if you've come across an analysis of whether most power figures are somewhat damaged and/or disfunctional? Is humanity at the whim of mostly the narcissist so to speak? Looking forward to another of your vids. Thanks
just for the sake of debate but what if from the beginning the master's victory was getting rid of the duty of confroting a notion of self consciousness in the place of a manufactured dominance relationship, passing this burden, this inertia of accomodating and developing a self-consciousness to the servant? you know, just as in present days richer people although leading shallower lives and not having real creative or intellectual pursuits and really not being that aware of themselves, still seem to be happier overall than the people forced to give themselves a sense outside of the materialistic scale by which things are measured in the world. From this point of view it just seems as some are avoiding this burden and passing it to the others... what if as others said before, eventually consciousness is the curse?
Thank you for the explanation! But I think that Hegel doesn't speak about two different persons in this chapter. In the context and in the progression of his book in my eyes it is much more probable that he uses the master and the slave in a metaphorical way to explain the difference between the "two" consciousnesses which appear in the moment, when the consciousness becomes aware of itself. When "I" am aware of "myself" there two consciousnesses - one is subject, the other object, one is (like a) master, the other is (like a) slave - but at the same time they are identical. Probably there are several levels of understanding a paragraph in this book, but at this point the main issue of Hegel is not intersubjective (despite of the strong influence of the French interpretation). What do you think?
(Self-)consciousness can exist in the absence of another more or less separate locus of consciousness, because any field of consciousness is disuniform and therefore to some extent heterogeneous respectively to itself, rendering the same person at once both subject and object to himself. This could be considered, in fact, the very basis of consciousness as such, and even the universal radix. So Hegel’s Herr/ Knecht dynamic is a bit simplistic, although it is good philosophising insofar as it kick-starts the thinking process in his students, which is the purpose of philosophy.
This sounds so similar to what happens in relationships with someone who has a controlling, insecure and destructive personality. How can the master receive adulation that has real value from an object he has subjugated? Like shining a light only two steps ahead and not seeing the steps you're about to fall down.
Falls apart if The Two refrain from struggling until one begs for mercy. Instead, they assume each other are equal in worth and benevolence (unless proven otherwise in actions), thus allowing for voluntary trade, value for value.
The problem is if one refrains they take the risk from the other as the other has equal influence as they do. This would be a failure if assuming equality and catastrophic for the one who refuses a struggle.
May i present what i feel is some relative dialect . In the art world the word masterpiece originally meant a apprentice worked on a piece of the master work . in fact there has been some instances where a painting was attributed to the master but later discovered it was done by his apprentice . Again literally speaking relative , my nephew recently approached my sister (his mother) and i about a clash of consciousness (ego) at work . During the dialogue he , the next day is going to approach their manager on the issue , adding he is going to say if this is not dealt with he will resign adding he will ,because the place will fall apart without me ! i silently recognized his words could have been right out of Hegel , but he has no idea about Hegel nor anything philosophical ,ironically he and his parents are far right wing and hate left wing thinkers ( especially Marx) . The complication here balances out though as his mother a MBA and holds a executive position in the tech industry ,owns the farm we live on ( i am a artist who has a studio on it ) . She has though outside of her hundred of zoom and conference calls managed the farm . But while having us and others workers to help she in fact is the work horse putting in all her extra time, nights ,weekends and holidays on her knees working . Twice as much as others . She is working towards her own ends ,her hands on skillful knowledge is both master and slave not as a binary (Derrida) nor Marx leftist usage of Hegel . Again my sister admittedly has no knowledge of Philosophy . Thanks in advance for reading!
I think the issue is more about the rapacious drive for survival that leads to fight when threatened. Anything that is not familiar is instinctively viewed as a potential threat until it is proven not to be. Anytime that hasn’t happened (Europeans come to the New World) it has had tragic results for the ones who trust without question. In some cases, the only thing we have to fear is the lack of fear itself. Courage is not the absence of fear, it is being afraid and doing the right thing anyway
Thank you for this audio/transcript/talk on Hegel I do wonder what Hegel would say today on the Master Servant Dialectic knowing our current knowledge of Wave-Particle Duality (light is both a wave or particle depending on an observer).
I had heard that Hegel claimed inspiration from the Kabahlah but I did not realize that his philosophy was almost a straight ripoff in key aspects. And Marx turning this dialectic on its head is far more fraught than I ever realized. I was always curious why so many capitalists understood Marx better than most of my academic colleagues and even explicitly claimed to use his understanding of capital accumulation. Now I know! Thank you for the illuminating discussion. Subscribed!
It seems that Marx’s account of the master-servant dialectic was more nuanced and subtle. He differentiated between freeman (sic) and slave (in antiquity), feudal lord and serf (feudalism, middle and late Middle Ages) and capitalist and worker (capitalism, modern societies). The slave owner took all the produce or products of the slave and gave them enough for their subsistence. The slave belonged to the master and they could be bought and sold. The feudal lord took a surplus product from the serf or extra work on his manor. The serf was bound to the land but they owned their implements of labour. The worker is formally free and equal before the law but the capitalists extract and appropriate surplus value. So there is subjection and exploitation, and often oppression for the extraction of surplus. But there is also resistance and open conflict because of the antagonistic relations between them. This was called class struggle by Marx and was considered as the motor of history, while progress was based on the development of the productive forces (implying development of knowledge, skills, abilities, competences and technology). As far as the direct producers are concerned (slave, serf, worker), notice the progress made in their emancipation (culminating in classless communism). The idea of progress is very strong in Marxist theory, as it is in Hegel.
Absolutely brilliant, i can literally see the laborious (for me🤪) steps being taken as through ankle deep mud, by a man entering self awareness. It's also much like a great (though often childish... like Paul McCartney songs) song in that it seems simple once you've heard it, but try to write it.
I was taught this as Nietzsche's Master-Slave Dialectic in Existentialism 201 in the Fall Semester of 1983 in Swain Hall room 011 at Indiana University, Bloomington. Are we no longer allowed to use the word, "Slave?" Also, is this really Hegel or Nietzsche?
This comes from Hegel, not Nietzche. You might be thinking of Nietzsche's "slave morality" from The Genealogy of Morals? "Servant" or "bondsman" is a more accurate translate of Knecht in German--the word Hegel is using--than "slave." English translations use these words, not 'slave,' but 'master-slave dialectic' became a popular term in large part because Knecht was translated as 'esclave' (slave) into French, and 20th-century French philosophers were deeply influenced by this section of Hegel (thanks to Kojève).
@@OverthinkPodcastPhilosophy Thanks for replying. Yes, it was Nietzsche's "The Genealogy of Morals." Master Morality/Slave Morality. Master stupid. Slaves become smart because Slaves must "work-around" Master. Hegel's Dialectic. Thesis/Antithesis/Synthesis. Synthesis becomes new Thesis. Repeat.
thanks for sharing! true masters never reveal their role to servants, they don't need personal acknowledgements, as they reap results of their puppetry most likely in financial or resource acquisition dimension.
the servants can access a consciousness outside the sphere of the master and therefore become free of servitude. But this consciousness is beyond the state of this world made by man.
Really for the algorithm here… nothing interesting to add. 4:55 sounds a bit like the “servant” makes a performative statement about the “master” (another video from Dr. Anderson).
where have you been all my life!!! i've been searching for you for years. finally, i don't have to listen to another man explain things to me. it's been so stressful. on top of that your explanations are outstanding, loads better than most others i've listened to. i think i'm in love. this channel is my lifeline rn. thank you for your service!
Feminists theory would subsitute servant for 50% of the population. Hegel had his patriarchal system same as the enlightened slave owners who talked of freedom.
As for the recognition problem, isn't it suppose to be that the master doesn't care about being recognize by its worker but rather, by other masters, who they hang out with, and want to be friends with, and grew their position within this hierarchy? The elites care about their position within the elites, not about being recognized by the workers, as elite. They give themselves the titles on their own, and in between.
Do You really think that any of the two persons who were about to end each other lifes in a barbaric act of violence would allow the looser to be responsible for one of the most important parts of survival. It is such a naive notion. Rather, I can imagine the master locking the servant in a cage and be tortured and raped for fun. With the given "kill or be killed" premise this outcome makes more sense to me.
Same- I don't agree with this notion at all. I get where he's coming from, but total dominance isn't about making someone a "labor-slave", but absolute dominance moreso...
Right, Hegel believed that one's basic right was to be a person and respect others as persons. But what is the philosophy of killing animals? Humans eat, animals eat. Humans sleep, animals sleep. Humans have sex, animals have sex. Humans defend themselves, animals defend themselves. So why animals are not treated as persons?
Absurd justifications for the exercise of asymmetrical power. Hegel rambles unfoundedly. Not knowing how self-consciousness develops is not a good basis for developing a theory of the relationship between consciousness.
Lordship and bondage, Sado masters have political power OVER the producers, the masochistic servants. The ruling class is dependent on the wealth producers. As Marx observed, Capital is a social relation, the point is to change it. "In place of the old bourgeois society, with its classes and class antagonisms, we shall have an association, in which the free development of each is the condition for the free development of all."
This is false. It's Knecht in German, and many scholars have emphasized that "servant" or "bondsman" is a more accurate translation than "slave" for this term (which was how the original Miller translation of the Phenomenology translated it). We follow Pinkard's Cambridge translation on this point.
Thus the Black Death proves this fact as the servant can survive and the master is lost. Therefore new laws were passed by the masters (land owners) to stop servants travelling to different counties to gain a higher income due to the shortage of labour. Thus reinforcing the power of the creative and enlightened servant over the master, all the master have in effect, is violence, via previous entitlement until the servants realsies their collective power ie revolution or at post UK 1840 poor laws, suffrage and the rise of the working classes ( due to the fear of collective revolution, thus compromise to calm the class) until the 1970's including the triumph of the 1945-51 Labour administration were the roles were reversed and universalism in Welfare was in part paid for by highlet regressive taxation and inheritance tax in modern history (ie post 1067). This flipped back in 1979-80, thus the famous 1%.
I think this comes from the brain's desire to simplify information in order to conserve resources. Basically, the brain uses short-cuts to manage life. If something isn't threatening because it's been categorized as safe, then the brain tends to ignore that safe thing. Thus, taking things for granted.
Also animals fight for the supremacy to determine which one has the dominion and which one is subdued, which one gets to pass on their genes and which one doesn't. Hegel's idea that this conflict is of two different consciousness seems to me a little off-the hinge.
One might be tempted to say that the teleos of techne is the hubristic vision of overthrowing the servant forever so that the master might enjoy his position without fear. Of course then the machine becomes the master - and in the day of AI ascendency this is by definition a master whose processes no human can understand…
So...the servant "masters" nature for life enabled by their master's mercy. The master tries, yet fails, to gain recognition of their consciousness via this dialectic. In the case of a traditional theistic monarchy--where the state mediates between the people (servant-group) and God--is it God who would have (been believed to) grant the master the recognition they failed to receive from their servant? Or would this lead to an infinite chain of servant-master dialectics, which would possibly be problematic for a philosopher concerned about a regress?
![FNAF vs TF2 - Episode 2 [SFM]](http://i.ytimg.com/vi/z5b3V2-VLb0/mqdefault.jpg)
I think this was also a big part of Marx's theory. The relationship that the "servant" has with his work. When the capitalist takes that "surplus" of the servant's work, they are taking "the person" or "their humanity". Because of that bond created between the servant/worker and its work (the work is now an extension of the person) . He learned that from Hegel.
Exactly right. This is why it’s important to read philosophy in chronological order. I made the mistake of diving in mid-Locke and was completely lost. I went back to Plato then Aristotle etc.
Yeah, Marx was famously Hegelian
In sense of one consciousness,
There are many who use passion as to present an argument to be honest.
Yet what sways all is the time of youthful desires to the reasons of wisdom.
It is of invocation which is later to be judged.
Just as theoretical physicists have their hypotheses in science.
Philosophers probe into their own minds and certain thoughts of others around them.
Basically, Each argument has been fed to a young mind, and that which grows from ignorance is another branch to stretch outward to be closer to the Sun.
What’s messed up about marx is he disagrees with Hegel, believes Hegels ideas should be “flipped on their head” but then still continues to use Hegels dialectics. Ultimately, as a society we still use Hegels method in search for the truth. Most of the “issues” marx spotted with capitalism have already been reverted or solved in some in some way. Class separation is a lot different now than it was in Marx’s time too. Being a neo-marxists in todays society requires a strict degree of not caring about the well being of others at all. Objectively, his ideas might be the foundation for a society ran by science, but humans aren’t objects, we’re free willed subjects. Where freedom exists, a man exists who thinks he deserves more freedom than everyone else. It’s just nature, and Marx’s rebuttal to Hegel is only another layer of evidence that Hegels dialectics are written into nature.
@@Tryalittlebit Dialectics aren't written into nature, they come from nature.
Never heard someone explain Hegel this clear, thank you. I'm definitely going to start listening to your podcast (after my exam tho)!!!
agreed. The way she explains how the fight between master and slave (a Knecht is more like an indentured serve) comes about is different from other Hegel interpreters such as Kojeve
I keep trying to go back and read phenomenology of the spirit and its just such a thick read. Thank you for these videos to help me understand and start an internal dialogue of what I read or am going to read. Motivates me to pick it back up and continue.
@@honey...salguod Agreed. Having the word choices and concepts would help. Will check out the dictionary/encyclopedia. Thank you!
I’m so happy I’ve found these videos. Binging the past couple days ❤
One cannot expect a better explanation than this.
I read about this yesterday but I missed a lot because the writer assumes a lot from the reader.
As for the part that elucidate the master-slave dialectics in Hegel's Phenomenology, I could not keep up with those long "monsters of abstraction".
Hegel stated that he wanted to make philosophy speak German. His writing certainly testifies his struggle lol
Thank you! As a shmuck with no formal understanding of philosophy, this was incredibly valuable
Wow, that was such a great video! The older translation is really problematic (the newer one as "master and servant", too, in my opinion). Originally, Hegel used "Herr" (Lord?) and Knecht (a farm worker, not a servant - that would be "Diener" in German). The wording relates to the the very intimate relationships of owners and workers in a rural setting of a pre-modern society and thereby puts so much more weight into the "recognition" of the theory. "Master and Servant" always sounds like Jane Austen, who describes a rural world were those above the stairs and those below the stairs were already very disconnected.
Perhaps it could be translated as lord/serf as in feudal society. "Serf" exists in English and French and this would keep the rural connotation even if it also allows a reading as servant.
This was so useful. I couldn't understand anything when the teacher explained it seems so easy now
Conceptualizing the concept never so easy as you make it, hats off to you, Professor.
Thank you for the help, I began reading Hegel's Independence, Dependence and Self-consciousness section and found it quite tricky, this vid is a great help to go back and re read. thanks!
Came here from reading a reference to Hegel in "The Bonds of Love: Psychoanalysis, Feminism, and The Problem of Domination" by Jessica Benjamin. The ideas seem very obvious but complicated at the same time.
Great coverage of that section. It is definitely one of the more salient sections. That and the one that tells about individuality and university. Great video
Absolutely love this channel, very clear explanations!
You are a professorial genius, explaining highly complex idea, simply.
Awesome, brilliant! wonderful presentation, beautiful subject, precise and thought provoking. Thank you,
Keep up the high spirit. It's helping a lot. Thanks
Fantastic video! Amazingly clear and effective explanation of such a complex concept
What a great and clear explanation.
This channel is highly underrated. Hope you get more views and subscribers. Cheers! 🍹
You're so good at explaining Hegel:)
The assumption Hegel makes in a consciousness encountering another consciousness with an immediate sense of hostility strikes me as a perspective rooted in cultural biases. I'm not saying it doesn't still have value in what he is able to derive from the dialectic, but I find it worthwhile to consider that this shouldn't be taken as an absolute. In an environment where there is the tighter bonds of community established and a prioritization of the community, one could as easily look at another consciousness with a sense of comfort and security. We are a social creature, and as much as we are clearly our own worst enemies, simultaneously we require each other for community, legacy, and meaningfulness. What good is it to tell a joke, should no one be around to laugh at it?
The immediate sense of “hostility” refers to opposition, which in itself does not indicate hostility nor harmony. It is simply a statement of indicate tension. As such, opposition in all things does make sense and it is inevitable for two consciousnesses to “fight” to the death.
@@logicking3765 you took a pretty wild turn with that second and third sentence. I don't know what could substantiate such a sweeping assertion.
I love this, you're actually understanding it right.
I thought I was the only one who thought about these things. Just found this channel and its getting me back into overthinking.😄
just ran into these videos. pretty dope so far. there is an interesting class dichotomy between manager and worker. obviously these kind of dynamics are materially gone into further with marx. but in terms of spirit, which is what interested hegel more, it is interesting that it is tangibly noticeable that workers generally seem like more rounded human beings, just more soulful, developed as people; while managers are generally more culturally, politically educated. this idea has always been present it seems to me, based on reading literature, and obviously hegel's theory.
I was thinking about what the master-servant dialectic meant and literally hoping your channel specifically had a video about it. It was the first one to show up after searching!
So true, kind of bring to mind the opposite of love is not hate but indifference, because only in indifference are you stunted from reality.
This reminds me of a psychological and personal struggle widely discussed as the "narcissist & empath" dynamic, which in essence refers to a co-dependent relationship dynamic... Thank you for your amazing content btw!
I wonder the master-servant dialectic would apply to AI. Excellent explenation!
An outstanding lucid elucidation on this great moment in the Phenomenology.
You're bordering on redundancy. Watch it, buddy.
I think you missed an important part about how the master become the master, which is by not fearing to die, and vice versa for the slave.
Reading Hegel is like trying to drink the ocean through a straw... and then dying of dehydration. I'm qualified to say this because I've read the first 3 pages of PoS. And by read, I mean I listened to it on audible while doing dishes.
im not sure what you would apply this to? what usage does hegels ideas yield?
Same here. A practical example will make this so much easier to understand.
This is called cosmic irony, and makes for great drama, in the end it was the master who was the servant the entire time.
Great video, thank you very much , note to self(nts) watched all of it 7:28
This was a wonderful video. For me, there's an assumption that human behavior is inherently narcissistic, i.e. that there exists in all people a desire to elevate oneself over others as a form of true independence, or to be recognized by others as a form of validation of self. But this kind of Hegelian dichotomy doesn't touch on ideas from Eastern philosophy or religion which might suggest that humans at an individual level are capable of detaching themselves from narcissistic impulses. For example, why does the servant require validation from the master or from the state as proxy for the master? The servant might simply move to the woods by themselves and not care about anything, especially as they have achieved a level of self-awareness that the master has not. And then there's the issue of whether the "state" as proxy for the master might be a more harmful entity than the original master was.
I agree with you and I don't understand why the two consciousnesses have to fight to the death in the first place. It always felt to me like the origin of conflict between any living being is the desire to survive and gain power more than the desire to be recognized as a consciousness. I don't even understand how the desire to be recognized as conscious relates to the desire to be served by the other consciousness. I know it's just a summary of a very complicated book but things just don't seem to follow and that makes it hard to agree with the conclusions.
hegel is freaking awesome
I'm wondering if you've come across an analysis of whether most power figures are somewhat damaged and/or disfunctional? Is humanity at the whim of mostly the narcissist so to speak? Looking forward to another of your vids. Thanks
just for the sake of debate but what if from the beginning the master's victory was getting rid of the duty of confroting a notion of self consciousness in the place of a manufactured dominance relationship, passing this burden, this inertia of accomodating and developing a self-consciousness to the servant? you know, just as in present days richer people although leading shallower lives and not having real creative or intellectual pursuits and really not being that aware of themselves, still seem to be happier overall than the people forced to give themselves a sense outside of the materialistic scale by which things are measured in the world. From this point of view it just seems as some are avoiding this burden and passing it to the others... what if as others said before, eventually consciousness is the curse?
Thank you for the explanation! But I think that Hegel doesn't speak about two different persons in this chapter. In the context and in the progression of his book in my eyes it is much more probable that he uses the master and the slave in a metaphorical way to explain the difference between the "two" consciousnesses which appear in the moment, when the consciousness becomes aware of itself. When "I" am aware of "myself" there two consciousnesses - one is subject, the other object, one is (like a) master, the other is (like a) slave - but at the same time they are identical. Probably there are several levels of understanding a paragraph in this book, but at this point the main issue of Hegel is not intersubjective (despite of the strong influence of the French interpretation). What do you think?
(Self-)consciousness can exist in the absence of another more or less separate locus of consciousness, because any field of consciousness is disuniform and therefore to some extent heterogeneous respectively to itself, rendering the same person at once both subject and object to himself. This could be considered, in fact, the very basis of consciousness as such, and even the universal radix. So Hegel’s Herr/ Knecht dynamic is a bit simplistic, although it is good philosophising insofar as it kick-starts the thinking process in his students, which is the purpose of philosophy.
This sounds so similar to what happens in relationships with someone who has a controlling, insecure and destructive personality. How can the master receive adulation that has real value from an object he has subjugated? Like shining a light only two steps ahead and not seeing the steps you're about to fall down.
Amazingly explained.
Thank you for your good explanation !Do you also have a video about Niklas Luhmann?
that was beautiful
It's hilarious that I've never thought about how Master/Servant shows up in Buber & Levinas!
Thank you
Falls apart if The Two refrain from struggling until one begs for mercy. Instead, they assume each other are equal in worth and benevolence (unless proven otherwise in actions), thus allowing for voluntary trade, value for value.
My personal interpretation is that the ego is threatened by contradictory information, leading to feeling threatened.
The problem is if one refrains they take the risk from the other as the other has equal influence as they do. This would be a failure if assuming equality and catastrophic for the one who refuses a struggle.
May i present what i feel is some relative dialect . In the art world the word masterpiece originally meant a apprentice worked on a piece of the master work . in fact there has been some instances where a painting was attributed to the master but later discovered it was done by his apprentice .
Again literally speaking relative , my nephew recently approached my sister (his mother) and i about a clash of consciousness (ego) at work . During the dialogue he , the next day is going to approach their manager on the issue , adding he is going to say if this is not dealt with he will resign adding he will ,because the place will fall apart without me !
i silently recognized his words could have been right out of Hegel , but he
has no idea about Hegel nor anything philosophical ,ironically he and his parents are far right wing and hate left wing thinkers ( especially Marx) . The complication here balances out though as his mother a MBA and holds a executive position in the tech industry ,owns the farm we live on ( i am a artist who has a studio on it ) . She has though outside of her hundred of zoom and conference calls managed the farm . But while having us and others workers to help she in fact is the work horse putting in all her extra time, nights ,weekends and holidays on her knees working . Twice as much as others . She is working towards her own ends ,her hands on skillful knowledge is both master and slave not as a binary (Derrida) nor Marx leftist usage of Hegel . Again my sister admittedly has no knowledge of Philosophy . Thanks in advance for reading!
Lectures are excellent and explained in simple language. tHanks from india
The master/servant dialectic is Hegel's lesser known, less stringent version of his more popular Master/Slave dialectic.
I think the issue is more about the rapacious drive for survival that leads to fight when threatened. Anything that is not familiar is instinctively viewed as a potential threat until it is proven not to be. Anytime that hasn’t happened (Europeans come to the New World) it has had tragic results for the ones who trust without question. In some cases, the only thing we have to fear is the lack of fear itself. Courage is not the absence of fear, it is being afraid and doing the right thing anyway
Thanks!
Thank you for this audio/transcript/talk on Hegel
I do wonder what Hegel would say today on the Master Servant Dialectic knowing our current knowledge of Wave-Particle Duality (light is both a wave or particle depending on an observer).
can you speak about the point anxiety in the master slave dialectic of Hegel ??????
I had heard that Hegel claimed inspiration from the Kabahlah but I did not realize that his philosophy was almost a straight ripoff in key aspects. And Marx turning this dialectic on its head is far more fraught than I ever realized. I was always curious why so many capitalists understood Marx better than most of my academic colleagues and even explicitly claimed to use his understanding of capital accumulation. Now I know! Thank you for the illuminating discussion. Subscribed!
Which course are yours?
@@paolasmith7059 I have been retired for 7 years now.
It seems that Marx’s account of the master-servant dialectic was more nuanced and subtle. He differentiated between freeman (sic) and slave (in antiquity), feudal lord and serf (feudalism, middle and late Middle Ages) and capitalist and worker (capitalism, modern societies). The slave owner took all the produce or products of the slave and gave them enough for their subsistence. The slave belonged to the master and they could be bought and sold. The feudal lord took a surplus product from the serf or extra work on his manor. The serf was bound to the land but they owned their implements of labour. The worker is formally free and equal before the law but the capitalists extract and appropriate surplus value. So there is subjection and exploitation, and often oppression for the extraction of surplus. But there is also resistance and open conflict because of the antagonistic relations between them. This was called class struggle by Marx and was considered as the motor of history, while progress was based on the development of the productive forces (implying development of knowledge, skills, abilities, competences and technology).
As far as the direct producers are concerned (slave, serf, worker), notice the progress made in their emancipation (culminating in classless communism). The idea of progress is very strong in Marxist theory, as it is in Hegel.
#Awesome
Just watched the Triangle of Sadness and thought it related to Hegel’s M/S dialectic.
Absolutely brilliant, i can literally see the laborious (for me🤪) steps being taken as through ankle deep mud, by a man entering self awareness. It's also much like a great (though often childish... like Paul McCartney songs) song in that it seems simple once you've heard it, but try to write it.
I was taught this as Nietzsche's Master-Slave Dialectic in Existentialism 201 in the Fall Semester of 1983 in Swain Hall room 011 at Indiana University, Bloomington. Are we no longer allowed to use the word, "Slave?" Also, is this really Hegel or Nietzsche?
This comes from Hegel, not Nietzche. You might be thinking of Nietzsche's "slave morality" from The Genealogy of Morals?
"Servant" or "bondsman" is a more accurate translate of Knecht in German--the word Hegel is using--than "slave." English translations use these words, not 'slave,' but 'master-slave dialectic' became a popular term in large part because Knecht was translated as 'esclave' (slave) into French, and 20th-century French philosophers were deeply influenced by this section of Hegel (thanks to Kojève).
@@OverthinkPodcastPhilosophy Thanks for replying. Yes, it was Nietzsche's "The Genealogy of Morals." Master Morality/Slave Morality. Master stupid. Slaves become smart because Slaves must "work-around" Master. Hegel's Dialectic. Thesis/Antithesis/Synthesis. Synthesis becomes new Thesis. Repeat.
@@BlantonDelbert That sounds a little too detached. In reality, the masters are becoming wise to the troublemakers.
Love these
thanks for sharing! true masters never reveal their role to servants, they don't need personal acknowledgements, as they reap results of their puppetry most likely in financial or resource acquisition dimension.
Damn. So THIS is why everything's so fucked up. All the people rich enough to be a philosopher was thinking everyone else saw the world like this 🤣
the servants can access a consciousness outside the sphere of the master and therefore become free of servitude. But this consciousness is beyond the state of this world made by man.
so many philosophers, with ideas of how thing work. it's good to check some out but after a while it's just more opinions.
Anyone know to which edition of “The Phenomenology of Spirit“ the citations refer? 📚📕📖
Really for the algorithm here… nothing interesting to add. 4:55 sounds a bit like the “servant” makes a performative statement about the “master” (another video from Dr. Anderson).
where have you been all my life!!! i've been searching for you for years. finally, i don't have to listen to another man explain things to me. it's been so stressful. on top of that your explanations are outstanding, loads better than most others i've listened to. i think i'm in love. this channel is my lifeline rn. thank you for your service!
Неужели вы понимаете Гегеля? На сколько глубоко?
The only benefit gained from having a master is to quicken losing self importance.
Reminds me of lacan’s mirror stage and Beauvoir’s second sex
Awesome
Feminists theory would subsitute servant for 50% of the population. Hegel had his patriarchal system same as the enlightened slave owners who talked of freedom.
Hegel def had a big influence on Lacan.
IMHO ~ A perfect précis. Just don't call the Knecht ~ Knabe.
""👁👁"" And that until recently when the question arouse at __what is consciousness anyway__ ?
As for the recognition problem, isn't it suppose to be that the master doesn't care about being recognize by its worker but rather, by other masters, who they hang out with, and want to be friends with, and grew their position within this hierarchy? The elites care about their position within the elites, not about being recognized by the workers, as elite. They give themselves the titles on their own, and in between.
Yes, I was thinking the same. You don't want recognition from someone less skilled than yourself; you want recognition from peers and superiors.
They do care. They wouldn't be elites without workers at the bottom.
Do You really think that any of the two persons who were about to end each other lifes in a barbaric act of violence would allow the looser to be responsible for one of the most important parts of survival. It is such a naive notion. Rather, I can imagine the master locking the servant in a cage and be tortured and raped for fun. With the given "kill or be killed" premise this outcome makes more sense to me.
Same- I don't agree with this notion at all. I get where he's coming from, but total dominance isn't about making someone a "labor-slave", but absolute dominance moreso...
what is your target group ?
Right, Hegel believed that one's basic right was to be a person and respect others as persons. But what is the philosophy of killing animals? Humans eat, animals eat. Humans sleep, animals sleep. Humans have sex, animals have sex. Humans defend themselves, animals defend themselves. So why animals are not treated as persons?
Is eating, sleeping, sex and defending all a human does?
bullying scenario as alternative to Hegel's master/slave dialectic
Clicked on thumbnail image of a woman with plant hair, stayed for that cool philosophy vibe
Absurd justifications for the exercise of asymmetrical power.
Hegel rambles unfoundedly. Not knowing how self-consciousness develops is not a good basis for developing a theory of the relationship between consciousness.
You are lovely, so as your lectures 😊 Take love
😡/👹?
Who's they?
Pl see Hegel in my series
Psychoanalysis and Philosophy
isn't this the source of Kafka's anxiety in his fiction? o yeah
The servant becomes by doing, the master , a do nothing has been.
Lordship and bondage, Sado masters have political power OVER the producers, the masochistic servants. The ruling class is dependent on the wealth producers. As Marx observed, Capital is a social relation, the point is to change it. "In place of the old bourgeois society, with its classes and class antagonisms, we shall have an association, in which the free development of each is the condition for the free development of all."
You can actually understand Christianity under this framework in a new way when you understand God the son came to serve humanity
N.B. Pretty sure it's "Master / SLAVE" dialectic.
Servant is a far too weak translation.
This is false. It's Knecht in German, and many scholars have emphasized that "servant" or "bondsman" is a more accurate translation than "slave" for this term (which was how the original Miller translation of the Phenomenology translated it). We follow Pinkard's Cambridge translation on this point.
Thus the Black Death proves this fact as the servant can survive and the master is lost. Therefore new laws were passed by the masters (land owners) to stop servants travelling to different counties to gain a higher income due to the shortage of labour. Thus reinforcing the power of the creative and enlightened servant over the master, all the master have in effect, is violence, via previous entitlement until the servants realsies their collective power ie revolution or at post UK 1840 poor laws, suffrage and the rise of the working classes ( due to the fear of collective revolution, thus compromise to calm the class) until the 1970's including the triumph of the 1945-51 Labour administration were the roles were reversed and universalism in Welfare was in part paid for by highlet regressive taxation and inheritance tax in modern history (ie post 1067). This flipped back in 1979-80, thus the famous 1%.
Opinion are opinions.
The master can't have their cake and eat it too...
plot twist, the servant is the master lol
Is it just me or is it kind of depressing that everyone's default is to view each other as NPC objects?
I think this comes from the brain's desire to simplify information in order to conserve resources. Basically, the brain uses short-cuts to manage life. If something isn't threatening because it's been categorized as safe, then the brain tends to ignore that safe thing. Thus, taking things for granted.
Mabye where the "dignity of honest labour" originates?
Also animals fight for the supremacy to determine which one has the dominion and which one is subdued, which one gets to pass on their genes and which one doesn't. Hegel's idea that this conflict is of two different consciousness seems to me a little off-the hinge.
One might be tempted to say that the teleos of techne is the hubristic vision of overthrowing the servant forever so that the master might enjoy his position without fear. Of course then the machine becomes the master - and in the day of AI ascendency this is by definition a master whose processes no human can understand…
So...the servant "masters" nature for life enabled by their master's mercy. The master tries, yet fails, to gain recognition of their consciousness via this dialectic.
In the case of a traditional theistic monarchy--where the state mediates between the people (servant-group) and God--is it God who would have (been believed to) grant the master the recognition they failed to receive from their servant? Or would this lead to an infinite chain of servant-master dialectics, which would possibly be problematic for a philosopher concerned about a regress?