I am so glad that you keep bringing up Aristotle. I wouldn't have caught the similarities on my own. It's easy for a Hegel beginner such as myself to enter the text thinking about the labels we associate with Hegel, "idealism", "the Absolute", "Aufhebung", "becoming", etc. and expect something more Platonic - here in the sense that real knowledge and truth is prior to and beyond the physical world of generation and corruption. It seems that Hegel is saying something much more like Aristotle writes in his Metaphysics, if you want to get to the study of being qua being, you start by looking at the world right in front of you, and see in which ways 'being' can be said, and you work from there. When he started talking about thinking as being and the Begriff as the Sache, I expected Hegel to be more "idealistic" in the simplistic sense. No, there's something far more subtle and complex going on here. Of course it goes beyond Aristotle, and I don't know where yet - but thank you for pointing this out.
Thanks for helping us grasp these difficult passages, and unraveling the history of metaphysics Hegel only touches upon only in passage! A small correction: Its Vernünftigkeit, not Vernunftlichkeit.
It's funny that Hegel earlier likened phenomenology to embracing death. Maybe in a tongue and cheek way. I've noticed that genres like Horror _pick-a-medium_ often have themes we come to terms with reading Hegel. The feeling was too uncanny when I was listening to the song 'Silver' by Echo and the Bunnymen. "The sky is blue My hands untied A world that's true Through our clean eyes Just look at you With burning lips You're living proof At my fingertips" Yeah, maybe not exactly as Hegel has in store but I would argue it's there to a large degree. Just not as a system but in its 'familiar' form and using metonymy. This is probably why pop-culture gurus like Zizek take the form of a philosopher with anti-social personality disorder.
Hey Greg Interested to know if you are aware of any work comparing Hegel and yogic/vedic (adwaita/ddwaita) philosophy. If you feel you can comment I would be interested in your view of the broad similarities/differences. I have some background in the Indian yogic tradition. In video (24) your discussion seems to reflect elements of the response to jnana yoga's central question of identity - "who am I?" The response is "netti netti" which means "not this nor this" which seems to be akin to Hegel's process of negation within the self. In yoga “netti netti” points to an experience that leads to the dissolution of self. It can be used as the entry point to a meditation intended to lead to a sense of being the witness. The self-awareness experiences the body and the world of objects as one indistinct objectivity. At the same time there is cessation of thought, disconnection from the ordinary self and a re-connectedness to the greater whole. I guess there is some friction with Hegel as to how one can witness or experience without thought. In yoga this is asserted as an experiential possibility through what is essentially not definable but called Brahman or existence-consciousness-bliss. Comparing it to Hegel’s notion of substance as self-identity though. They appear remarkably similar if not possibly convergent. For Hegel self in general seems to at least have some corresponding attributes even if he uses a different terminology for them. If it is not being too ‘loosey goosey’ with the ‘apples and oranges’. Hegel’s equivalent description of the absolute (non-dual) might be existence-thought-quality for example In Hegel’s philosophy, for anything to express an existence it must determine (think) itself through some form of negation and self-othering. Yoga in these terms though extends Hegel’s negation further. The process of negation and self-othering is inferred as separating thought (as duality) from consciousness (non-dual). This gives rise to the notion of “being beyond thought”. In poetic terms this consciousness if you like is said to be Brahman, 'that which makes the darkness shine'. In counterpoint to "netti netti" that directs one to the state of dissolution where the darkness may shine. There are the vedic affirmations that are expressions for what can’t be expressed about the experience of that state. These expressions though seem also to bear some relation to Hegel propositions; "I am Atman (soul)" vs individual essence formed through Hegel's self-negation "I am that” vs Hegel's self-othering (lacking identity) "Atman is Brahman" vs Hegel's "I am whole, as part in the completed thought (whole)" "I am Brahman" vs Hegel’s thought (non-dual) - pure abstraction For Hegel all the modes of experience including; emotions, sense perception, logical thought, feeling, performance of actions, all require pure abstraction (thought) to manifest or have being. In terms of the affirmations or propositions, Hegel’s view seems to be orientated towards opening up the thoughtful process within the whole. Yoga on the other hand regards the process in terms that are necessarily experiential. What is the actual difference at this stage (other than terminology) I can’t necessarily fathom. Both do claim a scientific basis. And in fairness to Hegel he too emphasizes the necessity of tarrying with the negative as an experiential process. I can't claim to be a great meditator or to have necessarily experienced complete dissolution in a conscious way. So I am not raising these notions as a guru or with any necessarily "religious or philosophical zeal". But there does seem to be some significant similarity in philosophical understanding and dynamics between Hegel and yoga. Greg, hope I haven’t misrepresented either Hegel or yogic philosophy (too much). But if you feel you have any important comments or impressions I’d be interested. I’d tend to suggest that while Hegel may have been a Christian in ‘a church of one’ in his time. Now days there might be a whole lot more Christian yogis and perhaps even yogis of all stripes in there with him.
one apon a time Descartes said "cogitio ergo sum". He self identified himself to the fixed "north star" of consciousness. Thinking was substantial in his personal identity, the essence, his body and social relations were mere accidents, perhaps even merely dreams. Then John Locke challenged the notion of substance, and said beyond the aggregates of properties, there is no self-identical unity independent of the properties. There is no ghostly ship besides all the planks of the ship of thesus. Schopenhauer said that when we are self aware there is no ship, merely a forceful ocean. Hegel says the whole is more than the sum of the parts, but organized parts comprise the whole. A bunch of planks scattered on the face of the turbulent ocean is not a ship. The planks, the ship and the ocean are all abstractions from each other, and each has its moment, but the truth is the whole.
Man, this is a difficult book. Would take an exceptionally high IQ (not something I was born with) to be able to actually understand it without these lessons (as well as learn all the languages that Dr. Sadler knows). One thing, it seems Hegel could have actually said what he was trying to get at in about one-fifth the number of words he used. Seems to be coming back to a lot of the same themes just said in a different way or with different examples. Must have been a wordy fellow. Very interesting read.
"it seems Hegel could have actually said what he was trying to get at in about one-fifth the number of words he used." No. And you don't get to maintain that after saying just how hard the book is. Pick one or the other. Either you're smart enough to tell Hegel how he could/should have used 1/5 the words, or you're not
@@GregoryBSadler be fair though, he does repeat himself a lot... even someone struggling to understand can pick that up. He uses multiple words to indicate the same thing (e.g., sec 54 & 55 "being is thought", "existence is quality, self-identical determinateness, or determinate simplicity, determinate thought", "existence is species, it is simple thought; nous, simplicity is substance") and then shimmies them around to make the same assertions. It can be at the same time bad writing, and great ideas.
@@OdoItal It can at the same time be bad writing, great ideas, and still not the case that "Hegel could have actually said what he was trying to get at in about one-fifth the number of words he used"
Greg, thank you for this amazing, in-depth course! you are truly a great scolar and educator.
Glad to read you enjoyed it. I can't say that in this, I'm getting close to "great" -- it's tough even aiming for "good enough" with Hegel!
I am so glad that you keep bringing up Aristotle. I wouldn't have caught the similarities on my own. It's easy for a Hegel beginner such as myself to enter the text thinking about the labels we associate with Hegel, "idealism", "the Absolute", "Aufhebung", "becoming", etc. and expect something more Platonic - here in the sense that real knowledge and truth is prior to and beyond the physical world of generation and corruption. It seems that Hegel is saying something much more like Aristotle writes in his Metaphysics, if you want to get to the study of being qua being, you start by looking at the world right in front of you, and see in which ways 'being' can be said, and you work from there. When he started talking about thinking as being and the Begriff as the Sache, I expected Hegel to be more "idealistic" in the simplistic sense. No, there's something far more subtle and complex going on here. Of course it goes beyond Aristotle, and I don't know where yet - but thank you for pointing this out.
Plato isn't even '"idealistic" in the simplistic sense'
oops -- here's the new Hegel installation for tonight!
Thanks
You're welcome
Thanks for helping us grasp these difficult passages, and unraveling the history of metaphysics Hegel only touches upon only in passage! A small correction: Its Vernünftigkeit, not Vernunftlichkeit.
+zootme You are right
It's funny that Hegel earlier likened phenomenology to embracing death. Maybe in a tongue and cheek way. I've noticed that genres like Horror _pick-a-medium_ often have themes we come to terms with reading Hegel. The feeling was too uncanny when I was listening to the song 'Silver' by Echo and the Bunnymen.
"The sky is blue
My hands untied
A world that's true
Through our clean eyes
Just look at you
With burning lips
You're living proof
At my fingertips"
Yeah, maybe not exactly as Hegel has in store but I would argue it's there to a large degree. Just not as a system but in its 'familiar' form and using metonymy. This is probably why pop-culture gurus like Zizek take the form of a philosopher with anti-social personality disorder.
I suppose there's many ways of dealing with/displacing death.
" ... the dark corners, the hidden motives, all the things that make life such a mess." Love it! lol
Excellent! Thank you!
You're welcome
Hey Greg
Interested to know if you are aware of any work comparing Hegel and yogic/vedic (adwaita/ddwaita) philosophy. If you feel you can comment I would be interested in your view of the broad similarities/differences.
I have some background in the Indian yogic tradition. In video (24) your discussion seems to reflect elements of the response to jnana yoga's central question of identity - "who am I?" The response is "netti netti" which means "not this nor this" which seems to be akin to Hegel's process of negation within the self.
In yoga “netti netti” points to an experience that leads to the dissolution of self. It can be used as the entry point to a meditation intended to lead to a sense of being the witness. The self-awareness experiences the body and the world of objects as one indistinct objectivity. At the same time there is cessation of thought, disconnection from the ordinary self and a re-connectedness to the greater whole.
I guess there is some friction with Hegel as to how one can witness or experience without thought. In yoga this is asserted as an experiential possibility through what is essentially not definable but called Brahman or existence-consciousness-bliss.
Comparing it to Hegel’s notion of substance as self-identity though. They appear remarkably similar if not possibly convergent. For Hegel self in general seems to at least have some corresponding attributes even if he uses a different terminology for them. If it is not being too ‘loosey goosey’ with the ‘apples and oranges’. Hegel’s equivalent description of the absolute (non-dual) might be existence-thought-quality for example
In Hegel’s philosophy, for anything to express an existence it must determine (think) itself through some form of negation and self-othering. Yoga in these terms though extends Hegel’s negation further. The process of negation and self-othering is inferred as separating thought (as duality) from consciousness (non-dual). This gives rise to the notion of “being beyond thought”. In poetic terms this consciousness if you like is said to be Brahman, 'that which makes the darkness shine'.
In counterpoint to "netti netti" that directs one to the state of dissolution where the darkness may shine. There are the vedic affirmations that are expressions for what can’t be expressed about the experience of that state. These expressions though seem also to bear some relation to Hegel propositions;
"I am Atman (soul)"
vs individual essence formed through Hegel's self-negation
"I am that”
vs Hegel's self-othering (lacking identity)
"Atman is Brahman"
vs Hegel's "I am whole, as part in the completed thought (whole)"
"I am Brahman"
vs Hegel’s thought (non-dual) - pure abstraction
For Hegel all the modes of experience including; emotions, sense perception, logical thought, feeling, performance of actions, all require pure abstraction (thought) to manifest or have being. In terms of the affirmations or propositions, Hegel’s view seems to be orientated towards opening up the thoughtful process within the whole. Yoga on the other hand regards the process in terms that are necessarily experiential. What is the actual difference at this stage (other than terminology) I can’t necessarily fathom. Both do claim a scientific basis. And in fairness to Hegel he too emphasizes the necessity of tarrying with the negative as an experiential process.
I can't claim to be a great meditator or to have necessarily experienced complete dissolution in a conscious way. So I am not raising these notions as a guru or with any necessarily "religious or philosophical zeal". But there does seem to be some significant similarity in philosophical understanding and dynamics between Hegel and yoga.
Greg, hope I haven’t misrepresented either Hegel or yogic philosophy (too much). But if you feel you have any important comments or impressions I’d be interested.
I’d tend to suggest that while Hegel may have been a Christian in ‘a church of one’ in his time. Now days there might be a whole lot more Christian yogis and perhaps even yogis of all stripes in there with him.
"Imagination is the not the same as reality"
Looks into the camera
Smiles in metaphysics...
Great job thank you.
you're welcome
one apon a time Descartes said "cogitio ergo sum". He self identified himself to the fixed "north star" of consciousness. Thinking was substantial in his personal identity, the essence, his body and social relations were mere accidents, perhaps even merely dreams. Then John Locke challenged the notion of substance, and said beyond the aggregates of properties, there is no self-identical unity independent of the properties. There is no ghostly ship besides all the planks of the ship of thesus. Schopenhauer said that when we are self aware there is no ship, merely a forceful ocean. Hegel says the whole is more than the sum of the parts, but organized parts comprise the whole. A bunch of planks scattered on the face of the turbulent ocean is not a ship. The planks, the ship and the ocean are all abstractions from each other, and each has its moment, but the truth is the whole.
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ouroboros
thank you very much.
You're welcome
Man, this is a difficult book. Would take an exceptionally high IQ (not something I was born with) to be able to actually understand it without these lessons (as well as learn all the languages that Dr. Sadler knows). One thing, it seems Hegel could have actually said what he was trying to get at in about one-fifth the number of words he used. Seems to be coming back to a lot of the same themes just said in a different way or with different examples. Must have been a wordy fellow. Very interesting read.
"it seems Hegel could have actually said what he was trying to get at in about one-fifth the number of words he used."
No. And you don't get to maintain that after saying just how hard the book is. Pick one or the other. Either you're smart enough to tell Hegel how he could/should have used 1/5 the words, or you're not
@@GregoryBSadler be fair though, he does repeat himself a lot... even someone struggling to understand can pick that up. He uses multiple words to indicate the same thing (e.g., sec 54 & 55 "being is thought", "existence is quality, self-identical determinateness, or determinate simplicity, determinate thought", "existence is species, it is simple thought; nous, simplicity is substance") and then shimmies them around to make the same assertions. It can be at the same time bad writing, and great ideas.
@@OdoItal It can at the same time be bad writing, great ideas, and still not the case that "Hegel could have actually said what he was trying to get at in about one-fifth the number of words he used"