Even being a first-rate philosopher yourself and reading his studies in tedium apparently doesn't qualify one to say anything derogatory about Herr Doktor Hegel? Then how does one prove to have "understood" Hegel? By agreeing unconditionally with him?
well they are both right if you view hegels metaphysics as a proposal for a kind of possible totality, in which it is true that any part contains the information necessary to reconstruct the whole, this is possible, like analytic extension in complex analysis and so on, or like a puzzle 🧩 with only one solution, you could imagine a puzzle where the edges are like a fractal, but where every piece has a unique edge, such that they only fit together in only one way even though the larger details of the edges look identical, to put together this puzzle correctly you need to observe details on every scale along the edges to see what pieces fit together. none of this necessarily has anything to do with nature, like any other proposal but for the sake of hegels argument or proposal we could have such a world where only observing all possible details would allow you to put together the entire totality, and so on. not obvious that 1 piece has enough information to reconstruct the entire picture, but you can imagine a puzzle like this where the edge details encodes all the other edges in the puzzle, because of the infinite amount of information you could encode on the edges. this isn’t metaphysically necessary tho, i think thats russels point but this is a kind of physical question about the totality being this that or the other, not really about necessary truths. even so i think hegek could easily be right, but if so more as a speculator about physics based on earlier ideas than a metaphysician.
No one can reach The Truth unless they are truthful. Whatever truth we give is the truth we get. In keeping one's word Truth is kept in a journey of Vertical Reasoning that. "Above & Beyond is the object & WE=mc2 are The Universal Subjects of ONE=mc2 TRUE=mc2 INFINITE=mc2 ROYAL LOVE=mc2.
I think we assess value of knowledge in different ways and our difference is likely to be ideological. To me, any knowledge is valuable on its own, hence not just if useful or potentially useful for some practical purpose. I think there's something as 'theoretical value'. Surely, overcoming naive realism is useful to understand modern physics, which in turn is useful in a practical sense. But imagine it weren't ultimately useful for any practical purpose. It would still be of huge value to me.
I'd say one first has to get in tune with him in order to later be able to refute him and not some strawman. Most analytic philosophers seem unable of the former. But that of course doesn't prove Hegel right.
The natural sciences are obviously useful, and so is everything that strengthens man's understanding of them (such as abstract mathematics or the philosophy of science). I suppose all knowledge is potentially useful, but if it is too obscure to be understood directly and too abstract to have any falsifiable implications, then how is the public to assess its usefulness? Especially when the establishment we rely on for expert opinion routinely trashes continental philosophy?
This is absolutely amazing, thanks for uploading Russell's "The History Of Western Philosophy"!
The conclusion, after complex description of abstract indefinable ideas, is that Russell hates Hegel.
Thought needs a ground of silence and a gap to be distinguished from other thoughts.
Even being a first-rate philosopher yourself and reading his studies in tedium apparently doesn't qualify one to say anything derogatory about Herr Doktor Hegel? Then how does one prove to have "understood" Hegel? By agreeing unconditionally with him?
Metaphysical without contradiction. Good.
Great video, thank you very much , note to self(nts) watched all of it
19:25
well they are both right if you view hegels metaphysics as a proposal for a kind of possible totality, in which it is true that any part contains the information necessary to reconstruct the whole, this is possible, like analytic extension in complex analysis and so on, or like a puzzle 🧩 with only one solution, you could imagine a puzzle where the edges are like a fractal, but where every piece has a unique edge, such that they only fit together in only one way even though the larger details of the edges look identical, to put together this puzzle correctly you need to observe details on every scale along the edges to see what pieces fit together. none of this necessarily has anything to do with nature, like any other proposal but for the sake of hegels argument or proposal we could have such a world where only observing all possible details would allow you to put together the entire totality, and so on. not obvious that 1 piece has enough information to reconstruct the entire picture, but you can imagine a puzzle like this where the edge details encodes all the other edges in the puzzle, because of the infinite amount of information you could encode on the edges. this isn’t metaphysically necessary tho, i think thats russels point but this is a kind of physical question about the totality being this that or the other, not really about necessary truths. even so i think hegek could easily be right, but if so more as a speculator about physics based on earlier ideas than a metaphysician.
Suppose I am the absolute, which means there is nothing else but me.
For Friedrich Hegel, there is no freedom without a law.
No one can reach The Truth unless they are truthful. Whatever truth we give is the truth we get. In keeping one's word Truth is kept in a journey of Vertical Reasoning that. "Above & Beyond is the object & WE=mc2 are The Universal Subjects of ONE=mc2 TRUE=mc2 INFINITE=mc2 ROYAL LOVE=mc2.
From
You’re the man (or woman) to have uploaded all these videos!
I think we assess value of knowledge in different ways and our difference is likely to be ideological. To me, any knowledge is valuable on its own, hence not just if useful or potentially useful for some practical purpose. I think there's something as 'theoretical value'.
Surely, overcoming naive realism is useful to understand modern physics, which in turn is useful in a practical sense. But imagine it weren't ultimately useful for any practical purpose. It would still be of huge value to me.
Could it be any other way?
I'd say one first has to get in tune with him in order to later be able to refute him and not some strawman.
Most analytic philosophers seem unable of the former.
But that of course doesn't prove Hegel right.
Hegel's like a wolf in sheep's skin, a Spinoza coated in Kantian elegance
so is Hegel's absolute/spirit a form of pantheism?
The natural sciences are obviously useful, and so is everything that strengthens man's understanding of them (such as abstract mathematics or the philosophy of science). I suppose all knowledge is potentially useful, but if it is too obscure to be understood directly and too abstract to have any falsifiable implications, then how is the public to assess its usefulness? Especially when the establishment we rely on for expert opinion routinely trashes continental philosophy?
Hegel and Kafka walk into a bar ,the bartender says you'll have to leave . Please pull up a chair . Hegel, is there really a chair