Thanks so much for these lectures. I am a lay person when it comes to philosophy, but it has been a "hobby" of mine now for 30 years. I had always heard that Hegel is a hard read and I opened this book last week and, geez! I went looking here on youtube for help and found your installments. RUclips at it's finest! Thanks again.
I'm glad you began with the whole preface because the first time I tried to read this, I was encouraged to skip the preface as it is "unnecessary", "too dense" and "contains Hegel's entire dialectal system". Hegel's right to say that there can be no substitute for working though the body of the book itself, but at least this preface establishes why it is worth working through in the first place and why the journey he guides us on must be so torturous.
I suppose I shouldn't really laugh when reading that. . . but I have to admit that I did! So. . . the Preface is "too dense", and one ought to skip it? Definitely bad advice. And Hegel's pretty clear that it does not contain his whole system, and not even its outlines. . . Glad that the videos are getting you into the Preface
The next installment of the series -- here, Hegel explicitly tells us about the structure of the work, in terms of a progress through shapes of consciousness
You're right that many people (maybe still under the influence of Kojève?) limit themselves to the master/servant dialectic, missing what the larger (!) gesture of the Phen. will have been had they kept going. Of course, by "many people" I mean the exceedingly few who read Hegel at all, and the fewer who do not limit themselves to 'selections'. Love this series.
eupraxis1 I think there is a very good reason why the self-consciousness chapter stands out to people these days; and not only because of it's relative cogency sandwiched between the obscure Force and the Understanding section and the long Reason chapter. It's because it offers a way into system of ethics/politics that does away with the abstract formalism of, say, the categorical imperative (or other liberal theories of justice). And, perhaps against Hegel's intentions, it does this in a way that doesn't presuppose the know-ability of the absolute.
manthropology I think eupraxis1 might have left the series a while back -- but to take his side here: we do get quite a bit more of that "ethics of recognition" and critique of other moral theories later in the other parts of the Phenomenology -- including in that Reason portion. Now, the idea of parts of the Phenomenology that wouldn't presuppose the Absolute, i.e. the whole finished Hegelian System -- that I actually like quite a bit. I think anyone who wants to see what's going on Hegel's works as useful, but don't want to buy into the whole system and its end point in Absolute Knowing (which includes myself) has to come to terms eventually with figuring out how one is going to address Hegel's insistence that all of it only really "works" from the standpoint of the end-point.
I think the Master/Slave portion as the primary focus is in many ways a legacy of Marxism. You can see in that section, above and beyond any other, what would eventually become Bourgeoisie/Proletariat. I'm actually reading Kojeve and Adorno in conjunction with Hegel this time around. The part of the Kojeve book on that section is brilliant, but I agree it's shame it has come to stand for the Phenomenology as a whole. Adorno is even more explicitly reading Hegel via Marx. I'm liking his book on Hegel (Three Studies) considerably less than his book on Kant. Adorno's lectures one the Critique of Pure Reason are pretty much the best commentary on Kant I've ever read.
I'm now making my way back through this for the third time. When I catch up to you I start again. When I started everything sounded like gibberish, certainly the book and even the tutorial. As I made my way through the second time the book made hardly anymore sense but the tutorial was starting to pierce my understanding. As I make my way through the third time even the reading is becoming more and more clear and I'm beginning to enjoy the WORK of the phenomenology. It seems to me, however, that even more than the work the hardest part of the phenomonology is sustaining the faith necessary to do the work and the confidence that there is something there even if you can't see it yet. It's easy to become nihilistic both in the phenomonology proper as well as in the readings. It's relieving too finally see a little light.
I really enjoyed this part. One of the things that actually gets me engaged in subjects that I didn't previously enjoy to the same extent is to see its historical development. Studying the history and philosophy of science greatly helped me see the beauty of the development of natural science. All of these people in the past that pushed the limits of knowledge even further beyond, did so painstakingly in ways that seem trivial to us. Sometimes we went off in the weeds and got many things wrong. Then, to see contemporary science as part of that progression and not separate from its history greatly moves me.
The end of paragraph 27 reminds me of Dante's Divine Comedy. Dante wants to go straight up the mountain towards God, but gets blocked predatory animals (his sins). Then he has to work his way through inferno, hell and heaven, going through all circles to get to God. After going through he can see God and he gains (absolute) understanding. If one of the people who starts at the Absolute would have been the hero of the Divine Comedy it would just be a bloke who claims to be on top of that mountain and to understand God, without making the actual journey; which would make it a boring book.
Reminds me of O'Neil's title, "The Iceman Cometh". I'm glad to read those two judgements -- that the lecture is actually on-point, and entertaining as well. I suspect that the latter is more often lacking in discussions of Hegel
Thought I would share this tidbit: 2-years ago I needed to buy a calculator for a graduate level stats exam, since it was a 'closed book' exam, and my 5 year old son became enamoured with it. The calculator never left his side, and he used it to calculate all sorts of things. 2-years later he still uses it all the time and now comes home from 2nd grade saying things like 'School was fun, but Daddy, we didn't do any math today, and I really wanted to do math.' So even in the era of ubiquitous smart screens and all sorts of crazy video games, and endless on demand content made specifically for every conceivable type of child, my kid sense of wonder at the power of a 'dumb' calculator is a reminder sometimes the simplest tools can ignite the most profound curiosity and passion.
Thanks for this. I got through these sections and I was very excited to see the title mentioned! I had a realisation that reflectivity, into itself, is part of Hegel’s system of thought to some degree (end of section 28). Did this inform Derrida and others who may have focused on self-reflectivity or self-reflexivity?
I'm absolutely loving this series! I had a question though. Did Hegel coin the term phenomenology? If not, then how was it used prior to this work? I just finished a Modern Philosophy course, and we went from Descartes to Kant, but phenomenology was never discussed.
A few other people used it before Hegel, but seemingly with different things in mind than Hegel. Kant uses the term "phenomenon" and "phenomenal" a lot, of course, but yes, you won't encounter it in pre-19th century modern philosophy. Glad you're enjoying the series!
Your videos are the most didactic commentary on Hegel I've seen or read, bar none, I'm enjoying them more than Heidegger's and that's a lot. You said maybe the xx century was a decline in the development of the Geist. Do you go deeper into this opinion anywhere? Would love to hear you more on the subject, I'm partial to the same idea. Do you think Hegel is right when he says the Geist general tendency is towards development?
Hegel doesn't say that Geist's general tendency is towards development. In fact in many places, it can and does wind up in impasses. Hegel writes about where it is making progress for the most part
it's difficult, but we are advancing too. it would have helped if we had actual funding and more researchers. the social sciences are very poorly developed in the capitalist world :/
If I understand you right,vulgar Marxism and similar dogmas could be seen as making the error of seeing the master slave as being totally current and relevant.
Perhaps we do need to rise up again professor Sadler!
Thanks so much for these lectures. I am a lay person when it comes to philosophy, but it has been a "hobby" of mine now for 30 years. I had always heard that Hegel is a hard read and I opened this book last week and, geez! I went looking here on youtube for help and found your installments. RUclips at it's finest! Thanks again.
You're very welcome. He is indeed a hard read, so I'm glad you're finding this series helpful!
I'm glad you began with the whole preface because the first time I tried to read this, I was encouraged to skip the preface as it is "unnecessary", "too dense" and "contains Hegel's entire dialectal system". Hegel's right to say that there can be no substitute for working though the body of the book itself, but at least this preface establishes why it is worth working through in the first place and why the journey he guides us on must be so torturous.
I suppose I shouldn't really laugh when reading that. . . but I have to admit that I did!
So. . . the Preface is "too dense", and one ought to skip it? Definitely bad advice. And Hegel's pretty clear that it does not contain his whole system, and not even its outlines. . .
Glad that the videos are getting you into the Preface
The next installment of the series -- here, Hegel explicitly tells us about the structure of the work, in terms of a progress through shapes of consciousness
You're right that many people (maybe still under the influence of Kojève?) limit themselves to the master/servant dialectic, missing what the larger (!) gesture of the Phen. will have been had they kept going. Of course, by "many people" I mean the exceedingly few who read Hegel at all, and the fewer who do not limit themselves to 'selections'.
Love this series.
Hahaha! Yes, "many" is a highly qualified term in using it of Hegel readership
eupraxis1
I think there is a very good reason why the self-consciousness chapter stands out to people these days; and not only because of it's relative cogency sandwiched between the obscure Force and the Understanding section and the long Reason chapter. It's because it offers a way into system of ethics/politics that does away with the abstract formalism of, say, the categorical imperative (or other liberal theories of justice). And, perhaps against Hegel's intentions, it does this in a way that doesn't presuppose the know-ability of the absolute.
manthropology
I think eupraxis1 might have left the series a while back -- but to take his side here: we do get quite a bit more of that "ethics of recognition" and critique of other moral theories later in the other parts of the Phenomenology -- including in that Reason portion.
Now, the idea of parts of the Phenomenology that wouldn't presuppose the Absolute, i.e. the whole finished Hegelian System -- that I actually like quite a bit. I think anyone who wants to see what's going on Hegel's works as useful, but don't want to buy into the whole system and its end point in Absolute Knowing (which includes myself) has to come to terms eventually with figuring out how one is going to address Hegel's insistence that all of it only really "works" from the standpoint of the end-point.
I think the Master/Slave portion as the primary focus is in many ways a legacy of Marxism. You can see in that section, above and beyond any other, what would eventually become Bourgeoisie/Proletariat. I'm actually reading Kojeve and Adorno in conjunction with Hegel this time around. The part of the Kojeve book on that section is brilliant, but I agree it's shame it has come to stand for the Phenomenology as a whole.
Adorno is even more explicitly reading Hegel via Marx. I'm liking his book on Hegel (Three Studies) considerably less than his book on Kant. Adorno's lectures one the Critique of Pure Reason are pretty much the best commentary on Kant I've ever read.
I'm now making my way back through this for the third time. When I catch up to you I start again. When I started everything sounded like gibberish, certainly the book and even the tutorial. As I made my way through the second time the book made hardly anymore sense but the tutorial was starting to pierce my understanding. As I make my way through the third time even the reading is becoming more and more clear and I'm beginning to enjoy the WORK of the phenomenology. It seems to me, however, that even more than the work the hardest part of the phenomonology is sustaining the faith necessary to do the work and the confidence that there is something there even if you can't see it yet. It's easy to become nihilistic both in the phenomonology proper as well as in the readings. It's relieving too finally see a little light.
Yes, it takes several passes to make sense out of Hegel, that's for certain
I really enjoyed this part. One of the things that actually gets me engaged in subjects that I didn't previously enjoy to the same extent is to see its historical development. Studying the history and philosophy of science greatly helped me see the beauty of the development of natural science. All of these people in the past that pushed the limits of knowledge even further beyond, did so painstakingly in ways that seem trivial to us. Sometimes we went off in the weeds and got many things wrong. Then, to see contemporary science as part of that progression and not separate from its history greatly moves me.
I'm ready for more Hegel!
yay
So. . . . all caught up? I'll have more coming later on this week
yes.
Preface, sec 27-28 thank you
The end of paragraph 27 reminds me of Dante's Divine Comedy. Dante wants to go straight up the mountain towards God, but gets blocked predatory animals (his sins). Then he has to work his way through inferno, hell and heaven, going through all circles to get to God. After going through he can see God and he gains (absolute) understanding.
If one of the people who starts at the Absolute would have been the hero of the Divine Comedy it would just be a bloke who claims to be on top of that mountain and to understand God, without making the actual journey; which would make it a boring book.
Great, fascinating lectures!
Thanks!
The progressive embodiment of historical development. The Notion cometh. Well done and entertaining lecture.
Reminds me of O'Neil's title, "The Iceman Cometh".
I'm glad to read those two judgements -- that the lecture is actually on-point, and entertaining as well. I suspect that the latter is more often lacking in discussions of Hegel
Thought I would share this tidbit: 2-years ago I needed to buy a calculator for a graduate level stats exam, since it was a 'closed book' exam, and my 5 year old son became enamoured with it. The calculator never left his side, and he used it to calculate all sorts of things. 2-years later he still uses it all the time and now comes home from 2nd grade saying things like 'School was fun, but Daddy, we didn't do any math today, and I really wanted to do math.'
So even in the era of ubiquitous smart screens and all sorts of crazy video games, and endless on demand content made specifically for every conceivable type of child, my kid sense of wonder at the power of a 'dumb' calculator is a reminder sometimes the simplest tools can ignite the most profound curiosity and passion.
That is indeed a cool story
Thanks for this. I got through these sections and I was very excited to see the title mentioned!
I had a realisation that reflectivity, into itself, is part of Hegel’s system of thought to some degree (end of section 28). Did this inform Derrida and others who may have focused on self-reflectivity or self-reflexivity?
Derrida has plenty of other potential sources for that insight, which also predates Hegel.
I'm absolutely loving this series! I had a question though. Did Hegel coin the term phenomenology? If not, then how was it used prior to this work? I just finished a Modern Philosophy course, and we went from Descartes to Kant, but phenomenology was never discussed.
A few other people used it before Hegel, but seemingly with different things in mind than Hegel. Kant uses the term "phenomenon" and "phenomenal" a lot, of course, but yes, you won't encounter it in pre-19th century modern philosophy.
Glad you're enjoying the series!
Your videos are the most didactic commentary on Hegel I've seen or read, bar none, I'm enjoying them more than Heidegger's and that's a lot. You said maybe the xx century was a decline in the development of the Geist. Do you go deeper into this opinion anywhere? Would love to hear you more on the subject, I'm partial to the same idea. Do you think Hegel is right when he says the Geist general tendency is towards development?
Hegel doesn't say that Geist's general tendency is towards development. In fact in many places, it can and does wind up in impasses. Hegel writes about where it is making progress for the most part
@@GregoryBSadler thank you very much for your answer professor! I wish you an excellent Sunday!
What books could introduce me to Hegel?
Would Hegel have been aware of the difficulties of making a social science a science like the hard sciences?
Yes
it's difficult, but we are advancing too. it would have helped if we had actual funding and more researchers. the social sciences are very poorly developed in the capitalist world :/
If I understand you right,vulgar Marxism and similar dogmas could be seen as making the error of seeing the master slave as being totally current and relevant.
+lyndon bailey Yes - for a lot of interpretations of Hegel, it's really the central motif, and anything else they take is fitted around that