Half Hour Hegel: The Complete Phenomenology of Spirit (Sense Certainty, sec. 90-93)
HTML-код
- Опубликовано: 21 окт 2024
- Get Hegel's Phenomenology - amzn.to/2hVyru6
The entire series - gregorybsadler...
Support my work here - / sadler
or Buy Me A Coffee - www.buymeacoff...
Philosophy tutorials - reasonio.wordp...
Take classes with me - reasonio.teach...
Request personal videos on Cameo - www.cameo.com/...
In this thirty-ninth video in the new series on G.W.F. Hegel's great early work, the Phenomenology of Spirit, I read and comment on the ninetieth, ninety-first, ninety-second, and ninety-third paragraphs of the text, beginning our study of the first portion of the section "Consciousness," i.e "Sense Certainty".
Hegel begins the Phenomenology proper in this section, beginning from what seems at first to be the most immediate, most concrete, and truest kind of knowledge -- Sense Certainty, which purports to give us an unmediated consciousness of objects.
As it turns out, matters are more complicated than this. Sense Certainty turns out to provide an abstract truth in relation to the object, reducing it to a "This", and likewise treating consciousness as a pure "I," a second "This." In fact, what we take to be the essence of Sense Certainty reveals itself as being just an example or instance of it. Sense Certainty turns out to be mediated, precisely through the "I" that at first seemed inessential.
In this video series, I will be working through the entire Phenomenology, paragraph by paragraph -- for each one, first reading the paragraph, and then commenting on what Hegel is doing, referencing, discussing, etc. in that paragraph.
This series is designed to provide an innovative digital resource that will assist students, lifelong learners, professionals, and even other philosophers in studying this classic work by Hegel for generations to come.
I'll be using and referencing the A.V. Miller English-language translation of the Phenomenology, which is available here: amzn.to/1jDUI6w
The introductory music for the video is: Johann Sebastian Bach, Partita No. 1 in Bm, BWV 1002, is available in the public domain, and can be found at musopen.org.
If you'd like to support my work producing videos like this, become a Patreon supporter! Here's the link to find out more - including the rewards I offer backers: / sadler
You can also make a direct contribution to help fund my ongoing educational projects, by clicking here: www.paypal.me/...
If you're interested in philosophy tutorial sessions with me, click here: reasonio.wordp...
My videos are used by students, lifelong learners, other professors, and professionals to learn more about topics, texts, and thinkers in philosophy, religious studies, literature, social-political theory, critical thinking, and communications. These include college and university classes, British A-levels preparation, and Indian civil service (IAS) examination preparation
(Amazon links are associate links. As an Amazon Associate I earn from qualifying purchases)
#Hegel #Phenomenology #Philosophy #Idealism #German #Dialectic #Spirit #Absolute #Knowledge #History
A few firsts here for this project! This is the first new installment in the Half-Hour Hegel series for 2015. We're also finally starting the Phenomenology proper, with the first section, Sense Certainty.
You can expect to see about 5-6 new installments each month through 2015. I'm hoping by year's end, we'll be all the way through the divisions of Consciousness and Self-Consciousness and well in to the division Reason (you know, the parts of the Phenomenology that most people tend to skip over, but which are very rich in interesting material)!
ens..with no determining essence ( quiddity e.g horse, man). NO distinction between subject and object (yet) and no Being of beings (esse) because that is what the multiple ens have in common, and that implies multiplicity and difference, which has not happened...yet...."when an object has quailites"= substance and the accidents.(but each accident is also a category...something like a universal... can someone concretely perceive themselves, not mediated through an object( or another subject?)? Descartes cogito not as a deduction, but as a concrete experience? how does one distinguish one example from another? thus begins the contiguous passage of time, and the principle of contradiction....(Taoists everywhere would say....how about a continuous experience of time(sorry Zeno's arrow), or even Boethius' toto simul? classically, to perceive is to be subject( and passive) to that which objects to you. thank you
here is someone else who thinks the experience of "this" is prior to any identification into "subject" or "object", or any essence what so ever.
plato.stanford.edu/entries/nishida-kitaro/
it seems the phenomenologists want to side step the problem of knowledge as the correspondence theory. Instead of trying to overcome any difference between subject and object, simply assume and assert their unity as a prior condition before one's phenomenological investigation. Hegel does it with the "this" in Sense certainty, and Hiedegger does it with his assertion that hammering ( as an example of unself-aware engaged activity) is primary and primordial, (which then can be divided into hammers and hammerers as "abstractions").
I think it is both a logical and developmental progression. IF I attempt to understand the section from a first person perspective, it is like the first point of consciousness of a baby human. As soon as the differences and contradictions appear, one has to make sense out of them. I can also see the section from the third person perspective , ( from the point of view of the narrator who knows the whole argument). AS an illustration, imagine you are going to shoot some rapids in the first person. You cannot see the whole course, and really, are going to be extremely focused on the water about 4 or 5 feet in front of your boat. Now imagine a third person sitting on a mountain top, who can see the whole river at once, and as he knows the river, can narrate your first person experience. ( where is the second person perspective?...they are the other people in the boat with you...)
I'd suggest going through the entire section to see where Hegel is going with this, before generalizing too much about what he's doing in just these four paragraphs.
Hegel is definitely not sidestepping the problem of knowledge, as correspondance or any other one. And, he's discussing Sense Certainty first not because we begin with a baby human's perspective, but because that's where consciousness -- the consciousness of many adult humans talking about knowledge of the reality -- often begins. You'll see this as you see the examples he uses. Hegel just thinks that while plenty of people talk that way, it doesn't provide a satisfactory basis for knowledge
your comment at 26:48 - 27:03 brilliantly and concisely answered a question I have long had about the Hegelian view of immediacy/mediation；once again, many thanks!
Morrison Ryan You're welcome!
I just wanted to say, that you are doing a brilliant job with this. Phenomenology of spirit is one of the most complicated works in the history of western philosophy. Such elaboration (section by section) is truly very heplhul. Thank you.
I'm glad I've finally felt comfortable enough to confront some of hegel's works for the first time and, I must say, these half-hour hegel videos are great!
Glad to read all of this!
Hey there, big fan! I have been watching this series alongside 2 commentaries and I must say, your commentary always makes the most comprehensive sense. Thank you so much for creating such an amazing contribution to philosophy (in the form of a commentary)!
You're very welcome - glad that the videos are useful for you!
I love youman. Your videos had saved my live.
I'm glad they were useful for you
This was great! I decided that I'm going to 'arm-chair' philosophy this book and really started struggling when I got to the 'Inverted World' that has Laws that don't exist, but do, in the fact that they don't in this world but not the other. I was looking for resources and found this amazing series! Thank you so much for doing this; taking your own time to help us all up this Sisyphus-Hill of Negation and nonsense
Glad you found it useful. That's one of the toughest parts of the book.
If you'd like to support the project, here's my Patreon page - www.patreon.com/drgbsadler
This is an amazing series! Thank you for the time and effort you put in to create this body of work.
I’m taking a graduate level course on Hegel’s phenomenology in the fall and can’t express how much of a help this is / will be!
Dr. Sadler is the paragraph 90 directly against the Kantian philosophy? As İ feel like something couldn't have existed ("what simply is") without subtracting something from it, or shaping it (by categorizing). Thank you.
As critical as Hegel was of mysticism, it's weird because I encountered basically this exact concept within mysticism. Particularly among the kabbalists, they have this idea that the 4 letter name of God is a description of the process of manifestation/creation, and also the process by which the mystic becomes fully realized.
YOD, the pure sense-certainty, gnosis, etc. The bright spark of the immediate. But that is necessarily followed by HEH, a breath, a pause and a reflection wherein the "I" develops as an observer of pure gnosis. VAU, the subject recreates the pure sensation as an object, exteriorizing the immediate as a sort of "outpouring". And then HEH again, another pause and reflection, as the subject observes the object, comes to know the object, and births a new creation which is the subject-object relationship, a crystalized unity of the whole process (which for the kabbalists is a never ending process, each unity creating a new YOD, or spark of the immediate that, in turn, contains the YHVH that preceded it, in a sort of perpetual recursion).
I'm a bit surprised to see a similar schema emerging within Hegel, whom I had mostly associated with materialism prior to actually reading this book. I'm very intrigued to see where the book goes from here.
There's materialism, and then there's materialism. It's a mistake to assume that everything someone else assembled under an "-ism" is all basically the same
I really, really. really appreciate all the work you are going through, and just giving to the public for free, but the volume levels between some of your cuts can be deafening! It's certainly an easy fix, and makes a load of difference for headphone users!
Thanks again for all your hard work!
Kyle Browning Glad you enjoy the videos
Many thanks for such enterprise, professor!
+MrLucas1963 You're quite welcome!
Many thanks. Finals week is coming up and I was really confused. Greetings from Greece.
Glad it was useful
Thanks for sharing ❤
You’re welcome!
I have started reading Heidegger' s Being and Time concurrently with listening to your Hegel expositions (am up to the Master/Slave dialectic...so would it be right to conclude that Heidegger and Hegel disagree on how to interpret 'perception'? Whilst Hegel teases apart this 'perception' Heidegger' s phenomenology starts by saying ... no, the world does not initially appear to us empirically as perception at all... but we 'perceive' the world through our being absorbed in it... Has there been attempts made to reconcile these different ways to make sense of our sense-making?
I wouldn’t try to compare and contrast at this point. Get through the whole of both books, and then do that
I know you use the widely available Miller translation for its accessibility. But I am unsure why the similar term "sensuous certainty" is used in other translations of the Phenomenology, especially in the more specific way where it appears in §91, while "Sense-Certainty" appears only later in said translation.
From the original German: "sinnlichen Gewißheit" (section 91) is translated as "sensuous certainty" as opposed to "sinnliche Gewißheit" (section 92) which is translated as "Sense-Certainty." I have no idea if that would have a subtle difference in meaning in the German.
Even English translations of M&E's The German Ideology and Feuerbach's 'Towards a Critique of Hegel’s Philosophy' use "sensuous certainty" which seems to me to be differentiated from "Sense-Certainty."
Thank you for the video.
You’re welcome. I wouldn’t worry overmuch about that
you are awsome dr. G
Hahha! Thanks!
Thanks for these. I finished the Phenomenology last year, I just finished the Kojeve and am making my way through Hyppolite, but I got lost at the end of Perception and the beginning of Understanding (again). Anyways, this helps a lot.
Glad it's helpful for you
Here in section 93 Hegel seems to contradict what he said in section 84 of the introduction when he spoke about the semblance of dissociation being overcome and the notion and object both falling within the knowledge we are investigating.
"Seems" is the key word there. Keep in mind - this is part of a complex dialogical process here. And you're comparing it to the overview of the introduction. See where you are a few paragraphs from now
So if the object "remains" and "is" regardless of whether or not it is known, then doesn't this break away from the idealist thesis, namely that thought and being coincide? If the tree falling makes a noise when no one is there to perceive it, doesn't this put Hegel into the "realist" camp? Or is this not actually Hegel's position, and instead is just a stage of consciousness that he will soon sublate?
The latter. But keep in mind that Hegel isn't your typical idealist.
Wow. good lecture Proff. Studying the preface helps for sure. Thanks
Wei Wu Wei
being not being
doing not doing.
You're welcome! I've got to say: you're right that studying the Preface helps. . . but it's nice to be in the real "meat" of the work at last
Жжщ
Hegel: Critiquing the living daylights out of Hippies before being a hippy was cool
Indeed!
I love how you can find bits in a 200+ year old text that seem to be direct replies to Sam Harris nerds in youtube comments
See how "This" is describing Being-in-the-world..
+jzar eva as limited to....being in the world..
Great video. @34:06 I bet this is where someone like Heidegger starts to quibble about what has to happen for the object to *be.* Not that I think Heidegger's an external world skeptic or anything, just a cheap Heideggerian ontology joke more than anything else.
You know Heidegger has lectures on this portion of the Phenomenology, right?
@@GregoryBSadler I did not, thanks for the heads up.
Im assuming you have read some Guy Debord with your use of the word spectacle haha
I've read Debord. He was far from the only person to use the term "spectacle", so no, I'm not really thinking about him as all that central
"Women are considered deep - why? Because one can never discover any bottom to them. Women are not even shallow." -Nietzsche. This is what I thought of when I think of sense certainty. It is so shallow that, it's not even shallow, it's own shallowness prevents us from seeing shallowness as such, and thus it appears deep.
No idea why you’d want to repeat Nietzsche’s cringeworthy misogyny, but you lost me at that point