Knowledge is power , power corrupts As Antithesis. Ignorance is weakness , weakness is moral As Thesis. Knowledge is power , power is moral As Synthesis.
Listening to the rap song "Younkers" by Tyler the Creator (it is obsene, but he was 19) It showcase's Hegel's dialectics, just as most songs due, but it's flamboyant nature, makes it more clear.thanks to the flamboyant nature of the rhetoric. Plus it has double entendres to support both anti-thesis for the audience to use their own logic to create the conclusion. .
Solid shortened explanation. The longer version is excellent. I wish I had a playback machine with your videos with me at all times, so I could play them for people (or myself) when needed. You do such a great job. I don't always fully agree with some of your opines, but you do an excellent job of debating your reasons.
There is a big difference between saying "it appeared to the religious Jews that are being indicted in Surah 4", and saying "later Roman and Greek writers repeated a false report that they heard" Surah 4:157 suggest the first statement, but not the second.
"For to him who has will more be given; and from him who has not, even what he has will be taken away." - Mark 4:25, RSV. Jesus is the thesis against which there is no antithesis and no synthesis. The debate is over. The TRUTH, the thesis is a PERSON.
The dialectic is a moment of the speculative logic of concepts. It is not so much a "process" or "formula" that can be applied, instead it's a moment in the self-realization of objective concepts. And this is a self-realization not, a combination of external concepts as Dr. Cooper said. It is an immanent critique. The concept must be analyzed on its own merit, and oftentimes this analysis will lead into a contradiction which locks the concept, a dialectical deadlock, the speculative aspect is when you realize this dialectical deadlock as its own concept, and in this realization the concept is objective in and for itself. The easiest and best way to grasp this is in the simplest form. The analysis of the most presuppositionless concept there is, namely Being. Thinking immediate Being without any visual or sensory representations will lead you to think Nothing, you cannot think immediate Being, nothing is there. But Nothing *Is*, which means Nothing is Being, and Being is Nothing. Here is the dialectical deadlock we are stuck in. The speculative step is realizing that this immediate vanishing of Being into Nothing into Being is Becoming, it's pure movement, turns out immediate Being and Nothing wasn't True, what was true was Becoming. But now, Becoming is... becoming what? Just pure Becoming makes no sense, since it must become something. So the immediate vanishing of Being into Nothing into Being etc has itself vanished, and the Becoming vanishes into Determined Being. We tried thinking immediate Being, could not do it, thinking Nothing which Is, this back and forth was recognized as movement, and the movement moved to an determined extistence. So you can see here how the concepts in syllogisms depend and organically grow out of each other, and Hegel continues this through his entire philosophy. Immanently critique the concept until it locks itself in contradiction and finally recognize what this lock is. These 3 moments, of Understanding (Try thinking the concept of immediate Being), of Dialectical (The concept ends up in a deadlock, immediate Being immediately leading into Nothing leading to Being etc), of Speculation (This duality is itself its own concept of Becoming).
but it's the thing that a lot of people know about him if they've only heard about him in passing, so it's almost inevitable that it would be mentioned whether it helps or not.
Regarding tensions, conflict etc. is that in your opinion as the worlds spirit growing, the result of God’s judgment in Genesis 3, namely the enmity “God put” between the offspring of Eve and the offspring of Satan (believers and unbelievers)?
Problem: Hegel takes into the Zeitgeist notion only civilized humans ... merging their differing worldviews to grow the specie's logic, etc. He was from late 18th, early 19th C., just at the time 'democracy' was being (re)introduced and attempts to merge/integrate the hard-fought civility of Europe with the newly discovered 'New World' tribalist/commune-ist/uncivilized humans, first 'contacted' during 'the age of discovery' ... which has failed horribly under his notions of thesis/antithesis/synthesis moving the specie forwards and upwards ... it has moved us backwards and downwards.
The best example i can come up with is this. Freedom when it comes to drunk driving. Originally it was not illegal to drive drunk and people were outraged about people dying in car accidents due to drunk drivers. The concept of 'freedom' the idea relates to the freedom of you to drive after drinking but also the 'freedom' of others to not be killed by a drunk driver. Thus they made it legal to drive under the influence but imposed B.A.C limits (typically 0.8)
None of his lip flapping makes sense. It is noting but gibberish. Why is it not seen for what it is? Thousands bought into his BS. Guy should have worked in a circus.
My criticism of Dialectic will always be that, in all cases, the synthesis is irrespective of objective reality. For example: Thesis: Gun Laws stop violence. Antithesis: No, they don't; and they violate my rights under the 2nd Amendment. Synthesis: Compromise and have 'common sense' gun laws. So...what happens when reality rears its ugly head and the laws, in fact, DO NOT STOP VIOLENCE??
Reminds me of my time at university when I took a class on Hegel's "Phänomenologie des Geistes" and since the prof had said in another, unrelated class, that we are supposed to have read a book at least 3 times before taking a class on it, I did my best and read the whole thing once 😂. Only to find out when the class started that we weren't actually talking about more than the introduction. The prof said to actually study the whole book, it would take more semesters than my whole course of study even encompassed 😊. I think it was about 12 semesters to cover the whole book (and I think at the time the only university who actually had a class about the whole book was in Berlin and I studied in Bamberg, Bavaria, where Hegel had actually lived for some time and worked at a local newspaper I think. We still have the "Hegel weeks" at the local university where they have lectures open to the public about him). And normal duration to get an MA was between 8 to 10 semesters.
Dr. Cooper, I've watched your videos for about as long as you have been on RUclips. And I'd like to apologize for any unnecessary offense I may have given you over the years with my comments. I find your videos useful but theology tends to be, shall we say "high brow." I can understand what you are saying but doubt most Christians can. And I have been concerned at times because people can make the love theology their idol. I have a tendency to be harsh and impatient at times out of concern for God's children (and my flesh). Social media seems to bring out our worst. Imagine Luther on Twitter. Use the gifts God has given you to build up Christ's Church which is built mostly of common people.
Perhaps I didn't understand your point correctly, but to me, it seems like you're pulling up a false dichotomy. It seems like you're saying "a more shallow explanation of Christian theology is more godly, while a "high brow" explanation always comes off as arrogant and high-horsey. " I don't understand why, to you, somebody's ministry should never be directed to "intellectuals", or people who devote themselves to theology also?
Thesis, liberalism / secularism / Antithesis, conservatism/ religion Synthesis, "Christian " nationalism/ New World Order I Hope this opens your eyes, Americans
Find the full talk here: ruclips.net/video/-DWAF6YC-YM/видео.htmlsi=KoaHz57zI24CppGT
Knowledge is power , power corrupts As Antithesis.
Ignorance is weakness , weakness is moral As Thesis.
Knowledge is power , power is moral As Synthesis.
The best thing about the video is the way it was abruptly cut at the end, in finest Gen Z fashion. 😄 Thanks, doc, helpful.
That's how he sucks you into watching the full clip😋
@@antennawilde why 'sucked in'? Nothing wrong with creating a shorter clip and not edit it so it doesn't feel 'abrupt'.. the videos are all free too!
Thesis is Crop Circles.
Antithesis is Crop Squares.
Synthesis is Crop Triangles.
synthesis is crop shapes
Thesis is Divide And Conquer.
Antithesis is Unify And Lose.
Synthesis is Unify And Conquer.
Listening to the rap song "Younkers" by Tyler the Creator (it is obsene, but he was 19) It showcase's Hegel's dialectics, just as most songs due, but it's flamboyant nature, makes it more clear.thanks to the flamboyant nature of the rhetoric. Plus it has double entendres to support both anti-thesis for the audience to use their own logic to create the conclusion. .
It’s not hard to explain at all. It’s creating a problem for someone and giving them the solution to the problem you created. Deception.
I feel like you didn't watch the video
Indeed. Or word games where you use the same word in different senses to produce confusion and synthetic paradoxes which you resolve with your agenda.
Antithesis is Silent Treatment.
Thesis is Loud Mistreatment.
Synthesis is Loud Treatment.
Solid shortened explanation. The longer version is excellent.
I wish I had a playback machine with your videos with me at all times, so I could play them for people (or myself) when needed. You do such a great job. I don't always fully agree with some of your opines, but you do an excellent job of debating your reasons.
There is a big difference between saying "it appeared to the religious Jews that are being indicted in Surah 4", and saying "later Roman and Greek writers repeated a false report that they heard"
Surah 4:157 suggest the first statement, but not the second.
"For to him who has will more be given; and from him who has not, even what he has will be taken away." - Mark 4:25, RSV.
Jesus is the thesis against which there is no antithesis and no synthesis. The debate is over. The TRUTH, the thesis is a PERSON.
Eye Of Providence is Antithesis.
Ignore Of Improvidence is Thesis.
Ignore Of Providence is Synthesis.
Eye Of Improvidence is Synthesis.
The dialectic is a moment of the speculative logic of concepts. It is not so much a "process" or "formula" that can be applied, instead it's a moment in the self-realization of objective concepts. And this is a self-realization not, a combination of external concepts as Dr. Cooper said. It is an immanent critique. The concept must be analyzed on its own merit, and oftentimes this analysis will lead into a contradiction which locks the concept, a dialectical deadlock, the speculative aspect is when you realize this dialectical deadlock as its own concept, and in this realization the concept is objective in and for itself. The easiest and best way to grasp this is in the simplest form. The analysis of the most presuppositionless concept there is, namely Being. Thinking immediate Being without any visual or sensory representations will lead you to think Nothing, you cannot think immediate Being, nothing is there. But Nothing *Is*, which means Nothing is Being, and Being is Nothing. Here is the dialectical deadlock we are stuck in. The speculative step is realizing that this immediate vanishing of Being into Nothing into Being is Becoming, it's pure movement, turns out immediate Being and Nothing wasn't True, what was true was Becoming. But now, Becoming is... becoming what? Just pure Becoming makes no sense, since it must become something. So the immediate vanishing of Being into Nothing into Being etc has itself vanished, and the Becoming vanishes into Determined Being. We tried thinking immediate Being, could not do it, thinking Nothing which Is, this back and forth was recognized as movement, and the movement moved to an determined extistence.
So you can see here how the concepts in syllogisms depend and organically grow out of each other, and Hegel continues this through his entire philosophy. Immanently critique the concept until it locks itself in contradiction and finally recognize what this lock is. These 3 moments, of Understanding (Try thinking the concept of immediate Being), of Dialectical (The concept ends up in a deadlock, immediate Being immediately leading into Nothing leading to Being etc), of Speculation (This duality is itself its own concept of Becoming).
You cannot explain the Hegelian Dialectic simply, although I appreciate your admitted attempt to do so.
"Thesis-antithesis-synthesis" is in Fichte. Imo applying it to Hegel tends to distort rather than help his ideas.
but it's the thing that a lot of people know about him if they've only heard about him in passing, so it's almost inevitable that it would be mentioned whether it helps or not.
@@flibbernodgets7018 but it's inaccurate.
It's even in your locker fichte and hegel a couple of men
Antithesis is Global Warming.
Thesis is Individually Freezing.
Synthesis is Global Freezing.
Synthesis is Individually Warming.
Thank you Dr Jordan, that was really clear.
Thesis is Grace Under Pressure.
Antithesis is Disgrace Over Pressure.
Synthesis is Grace Over Pressure.
Complex subject. Thank you!
Thesis is Plot Twist.
Antithesis is Truth Straighten.
Synthesis is Truth Twist.
Thesis is Crop Circle.
Antithesis is Crop Square.
Synthesis is Crop Triangle.
Regarding tensions, conflict etc. is that in your opinion as the worlds spirit growing, the result of God’s judgment in Genesis 3, namely the enmity “God put” between the offspring of Eve and the offspring of Satan (believers and unbelievers)?
Exited to see this video after 10 minutes after release
Antithesis is Arch-rival.
Thesis is Minor-partner.
Synthesis is Arch-partner.
Antithesis is Spiritual Warfare.
Thesis is Material Peace.
Synthesis is Spiritual Peace.
Thesis is The White House.
Antithesis is The Black Expose.
Synthesis is The Gray House.
Synthesis is The Grey House.
Antithesis is Common Cold.
Thesis is Uncommon Hot.
Synthesis is Common Warm.
Synthesis is Uncommon Warm.
Antithesis is Broken Heart.
Thesis is Unbroken Mind.
Synthesis is Unbroken Heart.
Antithesis is Nuclear Bomb.
Thesis is Expansive Stroll.
Synthesis is Nuclear Stroll.
Your examples are great btw, I spent time scrolling through the comments and you've really been a help
Thesis is CommonWealth.
Antithesis is RarePoverty.
Synthesis is CommonPoverty.
Synthesis is RareWealth.
Bill Cipher is Antithesis.
Secret Decipher is Thesis.
Secret Cipher is Synthesis.
Bill Decipher is Synthesis.
Thesis is Commonwealth.
Antithesis is Rarepoverty.
Synthesis is Commonpoverty.
Synthesis is Rarewealth.
Problem + Reaction = Solution........
Yo my personal thesis is better than yours synthesis of dialectic dual action
Thesis is Big Bang.
Antithesis is Small Failure.
Synthesis is Medium Bang.
Do you think Hegel was a gnostic?
Problem: Hegel takes into the Zeitgeist notion only civilized humans ... merging their differing worldviews to grow the specie's logic, etc. He was from late 18th, early 19th C., just at the time 'democracy' was being (re)introduced and attempts to merge/integrate the hard-fought civility of Europe with the newly discovered 'New World' tribalist/commune-ist/uncivilized humans, first 'contacted' during 'the age of discovery' ... which has failed horribly under his notions of thesis/antithesis/synthesis moving the specie forwards and upwards ... it has moved us backwards and downwards.
How was it backward when the “New World” was benefiting from the introduction of new technology and thus improved the standard of living?
No one likes a know it all is Antithesis.
Someone likes a misknow it all is Thesis.
Someone likes a know it all is Synthesis.
pretty sure the dialectic was originally Ficthe 's idea. Good video nonetheless.
Thesis is Easter.
Antithesis is Wester.
Synthesis are Norther And Souther.
Antithesis is BERMUDA TRIANGLE.
Thesis is BERMUDA CIRCLE.
Synthesis is BERMUDA SQUARE.
Synthesis is BERMUDA RECTANGLE.
Dumb Luck is Thesis.
Smart Unluck is Antithesis.
Smart Luck is Synthesis.
It’s hard to explain because it doesn’t make sense.
The best example i can come up with is this. Freedom when it comes to drunk driving. Originally it was not illegal to drive drunk and people were outraged about people dying in car accidents due to drunk drivers. The concept of 'freedom' the idea relates to the freedom of you to drive after drinking but also the 'freedom' of others to not be killed by a drunk driver. Thus they made it legal to drive under the influence but imposed B.A.C limits (typically 0.8)
Thats not that difficult
None of his lip flapping makes sense. It is noting but gibberish. Why is it not seen for what it is? Thousands bought into his BS. Guy should have worked in a circus.
@@sweglord274Isn't that just compromise?
@@frlipawell think that’s part of it yea, in some cases?
Antithesis is Die Trying.
Thesis is Live Untried.
Synthesis is Live Trying.
Kant prevented me from doing what Hegel could do.
Kant got off the merry-go-round that hegel is still on
Sounds a bit like the start of modern day psychology.
lol accurate most definitely played a role
Daniel Well
This dude is a level 6 yapper rolling NAT 20s all day long
Great minds then, with amazing insights... now we have little access to this as our civilisation declines...
Thesis is run to the bathroom antithesis is use the toilet paper synthesis is the damn thing won't flush
Abbott Walks
My criticism of Dialectic will always be that, in all cases, the synthesis is irrespective of objective reality.
For example:
Thesis: Gun Laws stop violence.
Antithesis: No, they don't; and they violate my rights under the 2nd Amendment.
Synthesis: Compromise and have 'common sense' gun laws.
So...what happens when reality rears its ugly head and the laws, in fact, DO NOT STOP VIOLENCE??
A very surface level analysis of the Hegelian Dialectic.
Reminds me of my time at university when I took a class on Hegel's "Phänomenologie des Geistes" and since the prof had said in another, unrelated class, that we are supposed to have read a book at least 3 times before taking a class on it, I did my best and read the whole thing once 😂. Only to find out when the class started that we weren't actually talking about more than the introduction. The prof said to actually study the whole book, it would take more semesters than my whole course of study even encompassed 😊. I think it was about 12 semesters to cover the whole book (and I think at the time the only university who actually had a class about the whole book was in Berlin and I studied in Bamberg, Bavaria, where Hegel had actually lived for some time and worked at a local newspaper I think. We still have the "Hegel weeks" at the local university where they have lectures open to the public about him). And normal duration to get an MA was between 8 to 10 semesters.
Yeah, but it's meant to be very surface level to just understand the basics
@@tugalic3979 It’s so surface level that It’s misleading. Can’t he foreshadow a bit?
It's part of an hour long video on Hegel's thought: ruclips.net/video/-DWAF6YC-YM/видео.htmlsi=KoaHz57zI24CppGT
My first time here. Please simplify everything for a five year old audience. Define every word t you use
I Am The Master Of Hegelian Dialectic
😏
Why do you plapper about things you do not understand? Obfuscation is the hallmark of the fool.
Awful
Dr. Cooper, I've watched your videos for about as long as you have been on RUclips. And I'd like to apologize for any unnecessary offense I may have given you over the years with my comments. I find your videos useful but theology tends to be, shall we say "high brow." I can understand what you are saying but doubt most Christians can. And I have been concerned at times because people can make the love theology their idol. I have a tendency to be harsh and impatient at times out of concern for God's children (and my flesh). Social media seems to bring out our worst. Imagine Luther on Twitter. Use the gifts God has given you to build up Christ's Church which is built mostly of common people.
Luther on Twitter? The mere notion of such a thing is as horrifying as it is hilarious!
Perhaps I didn't understand your point correctly, but to me, it seems like you're pulling up a false dichotomy. It seems like you're saying "a more shallow explanation of Christian theology is more godly, while a "high brow" explanation always comes off as arrogant and high-horsey. " I don't understand why, to you, somebody's ministry should never be directed to "intellectuals", or people who devote themselves to theology also?
Jesus! Life’s too short for this waffle
Thesis, liberalism / secularism /
Antithesis, conservatism/ religion
Synthesis, "Christian " nationalism/ New World Order
I Hope this opens your eyes, Americans
i dont get it :(