Great historical and intellectual context for the introduction of Habermas (as far as i understand at this point). i have a problem though with the discussion of Hegel and Marx at 53:00 mins onwards. So the claim by either Professor Sonhanlal Datta Gupta or its in Habermas himself that is just being reported by SDG. Is that Hegel "begins with the subject that is absolute spirit". I think this is the wrong interpretation by JH or SDG of Hegel's Phenomenology of Spirit. Its been a long time so I'm going from memory here but roughly i see this in a different way. Rather Hegel "begins" with the thesis that of the "immediacy" of sense experience for an assumed ontologically present subject as a thing in itself sue generic etc and then Hegel only shows that the expression of this empirical immediacy and self existing subject in reason requires that this traditional rational starting point is rationally inexpressible in its own terms alone. For even this to be expressible requires an expanded notion of reason. this is the move of "reflection" on the real immediacy of the initial starting point that is then shown to be impoverished in itself. the starting point is not rejected as wrong so much as finite and requires something of its opposite the so traditionally held opposite of pure empiricism the Universal for its coherence to itself. Now the "motion" then of the "notion" of the subject is not eliminated as wrong but as a being of a "process" of reason seeking self coherence. Then the starting point a the "immediacy" of experience becomes, under reflection an "abstraction" from reason. This is funny or ironic, since it was the Platonic Universal that empiricism classed as abstract, now Hegel claims the notion of pure positive experience of quality singularity particularity say is the abstraction. Hegel does a similar move with the subject, the subject as present to itself in itself (self consciousness), is shown to require is supposed opposite "The other" fore even its own self expression, self awareness. Thus the master (Lordship) thinks it is autonomous and absolute over the slave (Bonded), but comes to realise its dependency on the slave the master is outside itself, not in itself. Thus for what was say Descartes pure given "I think" starting point (self consciousness) is really an abstract notion, of a dependent self on the Other. if the slave realises this too, then Master and Slave are in a dynamic of conflict and power struggle with neither having power to act in themselves independently. So on reflection the abstract self is really in a conflict of mutual dependency with its other and vice versa. they both want complete power over the other but they both depend on the other for self consciousness. In Hegel's Philosophy of Right the" Individual" is a starting point that then requires an ethical context in a "natural community" for its real Being. Thus the individual is really an abstraction from reason and its opposite something of "The Sovereign" is required for even this Individual in a community expression. so the Individual is really an abstraction. But here the Sovereign is only nominal a particular like the abstract Individual they are really the same not opposite and require each other for their expression by reason. But for Hegel i think its is not the Sovereign that moves down, rather reason in reflection sees the "ethical life" in a community as a finite, and on reflection, abstract, take on legal instituional structures and rules eg "morality". The "process" of reason is to institute all ethical life into instituional rules and laws: morality. A science of society rationally moving progressing from the Life World into moral institutional laws and rules Weber's "disenchantment". Progress is the movement of this towards the Absolute Spirit as an end. Many now view this as an implicit Aristotelianism in terms of the "process" and "progress" of potentiality to Actuality. So the positive Fact is a mere starting point of thought in the tradition of empiricism and really an abstraction, the Subject is a mere starting point of thought of action and power for the tradition of rationalism, and is an abstraction, the Individual and the Sovereign are mere starting point for The Social Contract tradition in Political thought. Spirit is really the actuality of these as their real End or Potentiality. I get this reading from memory of reading Wilfred Sellars, Robert Brandon and John McDowell. Later Stephen Houlgate and Robert Pippin but all these disagree with each other of course. i also attended seminars in 2,000's but I can't remember or find his name now, but he had written a paper on Hegel's Preface to the Phenomenology that had the Hermeneutic sort of reading i may be drawing on here. The Absolute i think he argued cannot be given in advance: "Reason: As The Owl of Minerva only comes out at dusk". Reflection is after the event etc. in any event its seems to me science and Right: Speculative Reason has to do the Universal work for Hegel's movement and progress of "disenchantment". i have tried then to get Marxists to agree that Marx, contrary to what Marx says, due perhaps to his misreading of Hegel, doesn't turn Hegel on his head, so much as apply his logic to economic science. This is perhaps supported by the work of David Harvey and Alex Callinicos on Marx. This is meant as only a rough sketch from memory and is probably full of errors and key omissions, but i hope it may clarify a general shape as i see it to this issue. Thankyou for posting the seminar.
Great historical and intellectual context for the introduction of Habermas (as far as i understand at this point). i have a problem though with the discussion of Hegel and Marx at 53:00 mins onwards. So the claim by either Professor Sonhanlal Datta Gupta or its in Habermas himself that is just being reported by SDG. Is that Hegel "begins with the subject that is absolute spirit". I think this is the wrong interpretation by JH or SDG of Hegel's Phenomenology of Spirit. Its been a long time so I'm going from memory here but roughly i see this in a different way.
Rather Hegel "begins" with the thesis that of the "immediacy" of sense experience for an assumed ontologically present subject as a thing in itself sue generic etc and then Hegel only shows that the expression of this empirical immediacy and self existing subject in reason requires that this traditional rational starting point is rationally inexpressible in its own terms alone. For even this to be expressible requires an expanded notion of reason. this is the move of "reflection" on the real immediacy of the initial starting point that is then shown to be impoverished in itself. the starting point is not rejected as wrong so much as finite and requires something of its opposite the so traditionally held opposite of pure empiricism the Universal for its coherence to itself. Now the "motion" then of the "notion" of the subject is not eliminated as wrong but as a being of a "process" of reason seeking self coherence. Then the starting point a the "immediacy" of experience becomes, under reflection an "abstraction" from reason. This is funny or ironic, since it was the Platonic Universal that empiricism classed as abstract, now Hegel claims the notion of pure positive experience of quality singularity particularity say is the abstraction.
Hegel does a similar move with the subject, the subject as present to itself in itself (self consciousness), is shown to require is supposed opposite "The other" fore even its own self expression, self awareness. Thus the master (Lordship) thinks it is autonomous and absolute over the slave (Bonded), but comes to realise its dependency on the slave the master is outside itself, not in itself. Thus for what was say Descartes pure given "I think" starting point (self consciousness) is really an abstract notion, of a dependent self on the Other. if the slave realises this too, then Master and Slave are in a dynamic of conflict and power struggle with neither having power to act in themselves independently. So on reflection the abstract self is really in a conflict of mutual dependency with its other and vice versa. they both want complete power over the other but they both depend on the other for self consciousness.
In Hegel's Philosophy of Right the" Individual" is a starting point that then requires an ethical context in a "natural community" for its real Being. Thus the individual is really an abstraction from reason and its opposite something of "The Sovereign" is required for even this Individual in a community expression. so the Individual is really an abstraction. But here the Sovereign is only nominal a particular like the abstract Individual they are really the same not opposite and require each other for their expression by reason. But for Hegel i think its is not the Sovereign that moves down, rather reason in reflection sees the "ethical life" in a community as a finite, and on reflection, abstract, take on legal instituional structures and rules eg "morality". The "process" of reason is to institute all ethical life into instituional rules and laws: morality. A science of society rationally moving progressing from the Life World into moral institutional laws and rules Weber's "disenchantment". Progress is the movement of this towards the Absolute Spirit as an end. Many now view this as an implicit Aristotelianism in terms of the "process" and "progress" of potentiality to Actuality.
So the positive Fact is a mere starting point of thought in the tradition of empiricism and really an abstraction, the Subject is a mere starting point of thought of action and power for the tradition of rationalism, and is an abstraction, the Individual and the Sovereign are mere starting point for The Social Contract tradition in Political thought. Spirit is really the actuality of these as their real End or Potentiality.
I get this reading from memory of reading Wilfred Sellars, Robert Brandon and John McDowell. Later Stephen Houlgate and Robert Pippin but all these disagree with each other of course.
i also attended seminars in 2,000's but I can't remember or find his name now, but he had written a paper on Hegel's Preface to the Phenomenology that had the Hermeneutic sort of reading i may be drawing on here. The Absolute i think he argued cannot be given in advance: "Reason: As The Owl of Minerva only comes out at dusk". Reflection is after the event etc. in any event its seems to me science and Right: Speculative Reason has to do the Universal work for Hegel's movement and progress of "disenchantment".
i have tried then to get Marxists to agree that Marx, contrary to what Marx says, due perhaps to his misreading of Hegel, doesn't turn Hegel on his head, so much as apply his logic to economic science. This is perhaps supported by the work of David Harvey and Alex Callinicos on Marx.
This is meant as only a rough sketch from memory and is probably full of errors and key omissions, but i hope it may clarify a general shape as i see it to this issue. Thankyou for posting the seminar.
Can we have the next part of this lecture?
Un traduction en français s'il vous plaît
Spannend!
Mind-blowing
i am looking for lectures on Kant and other philosophers of German tradition covered in this series but unable to find it..can anyone help me??
ua-cam.com/video/SYqIXwyz9Vk/v-deo.html
20:50
37:05
????????