00:00 📚 Hegel, a prominent philosopher, is known for his influential but complex ideas, often misunderstood due to oversimplifications and translations of his work. 03:21 🌍 Hegel's philosophy represents a historical turn in Western thought, emphasizing dynamic and evolving truths, contrasting the timeless concepts of earlier philosophy. 05:24 😕 Hegel's ideas have been polarizing, with some considering him a brilliant mind and others finding his work incomprehensible, often influenced by their own political ideologies. 09:18 🤝 Nietzsche, while not explicitly anti-Hegelian, can be seen as operating from premises that oppose Hegel's ideas, especially concerning history and morality. 13:01 🤯 Hegel's phenomenology challenges the concept of the "thing in itself," emphasizing that qualities exist as effects or sensations dependent on perception and recognition. 21:21 🔄 Hegel's philosophy introduces the idea that all being is premised on negation, challenging the law of non-contradiction and highlighting how we define things through negation. 22:16 🧠 Negation serves as a fundamental aspect of human understanding, as it separates and connects things by differentiating them from each other. 23:28 🗺 Giving directions or descriptions relies on negation, distinguishing the target location from others by excluding them. 25:30 💡 Negation is essential for defining things, and everything in the world is connected through negation, forming a totality of relationships. 26:14 🔍 Hegel asserts that becoming reflects being, which reconciles the views of those who see reality as change and those who see it as unchanging. 27:21 🌟 Existence is defined by its negative relationship with non-being, as we understand the presence of something by imagining its absence. 30:07 🔄 The Hegelian dialectic proceeds via negation, a process similar to sublation, which challenges the Aristotelian concept of being. 31:29 🧙♂ Hegel's dialectic aims to raise consciousness, moving beyond mere perception to self-awareness and understanding of absolute truth. 34:03 🤖 The Master-Slave dialectic represents a psychological myth illustrating how self-consciousness emerges as humans interact and negate external forces. 35:40 🌐 The Master-Slave dialectic isn't a historical event but a dramatization of how humans come to know self-consciousness by encountering and recognizing it in others. 41:56 🤔 The certainty of one's own self-consciousness requires recognition and validation from another self-conscious being to establish a true sense of identity. 43:20 🤖 Hegel asserts that the possibility of another consciousness arises through struggle, essential for true self-awareness. 44:00 💼 To truly know oneself as a free consciousness, one must be unafraid of death and engage in life-and-death struggles to declare their freedom. 46:34 🤯 In the Master-Slave dialectic, one party usually yields to the other out of fear of death, leading to the submissive becoming the slave and the dominant becoming the master. 49:19 🏆 The master initially achieves a sense of independence and power through mastery over the world, while the slave becomes a means to the master's desires. 51:25 👥 The master-slave relationship shapes the subjective world of both parties, with the master's self-consciousness being mediated through the slave. 55:33 🔄 The master becomes passive, relying on the slave's labor, while the slave gains awareness of self-existence and independence. 01:00:09 🛠 The slave's labor allows them to cancel the independence of objects, leading to self-awareness and a sense of independence. 01:02:57 👎 The master's self-consciousness becomes dependent on the slave, causing dissatisfaction, while the slave achieves a sense of independent self-existence. 01:05:17 🧠 Hegel sees the slave as a driving force in history, gaining self-awareness through labor, leading to the goal of mutual recognition. 01:06:11 🌐 The Master-Slave dialectic initiates the process of history, culminating in total Mutual recognition, symbolized by the state at the end of history. 01:07:48 👥 The state at the end of history recognizes the common humanity and dignity of all, transcending race and nationality. 01:09:49 😳 Hegel's concept of mutual recognition resonates with the importance of how others perceive us, shaping our self-image and driving our desires. 01:10:56 🔄 History unfolds as each state of affairs negates itself, driven by the pursuit of mutual recognition, leading to continuous societal change. 01:14:57 🔄 Hegel's dialectical movement of self-awareness through negation leads from unhappy consciousness to happy consciousness via mutual recognition. 01:16:30 🌅 The Master-Slave dialectic serves as the foundation of Hegel's understanding of self-consciousness and its evolution, part of a larger historical process towards freedom.
Thank you for making these videos. I’m a very young man and I have finally found an interest in something after being depressed for a very long time. These videos help me get through the day and make me think about the world in a good way.
You know what man this kinda speaks to me. I think it is really going to help me form an army modeled off of Imperial Rome and conquer everything west of the Colorado squashing tribal identities.
I am new to philosophy and anthropology as academic disciplines, but your video has truly helped me appreciate Hegel’s thinking if not gain perspective and some conceptual understanding.
This was good. I really enjoyed this. Love him or hate him, his thought continues to animate the world we live in. Shake a strange political tree long enough and a right Hegelian or left Hegelian will fall out of it.
Ha. I'd love to think we could even - as philosophers - do this crazy thing. It's called critiquing stuff. Critiquing both the right and the left. Oh wow what a crazy idea. 🙈
I read Hegel the same way I watch films by David Lynch. When I stop trying to understand it logically, then I understand it. When I try to grasp it with just logic, it’s ungraspable. But that isn’t to say that it’s illogical - it’s meaningful.
These videos have single-handedly increased my attention span by two hours. Not only that, but through them, I have found many ideas to think and contemplate. Some of the concepts in your videos I've considered before, though not as articulately and scholarly as you or Nietzsche. It helps a lot when someone more educated in this regard explains these ideas so clearly. There's a concept I've seen mentioned, called Nietzsche's aristocratic radicalism or something similar. I would love to hear your explanation as my searches led me to scholarly articles, which I either don't have time for or am too lazy to read (mostly too lazy). If you've covered this concept in your videos, I would appreciate it if you could direct me to the relevant content.
Thanks! Here are the relevant videos: ua-cam.com/video/PpCqnfO6kic/v-deo.htmlsi=Cmo5ETEmQaL0MWbg ua-cam.com/video/L68roW0dqdE/v-deo.htmlsi=F689A-O1E6gayBNj Although, I’d recommend listening to most of the episodes in the first half of season three to get a feel for N’s dialogue with the ancients on this topic,
Bravo 👏 a great podcast on a difficult philosophy to articulate. You are a natural teacher, with all the dribble on the internet you elevate this medium too it's highest purpose of both entertainment and increasing our understanding.
Hegel is trippy. I can't help but love shopenhaurs loathing of him. It's just fun to read his straightforward, scathing reviews of the man. But I'm interested in learning more of his thought, even if it's just to " bro down" more with shopenhaur. Lol
Predicating existence or any precipitating epistemological concern on the aftifact of consciousness that is negation is simply daft. I'm certain Hegel was just a wordy try hard.
@@livingroomviewing2987 In early Bhuddhist philosophy negation was, I believe, the central method of proof of at least most assertions. Like in science, if no evidence can be found for a statement through exhaustive search, then the statement must be false. Even the oral history of the teachings of Buddha using this technique resulted in the writing of The Lankavatara Sutra, considered by most Zen scholars and Zen masters to be a seminal teaching of Buddhist philosophy on consciousness. Nagarjuna is famous for his deep elucidation of this technique.
Ugh you philosopher bros are something else 😂 As an engineer who dabbles in learning this stuff just to scratch it, reading the effusive verbiage yall use when discussing is hilarious lol I really wonder how much of it you internalize or is it just for regurgitating in social settings hahaha
Just found your channel. Will definitely be checking out more videos. I've heard mention of Hegel before but always a side note in relation to something else. The master/slave dialectic explains so much about what I've been learning about soviet communism, especially the insistence that the slaves were somehow better off in the long run. Thanks for your work!
The problem with master-slave dialectic is that before both sides recognize their "self consciousness" there must be an intention to enslave someone and this requires a self-consciousness ahead - "I want you to be my servant because I recognize we are not the same". . The left does not negate right, I recognize my left hand not because I negate my right hand, but because I negate the position of the right hand in place where left hand belongs. So in master-slave dialectic the place for masters is not for the slaves, the slave is not negated here and there is no moving forward, no synthesis at all. The slaves never want to kill or negate the masters because it negates themselves either, so each sides are essential for each other and no side want to negate or win anything. Masters also never treats slaves as an object, because they know that the slave is a subject who have a possibility to overthrow the master. thet is why they need constant proves of recognition of their own mastery over the slaves, in case of object there is no such thing in consciousness of the owner. In pure independent freedom there is nothing, no self-awareness and no self-definition at all and both sides got access to this freedom all the time when they occupy a private time during a rest.
@@Action.by.Action The thing is that Hegel's philosophy is about the spirit, movement of history, not about our personal struggle within ourselves. My point is that there is no dialectic movement toward freedom in master-slave opposition. As soon as one recognize on side of the stick, the other side is automatically present as necessity. So I don't think that a master is a thesis and a slave is antithesis and freedom as synthesis in the movement of history. It is only true in theoretical thinking, in thought not in history. In real life an abolition of slavery is also an abolition of masters, but you cannot move in that direction through progress of time, you must be free to establish freedom, slaves and masters will never reach this goal, so their history and struggle doesn't matter. You cannot by closer or far away from freedom because it is completely different axis.
@@Action.by.Action This is all only a theory. Opposition of master-slave or subject-object constitutes necessary tension for the history or the world to happen. The end of this doesn't lead to self-consciousness or freedom. For Hegel self-conscious is only the Spirit. This negates individuality because subject-self meets object-self only in the eyes of the other, so at least two people must share the same eye to be the spirit. Fichte thinks this way but he thinks that knowledge about the other leads to the spirit/self-consciousness. In reality no knowledge, no history, no evolution or any progress leads to the spirit or to any goal because the opposition is a necessary tension, a ground that holds things together, simple negation one side is only a movement to the other side. To move forward or background you need to be above this tension, above this ground, history, world, dialectic etc. You cannot be part of it, but in reality we are part of it, we are this tension, when we negate or accept. When you are above the tension you are the spirit already, so there is no need for self-realization anymore . Hegel believed (as all German idealist did) that God or Absolute Spirit needs people, world, history for self-knowledge or any self-realization, and we are only a tools in this view. This is simply Jewish philosophy of life, not Christian. In reality there is not path that lead to self-realization or the spirit, only love changes you so you become "less heavy, less tense" and then you rise above, away from this world of history. For love you need the other, so it is close to Fichte view, but knowledge doesn't give you more love, only love give more love, so only the spirit makes you more spiritual, only freedom makes you more free. Oppositions in the world doesn't do that. You do not need evil to realize what good is, because this realization is only a knowledge about good, not good itself. Today millions of peoples form 9 to 5 work hard to build a new financial pyramids for a new financial pharaohs in USA, in China, in Arab World etc. The slavery is still the same, only needs of the masters or slaves changed. History only repeat itself in different shading, there is no progress to anything. The content of the collective mind changes so one time consciousness is more directed outside, one time inward so in movement of time you getting older, and the same is happening on collective/history level (although we are getting younger, more childish). But this movement is the movement form subject to object or vice versa, not toward self-realization, that is why in christianity there is the fall and you cannot rise above again by your own strength, because this strength is that tension, it is a reality of the fall. Or to put it more simply. Hegel believes that becoming finally leads to a being. In reality it is carrot and stick logic. Becoming is eternal, never leads to anything but change. Being is the end of this movement of becoming, so the one who becomes never move toward end, because the movement in itself is an act of turning away from the end of the movement.
I appreciate the interaction, but I also think you're not focusing enough on how Hegel posits the relationship between self as both subject and object, and how that necessarily and simultaneously gives rise to self-consciousness and Absolute spirit, for which the Master-Slave dialectic is a useful metaphor. And to be sure, it is a metaphor. May your philosophical adventure continue.
@@Action.by.Action I understand Hegel, my point is that Hegel could not different between theory and real life experience. Each one of us around 40 y. o. experience this end of history when object meets subject and so called self-consciousness arise. We call it a crisis because our object-self (perception of outer world and education) is not in tune with our subject-self (our inner feeling etc) so we ask question, who am I, what this all is about, what is the point of all of this? Then we must choose of staying with outer experience or go inward, and this seems like choosing own destiny, so it also seems like emergence of self-consciousness. The same things happen in master-slave struggle within us when we want one thing and do another. But this self-awareness is not given to us thanks to that dialectical struggle of oppositions, but by the third factor - death. Around 40 y.o. our body is more dead than alive and we recognize that a clock is ticking, that's why we stop and ask questions, and this question asking is not a prove of being self-conscious but the fear of not being at all. Both master and slave fear the same thing, that they do not exist, or that they do not have much time. Fear itself do not rise self-consciousness, it rise only an illusory "I" identification with mixed outer and inner memory. So we start identify as slaves of God or as demi-god, because we believe that this will guarantee our existence. How self-conscious being could experience fear of not existence, fear of death? If you are self-conscious then object meets subject and there is only a recognition that you are the spirit, no fear at all. So this self-consciousness which arise through any process is an illusion, it is only accumulation of knowledge and recognition of the fact by our Ego that this accumulation will not continue for ever. It is not reality but only theory, this self exist only in thoughts, in the mind, not in our true being. When someone loves me I am self because of this love. The other recognize me as object and subject together, only then I am aware that I exist and I am something, not mere empty pure existence, but something with content, a person. So I exist through whole history as well as at the end of history. First I am loved by parents, then by opposite sex, then by friends, at the end by God. This gives me true self-consciousness because I always got a honest and truthful (thanks to love) witness of my existence and outer is connected with inner. Mere ending of history, or dialectical process of oppositions between object and subject gives only...the ending, only death and fear of death. No one can be aware of self, because self is totally empty, and some say that this is a pure awareness, like in Buddhism, but this is only a pure ignorance, because to have pure emptiness you need to negate the other and negate the world, so you negate both object and subject, there is no meeting, no connection, only negation. They say then - all is maya, all is illusion. Love unites oppositions, parents and child, husband and wife, God and people so only here is true meeting of subject and object.
Congratulations. You disapproved Hegel with four comments on UA-cam. There is no need to say that your understanding of Hegel dialectics through negation is completely misunderstood, and engaging your "dialectics" would be like arguing about quantum physics with a three year old.
Hegel took the notion of negation from Spinoza and ran wild with it. He appreciated Spinoza very much and said that there is no philosophy without him. Spinoza thought that the only negation is differentiating some thing or object from the oneness of substance. So Hegel took Spinoza's negation and substance and skewed them to fit his own "logic". This angle is important for understanding what Deleuze thinks is wrong with Hegelian dialectics, namely the false movement of negation. (about Hegel's misuse of Spinoza see Pierre Macherey: Hegel or Spinoza) Concerning the master/slave dialectic, Klossowski in his Vicious Circle writes (p.12 of English trans.): "Nietzsche, out of his own ignorance, will attack the Hegelian dialectic at its roots. In his analysis of the unhappy consciousness, Hegel distorts the 'initial Desire' (the will to power): the autonomous consciousness (of the Master) despairs of ever having its autonomy recognized by another autonomous being, since it is necessarily constituted by a dependent consciousness - that of the Slave. In Nietzsche, there is no such need for reciprocity (this is his 'ignorance' of this passage of the Dialectic). On the contrary, given his own idiosyncracy - the sovereignty of an incommunicable emotion - the very idea of a 'consciousness for itself mediated by another consciousness' remains foreign to Nietzsche. " And in a footnote: " It was the intimidating genius of Georges Bataille (in Inner Experience) that emphasized his ignorance in the Genealogy of Morals" Zucker kommt zuletzt, Hegel's circular epistemology: ua-cam.com/video/t2Cc1gPdNnE/v-deo.html
I apologize for my shortcomings, but from my inferior perspective (although I saw in Oppenheimer how some guys with crayons built an atom bomb), I would really like to understand your sentence. For example, when you say that "all coherent systems are circular" can you provide any proof for such an absolute claim? For Aristotle circular reasoning is tautological, ergo not coherent (i.e. "being is being"). Abovementioned Klossowski calls Nietzsche's circular system, namely the eternal return of the same, a "vicious circle", which again, is not coherent, Even the second law of thermodynamics is in trouble with finding such an enclosed, circular system to function properly (to be a coherent law). Also, circular systems are having trouble with the production of anything new, that is problem with Newton's nature viewed as a mechanism... Then the usage of the pronoun "it" within your sentence is not coherent: you are using pronoun in the singular (it) after a noun in plural (systems) and thus it is incomprehensible what it stands for. (If you were thinking of Hegel's than you should have written: "...but Hegel's is a virtuous one.") Which brings us to the final mystery: what does morality (virtue) have with the coherence of a system? Maybe you have mistakenly written virtuous instead of virtual, or vicious... But how can somebody with such a presumption in his stance make a mistake... unless we are dealing with Dunning-Kruger...? Please answer, because I am willing to learn! @@ReflectiveJourney
@@exlauslegale8534 No need to be passive aggressive. I apologize for the harsh tone but it is pretty annoying to get incomprehensible as a response without further clarification. I can also see it was pretty vague. To clarify, I do mean hegel's system being a virtuous one not all coherent system since coherent systems can also be vicious as you know. Since you gave me more info, i can respond. Firstly, i am talking about coherent in the sense of epistemology. The two main camps are foundationalism where you start with absolute foundations or more like holistic conceptual scheme (web of belief model) which is coherentism. I am not using coherent in the sense of it being intelligible. Regarding Aristotle, i would agree that a circular syllogism is not valid but that doesn't apply to whole worldview since you can't put the whole worldview into syllogism and there are always implicit commitments you have but are not aware of but are logically committed to. Now coming to virtuous, it would be the opposite of vicious in a sense. My understanding is that vicious circle leads to worsening of the situation which in case of philosophy would be to get locked into circle of concepts that are mutually supporting but the system cannot account for new concept application and facilitate discourse with opposing worldviews. A virtuous circle would lead to an improvement so philosophically it is one where are reasoning is open and also whatever came before supports the creation of new concept and also has a self correcting way to account for error in reasoning. I will mostly take brandom's reading here since it is the most clear but many other interpreters also have the same arguments. A brief sketch of the argument is that the concepts are historical and socially determined, so all transcendental constitution is social institution. The errors in application of concepts are also essentially part of the determination of the concept. Concepts are dynamic and they are getting better retrospectively but prospectively they are always inadequate. The job of philosopher is to use re collective rationality to give a progressive development of the concept but he can only do that after the concept have become concrete by its application and not before. It is a dialectic of the practical and theoretical roughly. So hegel is not claiming closure, he is also saying people in future will have a better vantage point to re-conceputalize history ( which mostly philosophers try to copy from hegel but are not at his level imo) and future empirical, pragmatic considerations should be incorporated into it so even though his system is "circular" as a whole it is a virtuous one. Also the so called circularity in hegel is "reason being its own standard". I don't think it is even possible to escape this circularity since what possible reasons can be given to have a different standard for reasoning other than using reason itself which is use to establish all standards/norms. You can counter by saying asking for reason is begging the question against someone skeptic about reasons but then there is a no discourse possible.
This is not insane at all! - I never really liked the classic idealists so much, and having Hegel explaining the appearance of the world feels very liberating to me. He made it justice. To me, it's like he knew what I needed from all the previous philosophers without me even being born yet. - Like a unity of spirit, metaphorically meant. Thanks for this great content!
the thing i think a lot of people miss about hegel is that due to his method of continuously negating himself, he actually has a lot of different concepts and i think even allows for the negation of his own ideas by others, including himself. He recognizes his own negation. Hegel is already the anti-hegel, at least one version of it. So my reading of hegel is more as a philosopher of reinvention. what A lot of people who try to “go after” hegel i think often miss is that they’re actually doing something very Hegelian in that process of negating hegel. For me anyway, hegel doesn’t actually have any “key concepts” other than negation itself, it’s more about the movement in the thought. It is possible to pick examples such as the “recognition” concept and deconstruct them but the trouble is I think doing that is still hegelian, he accounts for it in his philosophy. So what happens a lot of the time is philosophers who aren’t as willing to completely negate themselves will project static, unchanging notions onto Hegel and deconstruct those…delueze may be guilty of that for example. anyways, it’s also possible i’m the one negating hegel more than he negated himself. either way, great video! thank you for making it
In my opinion the slave master dialectic is an overly discussed aspect of his work. I think Science of Logic is his more significant contribution to philosophy but is often overshadowed by the Phenomenology of Spirit. I know it’s dense and initially intimidating, but the real substance is in Science of Logic. To anyone interested in delving into the Science of Logic I’d recommend reading the first 100 or so pages of The Kybalion first (very short). I read the Kybalion before reading any Hegel and I found this to be extremely useful. I won’t go in full depth on how the Kybalion is relevant, but being familiar with the Principle of Polarity for example is a great primer for understanding Hegelian Dialectics.
thanks again, wonderful effort. abstraction in pursuing the things to reach a narrative of what actually is happening (be it truly wrong and needs to adjusted) is fruitful and that's all. abstraction OF things is merely futile and stems from arrogance of human mind. we are still weak in all manners before cosmos, and that's not bad. weakness is the best trigger of improving. fathers of philsophy have had to learn to be humble long before.
At first blush listening to the 1st 30 minutes... it seems to me that it is impossible to negate Non Contradiction without entailing the existence of a Thing Itself, because everyday time & space perception & Understanding entails Non Contradiction; that is, an external object is what it is the moment it is perceived & represented. So, it seems to me... that knowledge of the changeability of ( cause ) external things perceived and represented, and within ourselves as subjects... doesn't change the fact that they/we are what they/we are as represented in time & space... and cannot be anything other than what they/we are as represented. I am very amenable to the prospect of getting rid of the notion of a thing in itself as " humbugery, " however. Thing Itself conjecture, to me, leads to the errors of religion... which proposes the external existence of places & beings that evade the synthetic process (sense stimulation & Intellect ) of how we perceive then know of things external of us. Theology... in the western sense... should be renamed Extra Sensory Perception, in my view, because much of it says that the Intellect itself can know of beings & places external of our intellect without the use of our sense organs... and this is, of course, nonsense.
Good job. You might be interested to consider the views of Morse Peckham on the master-slave encounter, because he extends the logic of Hegel's paradigm explicitly to sex and politics in his essay "Eroticism=Politics; Politics=Eroticism". You can find this essay in his Collected Papers. Cheers.
Thank you for this lecture, I was confused a few times but the thought that in Germany they had the idea that 'work sets you free', just wondering who that was applied to. Is it a Hegelian idea?
Well... The preface certainly didn't contain anything about any master and slave dialectic! So far, it is pure philosophy, and it is making (a strong) case for the role of speculative philosophy in our endeavors of understanding. It is completely about tearing down the subject/object dichotomy and about adhering to process, the the living nature of the observable world, the "notion". I'm interested to see how the master and slave dichotomy enters into the text, but at this point I have to imagine it being more a figurative reference than literal. For me, I'm already familiar with the concepts being presented, which makes the reading much much easier. But I can imagine that for anyone who doesn't understand the problems associated with reductionism in science, you might not be able to understand a word the man said. It's essentially process philosophy so far.
Hey yoooo my mans made this German bro sound coherent. I just finished reading Phenomenology of the Spirit to prepare me for this German Idealism class I am taking and like, Hagel kinda sucks but he is also makes a lot of sense and I am glad this video was able to polish all the stuff I was trying to translate
What happens when a master meets another master? do they see each other as one in the same, as equal consciences, or as potential rivals who are not yet in a state of war with each other? Likewise, what happens when two slaves meet do they view each other as equals who ought work for each other together to survive their condition? Does Hegel explore the master/master dialectic?
hegel doesn't explore the possibilities where he doesn't see an evolution of self-consciousness. The whole discussion is pretty allegorical. Regarding just master/master or slave/slave the issue would be that master and slave are defined through each other. so a master/master or slave/slave (considering them equally desiring agents) would probably be similar to a struggle of life/death until the master/slave relation is re established or the other person is killed ( this is also not talked about but it is the most likely outcome imo but it doesn't progress the dialectic)
@@ReflectiveJourney thanks for the response, so when two masters meet their dialogue is not a "dialectic" because they are on the same side since they have the same views about themselves and are not opposites? However, masters in real life were trying to impress other masters by either having more slaves or more wealth etc. so is that kind of competition between masters a type of dialectic since an individual master wants to stand out from the rest of the masters while also recognizing and respecting the fact that they are all masters?
@@TarpeianArchives let me preface this by saying i am not an hegel expert and there are other interpretations out there which approach the topic from a different angle. Still I believe it is agreed up that phenomenology is not trying to match the empirical history but the logic/immanent development of the shapes of consciousness. The dialectic moves to the next shape by recognising the internal contradictions from "its own standpoint". So the overall structure is important to know what categories/concepts are available to a particular shape ( this is why hegel is so tricky you need to have some sense of the whole to get the part lol but it does make sense ultimately/ hopefully). Master/slave is the first shape in self consciousness established after life/death struggle. How i understand is that the most basic shape of self consciousness is minimal agency that can only classify the world based on a need. Lets take food as the classification and hunger as need. When the agent eats the food the classification was correct or incorrect gets implicitly determined so it is not arbitrary but the agent doesn't know that it is not arbitrary ( what the agent is aware of is for consciousness while what actual structure is what is in itself just to give a mapping). The next level up is recognition which is desire of desire where the agent is now modelling the agency itself as a need. In life/death struggle both see their classifications as ultimate and fight over it and in this struggle only the recognition arises since you need to have another agent outside yourself to model agency. recognition is intersubjective from the start and is an example of reciprocal causality. The master in phenomenology is an agent who recognises his classifications to be ultimate and slave is merely a tool for master to fulfill his desires whereas slave also sees master's classification as ultimate since he lost the life and death struggle but slave is also aware of his own conception and master's conception and he is in a position to see the contradiction in mastery and make progress. Sorry for the long response but hopefully i gave enough context. Honestly, i am still not sure i get everything that's going on in phenomenology ( but then who does :D). this is brandom's interpretation and i find it useful since it doesn't use hegelize to explain hegelize. If you are further interested you can look into bradom's book "a spirit of trust".
😂 Yeah I guess some versions of things I find a bit scewed but no I feel he did a good job. Mostly they were in service of quickly explaining a background idea in order to give info that helped us understand the current idea. Ie not a heinous bits when the focus isn't there (on that idea he got a bit oddly) but on the later idea that it leads to. So no big crime. Agree?
In the intro, you covered that there are more popular myths, second-hand interpretations, and falsifying summaries about Hegel floating around than there is helpful input by those who have studied and understood him. Then you end your summary by repeating one of the most persistent and popular myths, that he was a Prussian apologist, but you admittedly can't explain exactly how. To amend your introduction, Hegel's greatest falsifiers are not his detractors/deniers. The "critics" often plagiarize parts of Hegel (like Deleuze, Heidegger, and so many more) or ignore him whole sale as a "dead dog" or use polemic (Popper, Russell, Moore, essentially all analytics up until Sellars). It's the so-called "Hegelian" followers who provide their interpretations before fully appropriating Hegel through their studies who then pass on this type of misinformation and myth. More damage has been done to the popular conception of Hegel's system by those who purport to be capable of delivering a digestible summary than those attempting to criticize. The vulgar summarizes instead deliver ready-made straw-men to be "criticized" so that students can believe themselves to have gone beyond Hegel without gaining an understanding of him whatsoever (instead, often without reading him /at all/). Although this video is "necessary" to bridge Nietzsche and Deleuze in your presentation, it makes clear just how necessary Hegel is to explain those same philosophers who took after him.
1:08:02 You should read "Preussentum und Sozialismus" (Prussianism and Socialism) from Oswald Spengler, he ellaborates on this matter of mutual recognition in the socialism of Prussia (not to confuse with Marxism). Here is an interesting quote out of this book: "The old Prussian idea was to bring under legislative control the formal structure of the whole national productive force, at the same time carefully preserving the right of property and inheritance, and leaving scope for the kind of personal enterprise, talent, energy, and intellect displayed by an experienced chess player, playing within the rules of the game and enjoying that sort of freedom which the very sway of the rule affords… Socialization means the slow transformation-taking centuries to complete-of the worker into an economic functionary, and the employer into a responsible supervisory official." This type of socialism was according to other voices of that time also seen in Prussia under the rule of 'Frederick the Great' (Friedrich II.), which wasn't a "Klassenstaat" (class state) as you often hear as the critique of Marxists of the capitalist world (which is in this sense also an english idea). Great video by the way, I'm not a native english speaker, but I like how you present stuff!
Hegel (ca. 1830) was the most complex philosopher who ever wrote. This is because Hegel brilliantly and thoroughly summarized all of the 2,200 years of Western History that went before him. It is frankly impossible to fully understand Hegel without a working grasp of the whole history of Western Philosophy, including (in chronological order) Socrates, Plato, Aristotle, Plotinus, Augustine, Proclus, Anselm, Aquinas, Bacon, Descartes, Hobbes, Spinoza, Locke, Leibniz, Hume, Kant, Fichte and Schelling.
I have a question, the evolution of consciousness/self consciousness from rudimentary to advanced state requires him to accept others being self conscious as he is. But if we follow this up, don't we have to accept the consciousness of others, say even of the rocks? Presence of one conscious being in the world is rudimentary, two becomes advanced, if that keeps up, doesn't that mean we finally have to accept that the whole world is one consciousness and there was no division to begin with?
I’m only just beginning on Hegel, but I believe it applies strictly to self-conscious beings. The goal is to realize we are all one, but also individual, infinite beings, transcending ideas of race, gender, etc. Perhaps it does apply to nature and the world, and I can see it being a possibility. But again I’m also just starting to slightly understand a bit of hegel. Let me know your thoughts on this I’d love to converse
In the beginning the Word was with God and the Word was God… Jung was influenced by Hegel- whether he acknowledges it consciously 😉 or not- Hegel gave Jung the language and the foundation to articulate the Collective Unconscious, Archetypes, and ground it in history, politics, in philosophy, anthropology etc- it’s why it can encompass far right or Marx… Fanon… Eastern thought etc… it’s so comprehensive and dynamic framework- it’s the vanishing mediator itself! Freud does something interesting with Hegel’s ideas too or rather reading these different things through a Hegelian lens…
My friend and old roommate Karl was Hegel's paternal great...grandson. Karl has passed now but he had an IQ in the 160's and he was quite brilliant but he also had an irrational hatred toward Christians. Ironically, his atheist best friend stated that Karl's demons eventually got the better of him before he passed.
The answer has to be in the frequencies. We see light and hear sound in frequencies. We sleep and there’s different frequencies. We evolved to create all these devices that rely on invisible frequencies. Our society is propped up by frequencies. Our consciousness has to be a frequency that is connected to our biology via the computer (brain). And the brains goal is to make sense of the world over a deep period of time and eventually create artificial intelligence. We are conduits for a long process of creating a super being.
We are making generalizations to hastily. Who were the "lower classes" at that point of time, which had the potential. Is every lower class bound to have the same potential. I suspect that the historical situation of the time would have an effect on the philosophies. Why did the "higher classes" not mind their own business and make some kind of grand discoveries, but were bound on the interaction with the lower classes. Is the social hierarchy game always to be at the heart of everything as the most influential, or can the human achieve greater success or more dominant influence by his own activities.
If all of Western thought is a "footnote to Plato", then all metaphysical thought everywhere ultimately ends up back in Vedanta, Hegel being no exception.
Never understood what people see in Hegel. It really comes across as a bundle of all the worst excesses of German philosophy. But if you take his conclusions at face value and ignore the insane train of logic it took to get there, it does sound pretty cool. Especially to Prussian students, who are told they're at the fore of a grand mystical transformation of history. It's really a bunch of nonsense.
Hegel lays out a map of a thought process most people don’t understand. That’s why people ‘see’ something in him. He is like a cheat sheet for people who lacked the imagination to understand ruling others.
Before I read any Hegel I read “The Kybalion” and I think that enabled me to appreciate his thought when I finally read him. If you’re familiar with the Hermetic concept of THE ALL, principle of polarity, principle of cause and effect, material reality vs substantial reality, absolute truth vs relative truth, etc. you are able to grasp his logic. When Hegel talks about the unity of inner and outer, identity and difference, repulsion and attraction, being and nothing, The One and the Many, etc. I think of the principles I read in the Kybalion, especially the principle of polarity and the coincidences of opposites. Not saying that a prior understanding of these ideas will make reading Hegel easy, but you’ll notice how his work is like an attempt to rigorously elucidate ideas present in hermeticism/mysticism. With this perspective in mind I find the Science of Logic to be the more valuable text even though Phenomenology of Spirit is discussed more. The slave master dialectic isn’t the most interesting aspect of his work, but is overhyped and overshadows the value within the Science of Logic.
I sometimes wonder if the slave master dynamic can be understood through the device of The. 4 Causes. The Material Cause may just be (more and most intimately) the mother-infant “dialectic.” Toddlers go through a natural (and necessary) stage of narcissistic self assertion. This is a “material cause” since it is in the innate DNA behavior pattern. This material “conditional relationship” between mother and child takes on a “form”-its Formal Cause- in the greater tribal or statist arena. Think here of Marx’s “economic forms,” the slave economy. Then the Efficient causes are “exasperating” actions and policies. But what then was the “predestined Final Cause of all this? I suppose this is up to the Philosophers of the Future to determine. But all in all, we must begin with addressing and healing the parent-child dialectic before addressing its mirrored diseases in all other social relations.
Marx stood Hegel on his head. The starting point of his dialectics was economics. The opposing forces of life is rooted in economics, rooted in class structure of European society at the time of Marx. The most vehement critics of Marx probably never read Marx nor Hegel, nor do they appreciate the intellectual insight both thinkers brought to bear on the understanding of the human condition. In America, the idea of communism is repulsive to an average American, including those who possess nothing the State may take. The impact of propaganda, misinformation and falsely sculptured narratives are the reason humans are still suffering. Otherwise, we have arrived at answers we don't want to adopt.
So true Hegelian philosophy is just idealistic dialectic while Marx is Material Dialectic. I also laugh at this guy when he said most Marxist haven’t read Hegel which is complete bull shit. Marxist true Marxist are one of the most ferocious of readers and one of the pinnacles when it comes to intellect in the social science and philosophical realm, and to think we wouldn’t read one of the works of the philosopher that played an integral part of Marxist philosophy shows how ignorant this guy is of the intellect of true Marxist.
Absolutely marvelous, thank you! I might be very off the mark here, but "to own", although not a good literary translation (since I'm referring to a slang meaning of the word), but might be a good common-sense translation for "aufheben"? It can mean keeping and preserving _as well_ as abolishing, destroying and overcoming (someone got "owned"), especially if used in relation to another person - has a clear connotation of destroying that persons "self". Probably "possess" might also fit it, given the juxtaposition of possessing an item and being possessed by something. Although I'm not sure if any of those will make sense in a sentence as much as sublate or negate does.
Just brief exposure to the subject matter, but if Hegel was at Jena in 1806 he witnessed sone traumatic stuff and if born 1770 makes him 36 and at this point the HRE is gone, the institutions and paths and social order gone and replaced in total or in part. So....he must have been affected and sorted out the ups and downs perhaps his word use reflects all of this upheaval. Within eyesight and earshot of Napoleon's Grand Armee would assist in crafting his ideas no doubt. Napoleon would have presented the dialectic as he marched ....perhaps. Napoleon negated the HRE, the more you explain H the more I am convinced Napoleon just chuked a world order out the window fundamentally, Napoleon must have caused or enhanced wealthy folks going insane.
The ancient Africans originated the concept of the Fundamental Unity of Opposites. It was part of pre European invasion Mystery System. The Chinese would later call the concept Tai Chi ( fusion of Yin/Yang).
Being by itself would Not be a one Sided Portrait of Reality, as being is Reality and never Not is, If it 'is' at all. To be is No property possible to gain and lose, for nothing can have itself to Not be, which is implied by having itself to be. Our Talk of 'is' or 'being' can therefore only reference to Differentiation in inklusive or exklusive Opposition, while talking about the the one and only being in those ways and percieving it that way. Take Time. We Talk of Time and Times, and ask about when. We experience Change, and Change implies by necessity difference in time. An exclusive Opposition in time is described by past and Future. If we ask when now, we speak of Something yet to become in the Future, excluding it from the past and present and vice versa. So now or to come, but Not yet and Not before. But do they have any substantial Reality to them and with them all Motion? Does, in other words, Time have a time? Impossible so, as time would Always presuppose itself to think of it to have any time. To Not yet be, or still to become. Futile therefore to suggest, that being would Not be the Same way, for there is nothing apart from being, to which it can relate or be premised upon, that would Not already implie it and Always exclude its opposite. But its opposite is of no substance, for it is not even in fact, as it 'is' non-being. Motion therefore is, albight being an undoubtable fact of experience and presupposition of me writing and you Reading this, only an Illusion, If one is to suggest, that it is substantial or ultimate.
Dialectics (n) - the art of investigating or discussing the truth of opinions. In the beginning of the video he discussed how you can describe what something is by defining what it isn't. This is called negation, and it's how dialectics works. The key concepts are: The law of the unity and conflict of opposites. The law of the passage of quantitative changes into qualitative changes. The law of the negation of the negation.
Also i haven't heard of it referred to in those words, but duality is a similar concept. The master slave dialectic is probably the most well known name for the idea, although the Lord/Bondsman dialectic or Master/Slave theory are also common. Being such an important text, it's surely inspired many reinterpretations as well as inspiring many new texts with similar concepts.
This idea of negation seems similar to the physical phenomenon of the convex lens and the way we tactically experience the world upside down. More over when we dissect Hegels root language (Latin)we can see many of the base ideas rearranged in such a way as to discern them backwards as well. It really seems right to the very base of our experience the world is presented to us in this convex shape.
@@majdiawad1282 Gentile read Hegel and Marx, rejecting Marx's Hegelian materialism and created Fascism, which is rooted in Hegel's idealism. Nietzsche never truly did inspire the national socialists, they certainly would reject a lot of what he stood for. His anti-Semitic sister bastardized his work, making it palatable to the Nazis. "The Jews, however, are beyond all doubt the strongest, toughest, and purest race at present living in Europe, they know how to succeed even under the worst conditions (in fact better than under favourable ones), by means of virtues of some sort, which one would like nowadays to label as vices-owing above all to a resolute faith which does not need to be ashamed before "modern ideas."" - Nietzsche, Beyond Good and Evil
It's telling that out of all the dialectical reasoning in the Phenomenology, it's only Master/Slave that anyone uses as an example -- everything else is pretty unintelligible.
I think that’s why when humans psychologically process death (our state of nothing) we create and become deeper in our thoughts and self consciousness and enhance our world with empty substance. Aka religion. And religion is the coping mechanism of our perceived limited existence.
you said his name wrong hahaha its not "von" friedrich hegel, friedrich is his 3rd name and hegel his last name... how did you even come up with that. the "von" in the european names (sometimes also "van" like in van beethoven or van hellsing) referes to a decendence of a royal family or a decendence of a specific town or community, which his family indeed isnt, it was more like a family of christians clergys and priests and so on.
The fact is that slaves in the ancient world, like mod-cons in the modern world, freed their owner to (at least potentially) achieve self expression in other areas of their lives. And this was mostly not accessible to the slaves themselves who thus, objectively, led an inferior existence - at least in terms of their potential. Moreover the owner does not even need to objectivize or dehumanize his slaves. Seneca writes about this I think more insightfully than Hegel (re the master slave relationship). Great presentation as ever, I look forward to listening to the Deleuze podcast next when I have time - did you know Deleuze wrote admiringly of Bergson as well as Nietzsche?
For some reason this made me think of the norwegian writer Agnar Mykles posthumously published essay "The world is an asshole", in which he gives the following aforism: "The asshole is as necessery, and therefore as beautiful as the mouth". In this perhaps the deeper meaning of the word of Christ that one should love ones enemy is revealed. This however should be misunderstood as is now commonly the case, that one should become homosexual, offcourse. That would be rather juvenile, according to te great sage Osho. If one is neither left wing or right wing, but have ones both wings intact, one can fly high and get a birds overview, and see the totalitypicture. Thus one could create a "Pseudoscience of Totality", which could lead to the closest man can get to the viewpoint of eternity, recognizing offcourse that all science of man in pseudoscience, and God is the only true scientist. The ultimate master slave dialectic is between God and man, to create a being that can fully and freely recognize and understand the nature of God and love it, and hence which can be fully loved back. That would be the definition of grokking in fullness, perhaps.
Knowing physics makes this sound very primitive. My problem with philosophy is what does it predict? Diddly squat unfortunately. Fascinating regardless.
Hegel wrote a bunch of nonsensical ideobabble designed to lead you out into the weeds of confusion where you could be manipulated into thinking he was some kind of genius, or something, and I early on learned to despise him.
00:00 📚 Hegel, a prominent philosopher, is known for his influential but complex ideas, often misunderstood due to oversimplifications and translations of his work.
03:21 🌍 Hegel's philosophy represents a historical turn in Western thought, emphasizing dynamic and evolving truths, contrasting the timeless concepts of earlier philosophy.
05:24 😕 Hegel's ideas have been polarizing, with some considering him a brilliant mind and others finding his work incomprehensible, often influenced by their own political ideologies.
09:18 🤝 Nietzsche, while not explicitly anti-Hegelian, can be seen as operating from premises that oppose Hegel's ideas, especially concerning history and morality.
13:01 🤯 Hegel's phenomenology challenges the concept of the "thing in itself," emphasizing that qualities exist as effects or sensations dependent on perception and recognition.
21:21 🔄 Hegel's philosophy introduces the idea that all being is premised on negation, challenging the law of non-contradiction and highlighting how we define things through negation.
22:16 🧠 Negation serves as a fundamental aspect of human understanding, as it separates and connects things by differentiating them from each other.
23:28 🗺 Giving directions or descriptions relies on negation, distinguishing the target location from others by excluding them.
25:30 💡 Negation is essential for defining things, and everything in the world is connected through negation, forming a totality of relationships.
26:14 🔍 Hegel asserts that becoming reflects being, which reconciles the views of those who see reality as change and those who see it as unchanging.
27:21 🌟 Existence is defined by its negative relationship with non-being, as we understand the presence of something by imagining its absence.
30:07 🔄 The Hegelian dialectic proceeds via negation, a process similar to sublation, which challenges the Aristotelian concept of being.
31:29 🧙♂ Hegel's dialectic aims to raise consciousness, moving beyond mere perception to self-awareness and understanding of absolute truth.
34:03 🤖 The Master-Slave dialectic represents a psychological myth illustrating how self-consciousness emerges as humans interact and negate external forces.
35:40 🌐 The Master-Slave dialectic isn't a historical event but a dramatization of how humans come to know self-consciousness by encountering and recognizing it in others.
41:56 🤔 The certainty of one's own self-consciousness requires recognition and validation from another self-conscious being to establish a true sense of identity.
43:20 🤖 Hegel asserts that the possibility of another consciousness arises through struggle, essential for true self-awareness.
44:00 💼 To truly know oneself as a free consciousness, one must be unafraid of death and engage in life-and-death struggles to declare their freedom.
46:34 🤯 In the Master-Slave dialectic, one party usually yields to the other out of fear of death, leading to the submissive becoming the slave and the dominant becoming the master.
49:19 🏆 The master initially achieves a sense of independence and power through mastery over the world, while the slave becomes a means to the master's desires.
51:25 👥 The master-slave relationship shapes the subjective world of both parties, with the master's self-consciousness being mediated through the slave.
55:33 🔄 The master becomes passive, relying on the slave's labor, while the slave gains awareness of self-existence and independence.
01:00:09 🛠 The slave's labor allows them to cancel the independence of objects, leading to self-awareness and a sense of independence.
01:02:57 👎 The master's self-consciousness becomes dependent on the slave, causing dissatisfaction, while the slave achieves a sense of independent self-existence.
01:05:17 🧠 Hegel sees the slave as a driving force in history, gaining self-awareness through labor, leading to the goal of mutual recognition.
01:06:11 🌐 The Master-Slave dialectic initiates the process of history, culminating in total Mutual recognition, symbolized by the state at the end of history.
01:07:48 👥 The state at the end of history recognizes the common humanity and dignity of all, transcending race and nationality.
01:09:49 😳 Hegel's concept of mutual recognition resonates with the importance of how others perceive us, shaping our self-image and driving our desires.
01:10:56 🔄 History unfolds as each state of affairs negates itself, driven by the pursuit of mutual recognition, leading to continuous societal change.
01:14:57 🔄 Hegel's dialectical movement of self-awareness through negation leads from unhappy consciousness to happy consciousness via mutual recognition.
01:16:30 🌅 The Master-Slave dialectic serves as the foundation of Hegel's understanding of self-consciousness and its evolution, part of a larger historical process towards freedom.
🔥🔥🔥🔥🔥🔥🔥🔥🔥🔥 well summized
Very helpful breakdown.
Zioòoo
Thanks for this.
Wow! i admire the work ethic 💪🏻 i barely got this comment done before i almost said f^ck it😮💨
Thank you for making these videos. I’m a very young man and I have finally found an interest in something after being depressed for a very long time. These videos help me get through the day and make me think about the world in a good way.
You may enjoy these also. Durant is legit.
www.youtube.com/@DurantandFriends
Check out Jung he might be useful for you 😊
This comment reminds me of myself, good things will come for you and I agree with the other comment Carl Jung is great.
Check Joseph Rodriguez❤
ua-cam.com/video/_8e41iXn4qI/v-deo.htmlsi=mNiNM-WCZkz_JoH-
Everytime you say "and so on and so forth" the image of Zizek eating two corn dogs just runs through my mind.
😂me too .
I call him sniffy man.
Most underrated and my personal favorite UA-cam Creator, Thank you once again🙏
I remember saying "Screw Hegel!" in a drunken rage. Now I say it soberly.
😂
Right there with you!
He speaks very highly of you.
Bro thats hilarious to imagine 😂
Screw, unscrew and screwed.
The theory stands true.
The Hegelian Dialectic just sounds like the Alchemical idea of the Unity of Opposites. Great stuff
Isn't this video specifically about something else?
@@paddypibblet846Exactly
Hegel was interested in hermeticism as was Isaac Newton
You know what man this kinda speaks to me. I think it is really going to help me form an army modeled off of Imperial Rome and conquer everything west of the Colorado squashing tribal identities.
Just as Ceasar campaigned in Gaul before he crossed the Rubicon, so have you campaigned, and will cross the Colorado.
I wish to partake
Goethe's wife contemplating about the fact that Hegel might be the most brilliant men who ever lived is such a statment to her husband 😂
so you are doing deleuzes reading of nietzsche, i am happy to hear!
I am new to philosophy and anthropology as academic disciplines, but your video has truly helped me appreciate Hegel’s thinking if not gain perspective and some conceptual understanding.
Thank you for attempting to understand and comprehend Hegel so I don't have to.
😂
16:41 😮😮😮😮😮😮😮😮😮😮😮😮😮😮😮😮e
Thank you for watching this video so I don't have to
Thank you for trying and attempting to understand, comprehend, and make sense of Hegel so I don't have to. Thank you it's much appreciated.
Me too !!!!!😂
Your channel is absolutely awesome!!! One of my best discoveries in years!! Greetings from Vienna!!
This was good. I really enjoyed this. Love him or hate him, his thought continues to animate the world we live in. Shake a strange political tree long enough and a right Hegelian or left Hegelian will fall out of it.
Ha. I'd love to think we could even - as philosophers - do this crazy thing. It's called critiquing stuff. Critiquing both the right and the left. Oh wow what a crazy idea. 🙈
It’s because they are trans.
I read Hegel the same way I watch films by David Lynch. When I stop trying to understand it logically, then I understand it. When I try to grasp it with just logic, it’s ungraspable. But that isn’t to say that it’s illogical - it’s meaningful.
Um my entire experience w life itself lol
These videos have single-handedly increased my attention span by two hours. Not only that, but through them, I have found many ideas to think and contemplate. Some of the concepts in your videos I've considered before, though not as articulately and scholarly as you or Nietzsche. It helps a lot when someone more educated in this regard explains these ideas so clearly. There's a concept I've seen mentioned, called Nietzsche's aristocratic radicalism or something similar. I would love to hear your explanation as my searches led me to scholarly articles, which I either don't have time for or am too lazy to read (mostly too lazy). If you've covered this concept in your videos, I would appreciate it if you could direct me to the relevant content.
Thanks! Here are the relevant videos:
ua-cam.com/video/PpCqnfO6kic/v-deo.htmlsi=Cmo5ETEmQaL0MWbg
ua-cam.com/video/L68roW0dqdE/v-deo.htmlsi=F689A-O1E6gayBNj
Although, I’d recommend listening to most of the episodes in the first half of season three to get a feel for N’s dialogue with the ancients on this topic,
@@untimelyreflections
I'll lump myself loosely with the OP above and say thank you for graciously forwarding the vid links.
You did a PHENOMENOLOGICAL job
LMFAOOOOOOOOO W
Excellent and the most enlightening presentation on the master slave dialectic that I have seen and I’ve seen quite a few. Thankyou
Bravo 👏 a great podcast on a difficult philosophy to articulate. You are a natural teacher, with all the dribble on the internet you elevate this medium too it's highest purpose of both entertainment and increasing our understanding.
Hegel is trippy. I can't help but love shopenhaurs loathing of him. It's just fun to read his straightforward, scathing reviews of the man. But I'm interested in learning more of his thought, even if it's just to " bro down" more with shopenhaur. Lol
Predicating existence or any precipitating epistemological concern on the aftifact of consciousness that is negation is simply daft. I'm certain Hegel was just a wordy try hard.
Schopenhauer is not someone you would want to meet in a loathing competition
@@livingroomviewing2987 In early Bhuddhist philosophy negation was, I believe, the central method of proof of at least most assertions. Like in science, if no evidence can be found for a statement through exhaustive search, then the statement must be false. Even the oral history of the teachings of Buddha using this technique resulted in the writing of The Lankavatara Sutra, considered by most Zen scholars and Zen masters to be a seminal teaching of Buddhist philosophy on consciousness. Nagarjuna is famous for his deep elucidation of this technique.
Ugh you philosopher bros are something else 😂 As an engineer who dabbles in learning this stuff just to scratch it, reading the effusive verbiage yall use when discussing is hilarious lol I really wonder how much of it you internalize or is it just for regurgitating in social settings hahaha
@@livingroomviewing2987so if it's not negation that proves existence, what is it? Do you have another philosopher's theory that you prefer? :)
Just found your channel. Will definitely be checking out more videos. I've heard mention of Hegel before but always a side note in relation to something else. The master/slave dialectic explains so much about what I've been learning about soviet communism, especially the insistence that the slaves were somehow better off in the long run. Thanks for your work!
Wow, thank you so much for making these videos for free!
"what we learn from history is that we don't learn from history" - one of his best quotes and indeed one of the best quotes ever.
Real or fake history😢😢
Real or fake history😢😢
i like how paradoxical that statement is
The problem with master-slave dialectic is that before both sides recognize their "self consciousness" there must be an intention to enslave someone and this requires a self-consciousness ahead - "I want you to be my servant because I recognize we are not the same". . The left does not negate right, I recognize my left hand not because I negate my right hand, but because I negate the position of the right hand in place where left hand belongs. So in master-slave dialectic the place for masters is not for the slaves, the slave is not negated here and there is no moving forward, no synthesis at all.
The slaves never want to kill or negate the masters because it negates themselves either, so each sides are essential for each other and no side want to negate or win anything. Masters also never treats slaves as an object, because they know that the slave is a subject who have a possibility to overthrow the master. thet is why they need constant proves of recognition of their own mastery over the slaves, in case of object there is no such thing in consciousness of the owner.
In pure independent freedom there is nothing, no self-awareness and no self-definition at all and both sides got access to this freedom all the time when they occupy a private time during a rest.
@@Action.by.Action The thing is that Hegel's philosophy is about the spirit, movement of history, not about our personal struggle within ourselves. My point is that there is no dialectic movement toward freedom in master-slave opposition. As soon as one recognize on side of the stick, the other side is automatically present as necessity. So I don't think that a master is a thesis and a slave is antithesis and freedom as synthesis in the movement of history. It is only true in theoretical thinking, in thought not in history.
In real life an abolition of slavery is also an abolition of masters, but you cannot move in that direction through progress of time, you must be free to establish freedom, slaves and masters will never reach this goal, so their history and struggle doesn't matter. You cannot by closer or far away from freedom because it is completely different axis.
@@Action.by.Action This is all only a theory. Opposition of master-slave or subject-object constitutes necessary tension for the history or the world to happen. The end of this doesn't lead to self-consciousness or freedom. For Hegel self-conscious is only the Spirit. This negates individuality because subject-self meets object-self only in the eyes of the other, so at least two people must share the same eye to be the spirit. Fichte thinks this way but he thinks that knowledge about the other leads to the spirit/self-consciousness.
In reality no knowledge, no history, no evolution or any progress leads to the spirit or to any goal because the opposition is a necessary tension, a ground that holds things together, simple negation one side is only a movement to the other side. To move forward or background you need to be above this tension, above this ground, history, world, dialectic etc. You cannot be part of it, but in reality we are part of it, we are this tension, when we negate or accept. When you are above the tension you are the spirit already, so there is no need for self-realization anymore . Hegel believed (as all German idealist did) that God or Absolute Spirit needs people, world, history for self-knowledge or any self-realization, and we are only a tools in this view. This is simply Jewish philosophy of life, not Christian.
In reality there is not path that lead to self-realization or the spirit, only love changes you so you become "less heavy, less tense" and then you rise above, away from this world of history. For love you need the other, so it is close to Fichte view, but knowledge doesn't give you more love, only love give more love, so only the spirit makes you more spiritual, only freedom makes you more free. Oppositions in the world doesn't do that. You do not need evil to realize what good is, because this realization is only a knowledge about good, not good itself.
Today millions of peoples form 9 to 5 work hard to build a new financial pyramids for a new financial pharaohs in USA, in China, in Arab World etc. The slavery is still the same, only needs of the masters or slaves changed. History only repeat itself in different shading, there is no progress to anything. The content of the collective mind changes so one time consciousness is more directed outside, one time inward so in movement of time you getting older, and the same is happening on collective/history level (although we are getting younger, more childish). But this movement is the movement form subject to object or vice versa, not toward self-realization, that is why in christianity there is the fall and you cannot rise above again by your own strength, because this strength is that tension, it is a reality of the fall.
Or to put it more simply. Hegel believes that becoming finally leads to a being. In reality it is carrot and stick logic. Becoming is eternal, never leads to anything but change. Being is the end of this movement of becoming, so the one who becomes never move toward end, because the movement in itself is an act of turning away from the end of the movement.
I appreciate the interaction, but I also think you're not focusing enough on how Hegel posits the relationship between self as both subject and object, and how that necessarily and simultaneously gives rise to self-consciousness and Absolute spirit, for which the Master-Slave dialectic is a useful metaphor. And to be sure, it is a metaphor.
May your philosophical adventure continue.
@@Action.by.Action I understand Hegel, my point is that Hegel could not different between theory and real life experience.
Each one of us around 40 y. o. experience this end of history when object meets subject and so called self-consciousness arise. We call it a crisis because our object-self (perception of outer world and education) is not in tune with our subject-self (our inner feeling etc) so we ask question, who am I, what this all is about, what is the point of all of this? Then we must choose of staying with outer experience or go inward, and this seems like choosing own destiny, so it also seems like emergence of self-consciousness. The same things happen in master-slave struggle within us when we want one thing and do another. But this self-awareness is not given to us thanks to that dialectical struggle of oppositions, but by the third factor - death. Around 40 y.o. our body is more dead than alive and we recognize that a clock is ticking, that's why we stop and ask questions, and this question asking is not a prove of being self-conscious but the fear of not being at all. Both master and slave fear the same thing, that they do not exist, or that they do not have much time. Fear itself do not rise self-consciousness, it rise only an illusory "I" identification with mixed outer and inner memory. So we start identify as slaves of God or as demi-god, because we believe that this will guarantee our existence.
How self-conscious being could experience fear of not existence, fear of death? If you are self-conscious then object meets subject and there is only a recognition that you are the spirit, no fear at all. So this self-consciousness which arise through any process is an illusion, it is only accumulation of knowledge and recognition of the fact by our Ego that this accumulation will not continue for ever. It is not reality but only theory, this self exist only in thoughts, in the mind, not in our true being.
When someone loves me I am self because of this love. The other recognize me as object and subject together, only then I am aware that I exist and I am something, not mere empty pure existence, but something with content, a person. So I exist through whole history as well as at the end of history. First I am loved by parents, then by opposite sex, then by friends, at the end by God. This gives me true self-consciousness because I always got a honest and truthful (thanks to love) witness of my existence and outer is connected with inner. Mere ending of history, or dialectical process of oppositions between object and subject gives only...the ending, only death and fear of death. No one can be aware of self, because self is totally empty, and some say that this is a pure awareness, like in Buddhism, but this is only a pure ignorance, because to have pure emptiness you need to negate the other and negate the world, so you negate both object and subject, there is no meeting, no connection, only negation. They say then - all is maya, all is illusion.
Love unites oppositions, parents and child, husband and wife, God and people so only here is true meeting of subject and object.
Congratulations. You disapproved Hegel with four comments on UA-cam. There is no need to say that your understanding of Hegel dialectics through negation is completely misunderstood, and engaging your "dialectics" would be like arguing about quantum physics with a three year old.
Hegel took the notion of negation from Spinoza and ran wild with it. He appreciated Spinoza very much and said that there is no philosophy without him. Spinoza thought that the only negation is differentiating some thing or object from the oneness of substance. So Hegel took Spinoza's negation and substance and skewed them to fit his own "logic". This angle is important for understanding what Deleuze thinks is wrong with Hegelian dialectics, namely the false movement of negation. (about Hegel's misuse of Spinoza see Pierre Macherey: Hegel or Spinoza)
Concerning the master/slave dialectic, Klossowski in his Vicious Circle writes (p.12 of English trans.):
"Nietzsche, out of his own ignorance, will
attack the Hegelian dialectic at its roots. In his analysis of the
unhappy consciousness, Hegel distorts the 'initial Desire' (the
will to power): the autonomous consciousness (of the Master)
despairs of ever having its autonomy recognized by another
autonomous being, since it is necessarily constituted by a
dependent consciousness - that of the Slave.
In Nietzsche, there is no such need for reciprocity (this
is his 'ignorance' of this passage of the Dialectic). On the
contrary, given his own idiosyncracy - the sovereignty of an
incommunicable emotion - the very idea of a 'consciousness
for itself mediated by another consciousness' remains foreign to
Nietzsche. "
And in a footnote: " It was the intimidating genius of Georges Bataille (in Inner Experience) that emphasized his ignorance in the Genealogy of Morals"
Zucker kommt zuletzt, Hegel's circular epistemology:
ua-cam.com/video/t2Cc1gPdNnE/v-deo.html
All coherent systems are circular but it is a virtuous one
Your sentence is incomprehensible, much like Hegel. @@ReflectiveJourney
@@exlauslegale8534 not my problem that you have a comprehension of a child. Stick to crayon drawing
I apologize for my shortcomings, but from my inferior perspective (although I saw in Oppenheimer how some guys with crayons built an atom bomb), I would really like to understand your sentence.
For example, when you say that "all coherent systems are circular" can you provide any proof for such an absolute claim? For Aristotle circular reasoning is tautological, ergo not coherent (i.e. "being is being"). Abovementioned Klossowski calls Nietzsche's circular system, namely the eternal return of the same, a "vicious circle", which again, is not coherent, Even the second law of thermodynamics is in trouble with finding such an enclosed, circular system to function properly (to be a coherent law). Also, circular systems are having trouble with the production of anything new, that is problem with Newton's nature viewed as a mechanism...
Then the usage of the pronoun "it" within your sentence is not coherent: you are using pronoun in the singular (it) after a noun in plural (systems) and thus it is incomprehensible what it stands for. (If you were thinking of Hegel's than you should have written: "...but Hegel's is a virtuous one.")
Which brings us to the final mystery: what does morality (virtue) have with the coherence of a system? Maybe you have mistakenly written virtuous instead of virtual, or vicious... But how can somebody with such a presumption in his stance make a mistake... unless we are dealing with Dunning-Kruger...?
Please answer, because I am willing to learn! @@ReflectiveJourney
@@exlauslegale8534 No need to be passive aggressive. I apologize for the harsh tone but it is pretty annoying to get incomprehensible as a response without further clarification.
I can also see it was pretty vague. To clarify, I do mean hegel's system being a virtuous one not all coherent system since coherent systems can also be vicious as you know.
Since you gave me more info, i can respond. Firstly, i am talking about coherent in the sense of epistemology. The two main camps are foundationalism where you start with absolute foundations or more like holistic conceptual scheme (web of belief model) which is coherentism. I am not using coherent in the sense of it being intelligible. Regarding Aristotle, i would agree that a circular syllogism is not valid but that doesn't apply to whole worldview since you can't put the whole worldview into syllogism and there are always implicit commitments you have but are not aware of but are logically committed to.
Now coming to virtuous, it would be the opposite of vicious in a sense. My understanding is that vicious circle leads to worsening of the situation which in case of philosophy would be to get locked into circle of concepts that are mutually supporting but the system cannot account for new concept application and facilitate discourse with opposing worldviews. A virtuous circle would lead to an improvement so philosophically it is one where are reasoning is open and also whatever came before supports the creation of new concept and also has a self correcting way to account for error in reasoning.
I will mostly take brandom's reading here since it is the most clear but many other interpreters also have the same arguments. A brief sketch of the argument is that the concepts are historical and socially determined, so all transcendental constitution is social institution. The errors in application of concepts are also essentially part of the determination of the concept. Concepts are dynamic and they are getting better retrospectively but prospectively they are always inadequate. The job of philosopher is to use re collective rationality to give a progressive development of the concept but he can only do that after the concept have become concrete by its application and not before. It is a dialectic of the practical and theoretical roughly. So hegel is not claiming closure, he is also saying people in future will have a better vantage point to re-conceputalize history ( which mostly philosophers try to copy from hegel but are not at his level imo) and future empirical, pragmatic considerations should be incorporated into it so even though his system is "circular" as a whole it is a virtuous one.
Also the so called circularity in hegel is "reason being its own standard". I don't think it is even possible to escape this circularity since what possible reasons can be given to have a different standard for reasoning other than using reason itself which is use to establish all standards/norms. You can counter by saying asking for reason is begging the question against someone skeptic about reasons but then there is a no discourse possible.
This is not insane at all!
- I never really liked the classic idealists so much, and having Hegel explaining the appearance of the world feels very liberating to me. He made it justice. To me, it's like he knew what I needed from all the previous philosophers without me even being born yet.
- Like a unity of spirit, metaphorically meant.
Thanks for this great content!
this is the most Berserk Guts Griffith pod ive ever listened to. bonfire of dreams.
the thing i think a lot of people miss about hegel is that due to his method of continuously negating himself, he actually has a lot of different concepts and i think even allows for the negation of his own ideas by others, including himself. He recognizes his own negation. Hegel is already the anti-hegel, at least one version of it. So my reading of hegel is more as a philosopher of reinvention. what A lot of people who try to “go after” hegel i think often miss is that they’re actually doing something very Hegelian in that process of negating hegel. For me anyway, hegel doesn’t actually have any “key concepts” other than negation itself, it’s more about the movement in the thought. It is possible to pick examples such as the “recognition” concept and deconstruct them but the trouble is I think doing that is still hegelian, he accounts for it in his philosophy. So what happens a lot of the time is philosophers who aren’t as willing to completely negate themselves will project static, unchanging notions onto Hegel and deconstruct those…delueze may be guilty of that for example. anyways, it’s also possible i’m the one negating hegel more than he negated himself. either way, great video! thank you for making it
In my opinion the slave master dialectic is an overly discussed aspect of his work. I think Science of Logic is his more significant contribution to philosophy but is often overshadowed by the Phenomenology of Spirit. I know it’s dense and initially intimidating, but the real substance is in Science of Logic. To anyone interested in delving into the Science of Logic I’d recommend reading the first 100 or so pages of The Kybalion first (very short). I read the Kybalion before reading any Hegel and I found this to be extremely useful. I won’t go in full depth on how the Kybalion is relevant, but being familiar with the Principle of Polarity for example is a great primer for understanding Hegelian Dialectics.
Your channel is top quality. Thanks for your work.
thanks again, wonderful effort. abstraction in pursuing the things to reach a narrative of what actually is happening (be it truly wrong and needs to adjusted) is fruitful and that's all. abstraction OF things is merely futile and stems from arrogance of human mind. we are still weak in all manners before cosmos, and that's not bad. weakness is the best trigger of improving. fathers of philsophy have had to learn to be humble long before.
Brilliant exposition!
At first blush listening to the 1st 30 minutes... it seems to me that it is impossible to negate Non Contradiction without entailing the existence of a Thing Itself, because everyday time & space perception & Understanding entails Non Contradiction; that is, an external object is what it is the moment it is perceived & represented.
So, it seems to me... that knowledge of the changeability of ( cause ) external things perceived and represented, and within ourselves as subjects... doesn't change the fact that they/we are what they/we are as represented in time & space... and cannot be anything other than what they/we are as represented.
I am very amenable to the prospect of getting rid of the notion of a thing in itself as " humbugery, " however.
Thing Itself conjecture, to me, leads to the errors of religion... which proposes the external existence of places & beings that evade the synthetic process (sense stimulation & Intellect ) of how we perceive then know of things external of us.
Theology... in the western sense... should be renamed Extra Sensory Perception, in my view, because much of it says that the Intellect itself can know of beings & places external of our intellect without the use of our sense organs... and this is, of course, nonsense.
Good job. You might be interested to consider the views of Morse Peckham on the master-slave encounter, because he extends the logic of Hegel's paradigm explicitly to sex and politics in his essay "Eroticism=Politics; Politics=Eroticism". You can find this essay in his Collected Papers. Cheers.
Thank you for this lecture, I was confused a few times but the thought that in Germany they had the idea that 'work sets you free', just wondering who that was applied to.
Is it a Hegelian idea?
This thumbnail is incredible
Oh man we need a follow up with Heidegger and Dasein
Thank you for your interpretations. So helpful in tracing different aspects of the enlightenment history
This was well articulated and will provide many thought-meals for me. It is in my playlist-Library on YT for future reference
Timely... I just started into 'the phenomenology.. ' last night and this morning. We shall see
Well... The preface certainly didn't contain anything about any master and slave dialectic! So far, it is pure philosophy, and it is making (a strong) case for the role of speculative philosophy in our endeavors of understanding. It is completely about tearing down the subject/object dichotomy and about adhering to process, the the living nature of the observable world, the "notion". I'm interested to see how the master and slave dichotomy enters into the text, but at this point I have to imagine it being more a figurative reference than literal.
For me, I'm already familiar with the concepts being presented, which makes the reading much much easier. But I can imagine that for anyone who doesn't understand the problems associated with reductionism in science, you might not be able to understand a word the man said. It's essentially process philosophy so far.
Hey yoooo my mans made this German bro sound coherent. I just finished reading Phenomenology of the Spirit to prepare me for this German Idealism class I am taking and like, Hagel kinda sucks but he is also makes a lot of sense and I am glad this video was able to polish all the stuff I was trying to translate
What happens when a master meets another master? do they see each other as one in the same, as equal consciences, or as potential rivals who are not yet in a state of war with each other? Likewise, what happens when two slaves meet do they view each other as equals who ought work for each other together to survive their condition? Does Hegel explore the master/master dialectic?
I think that's at least reflected in class divisions
hegel doesn't explore the possibilities where he doesn't see an evolution of self-consciousness. The whole discussion is pretty allegorical. Regarding just master/master or slave/slave the issue would be that master and slave are defined through each other. so a master/master or slave/slave (considering them equally desiring agents) would probably be similar to a struggle of life/death until the master/slave relation is re established or the other person is killed ( this is also not talked about but it is the most likely outcome imo but it doesn't progress the dialectic)
@@ReflectiveJourney thanks for the response, so when two masters meet their dialogue is not a "dialectic" because they are on the same side since they have the same views about themselves and are not opposites?
However, masters in real life were trying to impress other masters by either having more slaves or more wealth etc. so is that kind of competition between masters a type of dialectic since an individual master wants to stand out from the rest of the masters while also recognizing and respecting the fact that they are all masters?
@@TarpeianArchives let me preface this by saying i am not an hegel expert and there are other interpretations out there which approach the topic from a different angle. Still I believe it is agreed up that phenomenology is not trying to match the empirical history but the logic/immanent development of the shapes of consciousness. The dialectic moves to the next shape by recognising the internal contradictions from "its own standpoint". So the overall structure is important to know what categories/concepts are available to a particular shape ( this is why hegel is so tricky you need to have some sense of the whole to get the part lol but it does make sense ultimately/ hopefully). Master/slave is the first shape in self consciousness established after life/death struggle. How i understand is that the most basic shape of self consciousness is minimal agency that can only classify the world based on a need. Lets take food as the classification and hunger as need. When the agent eats the food the classification was correct or incorrect gets implicitly determined so it is not arbitrary but the agent doesn't know that it is not arbitrary ( what the agent is aware of is for consciousness while what actual structure is what is in itself just to give a mapping). The next level up is recognition which is desire of desire where the agent is now modelling the agency itself as a need. In life/death struggle both see their classifications as ultimate and fight over it and in this struggle only the recognition arises since you need to have another agent outside yourself to model agency. recognition is intersubjective from the start and is an example of reciprocal causality. The master in phenomenology is an agent who recognises his classifications to be ultimate and slave is merely a tool for master to fulfill his desires whereas slave also sees master's classification as ultimate since he lost the life and death struggle but slave is also aware of his own conception and master's conception and he is in a position to see the contradiction in mastery and make progress.
Sorry for the long response but hopefully i gave enough context. Honestly, i am still not sure i get everything that's going on in phenomenology ( but then who does :D). this is brandom's interpretation and i find it useful since it doesn't use hegelize to explain hegelize. If you are further interested you can look into bradom's book "a spirit of trust".
@@TarpeianArchives in case it is not clear your scenario is not possible for the master
You did quite a job, mate 💯 Much appreciated
😂 Yeah I guess some versions of things I find a bit scewed but no I feel he did a good job. Mostly they were in service of quickly explaining a background idea in order to give info that helped us understand the current idea. Ie not a heinous bits when the focus isn't there (on that idea he got a bit oddly) but on the later idea that it leads to. So no big crime. Agree?
In the intro, you covered that there are more popular myths, second-hand interpretations, and falsifying summaries about Hegel floating around than there is helpful input by those who have studied and understood him. Then you end your summary by repeating one of the most persistent and popular myths, that he was a Prussian apologist, but you admittedly can't explain exactly how.
To amend your introduction, Hegel's greatest falsifiers are not his detractors/deniers. The "critics" often plagiarize parts of Hegel (like Deleuze, Heidegger, and so many more) or ignore him whole sale as a "dead dog" or use polemic (Popper, Russell, Moore, essentially all analytics up until Sellars). It's the so-called "Hegelian" followers who provide their interpretations before fully appropriating Hegel through their studies who then pass on this type of misinformation and myth.
More damage has been done to the popular conception of Hegel's system by those who purport to be capable of delivering a digestible summary than those attempting to criticize. The vulgar summarizes instead deliver ready-made straw-men to be "criticized" so that students can believe themselves to have gone beyond Hegel without gaining an understanding of him whatsoever (instead, often without reading him /at all/).
Although this video is "necessary" to bridge Nietzsche and Deleuze in your presentation, it makes clear just how necessary Hegel is to explain those same philosophers who took after him.
I completely agree... It seems Hegel is too often introduced only to be discarded. he is a little schizoid tho
I was just searching if you made a video on hegel last week.
New to channel. Interesting stuff! Subscribed!
1:08:02
You should read "Preussentum und Sozialismus" (Prussianism and Socialism) from Oswald Spengler, he ellaborates on this matter of mutual recognition in the socialism of Prussia (not to confuse with Marxism). Here is an interesting quote out of this book:
"The old Prussian idea was to bring under legislative control the formal structure of the whole national productive force, at the same time carefully preserving the right of property and inheritance, and leaving scope for the kind of personal enterprise, talent, energy, and intellect displayed by an experienced chess player, playing within the rules of the game and enjoying that sort of freedom which the very sway of the rule affords… Socialization means the slow transformation-taking centuries to complete-of the worker into an economic functionary, and the employer into a responsible supervisory official."
This type of socialism was according to other voices of that time also seen in Prussia under the rule of 'Frederick the Great' (Friedrich II.), which wasn't a "Klassenstaat" (class state) as you often hear as the critique of Marxists of the capitalist world (which is in this sense also an english idea).
Great video by the way, I'm not a native english speaker, but I like how you present stuff!
You have a good voice, so glad to hear a video that is not using a Ai robot voice & annoying music
Hegel (ca. 1830) was the most complex philosopher who ever wrote. This is because Hegel brilliantly and thoroughly summarized all of the 2,200 years of Western History that went before him.
It is frankly impossible to fully understand Hegel without a working grasp of the whole history of Western Philosophy, including (in chronological order) Socrates, Plato, Aristotle, Plotinus, Augustine, Proclus, Anselm, Aquinas, Bacon, Descartes, Hobbes, Spinoza, Locke, Leibniz, Hume, Kant, Fichte and Schelling.
6:02
"I sound insane to myself", somebody laughs in the background
I have a question, the evolution of consciousness/self consciousness from rudimentary to advanced state requires him to accept others being self conscious as he is. But if we follow this up, don't we have to accept the consciousness of others, say even of the rocks? Presence of one conscious being in the world is rudimentary, two becomes advanced, if that keeps up, doesn't that mean we finally have to accept that the whole world is one consciousness and there was no division to begin with?
I’m only just beginning on Hegel, but I believe it applies strictly to self-conscious beings. The goal is to realize we are all one, but also individual, infinite beings, transcending ideas of race, gender, etc. Perhaps it does apply to nature and the world, and I can see it being a possibility. But again I’m also just starting to slightly understand a bit of hegel. Let me know your thoughts on this I’d love to converse
Great job! Well done.
Was Hegel’s consideration of the duality X and -X the origin of quantum mechanics in its purest form?
Since that's what you're doing psychotic control through transcending phenomenon with being-towards-death in dialectic process control
In the beginning the Word was with God and the Word was God…
Jung was influenced by Hegel- whether he acknowledges it consciously 😉 or not- Hegel gave Jung the language and the foundation to articulate the Collective Unconscious, Archetypes, and ground it in history, politics, in philosophy, anthropology etc- it’s why it can encompass far right or Marx… Fanon… Eastern thought etc… it’s so comprehensive and dynamic framework- it’s the vanishing mediator itself! Freud does something interesting with Hegel’s ideas too or rather reading these different things through a Hegelian lens…
my dude you need to do a video on the weimar republic
Small quibble: Hegel was born in the Duchy of Württemberg, a state in the Holy Roman Empire in 1770. He later taught at a Prussian university.
You have a great voice for UA-cam mine sounds like a ferret getting squashed under a detuned guitar running feedback.
My friend and old roommate Karl was Hegel's paternal great...grandson. Karl has passed now but he had an IQ in the 160's and he was quite brilliant but he also had an irrational hatred toward Christians. Ironically, his atheist best friend stated that Karl's demons eventually got the better of him before he passed.
Great job on Hegel. Impressive.
is it ok to say Fred when referring to Nietzsche? or Freddy? His name is so difficult to spell.
I say Neech 🤑
The answer has to be in the frequencies. We see light and hear sound in frequencies. We sleep and there’s different frequencies. We evolved to create all these devices that rely on invisible frequencies. Our society is propped up by frequencies. Our consciousness has to be a frequency that is connected to our biology via the computer (brain). And the brains goal is to make sense of the world over a deep period of time and eventually create artificial intelligence. We are conduits for a long process of creating a super being.
We are making generalizations to hastily. Who were the "lower classes" at that point of time, which had the potential. Is every lower class bound to have the same potential. I suspect that the historical situation of the time would have an effect on the philosophies. Why did the "higher classes" not mind their own business and make some kind of grand discoveries, but were bound on the interaction with the lower classes. Is the social hierarchy game always to be at the heart of everything as the most influential, or can the human achieve greater success or more dominant influence by his own activities.
If all of Western thought is a "footnote to Plato", then all metaphysical thought everywhere ultimately ends up back in Vedanta, Hegel being no exception.
Never understood what people see in Hegel. It really comes across as a bundle of all the worst excesses of German philosophy. But if you take his conclusions at face value and ignore the insane train of logic it took to get there, it does sound pretty cool. Especially to Prussian students, who are told they're at the fore of a grand mystical transformation of history. It's really a bunch of nonsense.
Hegel lays out a map of a thought process most people don’t understand. That’s why people ‘see’ something in him. He is like a cheat sheet for people who lacked the imagination to understand ruling others.
Before I read any Hegel I read “The Kybalion” and I think that enabled me to appreciate his thought when I finally read him. If you’re familiar with the Hermetic concept of THE ALL, principle of polarity, principle of cause and effect, material reality vs substantial reality, absolute truth vs relative truth, etc. you are able to grasp his logic. When Hegel talks about the unity of inner and outer, identity and difference, repulsion and attraction, being and nothing, The One and the Many, etc. I think of the principles I read in the Kybalion, especially the principle of polarity and the coincidences of opposites. Not saying that a prior understanding of these ideas will make reading Hegel easy, but you’ll notice how his work is like an attempt to rigorously elucidate ideas present in hermeticism/mysticism. With this perspective in mind I find the Science of Logic to be the more valuable text even though Phenomenology of Spirit is discussed more. The slave master dialectic isn’t the most interesting aspect of his work, but is overhyped and overshadows the value within the Science of Logic.
I sometimes wonder if the slave master dynamic can be understood through the device of The. 4 Causes. The Material Cause may just be (more and most intimately) the mother-infant “dialectic.” Toddlers go through a natural (and necessary) stage of narcissistic self assertion. This is a “material cause” since it is in the innate DNA behavior pattern. This material “conditional relationship” between mother and child takes on a “form”-its Formal Cause- in the greater tribal or statist arena. Think here of Marx’s “economic forms,” the slave economy. Then the Efficient causes are “exasperating” actions and policies. But what then was the “predestined Final Cause of all this? I suppose this is up to the Philosophers of the Future to determine. But all in all, we must begin with addressing and healing the parent-child dialectic before addressing its mirrored diseases in all other social relations.
great upload. thanks
Marx stood Hegel on his head.
The starting point of his dialectics was economics. The opposing forces of life is rooted in economics, rooted in class structure of European society at the time of Marx.
The most vehement critics of Marx probably never read Marx nor Hegel, nor do they appreciate the intellectual insight both thinkers brought to bear on the understanding of the human condition.
In America, the idea of communism is repulsive to an average American, including those who possess nothing the State may take.
The impact of propaganda, misinformation and falsely sculptured narratives are the reason humans are still suffering. Otherwise, we have arrived at answers we don't want to adopt.
So true Hegelian philosophy is just idealistic dialectic while Marx is Material Dialectic. I also laugh at this guy when he said most Marxist haven’t read Hegel which is complete bull shit. Marxist true Marxist are one of the most ferocious of readers and one of the pinnacles when it comes to intellect in the social science and philosophical realm, and to think we wouldn’t read one of the works of the philosopher that played an integral part of Marxist philosophy shows how ignorant this guy is of the intellect of true Marxist.
Even listening to someone else breakdown Hegel makes my brain feel like pudding.
Yeah because he’s literally the epitome of a self identified Reddit intellectual who thinks he’s smart.
@@Spit823🤣👍
Excellent. Bravo!
Absolutely marvelous, thank you!
I might be very off the mark here, but "to own", although not a good literary translation (since I'm referring to a slang meaning of the word), but might be a good common-sense translation for "aufheben"? It can mean keeping and preserving _as well_ as abolishing, destroying and overcoming (someone got "owned"), especially if used in relation to another person - has a clear connotation of destroying that persons "self".
Probably "possess" might also fit it, given the juxtaposition of possessing an item and being possessed by something.
Although I'm not sure if any of those will make sense in a sentence as much as sublate or negate does.
aufhaben is another word for the alchemical maxim "Solve et coagula"
Just brief exposure to the subject matter, but if Hegel was at Jena in 1806 he witnessed sone traumatic stuff and if born 1770 makes him 36 and at this point the HRE is gone, the institutions and paths and social order gone and replaced in total or in part.
So....he must have been affected and sorted out the ups and downs perhaps his word use reflects all of this upheaval. Within eyesight and earshot of Napoleon's Grand Armee would assist in crafting his ideas no doubt. Napoleon would have presented the dialectic as he marched ....perhaps. Napoleon negated the HRE, the more you explain H the more I am convinced Napoleon just chuked a world order out the window fundamentally, Napoleon must have caused or enhanced wealthy folks going insane.
Thank you for this
Waiting for someone to mention Caesar
I know right? Surprised it wasn't the first comment in here
Михаил Ефремов удивлен своим появлением в рассказе про Гегеля
The ancient Africans originated the concept of the Fundamental Unity of Opposites. It was part of pre European invasion Mystery System. The Chinese would later call the concept Tai Chi ( fusion of Yin/Yang).
Interesting connection
Being by itself would Not be a one Sided Portrait of Reality, as being is Reality and never Not is, If it 'is' at all.
To be is No property possible to gain and lose, for nothing can have itself to Not be, which is implied by having itself to be.
Our Talk of 'is' or 'being' can therefore only reference to Differentiation in inklusive or exklusive Opposition, while talking about the the one and only being in those ways and percieving it that way.
Take Time. We Talk of Time and Times, and ask about when. We experience Change, and Change implies by necessity difference in time. An exclusive Opposition in time is described by past and Future. If we ask when now, we speak of Something yet to become in the Future, excluding it from the past and present and vice versa. So now or to come, but Not yet and Not before. But do they have any substantial Reality to them and with them all Motion? Does, in other words, Time have a time?
Impossible so, as time would Always presuppose itself to think of it to have any time. To Not yet be, or still to become. Futile therefore to suggest, that being would Not be the Same way, for there is nothing apart from being, to which it can relate or be premised upon, that would Not already implie it and Always exclude its opposite. But its opposite is of no substance, for it is not even in fact, as it 'is' non-being.
Motion therefore is, albight being an undoubtable fact of experience and presupposition of me writing and you Reading this, only an Illusion, If one is to suggest, that it is substantial or ultimate.
This man f'ed things up so bad.
Did you know that hegel by doing the thinking for us, actually made humanity less Self-Conscious ?
Perhaps all Hegel ever wrote was a meandering word-salad and he was actually insane?
he was very evil, that much is clear
Schopenhauer would agree.
Almost everything said in this video so far makes sense so far 41:34.
Um, what does this have to do with dialectic? I've always heard this described as the master-slave duality.
Dialectics (n) -
the art of investigating or discussing the truth of opinions.
In the beginning of the video he discussed how you can describe what something is by defining what it isn't. This is called negation, and it's how dialectics works.
The key concepts are:
The law of the unity and conflict of opposites.
The law of the passage of quantitative changes into qualitative changes.
The law of the negation of the negation.
Also i haven't heard of it referred to in those words, but duality is a similar concept. The master slave dialectic is probably the most well known name for the idea, although the Lord/Bondsman dialectic or Master/Slave theory are also common.
Being such an important text, it's surely inspired many reinterpretations as well as inspiring many new texts with similar concepts.
@@SineN0mine3 Dialectic comes from the Greeks. Aristotle. It's a process of argument in logic studies. Duality is something else.
This idea of negation seems similar to the physical phenomenon of the convex lens and the way we tactically experience the world upside down. More over when we dissect Hegels root language (Latin)we can see many of the base ideas rearranged in such a way as to discern them backwards as well. It really seems right to the very base of our experience the world is presented to us in this convex shape.
I mean you really need to place the ramblings in a context lol the untethered nature is quite , here and there..
Why does everyone go straight to Marx but never mention how Hegel's philosophy is central to Fascism too? Gentile makes this very clear.
Fascism is Communism in a Hugo Boss uniform
Because of Niezche lol
@@majdiawad1282 Gentile read Hegel and Marx, rejecting Marx's Hegelian materialism and created Fascism, which is rooted in Hegel's idealism.
Nietzsche never truly did inspire the national socialists, they certainly would reject a lot of what he stood for. His anti-Semitic sister bastardized his work, making it palatable to the Nazis.
"The Jews, however, are beyond all doubt the strongest, toughest, and purest race at present living in Europe, they know how to succeed even under the worst conditions (in fact better than under favourable ones), by means of virtues of some sort, which one would like nowadays to label as vices-owing above all to a resolute faith which does not need to be ashamed before "modern ideas."" - Nietzsche, Beyond Good and Evil
Lore of Hegel Explained: The Master-Slave Dialectic momentum 100
I guess I will read Hagel just to see what he really said and why.
It's telling that out of all the dialectical reasoning in the Phenomenology, it's only Master/Slave that anyone uses as an example -- everything else is pretty unintelligible.
I think that’s why when humans psychologically process death (our state of nothing) we create and become deeper in our thoughts and self consciousness and enhance our world with empty substance. Aka religion. And religion is the coping mechanism of our perceived limited existence.
you said his name wrong hahaha its not "von" friedrich hegel, friedrich is his 3rd name and hegel his last name...
how did you even come up with that. the "von" in the european names (sometimes also "van" like in van beethoven or van hellsing) referes to a decendence of a royal family or a decendence of a specific town or community, which his family indeed isnt, it was more like a family of christians clergys and priests and so on.
The fact is that slaves in the ancient world, like mod-cons in the modern world, freed their owner to (at least potentially) achieve self expression in other areas of their lives. And this was mostly not accessible to the slaves themselves who thus, objectively, led an inferior existence - at least in terms of their potential.
Moreover the owner does not even need to objectivize or dehumanize his slaves. Seneca writes about this I think more insightfully than Hegel (re the master slave relationship).
Great presentation as ever, I look forward to listening to the Deleuze podcast next when I have time - did you know Deleuze wrote admiringly of Bergson as well as Nietzsche?
Difference in slavery today and in the past that slaves can choose or change their masters.
Thanks
Hegel did what one Kant do
I think this is very good
Just reading his name makes me hurt.
Ah yes, Heigoll and Deiloos ❤
😊
"In the name of ceaser"😂
Good comparisons and explanations . The Germans have a name for their elusive higher consciousness . It’s called “ Totally Unt -Conscious .
For some reason this made me think of the norwegian writer Agnar Mykles posthumously published essay "The world is an asshole", in which he gives the following aforism: "The asshole is as necessery, and therefore as beautiful as the mouth". In this perhaps the deeper meaning of the word of Christ that one should love ones enemy is revealed. This however should be misunderstood as is now commonly the case, that one should become homosexual, offcourse. That would be rather juvenile, according to te great sage Osho. If one is neither left wing or right wing, but have ones both wings intact, one can fly high and get a birds overview, and see the totalitypicture. Thus one could create a "Pseudoscience of Totality", which could lead to the closest man can get to the viewpoint of eternity, recognizing offcourse that all science of man in pseudoscience, and God is the only true scientist. The ultimate master slave dialectic is between God and man, to create a being that can fully and freely recognize and understand the nature of God and love it, and hence which can be fully loved back. That would be the definition of grokking in fullness, perhaps.
Knowing physics makes this sound very primitive. My problem with philosophy is what does it predict? Diddly squat unfortunately. Fascinating regardless.
Hegel wrote a bunch of nonsensical ideobabble designed to lead you out into the weeds of confusion where you could be manipulated into thinking he was some kind of genius, or something, and I early on learned to despise him.