Hegel Explained: The Master-Slave Dialectic
Вставка
- Опубліковано 14 гру 2023
- Spotify: open.spotify.com/show/0ZARzVC...
Patreon: www.patreon.com/untimelyreflections
#nietzsche #philosophypodcast #thenietzschepodcast #history #philosophy #historyofphilosophy #hegel #hegelian #dialectics
GWF Hegel is one of the most difficult philosophers in the western canon, but today we’ attempt to demystify him. In this episode, we’ll break down Hegel’s phenomenology, the dialectic, and the Hegelian understanding of desire. Our concrete entrypoint into the thought of Hegel is his famous chapter, The Master-Slave Dialectic. Deleuze argued that Nietzsche’s work constitutes a rejection of Hegel: his master and slave morality can be read as a direct rebuke to Hegel’s interpretation of this very same power relation. In order to prepare for our reading of Deleuze, we’re going to first tangle with Hegel on his own terms, and understand the very different way in which he approaches the questions of consciousness, morality and perspective. In researching this episode, Nathan Widder’s lectures on Hegel and Deleuze were very helpful, as was Justin Burke’s lecture on Hegel.
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😮💨
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 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 😂
Eeeels!
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-
The Hegelian Dialectic just sounds like the Alchemical idea of the Unity of Opposites. Great stuff
Most underrated and my personal favorite UA-cam Creator, Thank you once again🙏
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 !!!!!😂
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
so you are doing deleuzes reading of nietzsche, i am happy to hear!
Your channel is absolutely awesome!!! One of my best discoveries in years!! Greetings from Vienna!!
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.
Wow, thank you so much for making these videos for free!
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.
Excellent and the most enlightening presentation on the master slave dialectic that I have seen and I’ve seen quite a few. Thankyou
Thank you for your interpretations. So helpful in tracing different aspects of the enlightenment history
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.
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 😂
"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😢😢
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.
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? :)
Brilliant exposition!
New to channel. Interesting stuff! Subscribed!
Your channel is top quality. Thanks for your work.
This was well articulated and will provide many thought-meals for me. It is in my playlist-Library on YT for future reference
this is the most Berserk Guts Griffith pod ive ever listened to. bonfire of dreams.
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.
You did a PHENOMENOLOGICAL job
LMFAOOOOOOOOO W
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?
I was just searching if you made a video on hegel last week.
Great job! Well done.
great upload. thanks
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.
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.
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.
Hey Keegan, you have my favourite philosophy-podcast! Would love to hear you talk about Heidegger, and discuss how Heidegger saw Nietzsche!
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.
Thank you for this
This thumbnail is incredible
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
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.
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.
thank you
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?
@@amendingamerica 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".
@@amendingamerica in case it is not clear your scenario is not possible for the master
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.
You have a good voice, so glad to hear a video that is not using a Ai robot voice & annoying music
Oh man we need a follow up with Heidegger and Dasein
Great job on Hegel. Impressive.
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.
my dude you need to do a video on the weimar republic
You have a great voice for UA-cam mine sounds like a ferret getting squashed under a detuned guitar running feedback.
Who cares
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.
Why does everyone go straight to Marx but never mention how Hegel's philosophy is central to Fascism too? Gentile makes this very clear.
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
I think this is very good
I bet I can use this knowledge in the master studies of sociology
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
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.
Михаил Ефремов удивлен своим появлением в рассказе про Гегеля
aufhaben is another word for the alchemical maxim "Solve et coagula"
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..
is it ok to say Fred when referring to Nietzsche? or Freddy? His name is so difficult to spell.
I say Neech 🤑
This man f'ed things up so bad.
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🤣👍
"In the name of ceaser"😂
Waiting for someone to mention Caesar
I know right? Surprised it wasn't the first comment in here
Reminds me of the middle aged man skit on snl
Did you know that hegel by doing the thinking for us, actually made humanity less Self-Conscious ?
Ah yes, Heigoll and Deiloos ❤
😊
GPS too gives references, just like the example you used. It is not different in this regard. It shows your position among other things it also locates in relation to your position and to each other.
Greatest philosopher of all time
Except perhaps [extensive list of philosophers]
I guess I will read Hagel just to see what he really said and why.
Presence here requires absence there. -- Sri Baba Ganoush
Just reading his name makes me hurt.
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 world is just one big compromise kid
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.
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.
Hegel did what one Kant do
Good comparisons and explanations . The Germans have a name for their elusive higher consciousness . It’s called “ Totally Unt -Conscious .
Heavy 🥲
Difference in slavery today and in the past that slaves can choose or change their masters.
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 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.
Who would have imagined that Britney Spears was expressing Hegelian tendencies with her enduring classic "I'm not a girl, not yet a woman"
So true
15:00 Kan'''t!
I dont understand any of this confusing shit but thank you anyway.
Well, he merely modified Kant and Herder, obviously.
Yes, Hegel just takes other ideas, relabels them and then hides behind obscure language. The Christian notion of all history moving towards the manifestation of God , Fichte’s ideas, Alchemy and Hermeticism to just name a few of his rip-offs. At Hegel’s heart is Stateism, he’s authoritarian and would turn the world into an ant farm.
Hegel Middle High German hac 'hedge enclosure'
😂
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.
He got down in the weeds, and fell down a deep 🐰rabbit hole, 🕳️ and brought us on a guided tour.
Do we still need philosophers like Hegel to tell us that if you control a lot of your environment and are ready for possible catastrophes out of your control you feel empowered??
Was this REALLY so obscured back then... Nietzsche really did a great job incorporating these philosophers into this ideas to the RIGHT degree. Hegel's word salads and obscure language says a whole lot about him, how clear could his ideas be if he had to resort to that long tirade of writing, lectures, and posturing to defend his ideas... like the priests that just smile snidely about a good point someone makes and divert the issue with "do you think 'son' that you know more than god, clearly you are lost". That is how I take Hegel in a lot of what he says.
He said of Kant that he was "just a cleaver christian"... when saying that was blasphemous!! Those are balls!!
Great channel man, better than most, I wish you wouldn't jump around so much but in the end it is great content... salute!! We also know these are YOUR opinions or results from your reading, so no need to nuance it so much, say what you mean, and if someone is against it they HAVE TO contribute THEIR ideas to the discussion and thus we all win, including you... no??
You Ok?
@@ArvidRanta
Yep... better than most, for sure... if you are asking this, maybe even better than you... what exactly made you "think" (feel?) that I wouldn't be ok?? OF course single liners are a favorite of some, go ahead.
@@ggrthemostgodless8713 Calm down, dude.
@@ArvidRanta
Still no answer.... ok.
So again: what from my comment told you I was NOT ok??
@@ggrthemostgodless8713 Relax. I'm sorry man.
Hegel can't see the forest through the trees
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.
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?
Hegel .. Hegel .. Hegel
Having a planing machine slice of my fingerprint by accident made me realise I wasn’t concerned with how others might laugh at me for getting my finger under the safety plate instead of over it, the only thing that mattered was that I wouldn’t be able to use that finger for a few weeks. What’s in the mind only seems to matter as long as it’s in the mind, inevitably a sane person will somehow forget and it will never have had any substance.
Bagel
The main thing to take away from this good potted-perception on (some key aspects of) Hegel's thoughts (as understood by other scholars) is this: i) Hegelianism was manufactured (of course .. '-isms' are usually a craft rather than an art), ii) Hegel himself helped in this manufacturing process, by making his thoughts murkier (at times by clarifying or re-considering them), and iii) the 'Hegel' were are presented with is ... a myth (muthos, a story of epic proportions - not lies or fancies) - even in is own time he was mythologised as a leap-forward in the history of German thought (a concept that should set alarm bells ringing, not because it is wrong or hagiography but because it is a kind of idolatry).
Progress is a very dangerous - evolutionary or revolutionary - concept in measuring (the utility or acceptance of) philosophy, or a particular set of thoughts and customised ways of thinking. This is especially open to a cataclysmic lack of judgement in the sum of 18th-20th century manners aimed at self-perception (if, that is, moral reason as an objective standard is part of that equation); for a self-deluding 'enlightenment' casts long and deep shadows in the cavernous human mind, because it is self-assessed and self-engineered.
The art, or in this case the craft, of investigating the - truth/ reliability/ honesty - of opinions by way of discussion, as a means of rational inquiry into some apparent or presupposed metaphysical contradictions .. and their solutions .. can sound dauntingly forbidding, yet - despite Hegel's best efforts to rationalise or ration reason* - it is basically learning how to think well, not simply learning what to think (to pass an exam, etc).
Keep the Faith; tell the truth, shame the devil, and let the demons shriek.
God bless. ;o)
* Making something of a mind-game out of how we reason discursively, e.g. a sharp sophistry not just Socratean-ism, via advertisement rather than propagation = 'the remnant of these bones from an ancient ape look almost human (a light off goes - ping - on) so , man must ..' or 'this soap has more suds than that (- ping -) therefore it washes whiter' .. or 'the first part of the Christian text ascribed to 'John' (whoever that might have been) is demonstrably very different from the rest of it - ping - thus it has to be ..'
I leave the rest to your imagination - and internal (or infernal) dialogue.
So how does one negate his own negativity so as to obtain the singular objective of self hood. By minding his or her own business. Responsible no more - right. The devil is a liar.
I dont really see why Hegel had to try and reinvent the wheel. Obviously when X equals X, it also means that X does not equal Y. Explaining it that way makes more sense than X equals not X. You could still pull negation and exclusion from the prior statement without having to outdo logic
'Not X' means everything that is not X, or the whole world with the exception of X