Although touches on the surface of how meaning grows out of negation, this isn't exactly Hegel. To Hegel, it is the thing in itself (positive, internal, inward, intrinsic) facing its own negation (a thing for itself; negative, external, outward, extrinsic). The positive is like a hidden, withdrawn, potential being that is nothing real yet. As such, you get the first dialectic: being and nothingness. Only when you lose yourself to nothingness will you return to yourself real (like one explains: 'what is lost was never possessed'; it is like how you miss your childhood, but only so through your adult consciousness i.e. childhood's value only comes after it is lost). So, a Hegelian example would be recognition theory (the master-slave dialectic) which is: you first live subjectively, looking at the world as a whole as a matter under your will as a subject, all is realized through your mind. This is like a child who still doesn't recognize object permanence, that believes if they scream the world would collapse and people would rush to help them, that when told to show their parent a drawing they would look at it instead believing everyone sees what they see, that when they go to hiding they just close their eyes, etc. After which, you are confronted by your negation: another person. This person to you cannot be a simple object, because they seem to possess an uncontrollable mystery, a will, a complexity, etc. in addition to whatever evolutionarily incentives and empathies that lead you to, overall, see them, too, as a subject of sort similar you. This, however, brings the implication of you, alternatively, becoming an object in their eyes, becoming 'someone else'. As such, you start to recognize yourself (through the other) as an object (say, of thought, to relate to), which in turn gives you self-consciousness. It is like the Sartre's other in which their gaze makes you ashamed of your snooping for example (because you became self-conscious of how you are not following your standard of goodness). However, you don't want something to antithesize your subjectivity, so you try to kill them (to end the negation and return to your positivity). But, in doing so, you will lose your consciousness (which gives you great freedom and meaning). So, you just end up enslaving them (believing your subjectivity is superior and foremost). This again is problematic, for that your objectivity is now diminished (i.e. you are a human only in the eyes of a slave). So, your final situation is to equalize yourself with them and grow together (or in the Kierkegaardian sense, you want to elevate the other to their highest, and that is God, and you through them is Jesus). This is similar to adolescence and in which you start to formulate an identity-narrative (a story of you from the past to the future that gives you an abstract and internalized formulation of yourself to conceptually manipulate and social articulate to know your place in the world) and gain a form of self-consciousness as you individuate from your parents and identify with your peers (hence creating a greater dialectic). It is also the same when we symbolically articulate our life (say, the development in language), and overall culture that gives you symbols (religion, politics, values, roles, clothes, music, etc.) to see yourself through. Lacan deems those symbolism as the network in which you 'mirror' yourself through them (and Capitalism constantly manipulates it, and hence what you identify with, to push you to consume more. This is what's called Age of Schizophrenic). In Hegel's logic, this can be all formulated as the matter of 'Time', where Time is the synthesizer between your withdrawn/positive/potential being and your nothingness to yourself. Time, for example, is like memory, it is like when you start to abstract the ball from the background and realize that it is a separate object from the rest of the field due to temporal changes. To yourself, you are now more than the moment, a persistent thing. This, in turn, makes you not a 'being', but a 'becoming', a 'coming to be' antithesized by 'ceasing to be' or what we might say: conscious beings are beings conscious of their demise; one gains self-consciousness and by which become conscious of their mortality. The evolutionary and developmental continuation from here is towards greater being, greater consciousness, greater dialectic between individuation and love. This historical story of social recognition, symbolic representation, personal identification, and confronting death is the story of consciousness, and it is found in the development of philosophy, religion, and art. This is Hegel's philosophy which later Marx tried to materialize (create a normative philosophy of freedom and consciousness as the synthesis between proletariat vs. bourgeoise dialectic; remove the alienation of religions for a social, humanistic recognition; use the arts to protest the condition of the proletariat).
@jaws I'm very pleased and honoured you liked my style of thinking! My way of learning is untraditional and possibly controversial My very modern way of learning is that I barely read any books, and if so, they are never primary books. What I do is I seek secondary sources, be them lectures, talks, or interviews of professors, philosophers, and thinkers (on UA-cam), or watch video essays and summaries. When needed, I would also sometimes read essays, academic papers, and secondary books (say my recent read book 'German Philosophy 1760-1860: The Legacy of Idealism' by Pinkard, which I learned a lot from). Overall, I try to paint the atmosphere, have a story as to how that person could have been living, why the people influenced by them turned out the way they did. In the end, by learning about them from multiple different sources and views, one as it were gets to the 'essence' of them, the thing that people all in common are trying to say about them and do so in different words. Most importantly is that these sources of information to me are somewhat the secondary part of learning, whereas my primary means to know them is through thinking, because I don't read philosophers to know them, but I get to know them because I want to learn about myself and the world, and my questioned led me to them. As such, I start to have a conversation with them, as it were, and in doing so I'm learning about the both of us, and I would depart when they no longer are relevant to me (for example, I visited Kant multiple times (from when I was ~17 in highschool first starting philosophy, to ~22 now: once as 'the philosopher' as an embodiment of what philosophy is about, once as 'the metaphysician' that overcame Plato's Idealism and British Empiricism, once as 'the ethicist' in contrast to utilitarianism, once as 'the revolutionist' in the context of German Idealism to Hegel, etc.). With time, you learn how to not fall into mischaracterizing people, to steel-man them and see the best in them (because I learn about them from different sources and learn about their history so I get to know who they are and what history forced them to be as such, say), and finally to embody them such that you can talk with their tongues. This method is very 'teacher-like' where I try to convey not my understanding of a person and judge them based on what they mean to me now, but synthesize who we collectively believe that person was, and try to bring their essences to life. This way, I am both a philosopher in the teaching sense (Ph.D), and a philosopher in the dialogical love for truth and search for self-care sense (Greek philosophy). This method is controversial of course, but I think it is a trade-off usually related to the type of person you are and what you are seeking. I am a highly open and creative person who doesn't like to just dig deep into a person and care about each word they say (I am not trying to write a biography about them), but I like to have a bigger picture and a narrative as to how they existed ((relative)) to their history, their work, what they created and the consequences of it, etc. this way, I am learning about a person as an archetype, and doing so negatively, hermeneutically (say psychoanalytically), post-structurally, etc. i.e. I look around them and around their books more than search for the truth in the books themselves. This way, I understand what they mean by the words they used because I know of the source that gave them those words. Zizek is one of the proponents of something similar to this. He said in a recent interview: ""a new statement or spectator published my polymix against three ongoing [movies] kind of black widow, nomad land, and so on, and i'm very critical towards these movies and i haven't seen them of course. I mean you know, I believe that a true Stalinist intellectual has the right and duty to write about films he didn't see. ...you know what Oscar Wilde said, when you are asked to write a review of a book, don't read that book. If you do, it may make your review partial, you know don't read it. but now stop joking maybe to tell something for our viewers that they may like. The french guy that i often quote pierre bayard.. wrote among other things a wonderful book called how to write about books that you haven't read. And in a wonderful way, wait a minute it's not a joke, listen i know relatively well the domain of Hegel studies, no?, and guys who obviously know all of Hegel they they are afraid to miss something, like 'oh but i know Hegel says something slightly different there', 'it's another accent', they are usually [totally] the worst scholars without any idea interpretations. The best readings of Hegel are those partial, one-sided, you take one aspect and you say that's the crucial thing. I believe in productive force of partial one-sided approach". I believe what Zizek said too, and to me, like how cartoons and caricatures bring out and amplify the essence of things (exaggerated movements, exaggerated tears), they allow us to be immersed and sense the withdrawn meaning of something without the perverting and distracting noise of their historical and surface form. So yeah, I like this messy, partial, dialectical, post-structural way of learning over the traditional sit in silence and read.
@@MGHOoL5 that's.. thats so cool! im stunned. thank you so much for taking my question serious and taking your time to answering it. im happy to happen to know that these kind of studying styles also work (and work better.) i think your way of studying is amazing. i will save your answer and make use of it! again, thank you for sharing your precious time and valuable thoughts
He ate too much philosophy got reverse thesis dementia and topped fichte version then they attributed it to Fichte. The ladies loved it was like poetry to them. He killed it made it incomprehensible.
I was expecting more fallout related comments but anyway. "Its not personal animosity,just hegelian dialectics" "We have cities of our own, but nothing compared to Vegas. Finally, my Legion will have its Rome"
Thesis-Antithesis-Synthesis is Fichte not Hegel. It's a modern myth where this theory is attributed to Hegel, usually by random right-wing political pundits talking about shit that has nothing to do with either Hegel or Fichte but they label is "Hegelian dialectics".
ummm Actually :^P this is more Fichte than Hegel, as Hegel never used language like thesis, antithesis, or synthesis. Hegelian dialectics involves the historical development of consciousness through Reason, an important concept in his philosophy which you never mentioned once in the video. You present the dialectic as having 3 parts to the logic, but Hegel describes 3 moments in the life of a concept, a subtle, but important distinction as you present contradictions as popping up from outside the thesis, whereas Hegel rejected this and argued that contradictions were contained within the thesis the whole time. The first moment is that of "fixity" where the logic seems stable. Then there's the moment of the dialectical or the "negatively rational" causing instability in the concept and leading to "subflation," which has a double meaning of negation and preservation. The dialectical moment thus involves a process of sublation, or a process in which the determination from the moment of understanding both cancels and preserves itself as it passes into its opposite. Then there is the moment of the speculative or the "positively rational" which seeks to bring the first two moments into a unity. This unity is a "nothingness" as it is the result of a process rather than an identifiable thing in the world. It is not a pure nothing however, because it is a "determinate negation" and so has a content. Omissions like this make it impossible to understand what Hegel was getting at and attributing words he never used to him don't help to explain him either. Also, Hegel rhymes with bagel, not seagal.
Hegels actual writings were a consistent flow of the abstractions of thesis antithesis movement you see in the video and it made no sense I looked at it once and walked out if the store please shrink wrap your books
It's amazing how many tell you they're explaining Hegel and trot out thesis antithesis synthesis. Do any of these ppl bother reading Hegel or just look at some kind of Cliffs notes. Why is it Hegel never uses these terms if they're part of his method?
I think it is because he is a charlatan. Someone pawning off others ideas as his own. He did not originate this method, this method he copied from Plato. Lots of them did in the old days, need to keep in mind the works were lost for a millenia - Freud did the same thing by pawning off Schopenhauer.
Because he's so damn hard to understand, every professor will just advise you to read a explaination of Hegel, which defeats the purpose of Hegel altogether.
Loved every second of this informative and easy to understand, on point, video and to top it all, the end summary was just Super. Thank you so very much.
As others have said. Dialectical arguments have been made since the Greeks. What you described here is actually the Socratic method of argumentation. Suggest watching Cadell Lasts 3 part serie on Dialectical Thinking
From Ethan: "As someone who is also just starting to grapple with Hegel's system, I will try to explain it as best I can. Hegel--as the above commenter mentioned--did not use the thesis-antithesis-synthesis triad to describe his dialectical/speculative method. It can be understood as having three movements; that of the abstract (understanding), dialectic (negative reason), and speculative (positive reason). Now, although this is more accurate to what Hegel is getting at, you can still encounter the same issues with abstract-dialectic-speculative as you do with thesis-antithesis-synthesis if you don't see it in action. In the beginning of Hegel's Science of Logic, he starts with the concept of pure, indeterminate being. If we analyze pure being, we realize that it has no content, no determinations, so what we are left with is really nothing . Now, the concept of nothing can be understood as the lack of determination, and is thus the same as pure being . We also treat nothing as something which exists when we say "there is nothing." We have now ended up where we started--with pure being. If we continue doing this, being and nothing will just keep vanishing into each other ad infinitum. As Hegel puts it: "they are not the same, [...] they are absolutely distinct yet equally unseparated and inseparable, [...] each immediately vanishes in its opposite" (p.60). This movement of immediate vanishing is becoming . So we went from being, to nothing, and finally becoming. You can picture it as being and nothing as being two sides of the same coin which is becoming. So now, you can probably see how thesis-antithesis-synthesis is misleading. Hegel's dialectical/speculative method is not about making a compromise between two propositions external to each other, but rather the self-movement of concepts through the power of its negative component which leads to the overcoming of its one-sidedness."
I absolutely agree with you, except one additional crucial detail: Absolute Knowledge is not a position which articulates somehow the most aggregated form of truth, having overcome all obstacles along the way. Instead, it is just the articulation that contradiction is unavoidable. Synthesis is a fiction which nevertheless means fictions have an absolute necessary value in structuring our experience of reality.
@@Hurricane2139 Yeah I've heard Cadell Last talk about the Absolute as a state of self-knowing of spirit, not any form of gnostic perfection or Fukuyama-esque "End of History"
For the thing is not exhausted by it's aim, but by it's elaboration, nor is the result the actual whole, but only the result coming together with it's coming.
Currently writing my term paper on dialectical behavior therapy and wanted to have a good grasp of dialectics first. I've been really struggling to get my head around it, but this video definitely saved me! Thank you!
As a complete newbie, tank you, I actually understood this video. I found other videos defining "dialectic" used unfamiliar vocabulary too quickly and without explanation.
I'm brand new to philosophy (chemistry and physics double major) and I have to take a philosophy of science course for my degree. Essay writing using Hegel's dialectical method is an important part of that but trying to parse definitions using all the philosophical jargon as an outsider to the field is frustrating, especially with ADHD. All I needed was a good example to get my brain onto the right track, and this is it. Seeing the basic process in action in such a concise manner was so helpful. P.S. if there are any philosophy buffs who would like to comment further insights (keeping in mind that you would be explaining this stuff to a complete newbie whose brain requires solid examples to properly grasp this type of thing), please feel free! I'm interested to learn!
The video is totally wrong and presenting someone else's method, that of Fichte, as Hegel's. I think it's essentially impossible to understand what Hegel is saying without first actually understanding both Hume's critique of traditional epistemology and Kant's attempt to formulate a response to Hume's critique [both of these being the movement to transcendental philosophy, or philosophy that understands itself to be limited by the possibilities of experience]. Hegel was trying to overcome, aufheben in his parlance, the core problem of the transcendental method by saying that those very limits do not prevent us from getting to the thing-in-itself, but are the means by which the thing it itself is.
(SPEECH 100) Thats not how fucking dialectics works you stupid cuck. I didn't study Hegel (plus continental philosophy in general) at Harvard for 7 FUCKING YEARS for some LOW LIFE KNOW IT ALL who's CLEARLY never fucking read Hegel as he would KNOW that HEGEL has NEVER FUCKING EVER used the terms "thesis, antithesis, synthesis" to start perpetuating these LIES at VERY SINGLE FUCKING OPPORTUNITY. this isn't Hegel my friend. No no no. Thesis, antithesis, synthesis was thought up by Fichte and it's clearly inferior to Hegels dialectical method of imminent critique. Yes. It's I_I called imminent critique. And dialectics is only ONE PART of Hegels full method. Which again is called Imminent critique which you would know if you had ACTUALLY BOTHERED TO READ HEGEL ITS LITERALLY IN THE SCIENCE OF LOGIC YOU DUMB FUCKING PIECE OF SHIT. I honestly cannot believe the fucking arrogance to come onto this post, spouting that anti Hegel] garbage. Where did you get your fucking info on dialectics? Fucking Jason Unruhe? Jesus fucking Christ I cannot deal with this bullshit right now I'm sorry I'm leaving I'm fucking leaving.
This reminds me of what a Pastor said some years ago: No one can describe a cow well enough that someone can't come along and say 'that's a horse'. The fact is: anything can be broken down into tinier and tinier arguments; until the next thing you know, you are questioning your own existence. Pontius Pilate asked: What is Truth. Jesus says: I am the Way, the TRUTH and the life... We could argue all day about whether a tree actually makes a "sound" if it falls in the woods and no one is around to hear it. But, NO ONE will ever convince me that Jesus' words are not TRUTH. Amen!
I would also question peoples motive to agree or disagree some people would agree just to be “cool” or “popular” to anything your friend, boss or someone you think is important says or writes
Step 1: steal a relatively simple idea from Fichte. Step 2: write absolutely incomprehensible book on it. Step 3: boom, you’re 19th century’s most influential philosopher
Wait ... so after years of work he found the truth and the key to the truth 'dialectical arguments' - by found he means read it in Plato and Aristotle.
Awesome video! this sounds remarkably similar to what adversarial learning does in, albeit with a slightly more biased and simplified "antithesis"-generation.
Hey there, I understand that discussing philosophy can be pretty intense. Let's keep things civil and respectful during our chat. We can find some common ground if we listen to each other and discuss our views openly. It's essential to have empathy and patience when we have differing opinions. That's how we learn and grow. So, let's take a step back and have a genuine conversation. If we remain calm and respectful, we can come to a resolution. Please let me know what your thoughts are.
Negative plus equals zero Seems antithesis and thesis negate each other rather than produce something greater as a synthesis if theyre purely equal and oopposite.
wait the process of thesis, antithesis, synthesis is an idea from platos republic, in the section right after the allegory of the cave, where socrates explains the allegory of the cave lol. I mean still good information, but not exactly the best definition of what a dialectic in a hegalian standpoint is.
@@daseinz the Socratic method is just to ask more questions. Why why why…. Hegel was about resolving dualism to arrive at singular reality. Can be applied on multiple arguments one at a time. Minimizing the likely degree of error in relation to reality with each resolution of two opposing arguments.
I see this is where "ermmmm actually 🤓" came from
Although touches on the surface of how meaning grows out of negation, this isn't exactly Hegel. To Hegel, it is the thing in itself (positive, internal, inward, intrinsic) facing its own negation (a thing for itself; negative, external, outward, extrinsic). The positive is like a hidden, withdrawn, potential being that is nothing real yet. As such, you get the first dialectic: being and nothingness. Only when you lose yourself to nothingness will you return to yourself real (like one explains: 'what is lost was never possessed'; it is like how you miss your childhood, but only so through your adult consciousness i.e. childhood's value only comes after it is lost).
So, a Hegelian example would be recognition theory (the master-slave dialectic) which is: you first live subjectively, looking at the world as a whole as a matter under your will as a subject, all is realized through your mind. This is like a child who still doesn't recognize object permanence, that believes if they scream the world would collapse and people would rush to help them, that when told to show their parent a drawing they would look at it instead believing everyone sees what they see, that when they go to hiding they just close their eyes, etc. After which, you are confronted by your negation: another person. This person to you cannot be a simple object, because they seem to possess an uncontrollable mystery, a will, a complexity, etc. in addition to whatever evolutionarily incentives and empathies that lead you to, overall, see them, too, as a subject of sort similar you. This, however, brings the implication of you, alternatively, becoming an object in their eyes, becoming 'someone else'. As such, you start to recognize yourself (through the other) as an object (say, of thought, to relate to), which in turn gives you self-consciousness. It is like the Sartre's other in which their gaze makes you ashamed of your snooping for example (because you became self-conscious of how you are not following your standard of goodness). However, you don't want something to antithesize your subjectivity, so you try to kill them (to end the negation and return to your positivity). But, in doing so, you will lose your consciousness (which gives you great freedom and meaning). So, you just end up enslaving them (believing your subjectivity is superior and foremost). This again is problematic, for that your objectivity is now diminished (i.e. you are a human only in the eyes of a slave). So, your final situation is to equalize yourself with them and grow together (or in the Kierkegaardian sense, you want to elevate the other to their highest, and that is God, and you through them is Jesus).
This is similar to adolescence and in which you start to formulate an identity-narrative (a story of you from the past to the future that gives you an abstract and internalized formulation of yourself to conceptually manipulate and social articulate to know your place in the world) and gain a form of self-consciousness as you individuate from your parents and identify with your peers (hence creating a greater dialectic). It is also the same when we symbolically articulate our life (say, the development in language), and overall culture that gives you symbols (religion, politics, values, roles, clothes, music, etc.) to see yourself through. Lacan deems those symbolism as the network in which you 'mirror' yourself through them (and Capitalism constantly manipulates it, and hence what you identify with, to push you to consume more. This is what's called Age of Schizophrenic). In Hegel's logic, this can be all formulated as the matter of 'Time', where Time is the synthesizer between your withdrawn/positive/potential being and your nothingness to yourself. Time, for example, is like memory, it is like when you start to abstract the ball from the background and realize that it is a separate object from the rest of the field due to temporal changes. To yourself, you are now more than the moment, a persistent thing. This, in turn, makes you not a 'being', but a 'becoming', a 'coming to be' antithesized by 'ceasing to be' or what we might say: conscious beings are beings conscious of their demise; one gains self-consciousness and by which become conscious of their mortality. The evolutionary and developmental continuation from here is towards greater being, greater consciousness, greater dialectic between individuation and love. This historical story of social recognition, symbolic representation, personal identification, and confronting death is the story of consciousness, and it is found in the development of philosophy, religion, and art. This is Hegel's philosophy which later Marx tried to materialize (create a normative philosophy of freedom and consciousness as the synthesis between proletariat vs. bourgeoise dialectic; remove the alienation of religions for a social, humanistic recognition; use the arts to protest the condition of the proletariat).
THNAKS
@@jaws8154 You're welcome
@@MGHOoL5 may i learn how you study philosophy? can you suggest any sources? i wanna know anything you want to share ^^
@jaws I'm very pleased and honoured you liked my style of thinking! My way of learning is untraditional and possibly controversial My very modern way of learning is that I barely read any books, and if so, they are never primary books. What I do is I seek secondary sources, be them lectures, talks, or interviews of professors, philosophers, and thinkers (on UA-cam), or watch video essays and summaries. When needed, I would also sometimes read essays, academic papers, and secondary books (say my recent read book 'German Philosophy 1760-1860: The Legacy of Idealism' by Pinkard, which I learned a lot from). Overall, I try to paint the atmosphere, have a story as to how that person could have been living, why the people influenced by them turned out the way they did. In the end, by learning about them from multiple different sources and views, one as it were gets to the 'essence' of them, the thing that people all in common are trying to say about them and do so in different words. Most importantly is that these sources of information to me are somewhat the secondary part of learning, whereas my primary means to know them is through thinking, because I don't read philosophers to know them, but I get to know them because I want to learn about myself and the world, and my questioned led me to them. As such, I start to have a conversation with them, as it were, and in doing so I'm learning about the both of us, and I would depart when they no longer are relevant to me (for example, I visited Kant multiple times (from when I was ~17 in highschool first starting philosophy, to ~22 now: once as 'the philosopher' as an embodiment of what philosophy is about, once as 'the metaphysician' that overcame Plato's Idealism and British Empiricism, once as 'the ethicist' in contrast to utilitarianism, once as 'the revolutionist' in the context of German Idealism to Hegel, etc.). With time, you learn how to not fall into mischaracterizing people, to steel-man them and see the best in them (because I learn about them from different sources and learn about their history so I get to know who they are and what history forced them to be as such, say), and finally to embody them such that you can talk with their tongues. This method is very 'teacher-like' where I try to convey not my understanding of a person and judge them based on what they mean to me now, but synthesize who we collectively believe that person was, and try to bring their essences to life. This way, I am both a philosopher in the teaching sense (Ph.D), and a philosopher in the dialogical love for truth and search for self-care sense (Greek philosophy).
This method is controversial of course, but I think it is a trade-off usually related to the type of person you are and what you are seeking. I am a highly open and creative person who doesn't like to just dig deep into a person and care about each word they say (I am not trying to write a biography about them), but I like to have a bigger picture and a narrative as to how they existed ((relative)) to their history, their work, what they created and the consequences of it, etc. this way, I am learning about a person as an archetype, and doing so negatively, hermeneutically (say psychoanalytically), post-structurally, etc. i.e. I look around them and around their books more than search for the truth in the books themselves. This way, I understand what they mean by the words they used because I know of the source that gave them those words. Zizek is one of the proponents of something similar to this. He said in a recent interview:
""a new statement or spectator published my polymix against three ongoing [movies] kind of black widow, nomad land, and so on, and i'm very critical towards these movies and i haven't seen them of course. I mean you know, I believe that a true Stalinist intellectual has the right and duty to write about films he didn't see. ...you know what Oscar Wilde said, when you are asked to write a review of a book, don't read that book. If you do, it may make your review partial, you know don't read it. but now stop joking maybe to tell something for our viewers that they may like. The french guy that i often quote pierre bayard.. wrote among other things a wonderful book called how to write about books that you haven't read. And in a wonderful way, wait a minute it's not a joke, listen i know relatively well the domain of Hegel studies, no?, and guys who obviously know all of Hegel they they are afraid to miss something, like 'oh but i know Hegel says something slightly different there', 'it's another accent', they are usually [totally] the worst scholars without any idea interpretations. The best readings of Hegel are those partial, one-sided, you take one aspect and you say that's the crucial thing. I believe in productive force of partial one-sided approach".
I believe what Zizek said too, and to me, like how cartoons and caricatures bring out and amplify the essence of things (exaggerated movements, exaggerated tears), they allow us to be immersed and sense the withdrawn meaning of something without the perverting and distracting noise of their historical and surface form. So yeah, I like this messy, partial, dialectical, post-structural way of learning over the traditional sit in silence and read.
@@MGHOoL5 that's.. thats so cool! im stunned. thank you so much for taking my question serious and taking your time to answering it. im happy to happen to know that these kind of studying styles also work (and work better.) i think your way of studying is amazing. i will save your answer and make use of it! again, thank you for sharing your precious time and valuable thoughts
Wasn't "thesis, antithesis, synthesis" first used by Fichte?
Yes, Hegel doesn't use the terms at all instead he talks about difference, opposition, negation and reflection (all in German of course)
yeah the villan from the popular scifi movie series star wars
@@otto_jk i don't speak german, so genuinely curious... i thought Hegel spoke of a Gestalt, so technically he was speaking of an "antithese"?
He ate too much philosophy got reverse thesis dementia and topped fichte version then they attributed it to Fichte. The ladies loved it was like poetry to them. He killed it made it incomprehensible.
@@otto_jkhegel is the philospher, fichte is the math guy who made a scientific formula from hegel.
Makes me upset to, but i am not wrong
Its not personal animosity, just Hegelian dialectics.
Ave, true to Caesar!
@@aaronaykut2879 Ave Amicus!
Ave, Amicus.
Using water's physical state as an example was precise. Very nice and thanks for it, it helped me a lot ☺️
I was expecting more fallout related comments but anyway.
"Its not personal animosity,just hegelian dialectics"
"We have cities of our own, but nothing compared to Vegas. Finally, my Legion will have its Rome"
Bill Cipher is Antithesis.
Secret Decipher is Thesis.
Secret Cipher is Synthesis.
Bill Decipher is Synthesis.
you're my new favorite youtuber, i enjoyed this so much!
Can't this Hegel dude just make sense?
Thesis-Antithesis-Synthesis is Fichte not Hegel. It's a modern myth where this theory is attributed to Hegel, usually by random right-wing political pundits talking about shit that has nothing to do with either Hegel or Fichte but they label is "Hegelian dialectics".
IKR this is why I hate sociology
@@elisap5854 sociology you say
No, he Kant
Thank you! This is about the level of detail that I needed.
Dumb Luck is Thesis.
Smart Unluck is Antithesis.
Smart Luck is Synthesis.
ummm Actually :^P this is more Fichte than Hegel, as Hegel never used language like thesis, antithesis, or synthesis. Hegelian dialectics involves the historical development of consciousness through Reason, an important concept in his philosophy which you never mentioned once in the video. You present the dialectic as having 3 parts to the logic, but Hegel describes 3 moments in the life of a concept, a subtle, but important distinction as you present contradictions as popping up from outside the thesis, whereas Hegel rejected this and argued that contradictions were contained within the thesis the whole time.
The first moment is that of "fixity" where the logic seems stable.
Then there's the moment of the dialectical or the "negatively rational" causing instability in the concept and leading to "subflation," which has a double meaning of negation and preservation. The dialectical moment thus involves a process of sublation, or a process in which the determination from the moment of understanding both cancels and preserves itself as it passes into its opposite.
Then there is the moment of the speculative or the "positively rational" which seeks to bring the first two moments into a unity. This unity is a "nothingness" as it is the result of a process rather than an identifiable thing in the world. It is not a pure nothing however, because it is a "determinate negation" and so has a content.
Omissions like this make it impossible to understand what Hegel was getting at and attributing words he never used to him don't help to explain him either. Also, Hegel rhymes with bagel, not seagal.
What could be the importance of dialectic concept in the Post Socratic phase
Hegels actual writings were a consistent flow of the abstractions of thesis antithesis movement you see in the video and it made no sense I looked at it once and walked out if the store please shrink wrap your books
Exactly, this is Fichte not Hegel. The entire premise of the video is wrong, and it explained nothing about the actual dialectics of Hegel.
This contradiction itself is an example of Hegel's Dialectic lol.
Also, it is e.g., not i.e.
It's amazing how many tell you they're explaining Hegel and trot out thesis antithesis synthesis. Do any of these ppl bother reading Hegel or just look at some kind of Cliffs notes. Why is it Hegel never uses these terms if they're part of his method?
It’s abstract-negative-concrete, right?
I think it is because he is a charlatan. Someone pawning off others ideas as his own. He did not originate this method, this method he copied from Plato. Lots of them did in the old days, need to keep in mind the works were lost for a millenia - Freud did the same thing by pawning off Schopenhauer.
Because he's so damn hard to understand, every professor will just advise you to read a explaination of Hegel, which defeats the purpose of Hegel altogether.
And then there’s Wikipedia…
nobody bothers reading Hegel. Most Hegelians don't even bother reading Hegel.
Loved every second of this informative and easy to understand, on point, video and to top it all, the end summary was just Super. Thank you so very much.
Eye Of Providence is Antithesis.
Ignore Of Improvidence is Thesis.
Ignore Of Providence is Synthesis.
Eye Of Improvidence is Synthesis.
Antithesis is Silent Treatment.
Thesis is Loud Mistreatment.
Synthesis is Loud Treatment.
"like all good divorces, it begins with an argument" 😂 bro making me laugh a night before my exam
As others have said. Dialectical arguments have been made since the Greeks. What you described here is actually the Socratic method of argumentation. Suggest watching Cadell Lasts 3 part serie on Dialectical Thinking
That Kant joke was great
From Ethan:
"As someone who is also just starting to grapple with Hegel's system, I will try to explain it as best I can.
Hegel--as the above commenter mentioned--did not use the thesis-antithesis-synthesis triad to describe his dialectical/speculative method. It can be understood as having three movements; that of the abstract (understanding), dialectic (negative reason), and speculative (positive reason). Now, although this is more accurate to what Hegel is getting at, you can still encounter the same issues with abstract-dialectic-speculative as you do with thesis-antithesis-synthesis if you don't see it in action.
In the beginning of Hegel's Science of Logic, he starts with the concept of pure, indeterminate being. If we analyze pure being, we realize that it has no content, no determinations, so what we are left with is really nothing . Now, the concept of nothing can be understood as the lack of determination, and is thus the same as pure being . We also treat nothing as something which exists when we say "there is nothing." We have now ended up where we started--with pure being. If we continue doing this, being and nothing will just keep vanishing into each other ad infinitum. As Hegel puts it: "they are not the same, [...] they are absolutely distinct yet equally unseparated and inseparable, [...] each immediately vanishes in its opposite" (p.60). This movement of immediate vanishing is becoming .
So we went from being, to nothing, and finally becoming. You can picture it as being and nothing as being two sides of the same coin which is becoming. So now, you can probably see how thesis-antithesis-synthesis is misleading. Hegel's dialectical/speculative method is not about making a compromise between two propositions external to each other, but rather the self-movement of concepts through the power of its negative component which leads to the overcoming of its one-sidedness."
I don't know who ethan is but the phrasing of that last sentence is absolutely magical. Messi-esque, Wittgenstein-esque
I absolutely agree with you, except one additional crucial detail: Absolute Knowledge is not a position which articulates somehow the most aggregated form of truth, having overcome all obstacles along the way. Instead, it is just the articulation that contradiction is unavoidable. Synthesis is a fiction which nevertheless means fictions have an absolute necessary value in structuring our experience of reality.
@@Hurricane2139 Yeah I've heard Cadell Last talk about the Absolute as a state of self-knowing of spirit, not any form of gnostic perfection or Fukuyama-esque "End of History"
Nice video really learned something 😊
Simple and made easy to understand, thanks
"Ugh. I know, right?" Laughed out loud. Thanks.
Simple af . Understood everything which I thought was hard to understand . Thanks brother 💯
For the thing is not exhausted by it's aim, but by it's elaboration, nor is the result the actual whole, but only the result coming together with it's coming.
Thank you for this I really enjoyed the vid
This method can change somebody's life, in an amazing way.
That's why a good politician hearing all arguments in a debate.
This was so helpful ❤️
@@Impaled_Onion-thatsmine 🖕
Friendly crowd in here..
It's not enough though.
@@georgwilhelmfriedrichhegel4811 Women doesn't exist.
@@georgwilhelmfriedrichhegel4811 the woman-in-itself is inaccessible, is the negative of the positive, I-am-the contradiction, the other of the other.
Currently writing my term paper on dialectical behavior therapy and wanted to have a good grasp of dialectics first. I've been really struggling to get my head around it, but this video definitely saved me! Thank you!
No one likes a know it all is Antithesis.
Someone likes a misknow it all is Thesis.
Someone likes a know it all is Synthesis.
this video was so fun to watch! thanks man
As a complete newbie, tank you, I actually understood this video. I found other videos defining "dialectic" used unfamiliar vocabulary too quickly and without explanation.
And now, to create a thesis one should be a researcher. Thanks Hegel!
Grace Under Pressure is Thesis.
Disgrace Over Pressure is Antithesis.
Grace Over Pressure is Synthesis.
I'm brand new to philosophy (chemistry and physics double major) and I have to take a philosophy of science course for my degree. Essay writing using Hegel's dialectical method is an important part of that but trying to parse definitions using all the philosophical jargon as an outsider to the field is frustrating, especially with ADHD. All I needed was a good example to get my brain onto the right track, and this is it. Seeing the basic process in action in such a concise manner was so helpful.
P.S. if there are any philosophy buffs who would like to comment further insights (keeping in mind that you would be explaining this stuff to a complete newbie whose brain requires solid examples to properly grasp this type of thing), please feel free! I'm interested to learn!
The video is totally wrong and presenting someone else's method, that of Fichte, as Hegel's. I think it's essentially impossible to understand what Hegel is saying without first actually understanding both Hume's critique of traditional epistemology and Kant's attempt to formulate a response to Hume's critique [both of these being the movement to transcendental philosophy, or philosophy that understands itself to be limited by the possibilities of experience]. Hegel was trying to overcome, aufheben in his parlance, the core problem of the transcendental method by saying that those very limits do not prevent us from getting to the thing-in-itself, but are the means by which the thing it itself is.
@@Cuthloch Thanks for pointing that out. I'll be sure to follow up on the things you've mentioned!
Ave true to Caesar!!!!
(SPEECH 100) Thats not how fucking dialectics works you stupid cuck. I didn't study Hegel (plus continental philosophy in general) at Harvard for 7 FUCKING YEARS for some LOW LIFE KNOW IT ALL who's CLEARLY never fucking read Hegel as he would KNOW that HEGEL has NEVER FUCKING EVER used the terms "thesis, antithesis, synthesis" to start perpetuating these LIES at VERY SINGLE FUCKING OPPORTUNITY. this isn't Hegel my friend. No no no. Thesis, antithesis, synthesis was thought up by Fichte and it's clearly inferior to Hegels dialectical method of imminent critique. Yes. It's I_I called imminent critique. And dialectics is only ONE PART of Hegels full method. Which again is called Imminent critique which you would know if you had ACTUALLY BOTHERED TO READ HEGEL ITS LITERALLY IN THE SCIENCE OF LOGIC YOU DUMB FUCKING PIECE OF SHIT. I honestly cannot believe the fucking arrogance to come onto this post, spouting that anti Hegel] garbage. Where did you get your fucking info on dialectics? Fucking Jason Unruhe? Jesus fucking Christ I cannot deal with this bullshit right now I'm sorry I'm leaving I'm fucking leaving.
I have watched lots of videos on the concept but none of them described it this goooooooooooooooooooood, greaaaaaaaaat job!
This was flipping great, thank you!
This reminds me of what a Pastor said some years ago: No one can describe a cow well enough that someone can't come along and say 'that's a horse'.
The fact is: anything can be broken down into tinier and tinier arguments; until the next thing you know, you are questioning your own existence.
Pontius Pilate asked: What is Truth.
Jesus says: I am the Way, the TRUTH and the life...
We could argue all day about whether a tree actually makes a "sound" if it falls in the woods and no one is around to hear it. But, NO ONE will ever convince me that Jesus' words are not TRUTH. Amen!
Actually, it is Ficthe who called them Thesis-Antithesis-Synthesis
I would also question peoples motive to agree or disagree some people would agree just to be “cool” or “popular” to anything your friend, boss or someone you think is important says or writes
when dialectical materialism accidentally lead to killing of millions thus you go back to hegel
Step 1: steal a relatively simple idea from Fichte. Step 2: write absolutely incomprehensible book on it. Step 3: boom, you’re 19th century’s most influential philosopher
Thank you, excellent work
Hmm well made and aesthetically pleasing. Thank you
“Kant, who was a villain from the hit Sci-Fi series Star Trek.”
Nice
Excellent, thank you
Very good explanation
"Hegel Dialectics Explained" ThEsIs AnTiThEsIs SyNtHeSiS
PLEASE do more of these!!!!!
Ill tell you what gets you close to the truth. Science.
I am The Master Of Hegelian Dialectic 😏😏😏
You never reach the absolute you just keep chasing it like climbing an infinite ladder
That's just bullshit
Ave, true to Caesar.
Wait ... so after years of work he found the truth and the key to the truth 'dialectical arguments' - by found he means read it in Plato and Aristotle.
Easy To Understand !! 😃 Thanks Man
Watching one hour before examination now I can surely extend this to 250 words, can't I ?
Bhai mujhe bhi smjha de, notes h kya ispar?
thanks dude my history book was too confusing
I come back to this video every now and then just to see laser eye Hegel at 0:47
Thesis: Having sex for pleasure is ethical.
wait this genuinely helped and was fun too thanku☹️🫂
Awesome video!
this sounds remarkably similar to what adversarial learning does in, albeit with a slightly more biased and simplified "antithesis"-generation.
Ayo what’s music at the end?
Can you please tell me how to make such sketch type video of good quality
That sounds like a right Kant to me.
Big words tough guy, you trying to Sartre a fight?
Hey there, I understand that discussing philosophy can be pretty intense. Let's keep things civil and respectful during our chat. We can find some common ground if we listen to each other and discuss our views openly. It's essential to have empathy and patience when we have differing opinions. That's how we learn and grow. So, let's take a step back and have a genuine conversation. If we remain calm and respectful, we can come to a resolution. Please let me know what your thoughts are.
@@I-Dophler of all the people not keen enough to catch a play on words, i didnt think it would be the one making a Kant joke.
@@mitchchartrand @mitchchartrand312
Haha, you got me there! I guess I wasn't quite Kant on to that one. 😉
he-ghul is my hero suddenly
Thanks for the quick explanation!
Philosophers spend too much time living in their heads.
Instruction unclear, created an empire by conquering a bunch of tribes and enslaved a bunch of people and now preparing to take Hoover Dam.
How did you make this?
great video! thank you very much.
Really good video 10/10
Great vid thanks for sharing!
These philosophers had WAY too much time on their hands!
Why would you stop making these videos?
a life saver
great video
Negative plus equals zero
Seems antithesis and thesis negate each other rather than produce something greater as a synthesis if theyre purely equal and oopposite.
Also, Hegel is pronounced "Hay-gull".
I hope you're right because I've been pronouncing it HAY-gehl for 25 years.
Nice work
Ah, yes, Heegel
This is so clear and cute!
Within the first 5 seconds a mistake was made... Georg was pronounced incorrectly. Not off to a good start.
I believe the "H" is silent.
wait the process of thesis, antithesis, synthesis is an idea from platos republic, in the section right after the allegory of the cave, where socrates explains the allegory of the cave lol. I mean still good information, but not exactly the best definition of what a dialectic in a hegalian standpoint is.
it all started from socrates . the socratic dialectics
Can u make one in english? Thx
maybe learn English and you'll understand💀
Show this to Cesare
Does “Truth” exists?
Awesome video
I love it
Seems like Hegel just rebranded scientific argumentation. Great artists steal I guess...
Actually it's not Hegel's part, It's all Fitche's. Hegel is way too hard where any scientist will baffle and get insane at the very first step.
I know that's so embarrassing for him
More like Socrates method
There's no empirical element, so no, it is not science at all.
@@daseinz the Socratic method is just to ask more questions. Why why why…. Hegel was about resolving dualism to arrive at singular reality. Can be applied on multiple arguments one at a time. Minimizing the likely degree of error in relation to reality with each resolution of two opposing arguments.
Thanks!!
Cali Glens
Actually there is NO truth on this, since the process is never ending….
this is Fichte, not Hegel.
Make a video about Aufhebung and then call it hegelian dialectic.
thank you!
Blaze Squares
It’s great video but I think it’s contradictory with another video I watch on UA-cam about the meaning of dialectical
A faeces is formed 🙂