Thank you for kindly sharing such valuable material. My only little remark would be that audio quality is not very good, it would be awesome if a version with improved audio could be produced. Thank you!
Unfortunately, no. However, Professor Houlgate's book "The Opening of Hegel's Logic" contains further details to what is the contents of these lectures, in a very user-friendly and clear manner.
If there is an evolution of the self from what the self it is not (negation ), into a greater understanding of the self over time and experience. Then how would this concept be understood in a deterministic reality. If we assume reality to be the construct of God, then in a deterministic reality, the evolution of self is an act of God, or a mode of God, and therefore due to the grace of God. yes, no ?
Regardless of whether there is a God, Hegel's point there is poor indeed and an unhelpful way of looking at the matter. To describe 7.9999996 simply as "Not 8" would tell only the slightest part of the story.
Very helpful and, at the same time, incredibly naive. The Logic is so dense that it would take one's whole life to really generate (the illusion of) full understanding. This whole series, as nice as it is, does not even begin to approach this beast of a book. Badiou is right: this is Philosophy's equivalent to Joyce's Finnegans Wake.
What is the book mentioned at 21:00? It sounds like the commentary is called something like "The Logic of Hegel and the Problem of Traditional Ontology" but I can't find any book by that name.
Because 'I' assumes self which is still assumptive--'pure being' here is just pure unrelated immediacy or pure indeterminacy like if someone asked what the meaning of is is.
Well, Kant doesn't really begin with 'I' (Fichte does). This whole criticsm (from Hegel and Fichte) is that Kant doesn't even have a principle from which the categories derive. Or, at least, doesn't really show how they derive from said principle.
Did anyone get any information from this video that was actually useful? Does the professor ever touch on the fact that our State controlled public schools haven't taught the science of logic for more than a century?The Underground History of American Education by John Gatto
orhema oluga••• The science of logic was invented by Aristotle during the fourth century B.C., as a systematic method of evaluating arguments in order to determine if they are properly reasoned. In his book "The Underground History of American Education" historian John Gatto argues very persuasively that, though the science of Logic is taught in expensive private schools in the US today , it hasn't been taught in our State controlled public schools for more than a century. There are good reasons for this. It is hard to lie to people who know how to logically evaluate an argument. Due to our schools, even the vast majority of the elderly in our population have no effective understanding of the science of logic or the art of rhetoric. ••• "Logic, therefore, as the science of thought, or the science of the process of pure reason, should be capable of being constructed a priori." -Arthur Schopenhauer, "The Art of Controversy", (1831) ("A priori" is defined as deduced from self-evident premises.) •••••••••• "Logic: The science that investigates the principles governing correct or reliable inference. " -"Webster's Unabridged Encyclopedic Dictionary" •••••••••• "Infer ... v. ,1. To derive by reasoning; conclude or judge from premises or evidence ..." -"Webster's Unabridged Encyclopedic Dictionary" •••••••••• "For logic is the science of those principles, laws, and methods which the mind of man in its thinking must follow for the accurate and secure attainment of truth." -Celestine N. Bittle, "The Science of Correct Thinking: Logic", (1935) •••••••••• "We suppose ourselves to posses unqualified scientific knowledge of a thing, as opposed to knowing it in the accidental way in which the sophist knows, when we think that we know the cause on which the fact depends, as the cause of that fact and of no other, and further, that the fact could not be other than it is". -Aristotle, "Posterior Analytics" •••••••••• "We ought in fairness to fight our case with no help beyond the bare facts: nothing, therefore, should matter except the proof of those facts." -Aristotle, "Rhetoric" •••••••••• "Without the presentation of solid evidence no argument can be a good one" -Patrick Hurley, "A Concise Introduction to Logic", (1985) •••••••••• "Fallacious reasoning is just the opposite of what can be called cogent reasoning. We reason cogently when we reason (1) validly; (2) from premises well supported by evidence; and (3) using all relevant evidence we know of. The purpose of avoiding fallacious reasoning is, of course, to increase our chances of reasoning cogently." -Howard Kahane, "Logic and Contemporary Rhetoric", (1976), second edition •••••••••• "The province of Logic must be restricted to that portion of our knowledge which consists of inferences from truths previously known; whether those antecedent data be general propositions, or particular observations and perceptions. Logic is not the science of Belief, but the science of Proof, or Evidence. In so far as belief professes to be founded on proof, the office of Logic is to supply a test for ascertaining whether or not the belief is well grounded." -John Stuart Mill, "A System of Logic", (1843) ••••••••• "And if we have a right to know any Truth whatsoever, we have a right to think freely, or (according to my Definition) to use our Understandings, in endeavouring to find out the Meaning of any Proposition whatsoever, in considering the nature of the Evidence for or against it, and In judging of it according to the seeming Force or weakness of the evidence: because there is no other way to discover the Truth." -Anthony Collins, "A Discourse of Free Thinking", (1713), taken from the first page of "Thinking to Some Purpose", by L. Susan Stebbing, (1939) •••••••••• "Aristotle devides all conclusions into logical and dialectical, in the manner described, and then into eristical. (3) Eristic is the method by which the form of the conclusion is correct, but the premises, the material from which it is drawn, are not true, but only appear to be true. Finally (4) sophistic is the method in which the form of the conclusion is false, although it seems correct. These three last properly belong to the art of Controversial Dialectic, as they have no objective truth in view, but only the appearance of it, and pay no regard to truth itself; that is to say, they aim at victory." -Arthur Schopenhauer, "The Art of Controversy", (1831) •••••••••• "The fallacy of suppressed evidence is committed when an arguer ignores evidence that would tend to undermine the premises of an otherwise good argument, causing it to be unsound or uncogent. Suppressed evidence is a fallacy of presumption and is closely related to begging the question. As such, it's occurrence does not affect the relationship between premises and conclusion but rather the alleged truth of premises. The fallacy consists in passing off what are at best half-truths as if they were whole truths, thus making what is actually a defective argument appear to be good. The fallacy is especially common among arguers who have a vested interest in the situation to which the argument pertains." -Patrick Hurley, "A Concise Introduction to Logic", (1985) •••••••••• "A high degree of probability is often called 'practical certainty.' A reasonable man should not refrain upon acting upon a practical certainty as though it were known to be true. In England, for instance, it is customary for a judge, at the trial of a person accused of murder, to instruct the jury that an adverse verdict need not be based on the belief that the guilt of the prisoner has been ' proved ', but upon the belief that the guilt has been established ' beyond a reasonable doubt .' To be ' beyond reasonable doubt ' is to have sufficient evidence to make the proposition in question so much more likely to be true than to be false that we should be prepared to act upon the supposition of its truth. Many of our most important actions have to be performed in accordance with belief of such a kind." -L. Susan Stebbing, "Logic in Practice", (1934) pages 98 and 99 ••••••••••
@@williamspringer9447 OMG 3 weeks later, I finally understand your plight. However its misplaced. This was a lecture specifically for Hegel's science of logic which you didn't even mention in your reply to me. Hegel developed Aristotlean logic even further than anyone had done priori or after him. Contrary to your rant, the coddling of the western mind goes deeper than that. Even private schools barely or if at all teach Hegel. Here is my rant on the similar topic of the subversion of the western mind in reply to another commenter that rightfully discredits Marx's association to Hegel. "I posit that you are unfortunately right. Thought does shape reality, not the other way around, and modern neuroscience (not heavily biased or funded by special groups) is pointing to this. This was Marx's great mistake from the start. He simply did not absorb the logic and Phenomenology in their full depth. He was an Hegelian as much as the youth today are "original marxists" lol. This is also where Zizek fails and why he eventually arrived at the pessimistic conclusion about history and the world today. Zizek has tasked himself with taking Marx back to Hegel and realizing the idealism in absolute materialism, but thats a futile endeavor even from a Laconia framework. Zizek fails to admonish the fundamental foundation to Hegel's framework, which is his theology and metaphysics as a marriage of Platonic and Aristotlean systems. I hope the west survives the end of history and realize the omission of Hegel proved to be the grandest mistake in intellectual inquiry history. We are lucky NeoHegelians are beginning to spring up and summon courage to take up the tasks of at least giving him a chance. Everyone before the late 20th century just approached his work through Marx and Gentiles which proved to be an even graver mistake as history has shown. So I posit, the most indivisible form of essence is the "idea". Each human is an ecosystem of multiple ideas possessing multiple instances of said human beings existence and being. And as Hegel rightfully stated, the most effective way to reconcile these caccoon of ideas is through the 'Logic', which is unfortunately missing in western culture today"
orhema oluga ••• I'm interested in how the suppression of the teaching of the science of Logic in our State controlled schools has been used to subvert and corrupt supposedly democratic systems of government . And I'm interested in letting people know about this very important fact. Nine out of ten Americans still believe that man walked on the Moon, even though there is zero reliable evidence that it ever happened. Many millions of people have been killed through State deception . Do you believe in the Moon landing? Do you have any information that I can actually understand and use in a meaningful way?
@@williamspringer9447 The meaning and practical use of Hegel's philosophy is to realize what Existence, the Universe and Humanity are, essentially and cultivating that through clear thought and then clear action. Knowing that you are ultimately infinite consciousness, (Spirit) and therefore realizing the oneness of Humanity ( a route to reducing racism and tribalism) and our oneness with Nature ( a route to environmentalism and a sustainable co-existence with the natural world), is of critical importance. It logically follows that one would cultivate introspection, contemplation and meditation, which are extremely useful for the progression of our one race. There is a rampant materialism and Nihilism-Meaning Crisis about and they are eating away at the Will to Live and to flourish especially in the West and among youth in the West. Those factors affect the entire globe. Peace and blessings friend.
32:38 is the start of the lecture for anyone who wants to skip the technical module stuff:)
the lecture starts at 6:00
Thank you for kindly sharing such valuable material. My only little remark would be that audio quality is not very good, it would be awesome if a version with improved audio could be produced. Thank you!
Thank you so much for uploading this! Please keep them coming; they are highly appreciated.
Houlgate a grace to us all, for the gental guidance thru the needed for a titanic wave of Hegel science of logic
This is excellent - excited to hear the rest
Set to 75% speed he sounds just like Allen Watts. Great find!
What is the Schelling text to which he is referring at 28:00?
So why do most people read only the first section (up to the One and the many) and stop before going into quantity?
Great lecture
How's the job search going? Me:
Great lectures thanks for uploading
Not a Hegelian but this is great content
Are there any course notes available for the lectures?
Many thanks for releasing the recordings.
Unfortunately, no. However, Professor Houlgate's book "The Opening of Hegel's Logic" contains further details to what is the contents of these lectures, in a very user-friendly and clear manner.
any chance i can get a syllabus for this?
If there is an evolution of the self from what the self it is not (negation ), into a greater understanding of the self over time and experience. Then how would this concept be understood in a deterministic reality. If we assume reality to be the construct of God, then in a deterministic reality, the evolution of self is an act of God, or a mode of God, and therefore due to the grace of God. yes, no ?
Regardless of whether there is a God, Hegel's point there is poor indeed and an unhelpful way of looking at the matter. To describe 7.9999996 simply as "Not 8" would tell only the slightest part of the story.
right. That's is Spinoza's Nature
Any chance of a link to the noodle or is it Moodle page?
Unfortunately, no.
What is the name at 24:26 ?
Béatrice Longuenesse
Alas it cannot be heard
‘the first third of the first third which is… uh…. about one ninth i think?’
no wonder this guy didn’t get to quantity!
which Davison?
Donald
Very lucid explanations.
Very helpful and, at the same time, incredibly naive. The Logic is so dense that it would take one's whole life to really generate (the illusion of) full understanding. This whole series, as nice as it is, does not even begin to approach this beast of a book. Badiou is right: this is Philosophy's equivalent to Joyce's Finnegans Wake.
I'm assuming you somehow finished this lifetime study of the book to inform us of this
Terrible audio...thank you nonetheless
26:14 Yowza! Dismisses Stanley Rosen.
Is there a way to read his review of Rosens Hegel Book?
What is the book mentioned at 21:00? It sounds like the commentary is called something like "The Logic of Hegel and the Problem of Traditional Ontology" but I can't find any book by that name.
André Doz, La Logique de Hegel et les problèmes traditionnels de l'ontologie, 1987
How can Hegel criticize Kant for beginning with an indeterminate "I," when he begins his Logic with an indeterminate Pure Being?
Because 'I' assumes self which is still assumptive--'pure being' here is just pure unrelated immediacy or pure indeterminacy like if someone asked what the meaning of is is.
@@RareSeldas They should ask what the meaning of is is.
@@bradspitt3896 kek, okay Bill Clinton
@@RareSeldas Neil Postman was right.
Well, Kant doesn't really begin with 'I' (Fichte does). This whole criticsm (from Hegel and Fichte) is that Kant doesn't even have a principle from which the categories derive. Or, at least, doesn't really show how they derive from said principle.
Audio is so bad it’s not worth watching.
Did anyone get any information from this video that was actually useful?
Does the professor ever touch on the fact that our State controlled public schools haven't taught the science of logic for more than a century?The Underground History of American Education by John Gatto
Please elaborate and expound on your point further
orhema oluga•••
The science of logic was invented by Aristotle during the fourth century B.C., as a systematic method of evaluating arguments in order to determine if they are properly reasoned. In his book "The Underground History of American Education" historian John Gatto argues very persuasively that, though the science of Logic is taught in expensive private schools in the US today , it hasn't been taught in our State controlled public schools for more than a century. There are good reasons for this. It is hard to lie to people who know how to logically evaluate an argument. Due to our schools, even the vast majority of the elderly in our population have no effective understanding of the science of logic or the art of rhetoric. •••
"Logic, therefore, as the science of thought, or the science of the process of pure reason, should be capable of being constructed a priori."
-Arthur Schopenhauer, "The Art of Controversy", (1831)
("A priori" is defined as deduced from self-evident premises.) ••••••••••
"Logic: The science that investigates the principles governing correct or reliable inference. "
-"Webster's Unabridged Encyclopedic Dictionary" ••••••••••
"Infer ... v. ,1. To derive by reasoning; conclude or judge from premises or evidence ..."
-"Webster's Unabridged Encyclopedic Dictionary" ••••••••••
"For logic is the science of those principles, laws, and methods which the mind of man in its thinking must follow for the accurate and secure attainment of truth." -Celestine N. Bittle, "The Science of Correct Thinking: Logic", (1935) ••••••••••
"We suppose ourselves to posses unqualified scientific knowledge of a thing, as opposed to knowing it in the accidental way in which the sophist knows, when we think that we know the cause on which the fact depends, as the cause of that fact and of no other, and further, that the fact could not be other than it is".
-Aristotle, "Posterior Analytics" ••••••••••
"We ought in fairness to fight our case with no help beyond the bare facts: nothing, therefore, should matter except the proof of those facts."
-Aristotle, "Rhetoric" ••••••••••
"Without the presentation of solid evidence no argument can be a good one"
-Patrick Hurley, "A Concise Introduction to Logic", (1985) ••••••••••
"Fallacious reasoning is just the opposite of what can be called cogent reasoning. We reason cogently when we reason (1) validly; (2) from premises well supported by evidence; and (3) using all relevant evidence we know of. The purpose of avoiding fallacious reasoning is, of course, to increase our chances of reasoning cogently."
-Howard Kahane, "Logic and Contemporary Rhetoric", (1976), second edition ••••••••••
"The province of Logic must be restricted to that portion of our knowledge which consists of inferences from truths previously known; whether those antecedent data be general propositions, or particular observations and perceptions. Logic is not the science of Belief, but the science of Proof, or Evidence. In so far as belief professes to be founded on proof, the office of Logic is to supply a test for ascertaining whether or not the belief is well grounded."
-John Stuart Mill, "A System of Logic", (1843) •••••••••
"And if we have a right to know any Truth whatsoever, we have a right to think freely, or (according to my Definition) to use our Understandings, in endeavouring to find out the Meaning of any Proposition whatsoever, in considering the nature of the Evidence for or against it, and In judging of it according to the seeming Force or weakness of the evidence: because there is no other way to discover the Truth."
-Anthony Collins, "A Discourse of Free Thinking", (1713), taken from the first page of "Thinking to Some Purpose", by L. Susan Stebbing, (1939) ••••••••••
"Aristotle devides all conclusions into logical and dialectical, in the manner described, and then into eristical. (3) Eristic is the method by which the form of the conclusion is correct, but the premises, the material from which it is drawn, are not true, but only appear to be true. Finally (4) sophistic is the method in which the form of the conclusion is false, although it seems correct. These three last properly belong to the art of Controversial Dialectic, as they have no objective truth in view, but only the appearance of it, and pay no regard to truth itself; that is to say, they aim at victory."
-Arthur Schopenhauer, "The Art of Controversy", (1831) ••••••••••
"The fallacy of suppressed evidence is committed when an arguer ignores evidence that would tend to undermine the premises of an otherwise good argument, causing it to be unsound or uncogent. Suppressed evidence is a fallacy of presumption and is closely related to begging the question. As such, it's occurrence does not affect the relationship between premises and conclusion but rather the alleged truth of premises. The fallacy consists in passing off what are at best half-truths as if they were whole truths, thus making what is actually a defective argument appear to be good. The fallacy is especially common among arguers who have a vested interest in the situation to which the argument pertains."
-Patrick Hurley, "A Concise Introduction to Logic", (1985) ••••••••••
"A high degree of probability is often called 'practical certainty.' A reasonable man should not refrain upon acting upon a practical certainty as though it were known to be true. In England, for instance, it is customary for a judge, at the trial of a person accused of murder, to instruct the jury that an adverse verdict need not be based on the belief that the guilt of the prisoner has been ' proved ', but upon the belief that the guilt has been established ' beyond a reasonable doubt .' To be ' beyond reasonable doubt ' is to have sufficient evidence to make the proposition in question so much more likely to be true than to be false that we should be prepared to act upon the supposition of its truth. Many of our most important actions have to be performed in accordance with belief of such a kind."
-L. Susan Stebbing, "Logic in Practice", (1934) pages 98 and 99 ••••••••••
@@williamspringer9447 OMG 3 weeks later, I finally understand your plight. However its misplaced. This was a lecture specifically for Hegel's science of logic which you didn't even mention in your reply to me. Hegel developed Aristotlean logic even further than anyone had done priori or after him. Contrary to your rant, the coddling of the western mind goes deeper than that. Even private schools barely or if at all teach Hegel.
Here is my rant on the similar topic of the subversion of the western mind in reply to another commenter that rightfully discredits Marx's association to Hegel.
"I posit that you are unfortunately right. Thought does shape reality, not the other way around, and modern neuroscience (not heavily biased or funded by special groups) is pointing to this. This was Marx's great mistake from the start. He simply did not absorb the logic and Phenomenology in their full depth. He was an Hegelian as much as the youth today are "original marxists" lol. This is also where Zizek fails and why he eventually arrived at the pessimistic conclusion about history and the world today. Zizek has tasked himself with taking Marx back to Hegel and realizing the idealism in absolute materialism, but thats a futile endeavor even from a Laconia framework. Zizek fails to admonish the fundamental foundation to Hegel's framework, which is his theology and metaphysics as a marriage of Platonic and Aristotlean systems.
I hope the west survives the end of history and realize the omission of Hegel proved to be the grandest mistake in intellectual inquiry history. We are lucky NeoHegelians are beginning to spring up and summon courage to take up the tasks of at least giving him a chance. Everyone before the late 20th century just approached his work through Marx and Gentiles which proved to be an even graver mistake as history has shown.
So I posit, the most indivisible form of essence is the "idea". Each human is an ecosystem of multiple ideas possessing multiple instances of said human beings existence and being. And as Hegel rightfully stated, the most effective way to reconcile these caccoon of ideas is through the 'Logic', which is unfortunately missing in western culture today"
orhema oluga •••
I'm interested in how the suppression of the teaching of the science of Logic in our State controlled schools has been used to subvert and corrupt supposedly democratic systems of government . And I'm interested in letting people know about this very important fact.
Nine out of ten Americans still believe that man walked on the Moon, even though there is zero reliable evidence that it ever happened.
Many millions of people have been killed through State deception .
Do you believe in the Moon landing?
Do you have any information that I can actually understand and use in a meaningful way?
@@williamspringer9447 The meaning and practical use of Hegel's philosophy is to realize what Existence, the Universe and Humanity are, essentially and cultivating that through clear thought and then clear action.
Knowing that you are ultimately infinite consciousness, (Spirit) and therefore realizing the oneness of Humanity ( a route to reducing racism and tribalism) and our oneness with Nature ( a route to environmentalism and a sustainable co-existence with the natural world), is of critical importance.
It logically follows that one would cultivate introspection, contemplation and meditation, which are extremely useful for the progression of our one race.
There is a rampant materialism and Nihilism-Meaning Crisis about and they are eating away at the Will to Live and to flourish especially in the West and among youth in the West.
Those factors affect the entire globe.
Peace and blessings friend.