Very illuminating. You did something virtually unfound on UA-cam: explaining Hegel without oversimplifying or taking a decade to explain a paragraph. Well done!
@@kocahmet1 I would be hard pressed to find a philosophy professor in my university’s faculty who can distill a topic as complex as Hegelian dialectic as lucidly and comprehensively as this. Meaning, it’s valid to commend her on it, because her skill is literally exceptional
Lex Fridman had on his podcast the foremost philosophy professor in the Western world (an Australian gentleman, I forget his name), and he became visibly angry that people apply "thesis, antithesis, synthesis" to Hegel's ideas. The professor said Hegel never used this terminology. Instead he rambled on about the "unity" of events, and that there were no temporal constraints on "spirit" (ie, he said you have "a tree, a wooden table, and a pile of ashes" -- together). This is why people generally dislike philosophy-- the specialists in it try to make it as obtuse and illogical as possible. Except for this channel-- where she makes ideas more concrete, and quite smartly cites the page numbers.
Although, in the same line as Frederick Beiser, I'm not that fond of the representation of the triadic form as a schemata of "thesis-antithesis-synthesis", even though this form of thinking dialectics is much more approachable.
You actually grasp these concepts of philosophy which is impressive given the state of UA-cam. I once saw a video about Kant by a philosophy UA-camr and it only contributed to my misanthropy.
Haha thank you! Dr. Anderson has a PhD in Philosophy from Emory, which has an excellent continental philosophy program, and teaches these concepts regularly to college students.
Jokes on us for not realizing that by naming the podcast"Overthink" y'all actually skip over the thinking that true philosophy demands@@OverthinkPodcastPhilosophy
@@OverthinkPodcastPhilosophy Lmao! Are you kidding? Idk if this is a satirical indictment of Emorys philosophy program...either way, this is the least creative form of anti-Hegelianism.
I like that this channel doesn't try to say, welp, there you go, after this 5 minute youtube video you can add Hegel to your list of philosophers you get and please click on the next one to add Socrates to your collection, rather it just hosts some concisely illuminating discussion that makes no claims to being a replacement for reading the actual works.
I love this channel and the podcast, very enlightening. And well articulated. I've learned a lot. Appreciate the depth of ideas. I think you're brilliant.
6:00 makes me think of mixing watercolors. Considering the combination of one or more pigments resulting in not only a cancellation of the former two, but a preservation of each in the resultant hue. Not sure if that works but it’s the thought this inspires, perhaps if someone sees something lacking in that observation they might help me see what that is.
It’s good, and while not a reader of Hegel, the one thing that popped in my head was that that metaphor only allows adding of colors, not taking away of colors. If you look at markets in capitalism, the only way the market tends to solve problems naturally is by adding things, never taking away.
I just graduated from a great books program at Dharma Realm Buddhist University, a small university in Ukiah, CA. We study texts from a wide range of traditions - Western, Chinese, Indian, Buddhist etc. This channel would have been very helpful when reading some of the more difficult texts I studied like Hegel or Husserl! You explain things very clearly. It would be great if you could come visit our university some day and give a lecture. PS One suggestion would be to include more direct quotes from the text to exemplify your point, and including them in the video so viewers can read along.
Thank you so much for this video, I studied a bit of Hegel and I found him very interesting, but I was so unsatisfied with the amount of understanding I got, so this was super helpful.
Thank you for the fantastic and illuminating discussion! You asked for comments regarding the teleology apparent in World Spirit Actualization. In idealist biology and in cosmology in general there is a principle of principles: all order is an emergent structure supervening on random fluctuations in a field of chaos. Contemporary idealist biology will take this cosmological meta-principle and with a four-dimensional perspective understand the development of a structure through time not in any one instance at a time but as the whole spacetime world line/trajectory and read the emergent properties, since supervening on initializing conditions, as not only a consequence but also as cause for the development of the four-dimensional structure through time and space. This feat is accomplished typically via the idealist self-assertion that all relationships in a four-dimensional spacetime are intrinsic relationships [basically just ignoring Russell et al. at the turn of the 20th century.] Thus all parts of the whole contain the whole in some sense. In Buddhist thought, the doctrine of Dependent Origination might accomplish the same conceptual feat. I do not know if this perspective counts as teleological in the strict Aristotlean sense but it appears to have a parallel structure. The idea missing from this perspective is the Universal Particular. Is that a pun? Irony? just nonsense? Time will tell. Much love!
Great explanation. Concise, works well. The first 2 minutes of the talk are so, so good that they do not lapse into the simple example "thesis-antithesis-synthesis": this is, as you mention, an example of alienation and substation in the concept. I really loved it.
When you did the Master/Servant example of Hegel's dialectic, I could see that as a metaphor for the modern view of the development of consciousness. In this video, you seem to be describing the development of consciousness in relation to an understanding of history that is built in layers, not on the ashes of previous times, more on the bones. In this he was very perceptive. As a materialist, I don't see 'spirit' as something metaphysical, but more as a 'universal consciousness' or... zeitgeist. Of course, from our perspective in the 21st century, we can see how white, male and Eurocentric Hegel's thinking was and also take a dim view of his teleology. Well, I speak for myself anyway.
I just discovered you and David. This video was the first I watched of Dr. Ellie. It’s a great presentation. I checked your other productions and Overthink. I still like this one best 😊. (Just a little fan feedback 👍. Keep being good!
Firstly ,Thank you ! what jumped out at me was my earlier reading of a philosophical disagreement between Wittgenstein and Turing about a mathematical issue of contradiction . Turing took a platonic view insisting that contradiction can never be in a math equation or else the whole thing would collapse , . Wittgenstein argued contradictions can be a valuable part of the equation adding no bridge has not yet fallen because of a contradiction in the equation . The article though is quite long but i could not help but thing of Hegel upon reading of Wittgenstein argument against Turing . Also i upon listening to this could see Kierkegaard see how his dislike for Hegel is reflected in his three stages of transformation ( final as Leap of faith ) opposed to Hegel three stages of Spirit . Thanks in advance for reading .
Please correct me, but I seem to remember that it was Fichte who first put forth the notion of thesis running into an antithesis until there is synthesis. I've always loved this as it applies to art - and I know Hegel had a lot to say about art, too! But you see the rigid structures of classicism give way to "anything goes" romanticism in music, painting, poetry, and so on. Anyway, it's been a while since I was in a philosophy class, but... As I understand it, while Hegel all but intended this meaning, it was Fichte who first put it so baldly. If that does happen to be correct, was Hegel in agreement? How did he react? (Questions I should have asked back in college...)
It was Fichte, yes. Hegel never said it (and she admits he didn't), even if it is commonly misattributed to him (in fact, the one time he DID mention it, he actually complained about it in Kant). Hegel's actual dialectic was more like Idea-Negation-Concrete.
Yes you're correct, I've taken a course on anti-liberalism where we went over the works of Fichte and Schiller. I find it interesting that classicism relies heavily on harmony considering its apparent juxtaposition with romanticism. The thesis-antithesis-synthesis concept is quite relevant when describing the harmonious appearance of romantic ideals.
You are a legend at explaining I dont agree with the notion pressented in the abslute sense of what he ment But he does serm to offer some good points about ideas in general
This is quite an impressive, succinct overview of Hegel. I have to say, given Hegel's legacy, I would never had thought to bring W E B Du Bois in conversation with Hegel. What a remarkable, and ironic, achievement - simultaneously bring to mind Hegel's Master/ "Servant" dialectic from another of your essays. I found myself chuckling from the implications of the marriage of these two thinkers. Hegel's notion of Spirit being "estranged" from itself reveals much about the inner workings of Hegel. There seems something torturous about Hegel's thinking and the ramifications of his ideas. I believe that you embodied this in the delivery of this essay, as you often subverted your eye contact with the camera during key moments while discussing his ideas. This is something that does not happen as nearly as much with your delivery of the ideas of other philosophers. I think we all suspect that no matter how insightful Hegel can be, there is something behind it that doesn't feel quite right - and yet his ideas seem to serve as the foundation for much of how the West has come to view the world.
Interesting explanation. This leads me to various questions: So, like the seed and the tree, would it be more useful to refer to distinct movements and states of "spirit" by distinct names? The seed is described as being the tree "implicitly," but a seed is not a tree. If the seed is itself the tree how can it want to be something other than it already is, and what would there be to actualize that isn't already actualized? There might be an infinite regress problem with a method of continually naming particulars, though that is what we do. As a lacking utility, I find this to make what was explained here ambiguous and difficult to conceptualize. Also, the tree analogy is limited (as all analogies are) in that a tree is part of a process of events that we humans recognize as having utility for ourselves. We determine that the fully grown tree is the end goal, but is it? Why? What purpose does a tree have? Why does our human attention to that state of the tree cycle, in a greater system of energy processes, necessitate a teleological end of anything? And how does that relate to perfection? Likewise, what does the relative movements of human preference in social systems entail about a necessary "end" state of "perfection"?
Are you suggesting a distinction similar to Being vs Becoming? In the sense that the seed and the trees are both distinct beings create a field of tension characterized by progressive becoming. The becoming is an unactualized being which creates progress through this unresolved tension. The way I see it, the seed is a tree but the tree isn't a seed. The seed's existence relies on the existence of the tree because its utility is inherent to its particular naming. While they are polar opposites creating a field of tension, this tension is resolved progressively because the tree holds inherent power over the seed. The seed can become a tree while the tree cannot become a seed. I don't disagree with your other suggestions and questions. However, I think Hegel's dialectic philosophy might be restricted to modernity as history is a conceptually modern idea. Modernity is synonymous with the belief in progress, especially in its material form. This is itself a relative preference that may rely on time and place. Not sure if this would be consistent with Hegel's thought however. Going back to the "naming" question, wouldn't you say that virtually any meaning behind a name is tied to a specific utility within a particular context? For instance, if we live in a time and a place where agriculture is necessary, the existence of the seed's utility is dependent on the utility of the tree. Of course we can all disagree about the tree's utility in the first place, but we cannot un-see the seed if we understand its particular utility. Now, I think this may be dependent on modernity. For instance, an indigenous society in North America may see the tree as embodying a cyclical process and this can be a good allegory to explain their societal structure. I think Hegel's point is that the state binds us to a universal spirit. Consciousness is achieved through the understanding that the tree's utility universalizes the 'becoming' of the seed and guides it in a particular direction.
@@julienguyon2232 But the tree does become a seed; it becomes numerous seeds. It is the becoming of numerous seeds, and numerous other trees, and it is not the sole becoming as it is just one _perceived_ segment (so, conceptualized segment) of the entirety of all. I'm pointing out that the apparent utility is based on a concept of perspective that is a particular human framing. You said the seed becomes a tree but a tree doesn't become a seed, and I see that as a mere consequence of how you frame what you are observing. How is the seed not dependent on the tree in the same way the tree is dependent on the seed? The seed does not become without the tree, and the tree does not become without the seed. And neither become the conceptually segmented process of energy movement without the prior and concurrent movements from which it became becomes. _Now_ this barely touches on the further concepts of framing with respect to our limited view of the environment and components of both the tree, the seed, and everything in and around that conceptualized segmentation. When we talk about a tree, we talk about a collection of components, but we aren't actually referring to every component, typically. There's much more to a tree than we ever refer to when we talk about trees, and in different moments we talk about different sets of components relative to our needs in those instances. The concept of the tree is a utility for a purpose, such as in warning someone that a tree is about to fall, which only refers to certain characteristics of the tree. Or, when pointing to a tree for someone to collect fruit from it, we aren't referring to the inner bark of the tree, the molecular composition of the leaves of the tree, the state of subatomic particles in and around the tree and how they correspond to any of the other matter in the rest of the universe. We see and frame a particular thing as is our utility for what we can even see of it. So, to answer your question directly, yes, I do see naming mechanisms, all of semiotics, as _being_ of utility. I can't even imagine how it could be any other way. That's said, I want to bring this back to the final point of my comment, which was the assertion of an "end" state of "perfection." What could that even mean? How is the tree dependent on the seed anymore than the seed is dependent on the tree? What would make one state and "end" over another, if an end is even coherent to claim here, and what would make one state any more perfect or any less perfect than another?
@@cloudoftime Thanks for the thoughtful reply. I don't think I disagree with any of what you said actually!! I didn't mean to imply that the tree's perfection is absolute in its material appearance. Of course it is composed of an infinite plurality of parts which can be individualized independently. Perhaps my response here will just prove your point and indicate a misunderstanding on my part because I assumed that what you are claiming here was consistent with Hegel. As I agree with your claim on semiotics being utility-driven, I completely agree with your utility claims about trees. However, I would extend the analogy further. The tension between the tree and the seed exists because the tree requires the development of the seed for its existence. The utility of the seed is dependent on the utility of the tree. The seed stops being a seed when it is absorbed by the utility of the tree. I see this absorption as the teleological end of this dynamic where the tension is broken by the overbearing power of the dominant concept/utility. The tree may have multiple outlined purposes or utilities making it a tree but the seed's ultimate utility is dependent on its potential to be a tree. I think the idea of potentiality is essential to any form of historicism. That being said, the seed ought to be placed in tension with other concepts indicating its perfection in other contexts. For instance, seeds that have utility without being absorbed by a more powerful utility, like seeds which can be consumed as they are. I think the seed in this context is complete and perfect.
THANK YOU Madam. Your lectures are both simple and intelligent, deep but easily understandable. Can you expand the list to include more continental philosophers, esp. Husserl, Sartre and Camus.
thank you so much for this video..you make it easier for a 1st timer at philosophy.. bless you for it. Is it possible to post a separate video on the optimism of Hegel.. a very short one, just like the one you posted on the pessimism of Schopenhauer?? Thank you - in advance - if you even fathom the idea..
10:00 yes! DuBois had a point! Autistic and "queer" people have grown up in a world that was designed to be meaningless for us, so we created meaning out of this meaninglessness! And this made us realize that meaning is what's important! And we create our own meaning through seeking meaning in our daily activities! I think that gives us a role to play in this exciting/scary future we're barreling into! 😳
This progressive "law" of the universe is simply positive sum (2x2 matrix) logic! The logic of the truth table, the Punnett square, the prisoner's dilemma, and quantum entanglement! It's why the revolution is inevitable! 😅🤪
I don't remember if you said what you were reading. What was the book that you were reading from? Because from the passages you quoted, I get a semi different interpretation from what you saw from the work.
My first thought listening to this explanation of the dialectic, discussing the "collapse" of the antithesis, sublating into a new relationship, called to mind the big bang - if you think of the "spirit" as the mover/force of the universe (perhaps "God" to a believer in God), can the "collapse" of the thesis and anthesis of this Spirit account for the moment before the big bang, when the entire universe collapsed into a singularity, immediately to sublate into a new and higher structure?
In my view, Hegel's Spirit can also be called "The Universal Mind" or the FORCE ( as in movie Star War). According to Asian mysticism, this physical world, or the world of matter, is created by splitting the Universal Substance into two polarities -- yin and yang. The interaction of the two polarities is the process for the self-reflection of the Spirit. One of the example of yin/yang polarities is male/female. The yin/yang division was implemented into the bio-chemical processes in the physical bodies. But at the core, there is no division of gender. A harmony can be achieved in a family unit when male and female find a balance through periodic union. The same logic can be extended to a tribe or a country -- the balancing and union of polarized energies. However, it is not so simple in actual implementation in the "real world".
“Periodic union” from a terror managment theory and survival psychology lens, a lot of cultural practices even if imperfect Engadge us in that periodic union, I doubt it’s an accident that a lot of holidays occur around winter time when sad depression goes up. Oxytocin also decreases cortisol. And that’s like stress free bonding that is a binding hormone. I like the way you said using yang and periodic movement as I’ve often seen it through a sort of nihilistic cultural practices that always felt they don’t justify themselves. Though at same time I guess that just means I wasn’t feeling they gave me what I needed. But at same time trauma treatment has titration and pendulation tactics in its treatment too. There is that Alan what’s schtuck about life as music and the notes of music in the present, there is also another video she did where she talked I think about sort of hyper squirrel like jumping between things always occupied with something and how that leads to burnout, vs a sort of superior contemplative immersive attention that takes things as they come and sits with them and is able to immersivly contemplate them. This is sort of a polyvagal state where one can face the self and its opposition of it self. Instead of fight flight attatch cry for help freeze and shutdown states, but in more a self connected and potentially other connected state. It seems to merge ideas of sensory awarness that we see often in mindfulness, and sensory integration movement work, It seems in many ways that things like immersive contemplative flow-awaremindfulness and reflexivity guided thesis - an this is - synthesis of the self and others. Thus jumps around a bit but it seems that there need be a sort of spirituality based off of the type of attention and cognition we Engadge in
What great fun! I shall look for other examples of this gal's work ... watched it after watching (part of) an execrable vid --'Hegel in 90 Minutes' -- a couple of days ago, & it gives me intellectual hope for the human race -- as the human race sublates itself thru art, religion, & philosophy into Absolute Spirit, of course!
Hegel's science and logic are the pinnacle of philosophical thought and the pinnacle of dialectical development. However, Hegel built his work on an idealist basis, which existed in science at that time, because materialism was still weak and it was not yet dialectical. But after the publication of 'Science of Logic' by Hegel, Feuerbach wrote a book called 'The Essence of Christianity' and convinced Marx and Engels (who adhered to idealist dialectics) that materialism was the true doctrine, not idealism, and they turned and became materialists. They developed both Hegel's dialectic and Feuerbach's materialism. They created dialectical materialism, followed by the creation of historical materialism by Marx and Engels, they applied dialectics to the study of society. Although Hegel's work is idealistic, when it comes to dialectics, this work starts with pure being - this is the most materialist beginning, being is primary, and then all other categories are derived from pure being.
Notes: thesis + antitheses = synthesis where it retains the old at a higher structural level. , sublation, preservation and negation. (It’s like mixing up core deconstructed structure and turning dials up and down with EQ) The imperfect state is to be grasped as having the perfect within it. Social systems have a place in history, but come and go, but play a role, the thing that brings about the decline of growth of people is habit or activity without opposition( essentially 1 dimensional man). The way Hegel says world sprit gets actualized through individual people, it makes sense that it happens that way but it happens through social processes and needs and also a sort of self rationalization of needs with social material political-natural-economy. I think if it in terms of systems of how they build things up and also how they function, which understanding that systems evolve to maintain themselves in a politica.legal-psycho social economic system. That the psychological and social is just as important as the legal political economy. The evolve together. And if they evolve together then those who can impact and amplify scale their influence the most regulates it. Power works through any skill activity or medium that scales. If those individuals never scale their skills and speak and develop it, and view on system etc. I then the self regulation of it dosent changes in a centralized way. There can be room for ideas to diffuse through in decentralized way though to really grow they need mechanism to become aware of themselves eventually. It’s why revolutions occur in budding viral waves throughout history instead of all at once. They gradually become aware of each other.
Hegel's arche seems to be strife from just looking at the dialectic. It also seems like he was trying to explain the Logos and Divine Providence aka the Telos of Logos in Enlightenment terms, but the difference or error would be thinking that strife (thesis antithesis synthesis) is what moves/allows the Trinity to be Triune in multiplicity yet of the same essence when it is Love (the third person aka the holy spirit). This might have had alot to do with Martin Luther's doctrine of the enslaved will (Hegel was a Lutheran) which ultimately albeit unwittingly introduces evil into the trinity and negates the Logos.
I would also like to supplement my previous comment by saying that in Hegel's science and logic, it is important to derive categories, and many people have problems with this. There are also problems with understanding these categories, for example, it may not be clear the first time, for example: what is Pure Being? Or Pure Nothing? What is becoming, present being, and so on. Although if you read Hegel thoughtfully, returning again and again to the beginning, then understanding comes, and if you study Marx's capital, you will see the use of dialectics in Marx's capital and will be able to fully master capital, since the dialectical method is applied in it.
I find myself agreeing with much of Hegel's philosophy while at the same time frustrated by the my perception that he overcomplicates fairly straightforward concepts. To those directly familiar with Hegel's writings, do you find them unnecessarily complicated or necessarily complex to express his ideas clearly? Part of me is trying to decide if it's worth the time and effort to dissect his writings to gain a direct understanding of his ideas or whether I can gain just as clear an understanding of his philosophy through a Hegelian philosopher who is better able to express the same ideas more succinctly.
It's a very vague notion but I see a similarity between Hegel's "habit" and Sartre's "bad faith". Both cases are an example of letting go of ambition, drive or will, and replacing it of some sort of "laziness", for a lack of better word. It's like the Geist having a moral opposition, a certain counter-force. I am a beginner in philosophy, so forgive me if I am far off the tracks. But the resemblance has struck me here.
"The highest achievement of Spirit is ultimately to know itself." Hegel was the first to understand this, and it is therefore through Hegel that Spirit first became self-conscious. I.e., the final goal of human history... what it all has been leading up to... is... wait for it... Hegel!
Moishe Postone points out that Marx uses so much Hegelian language at the beginning of Capital because one of the more subtle parts of his own argument is that Hegel's conception of the spirit is valid, but only for capitalism, wherein the "Spirit" is actually capital. In other words, while Hegel believes all of human history to be teleological, Marx believes that only capitalism has a determinate, teleological history. Personally I think Marx's view (as described by Postone) is more tenable, and has more empirical backing. Postone uses the example of industrialized western countries since the 1970's. In virtually all of these countries, regardless of government, particular national histories, etc. we have seen an erosion of the welfare state (to varying degrees) and a weakening of trade unions. This points to a force operating on a super-national level, which is of course capital. The demands of capital at this particular point in time realized themselves as what we commonly know as "neo-liberalism," a term that refers not to an intellectual/political cause of these developments, but merely an a posteriori intellectual justification.
Quite agree. Heidegger as the spiritual progression of Kant. Positivism will lead to a teleological zeitgeist of the contemporary; moment, of Progressive relative positive state of Universal Happiness
thanks a lot for the Hegel part. I found some of the ideas are not unfamiliar to Taoism students. the paradox view of the the world, habit (no opposition ) is the first sign of decline., always in flux and changes.. and so on.
Was Hegel a determinist? And the imperfect having the perfect within itself sounds like the buddha-nature in all life forms. (in my humble undestanding)
bits and pieces "get better" for subsequent experiencers. wish fulfillment may be gratified....all a hopefully delightful story. how real is time....? carry on.
BTW have you read this book by Leonard F. Wheat Hegel's Undiscovered Thesis-Antithesis-Synthesis Dialectics_ What Only Marx and Tillich Understood !!? He tried to demystifying the famous triad wether Hegel said it or not.
The eyes of the world, the moving spirit of the world look upon every generations, the only question is will our example set about the worlds of tomorrow?
How is Hegel's concept of Spirit different from the Vedic concept of Spirit called "parabrahma". The journey seems to be the same through lower conscious to the upper most by overcoming its own obstacle. But most probably Hegel's Spirit is a unified concept for a race as a whole and once the spirit achieves its highest level, it dies down whereas Vedic spirit is individualistic in nature where after attaining the highest level , it gets assimilated into the universal spirit...I may be horribly wrong in understsnding though...
When I was in community college I was (without knowing it) very much a Hegelian. I saw history as unfolding in ever more progressive ways. Now I see that societies are by no means guaranteed to evolve their consciousness and that stagnation is a very real threat. Synthesis is not always attained. Then again, I suppose Hegel would say that stagnation would lead to the society's collapse and something new would spring up to replace it 🤔
The intrinsic law of progress is called entropy. Humans build things that make their lives easier, governments use force to take these processes over and run them less effectively due to less customer input.
Nature finds a way to balance itself and in that could be found some way to justify calling a group of people important. Even the methods by which a person could conceptualize a world in which a spirit runs through it as a method of self preservation is a part of that spirit and not separate from its running limitations. I think Hegel may have been influenced by the technological/philosophical curse and assuming too much about "spirits" the power by which people produce is much less an energy as much as a reaction to their proximity to surplus material. However important a group may be importance does not mean whole, only a larger piece of a greater understanding of the underlying ocean of knowledge we sip from once in awhile.
What I think is we have moved past Hegel philosophically, but not culturally. Not yet. Teleology? Maybe not, but possibility? Sure. Harder to talk about that when you don't all have a common goal or history, but maybe a common problem is enough to get us talking.
why do people keep talking about thesis anthitesis and synthesis while explaining hegel? it could at least use some contextualization on who coined these terms and what they actually mean vs what hegel dialectics really are
Hi there! Hegel discusses this most fully in The Phenomenology of Spirit, as well as in a number of places. Since this video is background for Hegel's philosophy of history, it's a somewhat different project. For Hegel, personal development is never really separate from historical consciousness, but you're right to point out that that doesn't mean the two can't be considered in distinct projects (which is what Hegel does).
@@OverthinkPodcastPhilosophy Yeah Hegel goes pretty crazy in using the dialectics of progressive compromise for morals as well as historical progress. Weve seen dialectic materialism come into fruition but there is untapped potential of Hegelian dialectics in terms of fully grasping hermetics, alchemy, Jungian, Lacanian, and Freudian psychology as well as points of synthesis between various fields, such as historical development being immediately perceived by the personal subject and its mapping of personal self actualization to historical actualization in the persons lived experience, as the culmination of history as Spirits comprehension of itself is equivalent to an individual bringing about/ participating in its change
Thank you ! Big ideas compressed into so little time . Not easy! Recently l listened to a documentary where Russell trashes Hegel. Saying he was a Hegelian but now find it rubbish, the oneness of the universe ( Absolute) is ridiculous .( l think because it has theists mono suggestion he is all over it ) . I will argue for Hegel here by given existential examples of spirit through individual(s) can move the universe and in fact create history! The Beatles from his native homeland in fact did so along with Bob Dylan . They ( not by conscious intent as l feel Marx is guilty of ) moved a entire generation . Changing views , fashion, sexual openness , economy and responses to wars and politics) Of course like history does it dissolved into other forms of music and art after the sixties but it’s spirit remains as fuel to the engine . They were not academic philosophers but carried many philosophical concepts through the spirit of modern man . Needless to say with tension of the opposites .
How...does spirit reflect on itself? In order for that to occur...there must be something that is not spirit. Meaning...that spirit and 'nature' must be somehow differentiated. And somehow...out of this differentiation...something that is not spirit creates in spirit the capacity to 'reflect'. To see itself from a point of view that is not itself.
Minute 1: 17 "Like the way that an oak tree starts off as a seed and it has everything that it needs in order to develop, right? Under the right conditions. But we can't say that the seed itself is already the oak tree, right? It is the oak tree implicitly. " Let's replace the words "oak tree" with "baby" and "seed" with "fetus" to see how this concept applies to when does a human life begin. " Like the way that a baby starts off as a fetus and it has everything that it needs in order to develop, right? Under the right conditions. But we can't say that the fetus itself is already the baby, right? It is the baby implicitly. " Implicit is defined as: understood though not directly stated or expressed: IMPLIED; also : POTENTIAL So the fetus is understood to be a baby even if it is not directly stated that it is a baby. A fetus is implied to be a baby. A fetus, if it is allowed under the right conditions to grow, has the potential to be a baby. A fetus does not have the potential to be an oak tree.
Is there a relationship between volksgeist and a kind of collective consciousness? And if so, what role does media play in the development? Massive influence no? 🤔
Well, I suggest there is Hegel, and there is what people think Hegel was, and the two are often quite distant from each other. It seems like he went out of his way to describe the idea that culture through history operates as a bit of a pendulum, with movements becoming in and out of fashion and that of course, they cause reactions in the process, in a way overblown and obtuse manner. It did take me a while to graps the concept at least in part because of that. And of course, the misrepresentation of his dialectic for 180 years, particularly by Marx and followers over the meaning and context of progressive. Ultimately, the underlying concept in my mind is analgous to the tree made stronger when it is exposed to the wind. As to the direction of the synthesis being forward, I'm not sure I can agree with that. It is change, but change is not always progress. Whether it is growth depends on the interpretation of those invovled. The other question is who and how progression - and whether it is forward, is defined.
I think all people have a role to play. Predicting which ones will reign Supreme for a while and which will facilitate that supremacy would be best guessed by a sociological analysis group, and I wouldn't bank on their results. Hegels idea of the future being "better" or more advanced, I can see from the basic arrow of time. The future is where we will become better than what we are, even if we get a bit worse on the way. Even if only one person, with knowledge of some philosophy and sociology, were to survive an apocalyptic event, and has some manner of influence on the survivors, the future would be something new and different, and "better" might be one way to define it. It is kind of hard to believe that humanity can go back to something. It would be probabilisticly impossible without a time machine. It sounds like Hegel is highly rational. From watching your two videos on Hegel, he seems quite unbias. Even thinking that Europe was the tool of the World Spirit probably wasn't wrong. Does he indicate a Moral Good that is the utopian goal of society and humanity? I remember you said something about Monarchy, but is this just Hegel's plausible explained end to becoming better? Or is it a unrationalized belief?
Its easier to see civilization and its technology evolve toward improvement /perfection than culture and politics. We have modern infrastructure that includes nuclear power plants, the internet and cutting edge gene therapy for example but at the same time we still have many examples of authoritarian/autocratic governments that brutally repress their people's freedoms and liberties. The latter has been true for centuries. I would say to Hegel that human nature and spirit are intertwined. Therefore, are there limits to how much can spirit can realize itself if human nature doesn't ever change?
If you believe Hegel was a philosopher rather than a lunatic try reading his essay On the Orbits of the Planets. The funniest part is where he says that if observations conflict with his theories then the observations should be rejected! Yeah, right.
In The End of day, Philosopher is A Radical Person With Radical Thinking. It's Almost Like A Religion. They Belief What They Think. If You Think Hegel Is A Lunatic Person Than You Should Learn About Diogenes😂
Hegel seems not just Eurocentric but also Christo-centric. The whole diaclectic and thesis-antithesis-synthesis is just Christian hegemony repackaged with some Greek philosophical overlay and turned into supposedly universal notions. The urge to always be in conflict and of course thinking that 'god'/"right" is always on the side of the good folks (Eurocentric/Germancentric/Christocentric) is great for trying to wish away the blot on humanity that Christian hegemony had been even by the time of Hegel and certainly only moreso since then.
Hegel just understood the positive sum logic of the "AND" function! It's our job to implement this logic in our own lives! We don't need "God" or "the west"! 🤩
The problem is: Which history? Or, which end or teleology will transform the self-conscious into universality? History, by it's very nature, is exclusive and inclusive. The history of Colorado excludes most of the history of New York City but includes the history of Denver and Boulder. This seems like a huge problem for Hegelians.
Very illuminating. You did something virtually unfound on UA-cam: explaining Hegel without oversimplifying or taking a decade to explain a paragraph. Well done!
she is fricking proffesor of philosophy. who are you to judge her? i guess you thought she was some teenager talking randomly on hegel, lol.
@@kocahmet1 I think you're being a bit defensive. Certain professors are better than others.
@@kocahmet1 I would be hard pressed to find a philosophy professor in my university’s faculty who can distill a topic as complex as Hegelian dialectic as lucidly and comprehensively as this. Meaning, it’s valid to commend her on it, because her skill is literally exceptional
Lex Fridman had on his podcast the foremost philosophy professor in the Western world (an Australian gentleman, I forget his name), and he became visibly angry that people apply "thesis, antithesis, synthesis" to Hegel's ideas. The professor said Hegel never used this terminology. Instead he rambled on about the "unity" of events, and that there were no temporal constraints on "spirit" (ie, he said you have "a tree, a wooden table, and a pile of ashes" -- together). This is why people generally dislike philosophy-- the specialists in it try to make it as obtuse and illogical as possible. Except for this channel-- where she makes ideas more concrete, and quite smartly cites the page numbers.
@@Borat_Kazakh Spot on!
I wholeheartedly appreciate your work. Your presence on UA-cam is much needed. Keep it up.
This is by far the best explanation of hegels dialectics. Congratulations!
Although, in the same line as Frederick Beiser, I'm not that fond of the representation of the triadic form as a schemata of "thesis-antithesis-synthesis", even though this form of thinking dialectics is much more approachable.
I have been attempting to tie together Hegel from many secondary sources and this video succeeded in doing what many others could not. Thanks
Thanks!
By far the most simplistic explanation of this extremely confounding subject! Goal achieved!
You actually grasp these concepts of philosophy which is impressive given the state of UA-cam.
I once saw a video about Kant by a philosophy UA-camr and it only contributed to my misanthropy.
Haha thank you! Dr. Anderson has a PhD in Philosophy from Emory, which has an excellent continental philosophy program, and teaches these concepts regularly to college students.
Jokes on us for not realizing that by naming the podcast"Overthink" y'all actually skip over the thinking that true philosophy demands@@OverthinkPodcastPhilosophy
@@OverthinkPodcastPhilosophy Lmao! Are you kidding? Idk if this is a satirical indictment of Emorys philosophy program...either way, this is the least creative form of anti-Hegelianism.
Hegel was absolutely original in his thinking. This is my beset reference on Hegel in UA-cam
I like that this channel doesn't try to say, welp, there you go, after this 5 minute youtube video you can add Hegel to your list of philosophers you get and please click on the next one to add Socrates to your collection, rather it just hosts some concisely illuminating discussion that makes no claims to being a replacement for reading the actual works.
Nails it on self-estrangement! Few do. Well referenced.
I love this channel and the podcast, very enlightening. And well articulated. I've learned a lot. Appreciate the depth of ideas.
I think you're brilliant.
Very nice.
Well presented.
Especially liked that spirit section.
I could connect with Hegel to some extent, with regard to the stages of the spirit..
A pleasure to listen to this eloquence of explanation of stuffs that so elude the mind.
So impressed. Thank you!
6:00 makes me think of mixing watercolors. Considering the combination of one or more pigments resulting in not only a cancellation of the former two, but a preservation of each in the resultant hue.
Not sure if that works but it’s the thought this inspires, perhaps if someone sees something lacking in that observation they might help me see what that is.
It’s good, and while not a reader of Hegel, the one thing that popped in my head was that that metaphor only allows adding of colors, not taking away of colors. If you look at markets in capitalism, the only way the market tends to solve problems naturally is by adding things, never taking away.
I just graduated from a great books program at Dharma Realm Buddhist University, a small university in Ukiah, CA. We study texts from a wide range of traditions - Western, Chinese, Indian, Buddhist etc. This channel would have been very helpful when reading some of the more difficult texts I studied like Hegel or Husserl! You explain things very clearly. It would be great if you could come visit our university some day and give a lecture.
PS One suggestion would be to include more direct quotes from the text to exemplify your point, and including them in the video so viewers can read along.
Thank you so much for this video, I studied a bit of Hegel and I found him very interesting, but I was so unsatisfied with the amount of understanding I got, so this was super helpful.
An outstanding elucidation of becoming and the self consciousness of Spirit.
Thank you for the fantastic and illuminating discussion! You asked for comments regarding the teleology apparent in World Spirit Actualization. In idealist biology and in cosmology in general there is a principle of principles: all order is an emergent structure supervening on random fluctuations in a field of chaos. Contemporary idealist biology will take this cosmological meta-principle and with a four-dimensional perspective understand the development of a structure through time not in any one instance at a time but as the whole spacetime world line/trajectory and read the emergent properties, since supervening on initializing conditions, as not only a consequence but also as cause for the development of the four-dimensional structure through time and space. This feat is accomplished typically via the idealist self-assertion that all relationships in a four-dimensional spacetime are intrinsic relationships [basically just ignoring Russell et al. at the turn of the 20th century.] Thus all parts of the whole contain the whole in some sense. In Buddhist thought, the doctrine of Dependent Origination might accomplish the same conceptual feat. I do not know if this perspective counts as teleological in the strict Aristotlean sense but it appears to have a parallel structure. The idea missing from this perspective is the Universal Particular. Is that a pun? Irony? just nonsense? Time will tell. Much love!
Great explanation. Concise, works well. The first 2 minutes of the talk are so, so good that they do not lapse into the simple example "thesis-antithesis-synthesis": this is, as you mention, an example of alienation and substation in the concept. I really loved it.
EDIT: I meant sublation, not substation.
When you did the Master/Servant example of Hegel's dialectic, I could see that as a metaphor for the modern view of the development of consciousness. In this video, you seem to be describing the development of consciousness in relation to an understanding of history that is built in layers, not on the ashes of previous times, more on the bones. In this he was very perceptive. As a materialist, I don't see 'spirit' as something metaphysical, but more as a 'universal consciousness' or... zeitgeist. Of course, from our perspective in the 21st century, we can see how white, male and Eurocentric Hegel's thinking was and also take a dim view of his teleology. Well, I speak for myself anyway.
I just discovered you and David. This video was the first I watched of Dr. Ellie. It’s a great presentation. I checked your other productions and Overthink. I still like this one best 😊. (Just a little fan feedback 👍. Keep being good!
Firstly ,Thank you !
what jumped out at me was my earlier reading of a philosophical disagreement between Wittgenstein and Turing about a mathematical issue of contradiction . Turing took a platonic view insisting that contradiction can never be in a math equation or else the whole thing would collapse , . Wittgenstein argued contradictions can be a valuable part of the equation adding no bridge has not yet fallen because of a contradiction in the equation . The article though is quite long but i could not help but thing of Hegel upon reading of Wittgenstein argument against Turing .
Also i upon listening to this could see Kierkegaard see how his dislike for Hegel is reflected in his three stages of transformation ( final as Leap of faith ) opposed to Hegel three stages of Spirit . Thanks in advance for reading .
Please correct me, but I seem to remember that it was Fichte who first put forth the notion of thesis running into an antithesis until there is synthesis. I've always loved this as it applies to art - and I know Hegel had a lot to say about art, too! But you see the rigid structures of classicism give way to "anything goes" romanticism in music, painting, poetry, and so on.
Anyway, it's been a while since I was in a philosophy class, but... As I understand it, while Hegel all but intended this meaning, it was Fichte who first put it so baldly. If that does happen to be correct, was Hegel in agreement? How did he react? (Questions I should have asked back in college...)
It was Fichte, yes. Hegel never said it (and she admits he didn't), even if it is commonly misattributed to him (in fact, the one time he DID mention it, he actually complained about it in Kant).
Hegel's actual dialectic was more like Idea-Negation-Concrete.
Yes you're correct, I've taken a course on anti-liberalism where we went over the works of Fichte and Schiller. I find it interesting that classicism relies heavily on harmony considering its apparent juxtaposition with romanticism. The thesis-antithesis-synthesis concept is quite relevant when describing the harmonious appearance of romantic ideals.
Are you godsent? I believe you are because you just made my day!!!! I’m in tears, thank you
Está é uma super Professora.Linda inteligente e com um grande conhecimento e didática perfeita.
You are a legend at explaining
I dont agree with the notion pressented in the abslute sense of what he ment
But he does serm to offer some good points about ideas in general
This is quite an impressive, succinct overview of Hegel. I have to say, given Hegel's legacy, I would never had thought to bring W E B Du Bois in conversation with Hegel. What a remarkable, and ironic, achievement - simultaneously bring to mind Hegel's Master/ "Servant" dialectic from another of your essays. I found myself chuckling from the implications of the marriage of these two thinkers.
Hegel's notion of Spirit being "estranged" from itself reveals much about the inner workings of Hegel. There seems something torturous about Hegel's thinking and the ramifications of his ideas. I believe that you embodied this in the delivery of this essay, as you often subverted your eye contact with the camera during key moments while discussing his ideas. This is something that does not happen as nearly as much with your delivery of the ideas of other philosophers. I think we all suspect that no matter how insightful Hegel can be, there is something behind it that doesn't feel quite right - and yet his ideas seem to serve as the foundation for much of how the West has come to view the world.
Very well elucidated. Please 🙏 also make a series of videos on Western Political Thought.
Interesting explanation. This leads me to various questions:
So, like the seed and the tree, would it be more useful to refer to distinct movements and states of "spirit" by distinct names? The seed is described as being the tree "implicitly," but a seed is not a tree. If the seed is itself the tree how can it want to be something other than it already is, and what would there be to actualize that isn't already actualized? There might be an infinite regress problem with a method of continually naming particulars, though that is what we do. As a lacking utility, I find this to make what was explained here ambiguous and difficult to conceptualize.
Also, the tree analogy is limited (as all analogies are) in that a tree is part of a process of events that we humans recognize as having utility for ourselves. We determine that the fully grown tree is the end goal, but is it? Why? What purpose does a tree have? Why does our human attention to that state of the tree cycle, in a greater system of energy processes, necessitate a teleological end of anything? And how does that relate to perfection? Likewise, what does the relative movements of human preference in social systems entail about a necessary "end" state of "perfection"?
Are you suggesting a distinction similar to Being vs Becoming? In the sense that the seed and the trees are both distinct beings create a field of tension characterized by progressive becoming. The becoming is an unactualized being which creates progress through this unresolved tension.
The way I see it, the seed is a tree but the tree isn't a seed. The seed's existence relies on the existence of the tree because its utility is inherent to its particular naming. While they are polar opposites creating a field of tension, this tension is resolved progressively because the tree holds inherent power over the seed. The seed can become a tree while the tree cannot become a seed.
I don't disagree with your other suggestions and questions. However, I think Hegel's dialectic philosophy might be restricted to modernity as history is a conceptually modern idea. Modernity is synonymous with the belief in progress, especially in its material form. This is itself a relative preference that may rely on time and place. Not sure if this would be consistent with Hegel's thought however.
Going back to the "naming" question, wouldn't you say that virtually any meaning behind a name is tied to a specific utility within a particular context? For instance, if we live in a time and a place where agriculture is necessary, the existence of the seed's utility is dependent on the utility of the tree. Of course we can all disagree about the tree's utility in the first place, but we cannot un-see the seed if we understand its particular utility.
Now, I think this may be dependent on modernity. For instance, an indigenous society in North America may see the tree as embodying a cyclical process and this can be a good allegory to explain their societal structure. I think Hegel's point is that the state binds us to a universal spirit. Consciousness is achieved through the understanding that the tree's utility universalizes the 'becoming' of the seed and guides it in a particular direction.
@@julienguyon2232 But the tree does become a seed; it becomes numerous seeds. It is the becoming of numerous seeds, and numerous other trees, and it is not the sole becoming as it is just one _perceived_ segment (so, conceptualized segment) of the entirety of all. I'm pointing out that the apparent utility is based on a concept of perspective that is a particular human framing. You said the seed becomes a tree but a tree doesn't become a seed, and I see that as a mere consequence of how you frame what you are observing. How is the seed not dependent on the tree in the same way the tree is dependent on the seed? The seed does not become without the tree, and the tree does not become without the seed. And neither become the conceptually segmented process of energy movement without the prior and concurrent movements from which it became becomes.
_Now_ this barely touches on the further concepts of framing with respect to our limited view of the environment and components of both the tree, the seed, and everything in and around that conceptualized segmentation. When we talk about a tree, we talk about a collection of components, but we aren't actually referring to every component, typically. There's much more to a tree than we ever refer to when we talk about trees, and in different moments we talk about different sets of components relative to our needs in those instances. The concept of the tree is a utility for a purpose, such as in warning someone that a tree is about to fall, which only refers to certain characteristics of the tree. Or, when pointing to a tree for someone to collect fruit from it, we aren't referring to the inner bark of the tree, the molecular composition of the leaves of the tree, the state of subatomic particles in and around the tree and how they correspond to any of the other matter in the rest of the universe. We see and frame a particular thing as is our utility for what we can even see of it.
So, to answer your question directly, yes, I do see naming mechanisms, all of semiotics, as _being_ of utility. I can't even imagine how it could be any other way.
That's said, I want to bring this back to the final point of my comment, which was the assertion of an "end" state of "perfection." What could that even mean? How is the tree dependent on the seed anymore than the seed is dependent on the tree? What would make one state and "end" over another, if an end is even coherent to claim here, and what would make one state any more perfect or any less perfect than another?
@@cloudoftime Thanks for the thoughtful reply. I don't think I disagree with any of what you said actually!!
I didn't mean to imply that the tree's perfection is absolute in its material appearance. Of course it is composed of an infinite plurality of parts which can be individualized independently.
Perhaps my response here will just prove your point and indicate a misunderstanding on my part because I assumed that what you are claiming here was consistent with Hegel.
As I agree with your claim on semiotics being utility-driven, I completely agree with your utility claims about trees. However, I would extend the analogy further. The tension between the tree and the seed exists because the tree requires the development of the seed for its existence. The utility of the seed is dependent on the utility of the tree. The seed stops being a seed when it is absorbed by the utility of the tree. I see this absorption as the teleological end of this dynamic where the tension is broken by the overbearing power of the dominant concept/utility.
The tree may have multiple outlined purposes or utilities making it a tree but the seed's ultimate utility is dependent on its potential to be a tree. I think the idea of potentiality is essential to any form of historicism.
That being said, the seed ought to be placed in tension with other concepts indicating its perfection in other contexts. For instance, seeds that have utility without being absorbed by a more powerful utility, like seeds which can be consumed as they are. I think the seed in this context is complete and perfect.
THANK YOU Madam. Your lectures are both simple and intelligent, deep but easily understandable. Can you expand the list to include more continental philosophers, esp. Husserl, Sartre and Camus.
It would be great to see a video on Murray Bookchin's evolution of Hegelian philosophy and Marxist thinking.
thank you so much for this video..you make it easier for a 1st timer at philosophy.. bless you for it.
Is it possible to post a separate video on the optimism of Hegel.. a very short one, just like the one you posted on the pessimism of Schopenhauer??
Thank you - in advance - if you even fathom the idea..
2:14 - this just sounds like self actualization or self-awareness
nice with references to the text. it would be nice if youtbe had a tool to refer to texts within videos
10:00 yes! DuBois had a point! Autistic and "queer" people have grown up in a world that was designed to be meaningless for us, so we created meaning out of this meaninglessness! And this made us realize that meaning is what's important! And we create our own meaning through seeking meaning in our daily activities! I think that gives us a role to play in this exciting/scary future we're barreling into! 😳
This progressive "law" of the universe is simply positive sum (2x2 matrix) logic! The logic of the truth table, the Punnett square, the prisoner's dilemma, and quantum entanglement! It's why the revolution is inevitable! 😅🤪
I must study your brain for science
I don't remember if you said what you were reading. What was the book that you were reading from? Because from the passages you quoted, I get a semi different interpretation from what you saw from the work.
Derrida had the best way to think of Aufhebung. It could be translated by relever, to both excise and write over
Excellent. Please make a video on Karl Marx as young Hegelian.
My first thought listening to this explanation of the dialectic, discussing the "collapse" of the antithesis, sublating into a new relationship, called to mind the big bang - if you think of the "spirit" as the mover/force of the universe (perhaps "God" to a believer in God), can the "collapse" of the thesis and anthesis of this Spirit account for the moment before the big bang, when the entire universe collapsed into a singularity, immediately to sublate into a new and higher structure?
In my view, Hegel's Spirit can also be called "The Universal Mind" or the FORCE ( as in movie Star War). According to Asian mysticism, this physical world, or the world of matter, is created by splitting the Universal Substance into two polarities -- yin and yang. The interaction of the two polarities is the process for the self-reflection of the Spirit. One of the example of yin/yang polarities is male/female. The yin/yang division was implemented into the bio-chemical processes in the physical bodies. But at the core, there is no division of gender. A harmony can be achieved in a family unit when male and female find a balance through periodic union. The same logic can be extended to a tribe or a country -- the balancing and union of polarized energies. However, it is not so simple in actual implementation in the "real world".
Sounds a lot like Leibniz's _entelechy_ as well
“Periodic union” from a terror managment theory and survival psychology lens, a lot of cultural practices even if imperfect Engadge us in that periodic union, I doubt it’s an accident that a lot of holidays occur around winter time when sad depression goes up. Oxytocin also decreases cortisol. And that’s like stress free bonding that is a binding hormone. I like the way you said using yang and periodic movement as I’ve often seen it through a sort of nihilistic cultural practices that always felt they don’t justify themselves. Though at same time I guess that just means I wasn’t feeling they gave me what I needed. But at same time trauma treatment has titration and pendulation tactics in its treatment too. There is that Alan what’s schtuck about life as music and the notes of music in the present, there is also another video she did where she talked I think about sort of hyper squirrel like jumping between things always occupied with something and how that leads to burnout, vs a sort of superior contemplative immersive attention that takes things as they come and sits with them and is able to immersivly contemplate them. This is sort of a polyvagal state where one can face the self and its opposition of it self. Instead of fight flight attatch cry for help freeze and shutdown states, but in more a self connected and potentially other connected state. It seems to merge ideas of sensory awarness that we see often in mindfulness, and sensory integration movement work, It seems in many ways that things like immersive contemplative flow-awaremindfulness and reflexivity guided thesis - an this is - synthesis of the self and others. Thus jumps around a bit but it seems that there need be a sort of spirituality based off of the type of attention and cognition we Engadge in
What great fun! I shall look for other examples of this gal's work ... watched it after watching (part of) an execrable vid --'Hegel in 90 Minutes' -- a couple of days ago, & it gives me intellectual hope for the human race -- as the human race sublates itself thru art, religion, & philosophy into Absolute Spirit, of course!
Hegel's science and logic are the pinnacle of philosophical thought and the pinnacle of dialectical development. However, Hegel built his work on an idealist basis, which existed in science at that time, because materialism was still weak and it was not yet dialectical. But after the publication of 'Science of Logic' by Hegel, Feuerbach wrote a book called 'The Essence of Christianity' and convinced Marx and Engels (who adhered to idealist dialectics) that materialism was the true doctrine, not idealism, and they turned and became materialists. They developed both Hegel's dialectic and Feuerbach's materialism. They created dialectical materialism, followed by the creation of historical materialism by Marx and Engels, they applied dialectics to the study of society. Although Hegel's work is idealistic, when it comes to dialectics, this work starts with pure being - this is the most materialist beginning, being is primary, and then all other categories are derived from pure being.
Notes: thesis + antitheses = synthesis where it retains the old at a higher structural level. , sublation, preservation and negation. (It’s like mixing up core deconstructed structure and turning dials up and down with EQ) The imperfect state is to be grasped as having the perfect within it. Social systems have a place in history, but come and go, but play a role, the thing that brings about the decline of growth of people is habit or activity without opposition( essentially 1 dimensional man). The way Hegel says world sprit gets actualized through individual people, it makes sense that it happens that way but it happens through social processes and needs and also a sort of self rationalization of needs with social material political-natural-economy. I think if it in terms of systems of how they build things up and also how they function, which understanding that systems evolve to maintain themselves in a politica.legal-psycho social economic system. That the psychological and social is just as important as the legal political economy. The evolve together. And if they evolve together then those who can impact and amplify scale their influence the most regulates it. Power works through any skill activity or medium that scales. If those individuals never scale their skills and speak and develop it, and view on system etc. I then the self regulation of it dosent changes in a centralized way. There can be room for ideas to diffuse through in decentralized way though to really grow they need mechanism to become aware of themselves eventually. It’s why revolutions occur in budding viral waves throughout history instead of all at once. They gradually become aware of each other.
Hegel's arche seems to be strife from just looking at the dialectic.
It also seems like he was trying to explain the Logos and Divine Providence aka the Telos of Logos in Enlightenment terms, but the difference or error would be thinking that strife (thesis antithesis synthesis) is what moves/allows the Trinity to be Triune in multiplicity yet of the same essence when it is Love (the third person aka the holy spirit). This might have had alot to do with Martin Luther's doctrine of the enslaved will (Hegel was a Lutheran) which ultimately albeit unwittingly introduces evil into the trinity and negates the Logos.
I would also like to supplement my previous comment by saying that in Hegel's science and logic, it is important to derive categories, and many people have problems with this. There are also problems with understanding these categories, for example, it may not be clear the first time, for example: what is Pure Being? Or Pure Nothing? What is becoming, present being, and so on. Although if you read Hegel thoughtfully, returning again and again to the beginning, then understanding comes, and if you study Marx's capital, you will see the use of dialectics in Marx's capital and will be able to fully master capital, since the dialectical method is applied in it.
I find myself agreeing with much of Hegel's philosophy while at the same time frustrated by the my perception that he overcomplicates fairly straightforward concepts. To those directly familiar with Hegel's writings, do you find them unnecessarily complicated or necessarily complex to express his ideas clearly? Part of me is trying to decide if it's worth the time and effort to dissect his writings to gain a direct understanding of his ideas or whether I can gain just as clear an understanding of his philosophy through a Hegelian philosopher who is better able to express the same ideas more succinctly.
She is vocalizing my stoned thoughts
I'm in love with philosophy I think ❤️❤️❤️👏
It's a very vague notion but I see a similarity between Hegel's "habit" and Sartre's "bad faith". Both cases are an example of letting go of ambition, drive or will, and replacing it of some sort of "laziness", for a lack of better word. It's like the Geist having a moral opposition, a certain counter-force. I am a beginner in philosophy, so forgive me if I am far off the tracks. But the resemblance has struck me here.
Thanks for sharing, it is so educational
9:01 I see this appropriation less in a colonialist sense and more in the theological Christian sense which Hegel was extremely prone to.
Is some pressing pause and play as you speak and be filmed?
"The highest achievement of Spirit is ultimately to know itself." Hegel was the first to understand this, and it is therefore through Hegel that Spirit first became self-conscious. I.e., the final goal of human history... what it all has been leading up to... is... wait for it... Hegel!
great work prof
you explain it the best
Moishe Postone points out that Marx uses so much Hegelian language at the beginning of Capital because one of the more subtle parts of his own argument is that Hegel's conception of the spirit is valid, but only for capitalism, wherein the "Spirit" is actually capital. In other words, while Hegel believes all of human history to be teleological, Marx believes that only capitalism has a determinate, teleological history. Personally I think Marx's view (as described by Postone) is more tenable, and has more empirical backing. Postone uses the example of industrialized western countries since the 1970's. In virtually all of these countries, regardless of government, particular national histories, etc. we have seen an erosion of the welfare state (to varying degrees) and a weakening of trade unions. This points to a force operating on a super-national level, which is of course capital. The demands of capital at this particular point in time realized themselves as what we commonly know as "neo-liberalism," a term that refers not to an intellectual/political cause of these developments, but merely an a posteriori intellectual justification.
Quite agree. Heidegger as the spiritual progression of Kant. Positivism will lead to a teleological zeitgeist of the contemporary; moment, of Progressive relative positive state of Universal Happiness
thanks a lot for the Hegel part. I found some of the ideas are not unfamiliar to Taoism students. the paradox view of the the world, habit (no opposition ) is the first sign of decline., always in flux and changes.. and so on.
This has always reminded of virtue ethics, where the end result of dialectical logic is always a virtuous golden mean.
Was Hegel a determinist?
And the imperfect having the perfect within itself sounds like the buddha-nature in all life forms.
(in my humble undestanding)
bits and pieces "get better" for subsequent experiencers. wish fulfillment may be gratified....all a hopefully delightful story. how real is time....? carry on.
BTW have you read this book by Leonard F. Wheat Hegel's Undiscovered Thesis-Antithesis-Synthesis Dialectics_ What Only Marx and Tillich Understood !!? He tried to demystifying the famous triad wether Hegel said it or not.
you are amazing. brilliant.
What is the "spirit"?
thanks, good one
The eyes of the world, the moving spirit of the world look upon every generations, the only question is will our example set about the worlds of tomorrow?
How is Hegel's concept of Spirit different from the Vedic concept of Spirit called "parabrahma". The journey seems to be the same through lower conscious to the upper most by overcoming its own obstacle. But most probably Hegel's Spirit is a unified concept for a race as a whole and once the spirit achieves its highest level, it dies down whereas Vedic spirit is individualistic in nature where after attaining the highest level , it gets assimilated into the universal spirit...I may be horribly wrong in understsnding though...
When I was in community college I was (without knowing it) very much a Hegelian. I saw history as unfolding in ever more progressive ways. Now I see that societies are by no means guaranteed to evolve their consciousness and that stagnation is a very real threat. Synthesis is not always attained. Then again, I suppose Hegel would say that stagnation would lead to the society's collapse and something new would spring up to replace it 🤔
Thank you
The intrinsic law of progress is called entropy. Humans build things that make their lives easier, governments use force to take these processes over and run them less effectively due to less customer input.
Nature finds a way to balance itself and in that could be found some way to justify calling a group of people important. Even the methods by which a person could conceptualize a world in which a spirit runs through it as a method of self preservation is a part of that spirit and not separate from its running limitations. I think Hegel may have been influenced by the technological/philosophical curse and assuming too much about "spirits" the power by which people produce is much less an energy as much as a reaction to their proximity to surplus material. However important a group may be importance does not mean whole, only a larger piece of a greater understanding of the underlying ocean of knowledge we sip from once in awhile.
What I think is we have moved past Hegel philosophically, but not culturally. Not yet.
Teleology? Maybe not, but possibility? Sure. Harder to talk about that when you don't all have a common goal or history, but maybe a common problem is enough to get us talking.
Is life just death according to Hegel?
why do people keep talking about thesis anthitesis and synthesis while explaining hegel? it could at least use some contextualization on who coined these terms and what they actually mean vs what hegel dialectics really are
@Xaviar 77versus99 ikr? I think it looks more like a kantian dialectic
Abstraction - Negation - Concretion (by sublation)
Hegelian development in solely personal development should be considered
Hi there! Hegel discusses this most fully in The Phenomenology of Spirit, as well as in a number of places. Since this video is background for Hegel's philosophy of history, it's a somewhat different project. For Hegel, personal development is never really separate from historical consciousness, but you're right to point out that that doesn't mean the two can't be considered in distinct projects (which is what Hegel does).
@@OverthinkPodcastPhilosophy Yeah Hegel goes pretty crazy in using the dialectics of progressive compromise for morals as well as historical progress. Weve seen dialectic materialism come into fruition but there is untapped potential of Hegelian dialectics in terms of fully grasping hermetics, alchemy, Jungian, Lacanian, and Freudian psychology as well as points of synthesis between various fields, such as historical development being immediately perceived by the personal subject and its mapping of personal self actualization to historical actualization in the persons lived experience, as the culmination of history as Spirits comprehension of itself is equivalent to an individual bringing about/ participating in its change
you are genious❤
Genius.
Phenomenal.
James Lindsay, in his work, Race Marxism, also links W.E.B. Dubois, as well as Herbert Marcuse as belong to the Hegelian genealogical chain.
Thank you ! Big ideas compressed into so little time . Not easy!
Recently l listened to a documentary where Russell trashes Hegel. Saying he was a Hegelian but now find it rubbish, the oneness of the universe ( Absolute) is ridiculous .( l think because it has theists mono suggestion he is all over it ) .
I will argue for Hegel here by given existential examples of spirit through individual(s) can move the universe and in fact create history!
The Beatles from his native homeland in fact did so along with Bob Dylan . They ( not by conscious intent as l feel Marx is guilty of ) moved a entire generation . Changing views , fashion, sexual openness , economy and responses to wars and politics)
Of course like history does it dissolved into other forms of music and art after the sixties but it’s spirit remains as fuel to the engine .
They were not academic philosophers but carried many philosophical concepts through the spirit of modern man .
Needless to say with tension of the opposites .
Hegel seems like a person who would see a swarm of starlings and see the swarm which is merely an emergent phenomenon as a fundamental one.
How...does spirit reflect on itself? In order for that to occur...there must be something that is not spirit. Meaning...that spirit and 'nature' must be somehow differentiated. And somehow...out of this differentiation...something that is not spirit creates in spirit the capacity to 'reflect'. To see itself from a point of view that is not itself.
Minute 1: 17 "Like the way that an oak tree starts off as a seed and it has everything that it needs in order to develop, right? Under the right conditions. But we can't say that the seed itself is already the oak tree, right? It is the oak tree implicitly. "
Let's replace the words "oak tree" with "baby" and "seed" with "fetus" to see how this concept applies to when does a human life begin.
" Like the way that a baby starts off as a fetus and it has everything that it needs in order to develop, right? Under the right conditions. But we can't say that the fetus itself is already the baby, right? It is the baby implicitly. "
Implicit is defined as: understood though not directly stated or expressed: IMPLIED; also : POTENTIAL
So the fetus is understood to be a baby even if it is not directly stated that it is a baby. A fetus is implied to be a baby. A fetus, if it is allowed under the right conditions to grow, has the potential to be a baby. A fetus does not have the potential to be an oak tree.
1:34 -we think a like
Is there a relationship between volksgeist and a kind of collective consciousness? And if so, what role does media play in the development? Massive influence no? 🤔
Well, I suggest there is Hegel, and there is what people think Hegel was, and the two are often quite distant from each other. It seems like he went out of his way to describe the idea that culture through history operates as a bit of a pendulum, with movements becoming in and out of fashion and that of course, they cause reactions in the process, in a way overblown and obtuse manner. It did take me a while to graps the concept at least in part because of that. And of course, the misrepresentation of his dialectic for 180 years, particularly by Marx and followers over the meaning and context of progressive.
Ultimately, the underlying concept in my mind is analgous to the tree made stronger when it is exposed to the wind. As to the direction of the synthesis being forward, I'm not sure I can agree with that. It is change, but change is not always progress. Whether it is growth depends on the interpretation of those invovled.
The other question is who and how progression - and whether it is forward, is defined.
I think all people have a role to play. Predicting which ones will reign Supreme for a while and which will facilitate that supremacy would be best guessed by a sociological analysis group, and I wouldn't bank on their results. Hegels idea of the future being "better" or more advanced, I can see from the basic arrow of time. The future is where we will become better than what we are, even if we get a bit worse on the way. Even if only one person, with knowledge of some philosophy and sociology, were to survive an apocalyptic event, and has some manner of influence on the survivors, the future would be something new and different, and "better" might be one way to define it. It is kind of hard to believe that humanity can go back to something. It would be probabilisticly impossible without a time machine. It sounds like Hegel is highly rational. From watching your two videos on Hegel, he seems quite unbias. Even thinking that Europe was the tool of the World Spirit probably wasn't wrong. Does he indicate a Moral Good that is the utopian goal of society and humanity? I remember you said something about Monarchy, but is this just Hegel's plausible explained end to becoming better? Or is it a unrationalized belief?
Problem reaction solution?
This is how John Dewey will construe the dialectic
Its easier to see civilization and its technology evolve toward improvement /perfection than culture and politics. We have modern infrastructure that includes nuclear power plants, the internet and cutting edge gene therapy for example but at the same time we still have many examples of authoritarian/autocratic governments that brutally repress their people's freedoms and liberties. The latter has been true for centuries. I would say to Hegel that human nature and spirit are intertwined. Therefore, are there limits to how much can spirit can realize itself if human nature doesn't ever change?
but what is spirit
At last I have some idea what sublate means!
Thank you for doing the impossible, sister.
Tranks 👏🏾👏🏾👏🏾👏🏾
Nicely done! So it appears Hegel was an optimist. How dialectic.
If you believe Hegel was a philosopher rather than a lunatic try reading his essay On the Orbits of the Planets. The funniest part is where he says that if observations conflict with his theories then the observations should be rejected! Yeah, right.
In The End of day, Philosopher is A Radical Person With Radical Thinking. It's Almost Like A Religion. They Belief What They Think.
If You Think Hegel Is A Lunatic Person Than You Should Learn About Diogenes😂
Hegel seems not just Eurocentric but also Christo-centric. The whole diaclectic and thesis-antithesis-synthesis is just Christian hegemony repackaged with some Greek philosophical overlay and turned into supposedly universal notions. The urge to always be in conflict and of course thinking that 'god'/"right" is always on the side of the good folks (Eurocentric/Germancentric/Christocentric) is great for trying to wish away the blot on humanity that Christian hegemony had been even by the time of Hegel and certainly only moreso since then.
Hegel just understood the positive sum logic of the "AND" function! It's our job to implement this logic in our own lives! We don't need "God" or "the west"! 🤩
The problem is: Which history? Or, which end or teleology will transform the self-conscious into universality? History, by it's very nature, is exclusive and inclusive. The history of Colorado excludes most of the history of New York City but includes the history of Denver and Boulder. This seems like a huge problem for Hegelians.
🙏
isnt hegel main philosophy iminent critique? hegel writes teribbly im confused which is whic, isnt dialectic philosophy brought up by fitche?