I don't want to sound pretentious, but that's an unnecessary clarification, everyone watching this is a fan of philosophy and understands that Marx was influenced by Hegel.
I'm taking Philosophy when school starts back up! These videos have really given Me a great head start. Thanks, Sparky, and all of the people who work on 8-bit philosophy!
Is it? Consider how much progress rationality has had in the last 200 odd years - Science, technology, space-faring, medical ability, democrat rule, just laws, less war (he just got out of the Napoleonic Wars).
Jozef Lewitzky I have a vague recollection of once reading a quote by some 19th century (IIRC) man, saying something like "[some fairly large fraction] of all infants die. That's just nature." Looking back, that comes off as very pessimistic outlook. Still, if things had turned out just a little different in the Cuban missile crisis or the 1983 Soviet nuclear false alarm incident, all that progress could easily have seemed a lot less impressive.
Jozef Lewitzky And yet for all that progress we still let people starve to death right under our noses, we still fill our lives with excess we can not use and do not need, and there are actually more wars happening now than in the last 100 years. Mankind's technology may have progressed but technology does not equal a civilized or humane society.
Jozef Lewitzky There has not been true piece since the beginning of WW II. Also there is no democracy in any so called democratic nations. There is just money. Capitalism is the world order. Laws are just on paper, and some are not even just. So, no, I don't think history is ever going to end by achieving perfect harmony. History, as I see it, is cyclic. And as Sherlock Holmes said "The wheel turns. Nothing is ever new".
To be fair, Francis Fukuyama once said, at the end of the Cold War, that "History was over." Fukuyama had factored in the possible rise of fundamentalism (as with 9/11), but such conflict only brought up the older lack of freedoms available in the countries that produced terrorism, thus the larger goal that Hegel believe, Fukuyama felt, ahd been reached. Fukuyama, however, recanted his view when he considered the possibility of transhumanism. If Humanity was to evolve to a higher level of existence, whether cybernetic, biologically superior, or even beyond more four dimensional constraints, new thoughts and dieas will come.
So true. When they teach philosophy they pour so much water into it that it is hard to get the main point. Here it is stated and explained clearly with funny video.
Then either your philosophy classes suck or you didn't pay attention. While these videos are great to give a general idea of certain philosophies, they are undercomplex
The logical and the supposedly desired end game would be world peace thus reaching a no-history period, were all people are truly enlightened beings capable of being civil in the true sense of the world. And yet it seems to me that the purpose of all life is struggle, to overcome the obstacles presented by the world and within us. What we should in fact consider is how meaningful/possible is life without struggle.
This reminds me of the Underground Man's rant in the first part of Dostoevsky's Notes From the Underground. The Underground Man ridicules the idea that humanity is always moving towards greater rationality, and quite contrary to Hegel, he argues that this development would not bring about a state of perfect freedom, but a state of no freedom at all. If there is always a clear, known best and most rational choice, people are not free unless they are irrational and knowingly act against their own best interests now and again. I find myself agreeing with the Underground Man here. If one only ever took the most rationally sound option, one would not be free, and even if the rationally "best" option is supposedly clear, people will not always take it, because humans are not fully rational.
You are spot on here: Existentialism, of which Dostoevsky's writings are considered a part, makes exact this criticism and is one of two major movements spawned in opposition to Hegel (the other is Marxism).
Many choices are not amenable to rationality. Should you get chocolate or vanilla? Should you become a banker or an artist? Should you love Jessica or Jennifer?
TheMagicRat933 Mmmm your analysis of the underground man is kind of on point, however we are not meant to agree with the underground man. Dostoevsky's anti-hero does not tell us we must we must consider the irrational and unknowing to make rational decisions. Instead, the underground man cripples himself because he becomes unable to make any decision with all the perspectives and possibilities he considers. The paradox is, as Dostoevsky puts it, that the need to consider every possibility to make a rational decision becomes impossible because we will simply become inert and unable to decide. This is the underground man's true flaw. For all his knowledge he remains unable to make any sort of decision at all, locking himself in a room and simply ranting away.Hegel's theory doesn't quite fully combat this, but while Dostoevsky provides us with a seemingly unsolvable paradox, Hegel attempts to provide us with an answer. Guess that's the simple difference and why its hard to compare the two :/
SasakiKojiro7 But I think Dostoevsky's whole oeuvre seems to hint at his thesis that human existence is in itself a seemingly unsolvable paradox (which is funny, as to a cynic it's your only safe bet: it's Socratic in it's claim not to know); as we become more technologically advanced and mentally subtle (a similar concept to Hegel's positivist faith in reason and our evolution) all that achieves is rootlessness (this relates to the question of turning our backs on the traditions of our family, of religion) and a resultant ennui, an essentially negative and existential question. He brings together positivism and existentialism as an inner conflict, in 'simple' terms (lol). The paradox is evident in the underground man, we agree and empathize with him even if we know he is a 'negative incarnation' of Dostoevsky's various characterizations. It raises an interesting question; antithesis (or turning ones back on an existing order) to Dostoevsky exemplified through such characters as Ivan and the underground man is in itself the act of 'becoming modern, worldly', in Hegel's eyes this was progress. But these characters to Dostoevsky are always tormented and in many ways the most paradoxical. They are the ones whose lives end in suicide and isolation. This happened through the rejection of the common man, the rejection of the pagan, earthy order of life. Maybe if we know we cannot solve the question in a total sense (which undoubtedly leads to totalitarianism and the building of the Tower of Babel) then we should engage in life with account for our small part in a wider stage.. But I've gone off topic from Hegel. He feels relevant here in a marginal sense..
The example at 0:49 was misleading because the "challenger" does not just take over the "establishment". The two clash and *Synthesize* into a *new* idea. Thesis^n + Antithesis = Synthesis (i.e., Thesis^n+1) Then, repeat until Hegel's "end" arrives at Thesis^x. The progression of the World Spirit is fulfilled when it recognizes itself in its entirety, thus coming to completion. History - as a sequence of events - follows a similar path to Hegel's World Spirit in that when nations expand, collide, and fall, what rises is (usually) a progressive state ready to be challenged by new conflict and (hopefully) advanced in the process.
I just realized that the title screens all have the same composition in each episode, just done in the style of that game. I always thought it was meant to be a copyright avoidance, until I actually noticed they share the same notes.
History doesn't require conflict to continue, it is a record of events, be they conflicts, discoveries, art, anything worth recording will be recorded by someone and then it shall become history, and history shall continue so long as there are those who pass it on and people for it to be passed on to.
This video might be 8-bit but the majority of the comments here are at least 16-bit or 32-bit. To inspire people to think and to have civil discourse is why I love thug notes. Can't wait to see the next episode professor!!!
Lars P That brings up the whole "freedom from choice" but there so many variables, as merely sitting stationary interacts with the atoms of the universe.
Something people seem to misunderstand when arguing about classic philosophy (and the relativity there of) is that humanity basically created the machine of infinite wisdom, some thing old philosophers never could have thought to be possible. Information and communication are some of the key principles of society, and with it philosophy.
Although a true 8bit philosophy fan, the example (in 1:39) should not refer to violence, once more conscient the man becomes, the less violent he will be.
I first learned about Hegelian dialectics from Fallout: New Vegas. Now 8-Bit Philosophy's expanding on it for me. Thanks, video games! You make me smarter.
Question, can history regress then? I'm thinking that because we place so much importance on money nowadays, some are more free than others? (or am i confusing this?)
This video questions if self-awareness leads to rationality and to freedom which is the end goal that causes an environment to stop changing. no more change=no more history self-awareness- Plato`s symposium rationality- Kierkegaard`s views on rationality where truth lies in subjectivity freedom- Sartre on freedom and choice They stated that " as time progresses we become more self-conscious therefore more rational and therefore more free ", but from other theories we see that all of these are subjective or non-existent. Mind to elaborate?
History has nothing to do with human freedom... History is everything that has happened up to this point, not just conflict sometimes leading to freedom
The last guy is Marx, in case anyone didn't know. Can Hesiod's ages not be interpreted as an early historicist theory? Perhaps it can be even interpreted in terms of the Hegelian dialectic - although the central concept appears to be the moral problem (and moral dilemmata in general) and the underlying process being a gradual dissolution of 'virtue'.
This effectively describes a utopian society in which no change is necessary, as all is in peace and prosperity. However, a utopian society is perpetually unattainable, therefore denying the fact that history will end.
Even if one society was perfect, wouldn't it still be at risk to a society who sees war as an aspect of their perfect society and thus destroying the perfect society, only to be rebuilt in more conflict? Is the end of history assumed permanent ?
Hegel was an euro-centric thinker. Euro-centric thinkiers had this strange notion that the whole world was evolving in the same direction as them or would follow suit accordingly, simply because they would be amaze by the wonders their society had achieved. Kant had a similar idea about liberal democracies and an international society of liberal nations : eventually, each nation would become a liberal democracy to join the fray because they would see that liberalism was the superior way to go.
I haven't read Hegel, so this is just speculation, but I assume "The end of History" isn't something that would happen society by society, it's something that would be worldwide. If there was ever a possibility of getting invaded by another society, then the World Spirit wouldn't have achieved perfection, and the ideology of the two societies would become the warring ideologies.
there is no way to answer this question; even if you lived until the end, the end is the end, including the end of you. thus you would never know whether there was a new beginning, after the end.
(Thinking out loud) The ideas of The World Spirit and The Ultimate Freedom seem to me like the type of cultural unity and uniformaty that would be seen in all corners of the globe during a civilisation of Type 1 on the Kardashev Scale. Whether or not that will be 'the end of history' depends on how far we reach in to the cosmos, whether or not we encounter civilisations with differing structures to ours and whether or not that invites conflict...
The way Freedom is tossed around I'm compelled to bring up a trait of Good vs Evil. Without interference from the other, good will become tyrannical in it's protection, and evil will destroy itself. A lack of change creates boredom and stagnation, which will slowly erode the perfection of whatever society ends history. Additionally, any impenetrable defense is merely a puzzle that has not yet been solved by your enemies, and to suggest that history can be ended by removing the concept of enemy is to remove the concept of freedom, and thus, good turns into evil just that simply.
music is so annoying... please get rid of it... i don't know why you put so loud music to make this video torturous for viewers., though it had great content!
An end of history would be possible only with eugenics: the majority of the population can't became rational, they can only regurgitate propaganda. Mass Information has as an effect only a slight increase of the percentage of rational people, or perhaps, rational people become more informed. As someone pointed out earlier, history is cyclical; the whole population becomes more wealthy during a 1000 year cycle and as everyone can afford food and shelter, big projects from the glorious beginning of a civilization like colonialism or the space age are abandoned in order to secure the basics for everyone. This is a civilization who abandons glory and heroism for security and equality thus ending itself.
Wow this is exactly what I've been thinking up on my own...so does that make me an influental figure too? If there were to truly be a rational society, history as we know it would indeed come to an end. Why use cigarettes if you get rotten organs? Why fight if you get hurt? Why oppose others when you can listen and share ideas to come to a compromise? Why wear clothes when they are permanently changing your body? Why shave your genitals and head when they are the most important hairs on your body? Why get tattoos when it will hurt and forever scar your natural body? Why get piercings and earrings when they get in your way and reduce your abilities? Why be against genetic engineering if it can one day be 100% safe in small doses? Why not use a treadmill while using laptops to stay in shape? Why not believe in the possibility of telekinesis through a superbrain while dogs already have a proven supernose? Why cut down trees when you can try to domesticate them and co-exist, similar to dogs? Why shun a man for crying at a funeral when it is the first cry he has in a decade? Why be against video games when some of them are proven to make you smarter? Why not play the guitar, the piano and juggle from a young age when they make you Einstein levels of smart? Why be against giving humans wings when they will allow us to be faster than any car and still work out? Why? Mostly because most are ignorant. Including me. What? There's always more to learn! - via YouPak(.com)
Wait help me understand this: So if we reach that perfect level of freedom/rational thinking in the video then history is complete just philosophically speaking? I mean wouldn't current events still count as their history, thus making it never ending so long as there are beings to make a note of it? Or am I missing the point entirely? lol. Anyone want to help me out? I hate not getting it lol.
I'll try to explain it as simply as I can without butchering it too much. Something that is capital 'P' perfect would arguably never change, correct? If it's perfect, it it doesn't need to improve anymore, and if Hegel is correct that history is recording humanity as it is improving towards a perfected state, then what further function does history serve once that state has been reached? Think about how a progress bar works. It shows you a visual representation of how close to finishing a task you or your computer/phone/whatever is. As further progress is made, the bar changes. Namely, it gets bigger. But what happens when it reached 100%? It means the task is done. After this, what do you do with the progress bar? If you're installing a program onto your PC, obviously you will want to close the bar and start actually using your program, right? If you were working towards an achievement in one of your games, you keep it around to look at later. You wouldn't say the progress bar itself actually does anything after this point, would you? Even if it is still there in some sense? Hegel is trying answer the question of what "History" actually is, and his answer, the "dialectic", could be thought of as a progress bar. When it's in progress, it is immensely useful to observe and gauge how close you are to the goal. When it's full, there obviously isn't any progress left to make OR record, right? No event in a perfectly free society would ever warrant committing to history, because no event in a perfectly free society would ever change anything about it! If you try to think really hard about this idea and get really confused by it, that's good. It means your brain is functioning! Perfection is an extremely hard concept to pin down and explain in a way that makes rational sense. I hope I've helped clarify Hegel's idea a little bit. However, it's perfectly possible I have it way wrong! I haven't yet read through a complete work of Hegel's (continental philosophers scare me!), but I've tried to read up at least a little bit on Hegel's dialectic. Cheers.
Samuel Alba I think the difficultly in grasping the issue comes from the modern idea of history as being something like "Things that caused the stuff that happened that made the other thing happen with a bunch of people and then you're there now." Hegel's take is interesting. I like the idea of all of humanity working towards a goal of living in harmony. I don't think the Sum of all known events supports that theory, though.
History cannot end. The context that is raised is based only upon the human experience. But there was a lot of history before man came along, and quite probably there will be a lot after he's gone.
You define History differently from Hegel. History ends, according to Hegel, the day mankind achieves its freedom (for him it was his days). But humanity will continue to exist.
History is cyclical. Cultures rise, get fat and lazy, then decline, reacting to what came before. I'd recommend reading The Fourth Turning, by William Strauss for an examination of historical cycles that's America-centered.
I agree but we start to see through the cycles.. and we stop playing along with them, we try new things. At some point we will see through the whole game which is what is called enlightenment.
pkingo1 Doubtful, unless you can find a way to control human nature (and by the time that's happened, we're no longer human and become something else.) Technology and cultural changes might delay a step in the cycle of history or make it take a convoluted path, but most people think and react on an instinctive level. Most people's brains today are trying to work with a 250,000 year old operating system--a system which causes them to make irrational decisions based on their emotions and evolutionary programming. (Most of said programming was written back when we lived in caves, when physical strength/provisioning ability determined which men would have the most reproductive access to women and which traits would get passed on.) Civilization and technology can change the way we live, but it can't change our hard-wired instincts, many of which, unfortunately, prompt us to destroy the very things that make us prosperous, once we've been prosperous for awhile.
theproplady The problem isn't lack of control.. it's the opposite - lack of trust. We feel human instincts will run us crashing into the ground if we take our hands of the wheel. We fear others intentions (i.e. nature's intentions) and put up walls and become ignorant. And we don't see the cycle of ignorance, hate & greed this fear creates. If we instead acted out of a deep trust and love. You'd love the world and then there is love in the world and there is hope for humanity. You can break the cycle, but only in yourself.
theproplady Yes someone who sort of understands! Also, you say we would no longer be human, but what's wrong with that? If you look back far enough there were no humans.
It's a good thing Hagel never heard of the Mouse Utopia experiment... Utopia or the end of history situation causes a ton of problems, and an eventual collapse in society.
What about Hegel's refusal of Kant's idea of perpetual peace? Doesn't Hegel tell us that from time to time the radical negativity of the subject will upsurge?
I notice the comments towards these videos are generally negative toward the philosopher. Everyone seems to want to prove them wrong. I don't think that attitude should be taken, but rather, accept that it's just an idea and use it to expand your own knowledge.
I agree with everything everything except for the free part. Its a bit more complicated because of things like adapting, natural selection, cultural influence, and conflict of ideals.
History isn't a rational process, it's just a story. Humans aren't rational creatures, we are just creatures. Thrust into a world of uncertainty, forced to fend for anyone you hold dear, ended with no happy cause. If there was a dictatorship at the dawn of civilization, there would have been a revolution. Then, like theproplady says, the former revolutionaries now Rex Mundi fall to the next revolution because like the video says it is a process toward Liberty. It's in the name of Liberty yes, but Liberty is on some unknowable shore reached only with a epic amount of meditation (I'm a buddhist so I'm biased on how Liberty is reached and I apologize for that). The Rex Mundi, whatever their fashionable mortal sins are, all oppress someone or some idea. Usually the idea of a better world because a better world would mean change and change happens always. Again I'm a buddhist so change always happens. If there were to be a perpetual state of harmony and bliss it would be only in the wet dreams of people trapped in test tubes for the whole of their lives. Let's assume the utopia state is reached. How much resources are left? Can we conjure matter out of zero point fields? How long does it last until some smart asshole says "Hey we're low on [cultural maguffin] over here! We need yours!" The Rex Mundi react. Rations. Curfews. Chemical shed executions. War. Back at square one. History is just a story saying what valiant hero killed what titanic monster and when the hero became a monster of his/her own making.
Thank you very much for posting this, it is intriguing and seems similar to what I have believed. However, I find the belief that humans only move towards advancing the world spirit to be vain optimism, since many civilizations have collapsed and been replaced by many smaller, weaker ones. Like the Roman, Babylonian, and Egyptian civilizations.
Everybody can only be free if everybody has enough personal resources to not desire additional resources. Since that will never happen, no, there will never be an end to history unless of course humanity ends.
When Hegel said that the end of history would be a totally free society, did he mean that humanity would live in a sort of anarchist-like state without laws? Or is he using a different definition of freedom?
Hegel didn't believe that freedom could be said to exist outside the state (law and order) in a "state of nature." his ideal state was one of rational laws and a constitutional monarchy,
interesting i could ask Hegel but well i take you instead :D wouldn't the most ideal state have to be something like a Technocracy ? I mean if everything (like in the video) is based on rational decisions...
Prometheus Hegel, I'm assuming, would probably say that a constitutional monarchy is the most rational form of government. There are some pros of constitutional monarchy. The monarch is trained (usually from birth) on how to run a country properly, whereas a democratically-elected leader need not have any training; just a superficial popularity.
I dunno about Hegel, but if we talk Marx (Who perfected Hegel's theories), then yes, it can only be achieved in a stateless society without classes or private property of the means of production.
Since a culture is constantly changing there will always be people that will not believe they are free, and therefore not be free. Also, complete rationality cannot be freedom because you are bound by rationality only and cannot escape.
the problem with Hegel is that he, like many 19th century philosophers assumed that reason is universal. That is only one form of logic that all peoples will eventually grasp given enough time and education. Unfortunately all reason is based on a series of unfounded unprovable assumptions or biases that are ingrained in us from birth by our culture and our parents. These assumptions are neither right nor wrong but are the basis from which we prove what is right or wrong and they differ widely from society to society. Both communists and capitalists are rational individuals who have logically analyzed the world. But since the communist assumes that the good of society comes before the good of the individual and the capitalist assumes the good of the individual comes before the good of society the two will inevitably clash. One may triumph and other may fail but that only means that one side had access to greater resources not that the other side was irrational.
I hate how filosophists distort the meaning of words. History is not the advance of culture through conflict. The New Horizon's probe reaching pluto IS history, and there was no conflict there.
Well philosophers just think, there will always be a missing spot in every theory. I agree on your point. This does not even consider art, which makes big history.
but if everyone is free, doesn´t that includes the freedom of ruling over everybody else, which would mean that no one esle was free? Also that would suggest, that there´s one right way of living and i don´t think that´s true
This is a pretty incorrect interpretation of Hegel. To focus on *one* issue: Hegel's 'end of history', and entire philosophical system - is retroactive: that's what the famous 'Owl of Minerva' in the preface of the Phil of Right means. There is no god-given goal which history follows, just a recollection to our own perspective. It's the similar to the fact that the universe was "destined" to create mankind: we exist... so the universe must be able to have humans in it. It's a logical deduction. It is entirely possible an asteroid or something could put a contingent end to us. He does not believe, nor does his system imply, any inescapable fates or destinies in the future, or that no more real change will occur after him. History (or real) is 'rational' only in this retroactive way. What has been called the 'end of history' is simply Hegel applying this logic to history to place his own philosophical contributions in a historical context. That's all. He makes this absolutely clear in the preface of the Philosophy of Right.
Hegel believes his life is occurring at the end of history (you can look it up). Given the sociopolitical environment he is living in, he thinks he is living at the end. It doesn't come up in this video, but he believes in the thesis - antithesis - synthesis process, and it has snowballed throughout certain high points in different cultures (he calls these high points in history/culture "zeitgeist"). The only problem is history doesn't end in Hegel's life. It just keeps going.
This reminds me of WW2 what Hitler did he was trying to erase certain History by not only killing off the Jewish people but their philosophy, Religion and arts by doing so he would have removed the memory of them as well. In a way to remove all traces of someone is to remove a part of history. Yes the generation that was around that time would remember and a few after if the story is passed down but without history refs, storytellers or books many new generation would forget or not even want to learn about it. Like how many kids today don't know what Dial up is, or how big cell phones were back in the day. Just wanted to talk about it
Communism is on the march. But why? Why are people who have lived awesome lives thanks to freedom and capitalism, now suddenly want to subjugate themselves and their neighbors?
Perhaps this idea goes for the development of a society and culture with unlimited, easy to access resources, but what happens in a real world where people get hungry and that "collective rationality" goes out the window?
When did history start? After the prehistory, when men started writing and stuff. So if everyone would stop writing, history would end. But that's probably too easy.
I really wish their were actual Hegelians in the comment section to clarify Hegel's nuance ideas. What's said in the video is not correct and the comments basing on that which is presented in the video are just furthering the problem.
for those who didn't recognize the guy at the end it was karl marx
No it wasn't, it was marxio
sure....
Apparently you haven't watched their video on Marxio.
i did i was just trying to sound mature:]
I don't want to sound pretentious, but that's an unnecessary clarification, everyone watching this is a fan of philosophy and understands that Marx was influenced by Hegel.
I love to see Fire Emblem is making an appearance here. Kudos, to Thug Notes. 8-Bit Philosophy is the next best thing to sliced bred.
I'm taking Philosophy when school starts back up! These videos have really given Me a great head start. Thanks, Sparky, and all of the people who work on 8-bit philosophy!
How absurdly optimistic Hegel sounds to us on the other side of the 20th century from him.
Is it? Consider how much progress rationality has had in the last 200 odd years - Science, technology, space-faring, medical ability, democrat rule, just laws, less war (he just got out of the Napoleonic Wars).
Jozef Lewitzky I have a vague recollection of once reading a quote by some 19th century (IIRC) man, saying something like "[some fairly large fraction] of all infants die. That's just nature."
Looking back, that comes off as very pessimistic outlook.
Still, if things had turned out just a little different in the Cuban missile crisis or the 1983 Soviet nuclear false alarm incident, all that progress could easily have seemed a lot less impressive.
Jozef Lewitzky And yet for all that progress we still let people starve to death right under our noses, we still fill our lives with excess we can not use and do not need, and there are actually more wars happening now than in the last 100 years. Mankind's technology may have progressed but technology does not equal a civilized or humane society.
Jozef Lewitzky There has not been true piece since the beginning of WW II. Also there is no democracy in any so called democratic nations. There is just money. Capitalism is the world order. Laws are just on paper, and some are not even just. So, no, I don't think history is ever going to end by achieving perfect harmony. History, as I see it, is cyclic. And as Sherlock Holmes said "The wheel turns. Nothing is ever new".
To be fair, Francis Fukuyama once said, at the end of the Cold War, that "History was over." Fukuyama had factored in the possible rise of fundamentalism (as with 9/11), but such conflict only brought up the older lack of freedoms available in the countries that produced terrorism, thus the larger goal that Hegel believe, Fukuyama felt, ahd been reached.
Fukuyama, however, recanted his view when he considered the possibility of transhumanism. If Humanity was to evolve to a higher level of existence, whether cybernetic, biologically superior, or even beyond more four dimensional constraints, new thoughts and dieas will come.
I love everything about this channel. Thank you.
These 8 episodes taught me more than two entire semesters of philosophy.
I have the exact same thought
So true. When they teach philosophy they pour so much water into it that it is hard to get the main point. Here it is stated and explained clearly with funny video.
Same here. Such a great show!
+GT6SuzukaTimeTrials This channel is hauntingly good.
Then either your philosophy classes suck or you didn't pay attention. While these videos are great to give a general idea of certain philosophies, they are undercomplex
The logical and the supposedly desired end game would be world peace thus reaching a no-history period, were all people are truly enlightened beings capable of being civil in the true sense of the world.
And yet it seems to me that the purpose of all life is struggle, to overcome the obstacles presented by the world and within us.
What we should in fact consider is how meaningful/possible is life without struggle.
This problem is why Nietzsche did not wish for the end of suffering.
This reminds me of the Underground Man's rant in the first part of Dostoevsky's Notes From the Underground. The Underground Man ridicules the idea that humanity is always moving towards greater rationality, and quite contrary to Hegel, he argues that this development would not bring about a state of perfect freedom, but a state of no freedom at all. If there is always a clear, known best and most rational choice, people are not free unless they are irrational and knowingly act against their own best interests now and again.
I find myself agreeing with the Underground Man here. If one only ever took the most rationally sound option, one would not be free, and even if the rationally "best" option is supposedly clear, people will not always take it, because humans are not fully rational.
You are spot on here: Existentialism, of which Dostoevsky's writings are considered a part, makes exact this criticism and is one of two major movements spawned in opposition to Hegel (the other is Marxism).
Damn. Nice point. I should read more Dostoevsky...
Many choices are not amenable to rationality. Should you get chocolate or vanilla? Should you become a banker or an artist? Should you love Jessica or Jennifer?
TheMagicRat933 Mmmm your analysis of the underground man is kind of on point, however we are not meant to agree with the underground man. Dostoevsky's anti-hero does not tell us we must we must consider the irrational and unknowing to make rational decisions. Instead, the underground man cripples himself because he becomes unable to make any decision with all the perspectives and possibilities he considers. The paradox is, as Dostoevsky puts it, that the need to consider every possibility to make a rational decision becomes impossible because we will simply become inert and unable to decide. This is the underground man's true flaw. For all his knowledge he remains unable to make any sort of decision at all, locking himself in a room and simply ranting away.Hegel's theory doesn't quite fully combat this, but while Dostoevsky provides us with a seemingly unsolvable paradox, Hegel attempts to provide us with an answer. Guess that's the simple difference and why its hard to compare the two :/
SasakiKojiro7 But I think Dostoevsky's whole oeuvre seems to hint at his thesis that human existence is in itself a seemingly unsolvable paradox (which is funny, as to a cynic it's your only safe bet: it's Socratic in it's claim not to know); as we become more technologically advanced and mentally subtle (a similar concept to Hegel's positivist faith in reason and our evolution) all that achieves is rootlessness (this relates to the question of turning our backs on the traditions of our family, of religion) and a resultant ennui, an essentially negative and existential question. He brings together positivism and existentialism as an inner conflict, in 'simple' terms (lol).
The paradox is evident in the underground man, we agree and empathize with him even if we know he is a 'negative incarnation' of Dostoevsky's various characterizations.
It raises an interesting question; antithesis (or turning ones back on an existing order) to Dostoevsky exemplified through such characters as Ivan and the underground man is in itself the act of 'becoming modern, worldly', in Hegel's eyes this was progress. But these characters to Dostoevsky are always tormented and in many ways the most paradoxical. They are the ones whose lives end in suicide and isolation. This happened through the rejection of the common man, the rejection of the pagan, earthy order of life. Maybe if we know we cannot solve the question in a total sense (which undoubtedly leads to totalitarianism and the building of the Tower of Babel) then we should engage in life with account for our small part in a wider stage.. But I've gone off topic from Hegel. He feels relevant here in a marginal sense..
This channel is sheer genius. The ability to adapt difficult subjects to relevant media with jokes. Thanks to all who work on this project!
These are so creative and a joy to watch and learn from. Thank you for making these and please make more!
The example at 0:49 was misleading because the "challenger" does not just take over the "establishment". The two clash and *Synthesize* into a *new* idea.
Thesis^n + Antithesis = Synthesis (i.e., Thesis^n+1)
Then, repeat until Hegel's "end" arrives at Thesis^x. The progression of the World Spirit is fulfilled when it recognizes itself in its entirety, thus coming to completion.
History - as a sequence of events - follows a similar path to Hegel's World Spirit in that when nations expand, collide, and fall, what rises is (usually) a progressive state ready to be challenged by new conflict and (hopefully) advanced in the process.
Were the overall visuals based off of Mario, final fantasy, Punch out and Fire emblem?
I just realized that the title screens all have the same composition in each episode, just done in the style of that game. I always thought it was meant to be a copyright avoidance, until I actually noticed they share the same notes.
A white bearded man producing a red star in the 19th century...
Sounds like Marx to me.
now I get it
Interesting theory! This channel always does great work, can't wait for the next episode.
Ooh, Fire Emblem Gaiden. Nice.
History doesn't require conflict to continue, it is a record of events, be they conflicts, discoveries, art, anything worth recording will be recorded by someone and then it shall become history, and history shall continue so long as there are those who pass it on and people for it to be passed on to.
This video might be 8-bit but the majority of the comments here are at least 16-bit or 32-bit. To inspire people to think and to have civil discourse is why I love thug notes. Can't wait to see the next episode professor!!!
Between Marxism and Neoconservatism, seems like Hegel has a lot to answer for. Or, in fairness to Hegel, "Lord, spare me from my disciples"
I don't think you defined Hegel's definition of freedom at all haha. A lot of people wouldn't consider his "freedom" free at all haha.
Lars P That brings up the whole "freedom from choice" but there so many variables, as merely sitting stationary interacts with the atoms of the universe.
but if history repeats itself, then there is no end, for it is a circle.
Something people seem to misunderstand when arguing about classic philosophy (and the relativity there of) is that humanity basically created the machine of infinite wisdom, some thing old philosophers never could have thought to be possible. Information and communication are some of the key principles of society, and with it philosophy.
"History never looks like history when you are living through it" -John W. Gardner
Although a true 8bit philosophy fan, the example (in 1:39) should not refer to violence, once more conscient the man becomes, the less violent he will be.
Yes! New episode!
Thanks for the lecture doc. Keep them coming!!
I first learned about Hegelian dialectics from Fallout: New Vegas. Now 8-Bit Philosophy's expanding on it for me.
Thanks, video games! You make me smarter.
This is so helpful for trying to understand Hegel!
Question, can history regress then? I'm thinking that because we place so much importance on money nowadays, some are more free than others? (or am i confusing this?)
Was playing fallout new vegas when Caesar starts quoting Hegal. This clears up a lot about what he was saying.
This video questions if self-awareness leads to rationality and to freedom which is the end goal that causes an environment to stop changing.
no more change=no more history
self-awareness- Plato`s symposium
rationality- Kierkegaard`s views on rationality where truth lies in subjectivity
freedom- Sartre on freedom and choice
They stated that " as time progresses we become more self-conscious therefore more rational and therefore more free ", but from other theories we see that all of these are subjective or non-existent.
Mind to elaborate?
Love these vids
Doing Karl Marx next is a must to this series, given the fact that he basically lifts up and throws down Hegel with his historical materialism.
2.01 in, the scene looks like it is out of Battle of Olympus, one of the best games I played as a nipper!
These Videos are great, thanks!
Yes!!!! Episode!!! Request Bryce Courtney's book, the power of one
1:11
Wow, the Reason clan really has a lot of Reason!
History has nothing to do with human freedom... History is everything that has happened up to this point, not just conflict sometimes leading to freedom
The last guy is Marx, in case anyone didn't know.
Can Hesiod's ages not be interpreted as an early historicist theory? Perhaps it can be even interpreted in terms of the Hegelian dialectic - although the central concept appears to be the moral problem (and moral dilemmata in general) and the underlying process being a gradual dissolution of 'virtue'.
This effectively describes a utopian society in which no change is necessary, as all is in peace and prosperity. However, a utopian society is perpetually unattainable, therefore denying the fact that history will end.
+45BigRich What makes you think that a utopian society is unattainable?
they should make an 8-bit philosophy compilation with all of them in one video.
And I'm here being the only one geeking out because they are using old (S)NES Fire Emblem Game Sprites xD
Even if one society was perfect, wouldn't it still be at risk to a society who sees war as an aspect of their perfect society and thus destroying the perfect society, only to be rebuilt in more conflict? Is the end of history assumed permanent ?
Hegel was an euro-centric thinker. Euro-centric thinkiers had this strange notion that the whole world was evolving in the same direction as them or would follow suit accordingly, simply because they would be amaze by the wonders their society had achieved. Kant had a similar idea about liberal democracies and an international society of liberal nations : eventually, each nation would become a liberal democracy to join the fray because they would see that liberalism was the superior way to go.
I haven't read Hegel, so this is just speculation, but I assume "The end of History" isn't something that would happen society by society, it's something that would be worldwide. If there was ever a possibility of getting invaded by another society, then the World Spirit wouldn't have achieved perfection, and the ideology of the two societies would become the warring ideologies.
Another great video
there is no way to answer this question; even if you lived until the end, the end is the end, including the end of you. thus you would never know whether there was a new beginning, after the end.
Great video! Who was the poet mentioned on the end? #cliffhanger
I suspected, but didn't know he was a poet :) Looking forward for a Super Marx World 8 bit philosophy video :D
***** I was really hoping for PokeMarx. Ah well. I hope they don't confuse his ideology with what the Bolsheviks practiced.
+Smitty werbanmanjensen Heavens forbid that.
(Thinking out loud) The ideas of The World Spirit and The Ultimate Freedom seem to me like the type of cultural unity and uniformaty that would be seen in all corners of the globe during a civilisation of Type 1 on the Kardashev Scale. Whether or not that will be 'the end of history' depends on how far we reach in to the cosmos, whether or not we encounter civilisations with differing structures to ours and whether or not that invites conflict...
The way Freedom is tossed around I'm compelled to bring up a trait of Good vs Evil. Without interference from the other, good will become tyrannical in it's protection, and evil will destroy itself. A lack of change creates boredom and stagnation, which will slowly erode the perfection of whatever society ends history. Additionally, any impenetrable defense is merely a puzzle that has not yet been solved by your enemies, and to suggest that history can be ended by removing the concept of enemy is to remove the concept of freedom, and thus, good turns into evil just that simply.
Damn Wisecrack why did you stop making these?!
music is so annoying... please get rid of it... i don't know why you put so loud music to make this video torturous for viewers., though it had great content!
An end of history would be possible only with eugenics: the majority of the population can't became rational, they can only regurgitate propaganda. Mass Information has as an effect only a slight increase of the percentage of rational people, or perhaps, rational people become more informed.
As someone pointed out earlier, history is cyclical; the whole population becomes more wealthy during a 1000 year cycle and as everyone can afford food and shelter, big projects from the glorious beginning of a civilization like colonialism or the space age are abandoned in order to secure the basics for everyone. This is a civilization who abandons glory and heroism for security and equality thus ending itself.
Very interesting, though it presupposes that revolution/change = progresses, which history itself shows is not always the case.
Yeah, he sounds like the was way too optimistic about conflict creating a more rational world order.
Wow this is exactly what I've been thinking up on my own...so does that make me an influental figure too? If there were to truly be a rational society, history as we know it would indeed come to an end. Why use cigarettes if you get rotten organs? Why fight if you get hurt? Why oppose others when you can listen and share ideas to come to a compromise? Why wear clothes when they are permanently changing your body? Why shave your genitals and head when they are the most important hairs on your body? Why get tattoos when it will hurt and forever scar your natural body? Why get piercings and earrings when they get in your way and reduce your abilities? Why be against genetic engineering if it can one day be 100% safe in small doses? Why not use a treadmill while using laptops to stay in shape? Why not believe in the possibility of telekinesis through a superbrain while dogs already have a proven supernose? Why cut down trees when you can try to domesticate them and co-exist, similar to dogs? Why shun a man for crying at a funeral when it is the first cry he has in a decade? Why be against video games when some of them are proven to make you smarter? Why not play the guitar, the piano and juggle from a young age when they make you Einstein levels of smart? Why be against giving humans wings when they will allow us to be faster than any car and still work out? Why? Mostly because most are ignorant. Including me. What? There's always more to learn!
- via YouPak(.com)
Wait help me understand this:
So if we reach that perfect level of freedom/rational thinking in the video then history is complete just philosophically speaking? I mean wouldn't current events still count as their history, thus making it never ending so long as there are beings to make a note of it?
Or am I missing the point entirely? lol. Anyone want to help me out? I hate not getting it lol.
I'll try to explain it as simply as I can without butchering it too much.
Something that is capital 'P' perfect would arguably never change, correct? If it's perfect, it it doesn't need to improve anymore, and if Hegel is correct that history is recording humanity as it is improving towards a perfected state, then what further function does history serve once that state has been reached?
Think about how a progress bar works. It shows you a visual representation of how close to finishing a task you or your computer/phone/whatever is. As further progress is made, the bar changes. Namely, it gets bigger. But what happens when it reached 100%? It means the task is done. After this, what do you do with the progress bar? If you're installing a program onto your PC, obviously you will want to close the bar and start actually using your program, right? If you were working towards an achievement in one of your games, you keep it around to look at later. You wouldn't say the progress bar itself actually does anything after this point, would you? Even if it is still there in some sense?
Hegel is trying answer the question of what "History" actually is, and his answer, the "dialectic", could be thought of as a progress bar. When it's in progress, it is immensely useful to observe and gauge how close you are to the goal. When it's full, there obviously isn't any progress left to make OR record, right? No event in a perfectly free society would ever warrant committing to history, because no event in a perfectly free society would ever change anything about it!
If you try to think really hard about this idea and get really confused by it, that's good. It means your brain is functioning! Perfection is an extremely hard concept to pin down and explain in a way that makes rational sense. I hope I've helped clarify Hegel's idea a little bit. However, it's perfectly possible I have it way wrong! I haven't yet read through a complete work of Hegel's (continental philosophers scare me!), but I've tried to read up at least a little bit on Hegel's dialectic.
Cheers.
Samuel Alba
Ah cool, thanks for all that! :)
Samuel Alba couldn't have made a greater example. Hope more people read your commebt
Samuel Alba comment*
Samuel Alba I think the difficultly in grasping the issue comes from the modern idea of history as being something like "Things that caused the stuff that happened that made the other thing happen with a bunch of people and then you're there now."
Hegel's take is interesting. I like the idea of all of humanity working towards a goal of living in harmony. I don't think the Sum of all known events supports that theory, though.
No idea why fire emblem gaiden was used as the example but god damn am I happy about it
It feels like that "end of history" would mean the end of free will.
History is driven by technology rather than conflict now.
History cannot end. The context that is raised is based only upon the human experience. But there was a lot of history before man came along, and quite probably there will be a lot after he's gone.
You define History differently from Hegel. History ends, according to Hegel, the day mankind achieves its freedom (for him it was his days). But humanity will continue to exist.
tigerspirit1917 History is the written record of events, so by definition it ends when we stop writing about changing events.
Any chance John Rawls/Amartya Sen are coming up? =)
History is cyclical. Cultures rise, get fat and lazy, then decline, reacting to what came before. I'd recommend reading The Fourth Turning, by William Strauss for an examination of historical cycles that's America-centered.
I agree but we start to see through the cycles.. and we stop playing along with them, we try new things. At some point we will see through the whole game which is what is called enlightenment.
pkingo1
Doubtful, unless you can find a way to control human nature (and by the time that's happened, we're no longer human and become something else.) Technology and cultural changes might delay a step in the cycle of history or make it take a convoluted path, but most people think and react on an instinctive level. Most people's brains today are trying to work with a 250,000 year old operating system--a system which causes them to make irrational decisions based on their emotions and evolutionary programming. (Most of said programming was written back when we lived in caves, when physical strength/provisioning ability determined which men would have the most reproductive access to women and which traits would get passed on.)
Civilization and technology can change the way we live, but it can't change our hard-wired instincts, many of which, unfortunately, prompt us to destroy the very things that make us prosperous, once we've been prosperous for awhile.
theproplady The problem isn't lack of control.. it's the opposite - lack of trust. We feel human instincts will run us crashing into the ground if we take our hands of the wheel. We fear others intentions (i.e. nature's intentions) and put up walls and become ignorant. And we don't see the cycle of ignorance, hate & greed this fear creates.
If we instead acted out of a deep trust and love. You'd love the world and then there is love in the world and there is hope for humanity. You can break the cycle, but only in yourself.
pkingo1 Well spoken. Hears to the historians.
theproplady Yes someone who sort of understands! Also, you say we would no longer be human, but what's wrong with that? If you look back far enough there were no humans.
This particular video is SUPER quiet
+Stryder Heap turn up the volume
When is this show no longer new, and when do we get to hear thug talk?
It's a good thing Hagel never heard of the Mouse Utopia experiment...
Utopia or the end of history situation causes a ton of problems, and an eventual collapse in society.
This series will be missed.
RIP 8 bit philosophy.
And can you do a summary of "brave new world" by Aldous huxley?
Is this Kegels the same guy with the groin exercises? If so, that would be neato.
who is the inspired poet?
What's the name of the game featured in this vid?
What about Hegel's refusal of Kant's idea of perpetual peace? Doesn't Hegel tell us that from time to time the radical negativity of the subject will upsurge?
I notice the comments towards these videos are generally negative toward the philosopher. Everyone seems to want to prove them wrong. I don't think that attitude should be taken, but rather, accept that it's just an idea and use it to expand your own knowledge.
Who is the poet mentioned at the end?
Society will never stop changing
Whoever animated this video must love fire emblem.
I agree with everything everything except for the free part. Its a bit more complicated because of things like adapting, natural selection, cultural influence, and conflict of ideals.
Great video.
History isn't a rational process, it's just a story. Humans aren't rational creatures, we are just creatures. Thrust into a world of uncertainty, forced to fend for anyone you hold dear, ended with no happy cause. If there was a dictatorship at the dawn of civilization, there would have been a revolution. Then, like theproplady says, the former revolutionaries now Rex Mundi fall to the next revolution because like the video says it is a process toward Liberty. It's in the name of Liberty yes, but Liberty is on some unknowable shore reached only with a epic amount of meditation (I'm a buddhist so I'm biased on how Liberty is reached and I apologize for that). The Rex Mundi, whatever their fashionable mortal sins are, all oppress someone or some idea. Usually the idea of a better world because a better world would mean change and change happens always. Again I'm a buddhist so change always happens. If there were to be a perpetual state of harmony and bliss it would be only in the wet dreams of people trapped in test tubes for the whole of their lives. Let's assume the utopia state is reached. How much resources are left? Can we conjure matter out of zero point fields? How long does it last until some smart asshole says "Hey we're low on [cultural maguffin] over here! We need yours!" The Rex Mundi react. Rations. Curfews. Chemical shed executions. War. Back at square one. History is just a story saying what valiant hero killed what titanic monster and when the hero became a monster of his/her own making.
Well this was less depressing than some of your videos.
Thank you very much for posting this, it is intriguing and seems similar to what I have believed. However, I find the belief that humans only move towards advancing the world spirit to be vain optimism, since many civilizations have collapsed and been replaced by many smaller, weaker ones. Like the Roman, Babylonian, and Egyptian civilizations.
What games are they showing?
Everybody can only be free if everybody has enough personal resources to not desire additional resources. Since that will never happen, no, there will never be an end to history unless of course humanity ends.
When Hegel said that the end of history would be a totally free society, did he mean that humanity would live in a sort of anarchist-like state without laws? Or is he using a different definition of freedom?
Hegel didn't believe that freedom could be said to exist outside the state (law and order) in a "state of nature." his ideal state was one of rational laws and a constitutional monarchy,
interesting i could ask Hegel but well i take you instead :D wouldn't the most ideal state have to be something like a Technocracy ? I mean if everything (like in the video) is based on rational decisions...
Prometheus Hegel, I'm assuming, would probably say that a constitutional monarchy is the most rational form of government.
There are some pros of constitutional monarchy. The monarch is trained (usually from birth) on how to run a country properly, whereas a democratically-elected leader need not have any training; just a superficial popularity.
I dunno about Hegel, but if we talk Marx (Who perfected Hegel's theories), then yes, it can only be achieved in a stateless society without classes or private property of the means of production.
Hegel's idea of a world without history sounds like the way Gene Roddenberry envisioned the future for the human race in Star Trek.
Good vid but music's too loud
Since a culture is constantly changing there will always be people that will not believe they are free, and therefore not be free. Also, complete rationality cannot be freedom because you are bound by rationality only and cannot escape.
what figure is he referring to in the end?
Yiwen Wu Marx.
the problem with Hegel is that he, like many 19th century philosophers assumed that reason is universal. That is only one form of logic that all peoples will eventually grasp given enough time and education.
Unfortunately all reason is based on a series of unfounded unprovable assumptions or biases that are ingrained in us from birth by our culture and our parents. These assumptions are neither right nor wrong but are the basis from which we prove what is right or wrong and they differ widely from society to society.
Both communists and capitalists are rational individuals who have logically analyzed the world. But since the communist assumes that the good of society comes before the good of the individual and the capitalist assumes the good of the individual comes before the good of society the two will inevitably clash. One may triumph and other may fail but that only means that one side had access to greater resources not that the other side was irrational.
I hate how filosophists distort the meaning of words. History is not the advance of culture through conflict. The New Horizon's probe reaching pluto IS history, and there was no conflict there.
+Joaquin Pirotto Yeah, philosophy is pretty fucking dumb in my opinion. It stopped being relevant a long time ago.
Well philosophers just think, there will always be a missing spot in every theory. I agree on your point. This does not even consider art, which makes big history.
but if everyone is free, doesn´t that includes the freedom of ruling over everybody else, which would mean that no one esle was free? Also that would suggest, that there´s one right way of living and i don´t think that´s true
This is a pretty incorrect interpretation of Hegel. To focus on *one* issue: Hegel's 'end of history', and entire philosophical system - is retroactive: that's what the famous 'Owl of Minerva' in the preface of the Phil of Right means. There is no god-given goal which history follows, just a recollection to our own perspective.
It's the similar to the fact that the universe was "destined" to create mankind: we exist... so the universe must be able to have humans in it. It's a logical deduction.
It is entirely possible an asteroid or something could put a contingent end to us. He does not believe, nor does his system imply, any inescapable fates or destinies in the future, or that no more real change will occur after him. History (or real) is 'rational' only in this retroactive way. What has been called the 'end of history' is simply Hegel applying this logic to history to place his own philosophical contributions in a historical context. That's all. He makes this absolutely clear in the preface of the Philosophy of Right.
Hegel believes his life is occurring at the end of history (you can look it up). Given the sociopolitical environment he is living in, he thinks he is living at the end. It doesn't come up in this video, but he believes in the thesis - antithesis - synthesis process, and it has snowballed throughout certain high points in different cultures (he calls these high points in history/culture "zeitgeist"). The only problem is history doesn't end in Hegel's life. It just keeps going.
it's like evolusionism, evrithing r progressive toward somthin
or, is there really a correlation between them?
This reminds me of WW2 what Hitler did he was trying to erase certain History by not only killing off the Jewish people but their philosophy, Religion and arts by doing so he would have removed the memory of them as well.
In a way to remove all traces of someone is to remove a part of history. Yes the generation that was around that time would remember and a few after if the story is passed down but without history refs, storytellers or books many new generation would forget or not even want to learn about it. Like how many kids today don't know what Dial up is, or how big cell phones were back in the day.
Just wanted to talk about it
Communism is on the march. But why? Why are people who have lived awesome lives thanks to freedom and capitalism, now suddenly want to subjugate themselves and their neighbors?
Perhaps this idea goes for the development of a society and culture with unlimited, easy to access resources, but what happens in a real world where people get hungry and that "collective rationality" goes out the window?
I love the reference to Marx at the end!
When did history start? After the prehistory, when men started writing and stuff. So if everyone would stop writing, history would end. But that's probably too easy.
What this rings is definitely true. True peace is practically impossible in the world we live in.
good stuff
I really wish their were actual Hegelians in the comment section to clarify Hegel's nuance ideas. What's said in the video is not correct and the comments basing on that which is presented in the video are just furthering the problem.
fire emblem is going to he so much better now