Amazing

Errr...

Nice

This was seriously helpful. Thank you!

19:30

This is great. Also the truth.

Dylan is Brilliant ❤

If there is an evolution of the self from what the self it is not (negation ), into a greater understanding of the self over time and experience. Then how would this concept be understood in a deterministic reality. If we assume reality to be the construct of God, then in a deterministic reality, the evolution of self is an act of God, or a mode of God, and therefore due to the grace of God. yes, no ?

Why is the vulgarian coughing over the microphone? It's most disturbing and ruining the video.

47:43 Fichte's I and non-I 50:35 Viciously circular 1:03:29 bookmark

22:24 Geist's universality is causally prior to their particularity 29:33 The tool depends on the user. 32:30 ..if philosophy did not prove and define its own categorical meaning... 34:15 The syllogism

Seems like a very white take on life.

Hegel is for believers!

The spirit of nature and the animal may refer to the same thing, but the absolute spirit of that age has evolved. On a second thought 14:19 I think that in naturalism that nature is the absolute spirit, or nature is how spirit changes throughout history. I have not read much of Hegel, but have done research. 18:47

Houlgate is 🔥

What a brilliant series! Thank you so much to Mr Houlgate for illuminating what seems to be one of the most difficult texts in the philosophical canon. This final discussion was a great finale, stepping back to get some perspective on Hegel's project as a whole. I was very much interested in the last point regarding time. The audience member made reference to Change as a point in which time seems to be alluded to, but there seem to be temporal aspects to the Science of Logic from the beginning. Becoming, vanishing, moments and process are all temporal metaphors. Could it be argued, for example, that the vanishing of indeterminate being presupposes time, and thus this thought is not truly presuppositionless? We might be able to think of indeterminate being while "holding time at bay", and it seems this being would not then vanish. Hegel could respond that this would be fixated thinking, not letting being 'hold sway' over us. But this might beg the question, as the principle of 'letting hold sway' seems to require time for us to be taken from one thought to another.

Great lecture

Truly a Hegelian move for Pippin to greenscreen his own office behind himself.

как всё печально

@2:30 Being in itself, Being for the other

@31:00 Determination and Constitution

> the ashes are what the ram intrinsically is. We are all born to be dust. Statements dreamed up by the utterly deranged. Anyway, while this is weird enough as is. I definitely don’t see how Christianity isn’t totally antithetical to this considering the whole promise of its eschatology is to be transformed into immortal spiritual bodies that are incorruptible in a pretty straightforward, non-Hegelian way. Oh well, not like I’d expect Hegel to express proper respect for the faith.

take a shot everytime he says "beginning" or "being"

Shame he just kind of sweeps the geometry stuff aside. I would’ve liked hearing the exegesis on that. Especially since it provides a pretty concrete example of what Hegel is talking about.

It’s not the first time it was mentioned but I’m not sure what guarantees philosophy is exoteric. How can one be sure one is not only capable of doing the logic because they have a special metaphysical that makes it possible. And people who don’t have it will just find the moves in the logic to be nonsense (I mean, personally, I can’t make sense of the original movement from being to nothing). I also feel like all of the talk about Kantian noumena is kind of premature. If I understood it right: being-for-other comes around because change implies a relation to an “outside” (the other). But this other is really just it’s own self, or rather, what it changes into. So, maybe there’s a demonstration as to how something is being-for-other-(that-is-the-other-it-changes-into). But I don’t see what necessitates that something is being-for-other-which-is-just-other-than-the-something-we-are-talking-about. Which is clearly what’s more relevant to the discussions of Kantian metaphysics as that’s the separation between us and noumena (at least as Kant assumes it).

Very helpful and, at the same time, incredibly naive. The Logic is so dense that it would take one's whole life to really generate (the illusion of) full understanding. This whole series, as nice as it is, does not even begin to approach this beast of a book. Badiou is right: this is Philosophy's equivalent to Joyce's Finnegans Wake.

Great lecture. If not for the restrictions of capitalism, I'd spend my existence studying Hegel (and do a little mountain biking).

"If I understand Hegel..." you say and then proceed to interpretate Hegel. However, it is not possible to understand someone who has not understood himself, unless you are a genius guided by the Divine Right. Freud calls science "Via Regia der Wissenschaft " Why is God a man, and not a woman? The difference between genius and madness consist in this: A madman perceives things, which are not, and makes connection between the none existent ... The genius also perceives things, which no one else perceives, but the perception of the genius is of things, which actually exist. In other words, genius perceives and grasps Nothingness, whereas others do not. The non-genius does not know that he does not exist, genius does.

Hoch interessant. Dennoch, Denken ist bloß Selbstalbernheit, weil cogito bloß Illusion ist... cogito ergo non sum...Hegel denkt nicht, weil er nicht lebt, also war nicht, nicht ist und wird nicht sein. Dieselbe gilt für den Leser... Wörte sind nicht Begriffe. Concept gibt es nur in Mathematik.

I'm at 10:26 of this, the scond lecture. Does he ever discuss the introduction or the two prefaces? Also, which translation is he using? I own a copy of the Miller.

I have to say I’m kind of skeptical that the connection between being and nothing is a two way street. The N->B transition makes enough sense. There is a determinacy to being indeterminate. Even totally indeterminate (though, to be honest, I don’t think I saw the connection to immediacy Houlgate talked about). But why does indeterminate being involve total indeterminacy? Especially since this pure thought/being is just a diet cogito. Isn’t it supposed to be a kindly of aimless thought thinking nothing but its own simple being? In other words, how is this simple, unspecific being, actually the thought of total unspecificity? Unless we basically define being “to be” nothing, I don’t see how the link is made. And that’s mostly a problem because then being would be merely equivocal to what has been described as the beginning for the Logic. Personally, as a self-conscious Eleatic, I'm not very surprised by this. Nothing cannot be thought, so obviously any "thought" of it will just be being-like. But Being has precisely that "auto-genetic," independent, stable character. Now, to be honest, the idea of having to posit and hold a real distinction between being and nothing, and affirm it as a pure dogma, may be something of a challenge and stumbling block for this kind of thinking. But that's where I'd say 'nothing' really is purely nominal, it's literally meaningless, because it says so on the cover: "not anything," not anything that could have a meaning (or, again, insofar as meaninglessness is a kind of meaning, it only throws us back into the light of being). Nothing and being are neither distinct nor identical, because nothing is not even there in order to be able to be contrasted or compared to being in any way. "Dualism" of this kind isn't possible. If any Hegelian reads this, I would be all ears to their reply. With that said, I think Houlgate is right about Parmenides assuming too much at certain points. Especially with regards to Being's character as finite and extended/massive. Additionally, how can we talk about the difference/distinction and identity between these two categories? Where did we get these categories from? How are they derived? The fact that distinction and identity of these two categories are essential to recognizing them as moments of becoming means we can't just delay this question either I think.

This sounds alot like syndicalism.

Tbh I don't think Parmenides has to be read as contraposing Being and nothing (in the sense that to be being in some sense means to not be nothing). As Stephen admits, he ultimately says you can't speak nor think of nothing. Indeed, the start of the poem establishes this, and then moves on to the metaphysics.

Epic

Houlgate a grace to us all, for the gental guidance thru the needed for a titanic wave of Hegel science of logic

Thank you for this wonderful and clear lesson. I think Professor Kervegan Hegelian's approach is the most adapted to contemporary philosophical problems. His courage to state the core ideas bluntly clarifies what most people work around to avoid affirming. I dare to say that even Hegel would like to watch this lecture.

Brigitte Falkenburg ist ein Nazi-Extremist mit Verbindungen nach Russland

How on earth do you think of pure being without presuppositions when precisely it assumes there is such a substance as being which has the quality of being pure? This is a failed thought experiment to begin with. I do not think that there is any chance in hell Hegel believes that is possible or that was his intent. It is impossible to think of nothing, because that nothing is something. Some kind of thing-like category must exist. How all the post-grad students just go along with this is just sad. I don't think they have a bone of critical thinking in them.

"Method may appear at first as the mere manner peculiar to the process of cognition and as a matter of fact it has the nature of such. But the peculiar manner, as method, is not merely a modality of being determined in and for itself; it is a modality of cognition, and as such is posited as determined by the Notion and as form." --1784

This is Hegel read through the lens of Heidegger and Husserl. It doesn't incorporate the ideas present in the Phenomenology of Spirit and deviates from Hegel's actual method as apparent from his other works.

Im confused on whether Hegel had any concept or transcendence at all, or if it even has an intelligible definition within a dialectical framework.

What an interesting lecture. I wish the audio were better. Seems like the microphone picked up at least as much of the coughing and general restlessness in the room as it did the lecture.

wonderful

6:22 "The privatisation of the education system to expensive pay schools and pay universities is, I believe, the inhumane basic evil here that the constitutional state would have to abolish."

I have no idea what you said, but I loved hearing you say it.

Thus, it so happened, that the many universes were created and are being created by Hegel by observing and collapsing the wave functions.

Audio is so bad it’s not worth watching.

ᴘʀᴏᴍᴏsᴍ

00:40 - Starts 01:35 - General Remarks on Hegel's Philosophy of Right 05:07 - Three main causes of poverty 07:06 - Civil society is governed by understanding 09:46 - The cause of systematic poverty 11:10 - Corporations 13:30 - Civil society without corporations and bad infinity 15:00 - Civil society with corporations and true infinity 16:24 - Corporations and the problem of overproduction 17:00 - Hegel's main solution to poverty lies on corporation, not in the political state 20:55 - The role of corporations 22:50 - End of lecture and questions

It is crucial to understand that Hegel understands Nature as created. Nature is in fact a means for Spirit, produced from Absolute Spirit, for Spirit to produce itself from it. We cannot understand Hegel's notion of Nature if we do not understand it has no genuine independence. Nature in itself is exactly a lack of independence, it is dependent through and through. The radical externality of Nature, being external to its own self, means that it is internal to somewhat else, Spirit. Nature is therefore Spirit's own externality and thus Spirit is at work in Nature and Nature has no genuine independent existence. This is why Hegel talks about the implicit Mind at work in Nature. Of course this reading, which is Hegel's own is often avoided due to fears of the theological airs we hear in this sort of talk, but this is simply Hegel's actual thinking of the issue. "Philosophy to begin with contemplates the Absolute as logical. Idea, the Idea as it is in thought, under the aspect in which its content is constituted by the specific forms of thought. Further, philosophy exhibits the Absolute in its activity, in its creations. This is the manner in which the Absolute becomes actual or “for itself,” becomes Spirit, and God is thus the result of philosophy. It becomes apparent, however, that this is not merely a result, but is something which eternally creates itself, and is that which precedes all else. The onesidedness of the result is abrogated and absorbed in the very result itself. Nature, finite Spirit, the world of consciousness, of intelligence, and of will, are embodiments of the divine Idea, but they are definite shapes, special modes of the appearance of the Idea, forms, in which the Idea has not yet penetrated to itself, so as to be absolute Spirit." "Further, philosophy exhibits the Absolute in its activity, in its creations. This is the manner in which the Absolute becomes actual or “for itself,” becomes Spirit, and God is thus the result of philosophy. It becomes apparent, however, that this is not merely a result, but is something which eternally creates itself, and is that which precedes all else. The onesidedness of the result is abrogated and absorbed in the very result itself. Nature, finite Spirit, the world of consciousness, of intelligence, and of will, are embodiments of the divine Idea, but they are definite shapes, special modes of the appearance of the Idea, forms, in which the Idea has not yet penetrated to itself, so as to be absolute Spirit."