Choosing a Translation of Hegel's Phenomenology of Spirit

Рет қаралды 1,793

Ай бұрын

Five translators have produced English language versions of Hegel's Phenomenology of Spirit, making the choice of a translation a difficult one. I go through the differences between these fives translations to provide a way of thinking about which one to choose if one embarks on reading Hegel's 1807 masterpiece.

Пікірлер: 45

@Wade2003 Ай бұрын

It would be awesome to see a video about all the books collection you have in your background.

@Wade2003 Ай бұрын

You know what, maybe not able to recognize the books in your background, is the reason why I keep coming back to watch the videos in the first place.

@toddmcgowan8233 27 күн бұрын

@@Wade2003 Funny

@trashpraxis. Ай бұрын

Whatever translation Gillian Rose used has always been my guide in regards to Hegel.

@txikitofandango Ай бұрын

The 2050 translation will be talking about dilly dallying with the cringe

@maneatfoot8693 Ай бұрын

best youtube comment I have ever seen

@achillespollo Ай бұрын

I was introduced to the Miller translation but now I love the clarity from the Baillie translation, thanks for the video

@aphe6974 Ай бұрын

joke was fantastic todd thank you for helping me on my reread of hegel

@user-si1rw5db5q Ай бұрын

Thanks Todd. Watching this later!

@K31R17 Ай бұрын

Hi Todd, apologies for being greedy but could you recommend a phenomenology reading guide ? What would you recommend to one of your students? Thanks

@toddmcgowan8233 Ай бұрын

I think that both the Houlgate and the Stern are quite good. The Houlgate might be slightly better, but the problem with it is that he gives short shrift to the later sections, precisely when one needs more help. I've taught both when doing the Phenomenology in class.

@granthamilton5616 Ай бұрын

@@toddmcgowan8233 Have you had a chance to look at Pinkard's guide he published alongside his translation? It's tempting to pair them for more direct continuity, but if he's missing an element in his text maybe that would only compound the lack.

@toddmcgowan8233 Ай бұрын

@@granthamilton5616 I have glanced it but not read it thoroughly. It looks helpful.

@K31R17 Ай бұрын

Hi Todd, thanks for that I appreciate it. I think your videos are superb. I hope to see many more !:)

@thespiritofhegel3487 13 күн бұрын

Jon Stewart, 'The Unity of Hegel’s Phenomenology of Spirit: A Systematic Interpretation', 2000.

@lee-van-cleef Ай бұрын

Interesting to note that William James translated Zerrissenheit as “torn-to-pieces-hood.”

@arthurrowejones9661 Ай бұрын

Todd you always wear wild hats, they''re fantastic

@imatrei9108 Ай бұрын

If you know about it, do you have any thoughts on the infamous (or maybe just famous) Half Hour Hegel series by Professor Gregory Sadler? Would it be a good companion or would it just be a detriment compared to other secondary sources, or even just reading it by itself?

@toddmcgowan8233 Ай бұрын

Sorry, I don't know it

@addammadd Ай бұрын

6:37 reminded me of this hilarious/necessary statement from William Blattner’s guide to B&T: "Being: Macquarrie and Robinson insist on capitalizing the word "being." The capitalization does nothing but add an odd sense of mystery and obscurity to Heidegger's language, something that it certainly does not need. Thus, I will throughout write "being" with a lower-case "b."

@toddmcgowan8233 Ай бұрын

I've always thought this about Heidegger as well, but I would say that it's slightly more justified in his case since he is more invested in a mystical approach than Hegel. Generally, however, I'm in total agreement with this choice.

@pipgargery Ай бұрын

Hello, I was wondering what the verdict was on this question in regards to the Science of Logic? Is it the di Giovanni translation over the Miller? Thanks!

@toddmcgowan8233 Ай бұрын

I think the di Giovanni is superior for a couple of reasons. He rightly replaces "spurious infinite" with "bad infinite," which is very important, and he also uses "concept" for "Begriff." The one negative--and I find this pretty annoying--is that he uses "shine" for "Scheinen," which is a possible meaning but would be much better as "semblance" in my view. I'm really against anything that threatens to turn Hegel into a mystic, as this choice does.

@pipgargery Ай бұрын

@@toddmcgowan8233 Thank you very much!

@ErikLW Ай бұрын

How would you characterize the value added in learning the German? The perspective you have on these other translations seems to have come from your undergoing the ordeal of reading The Phenomenology in the original language. I have heard you say before that translation is a fetish and, as you said in this video, that it is a thankless job. My main concern is that now, for *some* reason, I have a desire to learn German so that I can read Hegel. So: Do you think that it is particular to Hegel's Phenomenology that the value of the original language gives this surplus value to the text? Would one get more out of other texts in German if I can read them in their original language? It's certainly given me pause to consider what the idiom does to the thinking. I've only had limited experience with languages other than English. I suppose I'm asking for you to do a video (someday maybe? Please and thank you.) on the value of learning other languages.

@toddmcgowan8233 Ай бұрын

Yes, there is a value for sure, although I think more so for someone like Hegel than for someone like Kant. I think with Kant, the benefit is pretty minimal. In my view, it's very dependent on the thinker. But I do believe that one can fully understand a philosophy without knowing the original language. If not, then that's a serious limitation of the philosophy itself. Of course, one has to be able to correct mistranslations, which does require some acquaintance with the original language or, at least, the textual scholarship on the thinker.

@carlosbucioborja Ай бұрын

...¿Me podrías recomendar la mejor traducción de FENOMENOLOGÍA DEL ESPÍRITU de Hegel en español?... Gracias...

@ESTRID_lol 29 күн бұрын

Hey I was wondering if you thought love was possible?

@bhashanathilakarathna2683 27 күн бұрын

Todd, can you name book which is suitable for beginners to study philosophy

@toddmcgowan8233 27 күн бұрын

Nothing from Hegel, that's for sure. Jean-Paul Sartre's Existentialism Is a Humanism would be a good place to start, or Sigmund Freud's Civilization and Its Discontents. Both very, very readable for a total beginner.

@bhashanathilakarathna2683 27 күн бұрын

Thanks @@toddmcgowan8233

@K31R17 26 күн бұрын

I think the last days of socrates is accessible too.

@K31R17 26 күн бұрын

@@toddmcgowan8233 Hi Todd, could you comment about what Sartre means in the text you mentioned about mans responsibility(legislating) for all men. I find it slightly confusing/paradoxical, is it an idea he fleshes out elsewhere? hope that's clear, thanks.

@toddmcgowan8233 26 күн бұрын

@@K31R17 It's defined fleshed out in Being and Nothingness. But the idea is that one's free act implies a whole world, and one is responsible not just for one's act but also for this world that follows from it.