Choosing a Translation of Hegel's Phenomenology of Spirit

Рет қаралды 3,141

Todd McGowan

Күн бұрын

Пікірлер: 48

@txikitofandango 8 ай бұрын

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

@maneatfoot8693 7 ай бұрын

best youtube comment I have ever seen

@fadinglightsarefading 26 күн бұрын

Beyond questions concerning syntax and literalism, I have heard said that newer translations of Hegel are preferable due to excising an underlying 'mysticism' within the context of which Hegel wrote. I believe that this reduces the accuracy of Hegel because he *was* 'mystical', and that this prejudice towards the 'mysticism' present in Hegel is due to illiteracy towards pre-Kantian metaphysics, which, after Aristotle, usually presented itself in a 'mystical' manner due to the reason that metaphysicians and dialecticians of the time were dressed under a religious contingency, thus granting them that 'mysticism' that is perceived in no other way than ending in dismissal due to modern standards of philosophy. What do you think?

@toddmcgowan8233 25 күн бұрын

I see what you're saying, but I really think that Hegel is very opposed to mysticism, simply because, for him, God is totally revealed. Christianity is the offenbare Religion, which means for him that nothing of God is held back. It seems to me that mysticism requires the notion of something held back.

@fadinglightsarefading 24 күн бұрын

@@toddmcgowan8233 Thanks for the reply! I think that you're right in that mysticism does sort of require a notion that things be held back, but I believe only in the sense that a lot of the (incidentally-religious) metaphysics is fundamentally esoteric, viz. the religion pertains to the masses, who are passive (i.e. they are acted upon by ideology and persuasion), and thus require an exoteric understanding for the practice of religion (the masses' passion specifically being the persuasion of their religion), and philosophers (or, in this case the mystics) are the ones who engage with the esoterism and toy with those metaphysical matters. This is for the reason that a portion of any given people en masse individually lack the capacity for metaphysical investigation, thus comprising those masses upon whom ideology/persuasion (such as religion) acts. Does Hegel 'reject mysticism' in this respect? If Hegel believes nothing of God is held back for all individuals, would he be granting all individuals (regardless of their degree of activity or passivity towards religion and the fundamental metaphysics therein) the capability (and we can look at this from a skeptical/secular stand-point) of achieving that ultimate 'mystical' end of religious ecstasy, i.e. a 'oneness with God', such as what Aquinas is said to have achieved after denouncing his own philosophical writings; or would Hegel instead be implying that no such thing is possible (even for those who are by historical convention said to have achieved such a state), and that God is 'revealed' just exactly as anyone can perceive Him ( in the same way as, for example, Aristotle inferred God's existence as insensible substance from the motion of the universe, this obviously strictly being without any mystical connotation)?

@toddmcgowan8233 24 күн бұрын

@fadinglightsarefading Right, for Hegel there is no (Christian) oneness with God because Christianity is about God's division from himself through Christ. To believe that God holds something back is, for Hegel, not a Christian position

@ApolloBlatenszky 8 ай бұрын

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

@addammadd 7 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 7 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.

@K31R17 8 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 8 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 8 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 7 ай бұрын

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

@K31R17 7 ай бұрын

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

@thespiritofhegel3487 7 ай бұрын

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

@apheastra 8 ай бұрын

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

@lee-van-cleef 7 ай бұрын

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

@carlosbucioborja 7 ай бұрын

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

@albertojuste6192 Ай бұрын

La de Abada

@carlosbucioborja Ай бұрын

@@albertojuste6192 Muchas gracias.

@albertojuste6192 Ай бұрын

@@carlosbucioborja nada

@ManosaNthunya 8 ай бұрын

Thanks Todd. Watching this later!

@imatrei9108 7 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 7 ай бұрын

Sorry, I don't know it

@ErikLW 7 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 7 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.

@bobcabot 5 ай бұрын

...ja but it also means ghost! and that is important to know since the word derives directly form the German word Geist.

@ESTRID_lol 7 ай бұрын

Hey I was wondering if you thought love was possible?

@kurtis.blender 8 ай бұрын

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

@bhashanathilakarathna2683 7 ай бұрын

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

@toddmcgowan8233 7 ай 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 7 ай бұрын

Thanks @@toddmcgowan8233

@K31R17 7 ай бұрын

I think the last days of socrates is accessible too.

@K31R17 7 ай 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 7 ай 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.