'All things come into being through a conflict of opposites, the sum of those things , the whole, flows like a river' - diogenes Grand work Julian 👍
@mcnallyaar10 ай бұрын
YOU are slaying it. *PLEASE* don't stop.
@alexxx443410 ай бұрын
As a fan of dialectics I support this motion!
@animefurry350810 ай бұрын
Wonderfully simple summary of a complex concept!
@AlejandroM962310 ай бұрын
Hey really nice, I know it is VERY freskin hard to do to, thanks for sharing this knowledge.
@poppysunsettlingstories10 ай бұрын
Very nice. Enjoyed this video immensely.
@lukedmoss10 ай бұрын
I watched Hail Caesar! But have absolutely no recollection of it. The Coen Brothers are remarkable and extremely smart. Guess I have to rewatch it now with my new ecstatic interest in hegel and dialectics
@mcnallyaar10 ай бұрын
I LOVED Hail Caesar when I saw it in the megaplex in Iowa City. Looking forward to another look. Have you seen A Serious Man?
@lukedmoss9 ай бұрын
@@mcnallyaar Yes! I truly appreciate the representation of a physicist not understanding reality and how the various rabbis offered relevant insight.
@alvaromd320310 ай бұрын
Absolutely great.
@Hadi.Najjar10 ай бұрын
your passion for teaching is inspiring thank you for the effort 🙏🏻
@propos0510 ай бұрын
This is a beautifully concise explanation of Hegel's abstruse theory. Johann Fichte's summation: thesis, antithesis, synthesis is not a bad access point. It seems structuralism has its place since humans are subjective by nature.
@julianphilosophy10 ай бұрын
You can find my ebook and lectures here: www.patreon.com/julianphilosophy
@tehdii10 ай бұрын
Little of topic, I have read some Copleston's Philosophy, Tom 1 and 2. And reading about pre Socratic and even about Awerroes, Awicenna I get the impression that every "modern" philosophy was already there at the core of the first philosophers. In a similar vein to calculus being in Eudoksos :)
@Not_that_Brian_Jones10 ай бұрын
I like to say that Kant went spelunking in Plato's cave.
@mcnallyaar10 ай бұрын
Splish Splash!
@lagmion40618 ай бұрын
Dia-logos doesn't mean "double reason" or anything like that. Dia means through, so it's through logos, through binding and linkage
@markoslavicek10 ай бұрын
Doesn't prefix -dia mean 'across' or 'through' instead of 'two' or 'double'? Dialogos instead of dilogos
@tjohn6echoКүн бұрын
Hi. Can we say that the "Capitalism" system that we have today -- that is the economic system based on free markets, subjected to democratic rule of law -- is a product /outcome of dialectical "synthesis" between Socialism and the hitherto (unfettered) capitalism? Is that a proper way of thinking about dialectic with an example? Tks.
@harukiamida10 ай бұрын
What did the Kantian critique of pure reason result in? What were the two responses? How do you spell those!
@harukiamida10 ай бұрын
Thank you to anyone who guides me in advance
@Butaloii10 ай бұрын
think he said Schelling and Fichte
@justin957110 ай бұрын
Do you have any opinions on the way modern mathematicians have attempted to translate Hegel's logic into the language of higher category? It appears that all concepts that can be spoken of can be formalized
@pallaskedisiCokiyi10 ай бұрын
Im just a high schooler soo my coming is likely mostly flawed although isn't there a unary undertone in the structure of dialogue instead of a binary clash? Alright, we've broadened the subject matter with our rhetoric and now getting closer, taking a limit if you will to the original stand and its negations' synthesis but doesn't the negation and the original synthesis both come from a graft formal lingual structure? It feels like we're determining whether its a negation or not entirely on feels. Which seems wrong given that both negation and subjectivity come from the same rhizome that we call objectivity
@pallaskedisiCokiyi10 ай бұрын
Sorry for those who had to read all this :P
@mikalzanna207610 ай бұрын
very underrated movie Hail Caesar... such funny and poignant banter from the Marxist writers/kidnappers, disagreeing about how to agree and vice versa... those scenes were always a favorite of mine, and though it's played for laughs, a lot of the writers' dialogue in that film is relatively coherent: leave it to the Coen Bros to mock dense leftist rhetoric while simultaneously explaining it. best of all the old post-war anti-commie ideological censorship of the 50's becomes the setting for movie in the post-ideological world, in which you can now successfully explain Marxism to a Hollywood audience in a mainstream film, but only as a joke, of course.
@shafikmestry372810 ай бұрын
I would add to your part on capitalism and dialectics that capitalism is the spirious, negative, bad infinite that which says that the finite must be sublated without subliming it. "Something becomes an other, but the other is itself a something, so it likewise becomes an other, and so on ad infinitum," as Hegel says. This is capitalism and its monetary crisis, the failed dialectic which shows the necessity for the new world.
@lorenzomizushal398010 ай бұрын
This sounds like text chatgpt would generate. 😂
@lotoreo10 ай бұрын
incredibly well put
@crypto98610 ай бұрын
thanks for confusing. you have to characterize what essense is first. you missed the mark on this one. confused it even more than the phtiophers
@theonetruepyro10 ай бұрын
While I very much appreciate what you’re trying to do here I believe you interpretation is far too teleological to be faithful to Hegel’s thought. The absolute doesn’t stand as a kind of objective, end-goal version of the Geist but is instead basically Hegel’s philosophy itself: the absolute is the recognition of the power of sublation. In fact, the greater and lesser Logics essentially take the reader having reached the absolute as a presupposition. For Hegel there is no world without our interpreting it and as such any kind of measure of consciousness which we cannot ourselves comprehend is meaningless. Also, the Hegelian critique of the Kantian Noumena/Phenomena divide is accurately summarized in your video but you miss the essential logic of it. For Hegel, the setting of the barrier between phenomena/Noumena means that Kant has already passed beyond it because he’s able to recognize a difference between the two. Even though that difference barely amounts to anything in Kant (Noumena is a-temporal, a-spatial, a-causal, etc) it still means that Kant was able to pass beyond phenomenality by way of pure reason.