"Exploring Hegel's Philosophy with Will Durant"

Embark on a philosophical odyssey into the complex and influential ideas of Georg Wilhelm Friedrich Hegel, one of the most significant figures in German idealism and the development of historical dialectics. Join the esteemed historian, Will Durant, as he navigates the intricate concepts of Hegel's philosophy in this enlightening video.
📜 Explore Durant's insightful commentary as he covers the following key aspects of Hegel's philosophy:
Hegel's early life and his intellectual journey in 18th and 19th-century Germany
The foundations of absolute idealism and Hegel's dialectical method
The concepts of thesis, antithesis, and synthesis in Hegel's philosophy
Hegel's influence on a wide range of disciplines, including philosophy, politics, and theology
The impact of Hegel's ideas on subsequent philosophical movements and thinkers
The enduring relevance and ongoing debates surrounding Hegel's philosophy in contemporary thought.
#WillDurant #Hegel #Philosophy #GermanIdealism #Dialectics #AbsoluteIdealism #ThesisAntithesisSynthesis #Influence #Enlightenment #IntellectualJourney #HegelianConcepts #ContemporaryThought #HistoricalCommentary #PhilosophicalLegacy

[@Shamino1]

Spent hours on Rousseau, nearly 2 hours on Schopenhauer- luckily nearly 2 hours worth of audio for Spinoza, and nary a word for Hegel.

[@davyroger3773]

A far better lot than he gave to Alexander the greats illustrious career - 10 minutes

[@louisferdinandceline777]

Ironic not?

[@darylbeyers2719]

Durant was a talented hack, but gives Hegel short shrift because he couldn’t read him.

[@DawsonSWilliams]

To anyone who reads the Phenomenology of Spirit, and the Science of Logic, with great care and devotion, they will find Hegel to be worthy of their time. (You may want to read his books multiple times!)

[@engin7787]

In order to understand this speech ,I have to listen it for several time!

[@williamgunderson7365]

Man, Jena must having been poppin!

[@fraidoonw]

thanks Will!

[@jochemmeijnen7080]

it is: But *seek ye first the kingdom of God*, and his righteousness; and all these things shall be added unto you.

[@Rico-Suave_]

Great video, thank you very much , note to self(nts) watched all of it 17:15

[@marioriospinot]

Nice.

[@Daruqe]

Translators note: "ein gutes Bier" means "a good beer."

[@vespelian5274]

Stream of consciousness ossified.

[@suddenuprising]

"the movement of evolution is a continuous development of oppositions and their merging reconciliation"

[@benu7930]

Schopenhauer was particularly scathing; Hegel was so ruthlessly taken down. Ha'

[@JackVox]

Hegel's words "Seek ye first food and clothing and the kingdom of heaven will be added unto you." seem to be a bastardization of Matthew 6:33 "seek you first the kingdom of God, and his righteousness; and all these things shall be added to you", is this his ultimate purpose to redefine and contradict christian ideology? Was Hegel opposed to Christianity as an atheist?

[@chrisscott7545]

Spencer H Rossay mmmmmm I don't think he was an atheist. I mean he is describing the movement of spirit in history. I think his idea of God is a lot more refine with specifications and actual ways of knowing it When you oppose this way of knowing God to the popular way such as mere believe then he may come off as an atheist but I can almost assure you he is not. He knowing is just a lot purer because of reason

[@evinnra2779]

"Was Hegel opposed to Christianity as an atheist?" No, Hegel most definitely was not an atheist. His emphasis on the role of Freedom in existence, in the Phenomenology of Mind, lead some to think that he might have been an atheist.

[@1214gooner]

He was a panentheist. en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Panentheism

[@CCumming1000]

Hegel saw in religion the opportunity for humans to experience freedom

[@JackVox]

@@CCumming1000 I love this profound thought you have kindly added, now there is so much pressure on for society to become secular having renewed faith in God is becoming the radical alternative to the current trend of mindless atheism. God is liberty.

[@josiahcrew375]

He’s the first philosopher I heard reason with why struggles and evil r ok not ok in a since people shud them Buh struggle leads to growth. Chaos is the right word. To reason with chaos and handle it in a way for growth. So important

[@bill6687]

Is there a synthesis between dialectical materialism and idealism?

[@DurantandFriends]

I'd sponsor that project if you would be open to collaborating. Reach out to me on planksip.org/contact and reference this comment. My name is Daniel.

[@nr655321]

This is pretty typical early 20 century "criticism" of Hegel. Popper was probably the least talented and, sadly enough, the most widely read among such critics. But strangely, this trend kept on going through the "French theorists" throughout the 60s and 70s. Only Lukacs and Adorno, to my knowledge, knew that this caricature of Hegel was plain inaccurate. What critics usually reproach Hegel is all in fact in early Schelling: from the totalizing subject to the infamous triadic movement. The supposed apology of state power, however, is even more untrue. In his "Philosophy of right" the status quo (=state power) is a leading theme but it takes bias or perhaps insufficient focus to conclude that Hegel was some apologist. Dialectics couldn't be further removed from any apology anyways!

[@paulharris3000]

I find it interesting and a little disappointing that the mass and momentum of ever growing population are almost never considered in assessing the trajectory of human motivation...

[@scotteralus8188]

You sound like you’re owed something Shamino. I’m pretty sure they sell books ABOUT AND BY Hegel at your local book store. ✌️

[@Shamino1]

Yes, because I am Hegel's ghost, you see. OooooOOOOoOo.

[@keithcollard3933]

Ok sooo did Will Durant call Hegel long winded stupidity in the begining or was it Shelling or Shops?

[@alexanderfuchs8742]

thats a quote by the absolute boi Schopenhauer - unfair but extremely funny

[@jugg3647]

6.40 LOL

[@sydneysymposia]

You can tell that Hegel was a towering figure that Durant felt cucked by, otherwise he wouldn't have had to take petty revenge by a scanty page-count bristling with cheap shots.

[@LaureanoLuna]

Perhaps, one cannot expect mucho more concerning Hegel from a historian of this nationality.

[@paullillebo3969]

Can't construct an actual critique, so you slur the man's nationality. Low class.

[@user-mi4rm7ih6s]

@@paullillebo3969 The "critique" (like there needs to be a "critique") is simple. A philosopher as deeply influential as Hegel should be treated with more elaboration from a historian who spent hours on far less relevant figures. You're being deliberately dense to miss the point.

[@galahadsoundscape6365]

It is certainly true, but you are being deliberately harsh in order to avoid the original offense: oversimplifying Will Durant’s slothful analysis as a simple symptom of his nationality. In other words, this offense is what he was levying an attack against. I do agree, however, that Hegel was woefully overlooked here due to Hegel’s complexity, perhaps, or maybe a lack of Passion on Will Durant’s part.

[@asoulist4829]

Hegel isn't exactly eloquent in much of his writing, but he is thorough.

[@DurantandFriends]

I've just skimmed the surface of the Hegelian milk, the honey is still in Ancient Greece (for me).

[@benquinney2]

Triadic

[@hyperduality2838]

Thesis is dual to anti-thesis creates converging thesis or synthesis -- the time independent Hegelian dialectic. Being is dual to non being creates becoming -- The duality of Plato. Noumenal is dual to phenomenal -- Immanuel Kant. Hume's fork: Absolute truth is dual to relative truth, the "relation of ideas" is dual to the "matter of facts". Mind is dual to matter -- Descartes. First cause (efficient cause) is dual to final cause creates material and formal cause -- Aristotle. The Hegelian dialectic can be traced back to Socrates (the dialectic method), Plato & Aristotle! "Philosophy is dead" -- the philosophy or duality of Stephen Hawking. The subjective opinions, beliefs or 'philosophy' of Stephen Hawking concludes that philosophy is dead. Stephen Hawking is negating or refuting his own philosophy or contradicting his own ideas -- cognitive dissonance or duality! You cannot use philosophical ideas to refute philosophy this is a logical fallacy. Schrodinger's cat: Alive (thesis, being) is dual to not alive (anti-thesis, non being) -- Hegel's or Plato's cat. Schrodinger's cat is based upon the philosophy of Hegel, physicists who use Schrodinger's cat are using philosophical ideas (which are not allowed according to Stephen Hawking). Gravitation is equivalent or dual to acceleration -- Einstein's happiest thought, the principle of equivalence (duality). Energy is dual to mass -- Einstein Dark energy is dual to dark matter. "Always two there are" -- Yoda.

[@drudown76]

I don't understand

[@okra7648]

To grossly oversimplify it, the conflict between opposites will merge into a higher truth, Hegel sees this happening through out history.

[@dandydante7924]

Y u bulli¿

[@stephenkirby1264]

Kant critically criticized: Everyone born on this planet gets a genius quality brain, how much of it you utilize is a free will choice entirely yours to make... Immanuel Kant for instance; Here it appears he was using the ‘stupid’ level of his ‘genius’ quality brain... “I have therefore found it necessary to deny knowledge in order to make room for faith.” Critique of Pure Reason (1781; 1787) This quote drives me to suspect that his Critique of Pure Reason (1781; 1787) may only have a nugget or two of actual ‘genius’ level thinking. Let us quickly move along, lest Kant’s words start infecting our reason and logic with confusion (we have enough confusion in the world already... don't you think?)... Here it appears he was using the ‘reasonable and logical’ level of his ‘genius’ quality brain... Idea for a Universal History from a Cosmopolitan Point of View (1784) Second Thesis: “Reason itself does not work instinctively, but requires trial, practice, and instruction in order gradually to progress from one level of insight to another.” The issue for me here is that he accurately describes the process of practicing reason, but it seems that he is inferring that instinct and insight are a faculty of reason, and if that inference was intended, then he is incorrect. If that is the case then my assessment of Kant’s use of his ‘reasonable and logical level’ of his genius quality brain is suspect also... Fourth Thesis “The greatest problem for the human race, to the solution of which Nature drives man, is the achievement of a universal civic society which administers law among men.” The issue for me here is that he accurately describes the ‘drive to do good’ that innately motivates humankind, and the desire for humankind to live in a universal civic society, but that he is of the opinion that a ‘law’ or ‘laws’ will make it so, leads me to the conclusion that he was only utilizing the ‘insane’ level of his genius quality brain. I think we are all aware of the common cultural definition of insane; that is; doing the same thing over and over and over again and expecting a different result. When you analyze all of human history for the success rate of administrative organizations for the purpose of providing universal civic society, I think my point about ‘insanity’ level use of the brain is confirmed... It’s not looking very good for Kant’s use of brain ability, but be patient, it gets better... “There is … only a single categorical imperative and it is this: Act only on that maxim through which you can at the same time will that it should become a universal law.” .Metaphysics of Morals (1797) ‘I ought never to act except in such a way that I could also will that my maxim should become a universal law.” .Groundwork of the Metaphysics of Morals (1785) But it does not get better with these two quotes, variants of the same concept. Again, “law” has never produced long-term universal civic society, and if he’d just paid more attention to human history, this would have been abundantly clear... And now; Religion within the Limits of Reason Alone (1793) “The question here is not, “How conscience ought to be guided? For Conscience is its own General and Leader… By Jiminy, this is a ‘genius’ level use of a genius quality brain. May I provide a quote of mine in attempt at clarity? “By Jiminy, the little cricket got it right when he tried, to advise you to; ‘’Always Let Your Conscience Be Your Guide.’’ He did not say; ‘’Always Let your Cultural Conscience be your guide.’’ He did not say; ‘’Always Let your Media Conscience be your guide.’’ He did not say; ‘’Always Let your National Conscience be your guide.’’ He did not say; ‘’Always Let your Religious Conscience be your guide.’’ He did not say; ‘’Always Let your Ethnic Conscience be your guide.’’ He did not say; ‘’Always Let your Academic Conscience be your guide.’’ He did not say, ‘’Always Let your Community Conscience be your guide.’’ He did not say; ‘’Always Let your Familial Conscience be your guide.’’ He said ‘’Always Let Your Conscience Be Your Guide.’’ And he meant exactly what he said. Your Conscience, your innate, instinctive, intuitive, insightful, elemental Conscience, is exactly what he meant. Everyone gets one at the moment of his or her creation, and Jiminy, the Cricket, wants you to use yours, not some ‘others idea’ of what your conscience knows is ‘truth-for-you’.” Stephen Kirby (2015) Back to Kant; ... “it is therefore enough that each man have one.” WTF??? ...it is therefore enough that each man have one? ‘Stupid’ level again. One question, of many, leaps readily to mind; Why the F*** is it therefore enough to have a conscience? Did he provide an answer for that? Can you provide an answer for that? I know I can... Then; “What we want to know is, how conscience can be her own Ariadne, and disentangle herself from the mazes even of the most raveled and complicated casuistical theology.” “Genius’ level usage of the brain to raise this question. But, he was not able to answer the question raised, so back to just ‘average’ level use of a genius quality brain.... You have been patient, and now you shall be rewarded… In 1784, Immanuel Kant told us very succinctly what enlightenment is: "Enlightenment is man's release from his self-incurred tutelage(immaturity). Tutelage(immaturity) is the incapacity to use one's own understanding without the guidance of another. Such tutelage(immaturity) is self-imposed if its cause is not lack of intelligence, but rather a lack of determination and courage to use one's intelligence without being guided by another." 1784 essay (What Is Enlightenment?) This is ‘genius’ level work, enough said… But... “Only the descent into the hell of self-knowledge can pave the way to godliness.” Immanuel Kant Metaphysics of Morals (1797) Everything about this quote is ‘genius’ level except for two words, “hell”, and “godliness”, which hover down around the ‘stupid’ to ‘insane’ levels again… Now try this for a ‘genius’ level rewrite of the quote; “Only the decent into the insanity of the ‘information masquerading as knowledge’, held with your subconscious mind, will lead you to the self-knowledge that can pave the way to individual human enlightenment.” Stephen Kirby (2015)‘ Find out who, what, where, when, why, and how. The who, of course, is you. The what is your individual human enlightenment. The where is not in your head, it is in your heart. The when is now, or at least, pretty darn soon. The why is because your head stopped corroborating its decisions with your heart at some point in your life and now you don't know how to reawaken those skills. The how, of course, is by joining the oneconscienceplus project I am an ‘everyman’... if I can do it... anyone can………………………………………..Aha Sincerely, stephenkirby 91815 4:45 am pdt Conscience-ness Recovery and Retention Center the oneconscienceplus project: [e-mail]

[@jamesderoc6717]

+Stephen Kirby utter nonsense . ..

[@stephenkirby1264]

+james deroc Please be specific. Just what exactly is utter nonsense in what I wrote, and how would you know utter nonsense if it were right in front of you?

[@jamesderoc6717]

haha . . .its utter nonsense to leave such a long post on you tube about a someone not fetured in the video . get over your self . your nonsense . your ego hates it but its true. do you know how close the athiest lives to the fundamentalist ? you fucking next door neighbors. brothers even. your both convinced. convinced of your own bullshit. cheers mate

[@stephenkirby1264]

+james deroc Cheers to you too I'm not an atheist, and I'm not a fundamentalist, either. All you guys that think it has to be one or the other are incorrect. There is a third option, something bigger and better than religion and anti-religion, but it appears that everybody is too narrow-minded to comprehend it. Einstein did, and wrote extensively about it. But never mind, Einstein was only a smart guy in physics, right?

[@TheScandinavien]

I find it hard to believe that Kant would have made an extensive critique of Hegel, since Hegel most famous works is from (published) after the death of Kant. I may be wrong though.

[@tonym6566]

11:00 ish fck romanticism xD 14:00 ish progressive vs conservative politics

[@Gesundheit888]

Hmmm.....I am surprised how he viewed the French revolution because it was in all reality a coup d'etat.

[@Gesundheit888]

***** When I researched it more closely, years ago, I realized that it was orchestrated very much like the Russian Revolution.... Do you see what I mean? Certainly it is well known that the Russian Revolution was no revolution of the people, or?

[@kadmonzohar2]

I'm responding to your statement, only so you know I read your post and I am gratefull to ur personal interjection.

[@Gesundheit888]

nice! Thank you.

[@horstnietzsche1923]

@@Gesundheit888 how so? Just seems like a rather bold claim and I don't see any similarity beyond the commonality of being revolutions against the royal families and the rejection of large parts of culture but even then most revolutions go that way and they rejected different parts in each revolution for example the Russian revolution saw itself as part of an international movement and at least in theory it wasn't about Russia whereas the French revolution eventually gave way to powerful nationalism which served a important role in shaping what it was to be French from that point onwards.

[@Bobbleheads56]

Ummmm…. Based?

[@innakupriyanova8449]

The only philosopher after Aristotle that wasn't just playing word games was Nietzsche.

[@Oners82]

Nonsense.

[@Oners82]

@@dancingbanana627 Ignorant might be more like it...

[@napoleonbonaparteempereurd4676]

Even Nietzsche disagrees with you

[@stugrant01]

Most of the talks about Hegel are like those endless infomercials where they never get to the point of what cure for baldness they are trying to sell.

[@napoleonbonaparteempereurd4676]

@@stugrant01 Theory of History, the Dialectic. Thats Hegels most important work.

[@TheDalitis8]

103 minutes for non-philosopher Nieztche, and only 17 minutes on Hegel! Absurd!