Half Hour Hegel: The Complete Phenomenology of Spirit (Sense Certainty, sec. 94-97)

Get Hegel's Phenomenology - amzn.to/2hVyru6
The entire series - / the-half-hour-hegel-se...
Support my work here - / sadler
Philosophy tutorials - reasonio.wordpress.com/tutori...
In this fortieth video in the new series on G.W.F. Hegel's great early work, the Phenomenology of Spirit, I read and comment on the ninety-fourth, ninety-fifth, ninety-sixth, and ninety-seventh paragraphs of the text, beginning our study of the first portion of the section "Consciousness," i.e "Sense Certainty".
The examination of what purports to be an immediate form of knowledge of things through sense-perception continues -- looking to see whether Sense Certainty is in truth how it purports itself to be (or as we purport it to be). Such an examination requires focusing on the raw "This", which can be distinguished along temporal and spatial lines into a "Now" and a "Here".
Both "Now" and "Here" in actual sense perception are made more specific -- the Now, e.g. as noon (or day) and as night. This reveals that in the apparently immediate, we already have mediation, and negation involved. The "This" is really a universal -- which is and is not the particulars. This allows us to utter or express the sensible particular which we are encountering in sensibility.
In this video series, I will be working through the entire Phenomenology, paragraph by paragraph -- for each one, first reading the paragraph, and then commenting on what Hegel is doing, referencing, discussing, etc. in that paragraph.
This series is designed to provide an innovative digital resource that will assist students, lifelong learners, professionals, and even other philosophers in studying this classic work by Hegel for generations to come. If you'd like to support this project -- and also receive some rewards for your support -- please contribute! - / drgbsadler
I'll be using and referencing the A.V. Miller English-language translation of the Phenomenology, which is available here: amzn.to/1jDUI6w
The introductory music for the video is: Johann Sebastian Bach, Partita No. 1 in Bm, BWV 1002, is available in the public domain, and can be found at musopen.org.
#Hegel #Phenomenology #Philosophy #Idealism #German #Dialectic #Spirit #Absolute #Knowledge #History

[@Itsunobaka]

An excellent and thorough treatment of this first, critical negation.

[@GregoryBSadler]

Thanks. We'll be going through the rest of Sense Certainty through the month of February!

[@Chillideas]

Not only are you saving me in this university class on the Phenomenology, but also you are engaging and enthralling me (which i wasn't experiencing before in this stream of philosophy) -- a million thankyous :)

[@GregoryBSadler]

You're very welcome!

[@robertjacobs3133]

have you considered this idea '(Opposites conjoined into one whole in harmony) as an absolute? It is in a permanent 'Neither' state of both opposites, its a condition unable to be seen in the material world, but rather it lies in the transcendent,numinous Plato was on to.

[@GregoryBSadler]

Some Hegelian dialectic for a Saturday afternoon. . . .

[@MrMarktrumble]

"specify": the universal becomes one concrete particular("night"), which contradicts itself (intrinsic contradiction/dialectic) another particular "day". The universal is that which that unites and divides both particulars ("night" and "day") from the universal "now" as one aspect of the "this". The universal is the negation of the contradictions of the particulars, and is their truth. This all sounds like Platonism to me, but Hegel's word is translated by universal, which seems to imply Aristotelianism. universal = not-particulars. "the now as negation is more essential, and contains more being..." only if you assume that the principles of Being is temporal persistence and quiddity (changelessness through time). Suddenly I want a highly rigorous exploration of Plato's doctrine of "participation" in the form. Language= the word exists more than the particular= Platonism. Every noun is a universal. what's our feeling about being? how about angst(Heidegger?)? Hegel is amazing. Thank you

[@GregoryBSadler]

It's neither Plato's nor Aristotle's universals, but rather something more original, of Hegel's own development. Heidegger, and angst doesn't fit into this at all. Later stuff, perhaps, but not here

[@MrMarktrumble]

I will reserve judgement on the Hegelian Universal, because I remember the last time addressing this material I thought...." this is unlike either Plato or Aristotle" But of course, I want more detailed argument and insight. But the phenomenological analysis of the "this" for Hegel behaves in a similar way as the "vague sense of being" for Hiedegger in being and time. Both start with a phenomenological "immediate datum" , and then begin an analysis. For Hegel, all of a sudden you have universals, contradiction, and a logical succession(now, not-now, not-not-now). The dialectical method is assumed. For Hiedegger, he begins to describe this immediate datum of this "vague sense of being that is always mine". What is amusing both beginning points assume a union between subject and object.

[@GregoryBSadler]

I wouldn't say that the dialectical method is assumed -- he's not pasting it onto the experience like a set of cookie cutters taken out of a drawer. He is indeed doing Phenomenology -- in Hegel's view, these things that will comprise the dialectical method are there, revealing themselves to an attentive observer

[@MrMarktrumble]

it is not hard to see this a "natural development", an intrinsic unfolding.

[@andrewseymore4506]

Mind blowing episode. Well done professor

[@GregoryBSadler]

Glad you found it useful

[@mandys1505]

Wow, the universal.... Never thought of it that way. 🌌😃

[@paulheuschmidt605]

Thank you so much.

[@GregoryBSadler]

You're welcome

[@tentininjai2563]

Allah o'akbar. May God bless you my friend, and reward your efforts.

[@GregoryBSadler]

Thanks!

[@tentininjai2563]

@@GregoryBSadler No, thank you! Your channel has been a great source of information during my studies in philosophy.

[@eatsbugs4577]

I feel like the analogy that Hegel uses is missing some steps. I don't know if this is supposed to be strictly about temporality when we use the word "now." I also may just not understand this all yet, and I'm okay with that.

[@QuintessentialQs]

It's it. What is "it"?

[@DavidGreybeard]

The writing down the time of day was the first portion of the phenomenology of spirit that made sense to me. Later on in sense certainty I got familiarly spun around again. I wonder now if that sense of confusion is desirable or should things be as clear as the example of negation of previously true statements.

[@GregoryBSadler]

It's all right for things to seem confusing or "spun around"

[@criscrypto]

this was a tough one to follow. am i understanding this correctly? we cannot understand an object fully using only our senses, we must deal in language to describe these senses. language is a universal. this action of dealing in universal/language distorts the object in question, but it is the only path forward. really struggling here.. if you see this dr. sadler, please let me know if i'm understanding this correctly, and if i'm not where im going wrong. thank you so much for your work!

[@donthasslethahoff]

In section 96, Hegel says that the universal Now is the true content of sense certainty. However it seems that the universal Now is actually the medium through which the content expresses its self, rather than the actual content its self.

[@moksha8473]

I think it means, as I understand it,, that we cannot know particular instances 'truly' because they are governed, at a base level by universals - and universals can be any particular instance, not a specific one. So the claim holds, the question of true content or medium appears to be more a language game. The truth is that universals ARE the true content because, as the dialectic has revealed, we cannot experience radical particulars as individual instances, they all fall under a universal Now and Here. Please correct me if I'm wrong, I'm sure I must be - I'm a beginner to the phenomenology.

[@derekburfoot317]

So language is truthful in the sense that we use the universal which contains the particular to express the particular but at the same time we refute ourselves because the universal is a negation of the particular. However this contradiction is the only form of language we can use to express ourselves

[@GregoryBSadler]

I would rather say that language itself contains contradictions, and we use it to communicate

[@lyndonbailey3965]

I suppose that sensualists or hippies or whoever would say no, we are not going through a process of dialectically analysing the elements of sense certainty in language...by starting out this process in this way (as fascinating as it is) you've already moved a million miles away from being 'in the moment'. I might be leaping in a bit early into it to make that comment but I think the sentiment might be vouched by other people who are into states, like artists or mystics.

[@GregoryBSadler]

Well, for Hegel, the problem is that those "states" are supposedly unarticulatible - but if they really are, there's not much you can get from them

[@gumnaam1000]

Two questions: 1) Does Hegel propound a real negation of the law of noncontradiction? As I see it, the universal is not the particular and the universal in the same sense at the same time. So I don't see how this goes against the PNC? 2) While language does force us to use universals, is it the objects in themselves or is it just a human quirk? I don't see how this use of language necessitate us to believe that sense certainty itself is not true or rather mediated.

[@GregoryBSadler]

Keep on reading. . . .

[@TacticalMetalJoegaming]

Professor, could you please explain what you mean by 'mediation'? This word is a bit confusing for me.

[@GregoryBSadler]

Weird you made it this far in a book that uses that term frequently, and are just now feeling confused

[@ligottifan1]

So . . . why do analytic philosophy guys hate Hegel??? I never got that. This is like straight Wittgenstein. And he wrote it in the 19th century. Analytic vs. Continental always seemed to make as much sense as East Coast vs. West Coast rappers. This just confirms that.

[@GregoryBSadler]

Well, there's a bit more to the "divide" than just that. . . but yes, the more interesting Analytic philosophers often have some overlap or even engagement with Continental figures. And, sometimes vice-versa

[@dpfonten1976]

Are there any particulars? I would have thought that "sweetness", "bitterness", "chocolatelyness" etc. were particulars of the universal "taste". If they are not particulars, but rather universals, then why is "day" a particular (of "now") rather than a universal? Also, is the universal "now" with a determinant/particular "day" the same thing as the universal "now" with a determinant/particular "night"? If no, then how is this a violation of the law of non-contradiction? ..Or, am I just completely confused? :)

[@GregoryBSadler]

It's quite possible for something to be both a particular in one respect and an universal in another. Something sweet can be grasped as both the universal "sweetness", and as "this sweetness" or "this sweet thing". I wouldn't worry at this point about non-contradiction. . . .

[@tuzikpower7150]

I wonder was Wislawa Szymborska thinking about Hegel's (to me, playful) phenomenology of the sense perception of 'now' when she wrote her poem "The Three Oddest Words"? www.nobelprize.org/nobel_prizes/literature/laureates/1996/szymborska-poems-3-e.html

[@GregoryBSadler]

I doubt she was thinking about Hegel. He's far from the only or even the first to point out these matters -- Augustine, for example, in his Confessions, would be another

[@raphaelurbain7705]

So, is this "universal" taking the place of Kant's a priori space and time ?

[@GregoryBSadler]

How would it be "taking the place"?

[@raphaelurbain7705]

@@GregoryBSadler I mean, as I understood Kant, time and space as they are conditions for the experience can't be determined by it, can't be deduced from it, and therfore are before it apriori. So this is the universal condition for something to happen, which is not a contingent thing, and the only way for a contingent thing to be experienced. And I understand a similar thing in the universal "now", the universal "this" and the universal "here".

[@GregoryBSadler]

@@raphaelurbain7705 So now you've unpacked that, No