If you've been missing it . . . . get your Hegel fix for the night!
@MrMarktrumble10 жыл бұрын
thank you
@GregoryBSadler10 жыл бұрын
You're welcome
@songsmithy0710 жыл бұрын
I get the point about doing the work, but I'd like to point out that in viewing your videos, I am getting much more work done than I would by simply reading it by myself. Your experience in the field of Philosophy and with the text lends insight and clarity to the text that I would not bring to bear on my own. So I appreciate your mentorship, even while I appreciate your humility.
@GregoryBSadler10 жыл бұрын
Sure -- my videos are like tools that make it possible to get better work done, more quickly or effectively, let's say. It still demands that the viewer put in work on his or her own part
@eylon19674 жыл бұрын
@@GregoryBSadler yeh, there is a difference between viewing a lecture passivly and actualy engaging with what's being taugh, trying to apply whats being learned and finding out if it works etc
@pd12tuck5 Жыл бұрын
I think it's very interesting bringing up how Hegel is critical of modernity. In a very real sense it feels like we still live in Hegel's world, or we are still caught up in the kind of thinking that went on in Hegel's time. It's very provoking how enduring this seems to us now, and how it's still being echoed in the sentiments of people like Charles Taylor
@GregoryBSadler Жыл бұрын
Well, at least in part. Hegel doesn't address a lot a of aspects of late modernity, which is all right, since after all he didn't live to see it
@matmajer8 жыл бұрын
Nlong ago I was learning that certain words are not used in progressive/continuous tenses, and now i've been hearing/reading how they actually are used in these tenses, and an example of this is when you say "Are you understanding...?" :-) I've heard other words like 'want' or 'like' used in this way.
@tethyn Жыл бұрын
Going through the preface illuminates some artifacts of the culture of his time that you touch on from time to time. What biography would you recommend to read in conjunction? I am rereading the prolegomena and I don’t see the cultural aspects, not the authors he is responding to, as center stage as Hegel. It could be the shapes of consciousness through history makes it necessary; but I feel I need a better view of what he was at the time of writing. Thanks.
@GregoryBSadler Жыл бұрын
kzbin.info/www/bejne/rGKXXn6Crrxgmc0
@antonidamk Жыл бұрын
This is where your videos are different though - they're not just a review. We are literally reading the book AS WELL AS hearing your commentary.
@GregoryBSadler Жыл бұрын
Yes, they are not reviews
@brentwejrowski9 жыл бұрын
Could you elaborate on Notion (and maybe sometime on some of these key words Hegel uses)? One of the most confusing things I felt while reading Hegel the first time was how he seemed to use so many vague words like Notion and Understanding. I know you mentioned Notion earlier being what includes this entire process. Is he simply defining that himself or do you think Notion, or Begriff explicitly entails this? Is he redefining that word? Or was he playing off what already was in the word? Idee is maybe a more general form like in English.. Vorstellung is more like a perceived idea I would assume (closer to Ansicht or Meinung or maybe Auffassung as more opinion like). But the english Notion seems as general as Idea or Concept.
@GregoryBSadler9 жыл бұрын
Brent Wejrowski What you probably want is one of the many available Hegel commentaries available. Hegel rarely "defines" terms. It's not that kind of "define terms first and then sort things out" kind of Philosophy.
@candylel53697 жыл бұрын
Maybe Hegel is blowing various egoic positions out of the water, exposing them for the lies that they are. If they were true then people would feel truly secure in them but people mostly aren't secure at all. That is why they are invariably touchy, nervous, sad and depressed beneath these clever rational-sounding disguises. Maybe Hegel is a kind Master seeking to force us to face the truth, and ultimately become happier people.
@irerot810 жыл бұрын
Interesting and challenging.
@GregoryBSadler10 жыл бұрын
Just what I had hoped for
@dwroberts10019 жыл бұрын
Hegel talks about what is essential in communication. What is essential in being involved in real community with others. Paraphrasing he states that this requires doing the hard work of actually getting to know the other and reach agreement. I don't necessarily disagree with this but is he only looking at things through the lens of thought? Or at least putting thought above other things like feelings and actions that in truth aren't separate from thought. As an example where would this leave us in trying to build community with disabled people. People who have cognitive impairment which prevents them from perfecting the notions we are aspiring for in order to commune together. I am not seeking to lower the bar here. But I am trying to be a bit clearer about what it is we might be trying to approach. What would Hegel say? Isn't communing inherently a matter of contentment of some sort? A contentment which must take different forms (shapes of perfection) for not only different intellects but beings more generally? As a notion being present and content within one's self and others in an enduring way must be the end point for communion - I guess? And may be we can express a partial means in systematic logical thought but it is not the end nor is it necessarily the only means. Will Hegel's explicitly address these matters; the relation between emotion, thought and action and why he is giving the ascendency only to thought? Or am I misinterpreting him. I realise that this might seem like a bizarre question. But the opportunity to perfect our thoughts and make them our internal formation is not always a practical one. At points we do rely on or are necessarily involved in these other movements. In deed we are all also different personality types. As people interested in philosophy it might not be difficult to convince us as an audience considering ourselves "thinkers", that we somehow have the inside track on things, but the 'fickle finger of fate" may not always be so accommodating, at least not as our individual fortunes go. Anyway very good video it made me think......ahhhh! Irony again. If you'd care to address any of the questions I put or address any of the points I would be most interested.
@dwroberts10019 жыл бұрын
David Roberts Hey Greg I thought about this some more and it struck me that the notion of "noblesse oblige" is really the thing that operates hand in hand with contentment. Even beyond any social pressure or obligation, psychologically people are not satisfied in themselves except when they have given their best. There isn't contentment when one is aware there is improvement in one's being, whether in the form of improved thought, action or even desire or emotion. This is something you can't fudge. It is actually an unkindness to yourself to hold yourself to a lessor standard although it is in fact the highest standard you can hold yourself to.At a social level then it is probably fair to say that anything other than "noblesse oblige" just doesn't work as well as it should. Certainly placing expectations on people that exceed their capacities is not only futile but damaging. But equally not having fair expectations of others to do their best is equally damaging.What Hegel might be saying is you are obliged to perfect YOUR thought. I don't think that necessarily lifts you out of the reality of the wider community though. In relation to others if their being is unsatisfactory for them then it is only sensibly viewed as something that remains imperfect in your relation with them. Certainly one could only view such a relationship as a work in progress. Which is perhaps Hegel's point or at least where I am at now.
@GregoryBSadler9 жыл бұрын
David Roberts Giving priority to thought doesn't mean only focusing on thought. And, for Hegel, as you're going to see as the work progresses, it's not as if you have pure thought detached from affect (let's say that, rather than the more restrictive "emotion") and action -- in fact, that's one of the strengths of his approach
@dwroberts10019 жыл бұрын
Gregory B. Sadler Cool. I really feel fortunate to have stumbled upon Hegel. Thanks for making him accessible.
@tyroneslothdrop91559 жыл бұрын
Is it possible to truly engage with the text if you're reading a translation?
@GregoryBSadler9 жыл бұрын
Tyrone Slothdrop Yes
@eylon19674 жыл бұрын
so many students don't even bother trying to read the original texts (which are often themselves in the "review" category) and rely of summaries in the social-sciences. as if reading a summary can give you the full knowledge and its context necessary for a deep understanding of society
@tahahafed9210 жыл бұрын
Thank you thank you thank you :D :D this is really informative + hilarious in a dark way :"D
@GregoryBSadler10 жыл бұрын
You're welcome!
@jonathanjonsson9205 Жыл бұрын
I'm just a PhD student, but I've already noticed a tendency among some established researchers in the humanities, even experienced and respected ones, to say stuff like "Let us transcend Kantian dualism!" - and when I ask them, because I don't understand what 'Kantian dualism' means - it turns out they never actually read Kant. They read some summary long ago and try to add intellectual weight to arguments by raging against some established machine. It's imprecise, but "everyone kinda know what I'm getting at". I mean, not everyone can read and fully engage with Kant, life is short - but if you haven't, why bring him up? The same goes especially for Descartes, Foucault, and I suppose Plato. Combine a Wikipedia version of their thought with buzzwords like 'necropolitics' or 'anthropocene', and you have an article - just hope that no one else read them. And now I see people relying on ChatGPT summaries of great philosophers, the new cliff notes I guess. I find it so refreshing to hear your insistence in every other video, "you have to put in the work", "you actually have to read Hegel", "my videos are not The Answer, they are a help for YOU to do the work".
@GregoryBSadler Жыл бұрын
Unfortunately, that's been going on for generations. Long before Wikipedia came on the scene, people would read supposed summaries or "critiques" of philosophers and not read the actual texts. Given that ChatGPT makes things up, it seems kinda foolish to rely on it for summaries!
@lyndonbailey39658 жыл бұрын
Re: presumed agreement being inauthentic, this really calls to mind womens magazines where they address the reader 'as we know, girls, X' etc.
@GregoryBSadler8 жыл бұрын
I suppose any sort of "we're all on the same page" language would be of that sort
@lyndonbailey39658 жыл бұрын
Perhaps it goes without saying , but I take it to mean that hegel thnks 'just being together' is you know fine if you are engaged in an activity, it just isn't a development in consciousness/philosophy/The Notion if you are not engaging in non passive ways with one another
@GregoryBSadler8 жыл бұрын
Well, the emphasis in the Phenomenology is indeed on where there's some sort of development going on. Most of the time, and in most cases, there's not a new development (though it can be new, relative to the people involved)
@hoochi80447 жыл бұрын
from the common-sense view Hegel's dialectic itself seems sophistical because the terms used within it 'self-other', and end up meaning their opposite. On the surface this is the sophistical fallacy of equivocation because common sense assumes terms in a logical argument must remain the same (how else can we determine whether it is consistent or not!), and not change in the course of the argument - only sophists deliberately do that!. but, then, as Levinas tells us, philosophy must always run the risk of sophistry.
@GregoryBSadler7 жыл бұрын
Yes, and that was true even before Levinas said so
@hoochi80447 жыл бұрын
indeed! but my topic of research (through a consideration of Socrates' equivocal logic) tries to show how Levinas resists (or tries to) the dialectical reconciliation of the difference between self and other in a greater totality, so you will have to excuse me if i keep trying to get him in somewhere . many thx btw this is seriously helping.
@SequinBrain7 жыл бұрын
Cliff notes & reviews involve too large a degree of believing everything you see & hear for me to even look at it. Also I found that sometimes even the paraphrases of what Newton or anyone else said is also wrong. (I know this isn't Newton, but just as an example) What Newton actually said & what's in my physics book are 2 completely different things. But, using honest attempts to understand what was actually written can be used to triangulate away some of the vagueness provided by my solo attempts.
@songsmithy0710 жыл бұрын
An original thought that does not assimilate the history of consciousness into its predicate does nothing to advance the evolution of thought, because that which comes from nowhere, leads nowhere.
@GregoryBSadler10 жыл бұрын
I suppose that's true -- though, from Hegel's standpoint, it's not as if thoughts can come out of nowhere. Once we begin to scrutinize the thought and the thinker, we see that there's always some connection -- one aspect of what he calls "mediation"
@Purecel2 жыл бұрын
King
@lyndonbailey39658 жыл бұрын
Hah, re: commonplaces, A history lecturer of mine was confronted with 'it's all relative' to try to shut down his question at the end of a discussion about early modern politics, he followed it by asking 'relative to what??' Jay Heinrichs in the pop rhetoric book 'Thank you for arguing' uses a more expansive notion of 'commonplace' where it means not just stock arguments and positions but also the boiled-down kernels of political belief beneath which you cannot argue with people rationally e.g. 'I don't want to pay more tax' 'Abortion is wrong' etc. Interesting spat over the definition of 'neologism' and commonplaces in the comments to the article: inpraiseofargument.squarespace.com/it-figures/2007/1/23/we-fondly-hope-to-manipulate-you.html