Half Hour Hegel: The Complete Phenomenology of Spirit (Perception, sec. 117-118)

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 forty-seventh video in the new series on G.W.F. Hegel's great early work, the Phenomenology of Spirit, I read and comment on paragraphs 117 and 118 of the text, continuing our study of the second portion of the section "Consciousness," i.e "Perception: Or the Thing and Deception".
In these sections, Hegel explicitly unfolds the contradictions that emerge from the object when attending to the role of consciousness in perception. The object, the Thing is at the same time a unity, a One, and also the community of its properties, differentiated against each other. These properties also admit of contradiction within themselves, for they exist on their own, but are determinate only by their opposition to others. Each property in perception is a "sensuous universality."
In tracing out the dialectic of perception, consciousness becomes aware that the truth of the object - which is for consciousness - implies that any untruth lies on the side of the perceiving subject. but this allows it to get beyond and incorporate this untruth, to correct it within the scope of consciousness.
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, Flute Sonata in Eb, BWV 1031 (Trumpet arr.), is available in the public domain, and can be found at musopen.org.
#Hegel #Phenomenology #Philosophy #Idealism #German #Dialectic #Spirit #Absolute #Knowledge #History

[@RoyalAnarchist]

Hegel's style is painful to get through, which makes it a blessing to listen to someone who can comprehend it and put the meaning into intelligible English

[@GregoryBSadler]

I take the pain and translate it. . . .

[@RoyalAnarchist]

The translator stated that he would design his translation for English speakers who don't know any German. The intention was reasonable but in practice a lot of the play on words was missed along with some definitions (especially Wissenschaft). This has increased my motivation to learn German

[@GregoryBSadler]

Well, speaking as a translator (whose published translations are from French and Latin), it's very tough to keep everything from the original

[@RoyalAnarchist]

Part of the problem is with our language, as we do not have our own Wissenschaft

[@Everyone321]

The camouflage example was so helpful. It was like all the logic connected to something. Thanks 🙏

[@GregoryBSadler]

You’re welcome

[@GregoryBSadler]

The third video on the section, Perception -- video 47 in the entire Half-Hour Hegel series so far!

[@MrMarktrumble]

unity makes the thing a thing, yet Hegel says we also perceive a property...seems to suggest that instead of unity qua unity making the thing the thing, it is one property perhaps as the essence which specifies the thing as thing. a cat is not a cat because it is a unit, but because it is the animal which is feline. The question may be: Is the one's principle self referential, and thus only itself to account for itself, or is it only through determinate negation that any one is one: thus the one has relation built right in it. "the one is a one by not being another one"Difference, negation is required to mark the "peras" of any of each ones, instead of each one being compared to itself, and then differences noted. The Pushing off metaphor is good. For every force there is an equal and opposite force, yet I need the opposition to leap forward. Could the One have one property which be unity itself?(ouroboros). Could not another way to interpret perception be that subject and object mutually construct each other, making Hegel an idealist of sorts?

[@GregoryBSadler]

We're nowhere near that One, which would be entirely what it is, self-referential -- that's at the end of the work. And, Hegel is in fact an idealist

[@MrMarktrumble]

But I think that for me to really appreciate what that one means, I should trace and hold the whole argument up to that point. If I claim the One now as intrinsic to me....I could maybe be the holy idiot of uroboros. I could silently practise meditation and yoga, maybe lift weights and work the heavy bag, or spend endless hours roaming in the bush...but as soon as I try to make an account of anything, including describing or justifying my perception or life....I am thrown into the Hegelian dialectic.

[@GregoryBSadler]

Marcelle Elliott Multiple truths? sure -- you see him working through those as the section goes on. That's an integral part of the dialectical approach. I'm not sure how Carver would fit in there, though -- more likely that sort of thing will be what we'll look at in the section "Reason" down the line.

[@gregorywilliams2714]

Just wow! The camouflage metaphor! Thank you!

[@GregoryBSadler]

You're welcome

[@felipedim5]

I liked the hapax legomenon metaphor. Thank you again!

[@GregoryBSadler]

You're welcome!

[@ryanw8982]

Wow, this video is particualrly interesting. When writing one of my undergraduate essays, I used the concept of camoflauge to argue that a false proposition can be used as legitmate evidence for another beleif, proposition, event, etc. After that semester, my focus broadened from epistemologty to include more ontology and existentialism. I had never read Hegel previously, and I am not sure how I came to the thesis that i did, but I can see why I am so interested in Hegel's ideas now. Thanks again for the videos, Dr. Sadler!

[@GregoryBSadler]

Glad you enjoyed it I'd like to hear more about the camouflage idea

[@ryanw8982]

@@GregoryBSadler In my paper, I argued for a position called non-factive (false/not true) propositionalism (as opposed to psychologism) in the context of studying evidentialism in an epistimology class. I cannot find the draft that talked specifically about camouflage, but I did find a draft in which I talked about illusion/deception and the principle is similar. I make the point by using an example of having a non-veridical perception of a barn while driving through a countryside filled with both fake/holographic and real barns (keep in mind this is an incomplete undergrad essay): “In other words, fake barns exhibit all the same signs and symptoms as genuine ones. A plausible justification for believing a fake barn to be genuine is because its manufacturer took great care in making it appear like a barn without giving away any of the tricks of the trade. What does it say about the artisan if this is not a sufficient justification? One might argue he is skilled at creating illusions but not in building barns or providing proof of barns. What, therefore, is a "good" illusion if it doesn't provide the viewer any reason to believe it's a representation of the world as it really is? Evidence for a false barn would not come from the illusions themselves, which are intended to mimic reality, but rather from the properties that set them apart from actual barns, like the fact that one can walk through a hologram. The illusion is similar to reality inasmuch as the illusory features are similar to those of the genuine object. As a result, linking the look of a barn to anything that is not a barn for no apparent reason is absurd: in itself, the illusion of a barn is not proof for anything but a barn.

[@siwonyoo1600]

I really enjoy your videos, and I don't think I have anything to comment on philosophically except that it is perfect. But aside from that, I recommend having either a) the comment that tells you where in the video to look to refer to specific paragraphs or b) the paragraph number fixed in some corner of the video so that we can find when our desired paragraph begins right away.

[@GregoryBSadler]

Nah. Given the amount of work I do, and since you know precisely what paragraph I'm commenting on, you can do the little bit of work of clicking with your mouse

[@johncharles450]

Hi, Professor Sadler, thanks for your time! You're helping me prepare for my MA program in the fall.

[@GregoryBSadler]

Good!

[@martinpennington4429]

seems to me another example is training an AI even though a man and a lamp post look similar with some of the same determinate properties the AI perception must differentiate their oneness so it knows they will behave very differently.

[@Shpoogen]

wow, that is an interesting way to frame that, the AI perception must differentiate their oneness

[@donthasslethahoff]

Here in section 117, Hegel says: "I did not ..apprehend the objective essence correctly when I defined it as a community with others, or as a continuity; on account of the determinateness of the property, I must break up the continuity and posit the objective essence as a One that excludes. In the broken up One I find many such properties which do not effect one another but are mutually indifferent." However, in the previous section it was the medium of Also which provided indifferent properties and the One that excludes provided for determinate opposing properties. Why then in this paragraph does the One that excludes lead to mutually indifferent properties?

[@GregoryBSadler]

Yep, there's progress in the dialectic. . .

[@donthasslethahoff]

I am thinking that this is somehow due to the assumption that is in place here. Namely that the truth lies entirely with the object and any deviation from the principle of perception indicates an error on the part of consciousness. However, I'm struggling to see how the positing of the essence of One that excludes leads to indifferent properties in this particular case...