Half Hour Hegel: The Complete Phenomenology of Spirit (Force and the Understanding, sec. 136)

Get the Hegel book - amzn.to/2hVyru6
Support my work here - / sadler
Philosophy tutorials - reasonio.wordp...
In this fifty-third video in the new series on G.W.F. Hegel's great early work, the Phenomenology of Spirit, I read and comment on paragraph 136 of the text, continuing our study of the third portion of the section "Consciousness," i.e "Force and the Understanding: Appearance and the Supersensible World".
In this long and dense paragraph, Hegel introduces the conception of Force, framing it at first as the movement uniting the different, seemingly opposed aspects that have been studied up until this point. Force, as it applies to a plurality, exhibits itself in its expression, but it is equally Force as a unity, i.e. Force as driven back into itself.
At this point, he also distinguishes between the Notion of Force, as it is for thought, and the reality of Force, as it is in itself -- but these are connected with each other since Force is the unconditioned universal we have been seeking, which means that it incorporates difference within itself, even difference from itself. Both sides of the Force -- expression and return into self -- are moments of the fuller unity involved in it.
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, Violin Partitia no. 1, BWV 1002, V. Sarabande, is available in the public domain, and can be found at musopen.org.
#Hegel #Phenomenology #Philosophy #Idealism #German #Dialectic #Spirit #Absolute #Knowledge #History

[@TheNoister]

Wow. This makes life so much more awesome. To finally understand Hegel is a journey worth undertaking!

[@GregoryBSadler]

TheNoister That's an uncommon, but entirely right, sentiment!

[@dixie8418]

Words can not express my gratification for the clear explanation given on all subjects. Much appreciated!

[@GregoryBSadler]

M Lisher Glad that the videos have been useful for you -- you're welcome!

[@eylon1967]

me during this entire lecture 26:38 "what are we talking about?"

[@Robert4865]

Finally I can begin to grasp the meaning of this segment! Thank you!

[@donny3245]

This guy is a legend of our Hegelian future

[@GregoryBSadler]

Thanks!

[@GregoryBSadler]

Starting to make some progress into the new section!

[@MrMarktrumble]

thank you.

[@GregoryBSadler]

You're welcome

[@donthasslethahoff]

This is amazing, I'm so glad I found these! Thank you sir Greg for all your time and for having faith that the layman can get something out of this work. Looking forward to the rest of the journey!

[@brandonwadlington4075]

I'm writing a short paper on this section of the Phenomenology and these videos have been an invaluable asset. Thank you for all your work!

[@GregoryBSadler]

You're very welcome - glad that the videos have been useful for you!

[@JakeBorchenko]

Thank you so much for this! Was having a lot of trouble with this section.

[@GregoryBSadler]

you're very welcome

[@uberlifer]

Thank you so much for your effort!

[@GregoryBSadler]

Тимур Варол You're very welcome!

[@lyndonbailey3965]

There seems to be a paradoxicality in the independent matters which interpenetrate one another

[@DavidGreybeard]

I knew this would be trouble when the forward for this book called this section out as a lump of confusion. The whole time I wanted to bring to mind Carl Jung. I felt like I was in some archetypal underworld for the whole passage. Kind of like that alchemical idea of prima materia. Like waiting around for something to take shape out of formlessness.

[@GregoryBSadler]

It is quite likely the most difficult section of the work, to be sure

[@DavidGreybeard]

The forward also used this section to note that some of Hegel's steps towards absolute knowledge seems capricious and suspicious. Do you agree with that or was the forward over reacting to what is going on here? Like if this section was omitted would the logos of the book unravel?

[@GregoryBSadler]

I wouldn't put too much stock in a forward to a philosophical work. Better to read the work itself, and make your own judgements. Same goes for whether the steps towards absolute knowledge are "capricious and suspicious" - that's something one gets to decide after reading the whole work, and then reflecting on how one got from one stage to another. Personally, I don't think one has to follow Hegel entirely to get a good bit out of the work - including this section. But "capricious"? No, I think that's a poorly chosen way to describe Hegel's process

[@noahlibra]

I'm confused on the exact distinction between the concept of Force and its reality: specifically how Observing Reason asserts that the Understanding who has this concept of the world is only thinking, and not apprehending its truth, without begging the question about its role as the Notion in the implicit comprehension of its distinction.

[@GregoryBSadler]

Keep rereading and thinking

[@noahlibra]

@@GregoryBSadler Do you have an answer to this question? I’ve been quite stuck with it for some time. Would be much appreciated

[@GregoryBSadler]

@@noahlibra I'm pretty busy at present, and don't plan to make time to address your confusions individually here. I've already given you a host of free commentary videos. You can take my advice and reread and think things over. If you want 1-on-1 tutoring, you see the link for it right in the video description

[@UCnhHegbqCv6_CnRAETfCSsA]

So the notion of force is itself not substantial (not a substance) ?

[@jamesdyer2393]

Why does Hegel claim that the moment of being as a One correlates to the being-for-self, whereas the moment of the plurality of diverse matters correlates to the being-for-another.....couldn't it be equally true in the reverse? When I pluck an apple from a tree, it is the one thing, it is the apple-for-me. But when broken down into any of its constituent components, say red, or skin, or sweetness, each one is what it is because it is not anything else, therefore each thing is in-itself, or being-for-self. When you view another person as a whole, they are the being-for-another, a one, a unity. But inside, in-itself, the person is a plurality of distinct matters, each which is what it is because it is not anything else......inside you are many emotions, many behaviors, many thoughts, but to another, an even to the "one who steps out and views the self" you are a contained whole

[@QuintessentialQs]

You could probably talk yourself in circles inverting between these two modes. That seems like a good opportunity to synthesize and sublate them. Since the only thing that can make two things different from each other is their relation to and for another. It feels like if you atomize something into smaller and smaller parts you never end up with a one, and yet the oneness of a thing seems in some way self-evident (perhaps an illusion of common sense?) I'm don't think I have an effective dialectic readily available here, just the threads at the start of one.

[@2tehnik]

I'm pretty sure that's resolved in the previous two sections. So I suggest you check those out if you still care about this by now. I think the main idea is that if something is for itself, it is a whole and undifferentiated unity; an apple is simply an apple. But once something is plural, it implies the constituents are for another. The red isn't just there by itself, it's there for the sweetness. If it were for itself purely, you wouldn't have a plurality. Using these kinds of examples might be a problem though. The point of this stage is to establish the unconditioned absolute universality. Trying to go back to apples seems like going pack to perception.

[@metaprocrastinator3005]

am i hurrying a little too much if i read the inner of things as kant`s noumena?

[@GregoryBSadler]

Well, can you know anything about that thing, according to Kant?

[@metaprocrastinator3005]

@@GregoryBSadler No, im guessing for hegel the answer is yes. Really unneasy about how he`ll go about it though. Thanks for your work, your lectures are a great help

[@QuintessentialQs]

So wait... the Force surrounds us, penetrates us, and binds the galaxy together?

[@GregoryBSadler]

Not that hokey one, no

[@QuintessentialQs]

@@GregoryBSadler Well, I mean, it does seem to surround, penetrate and bind the independent matters into the creation of the concept (notion) by way of its movement. I'm going to rewatch Star Wars assuming the Jedi are Hegelians, now, lol. *waves hand* "These aren't the universals you're looking for. Move along."

[@jackm1758]

I feel so dumb

[@GregoryBSadler]

Hegel is tough