Half Hour Hegel: The Complete Phenomenology of Spirit (Preface, sec 10-12)

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 fifth video in the new series on G.W.F. Hegel's great early work, the Phenomenology of Spirit, I read and comment on the tenth, eleventh, and twelfth paragraphs of the text, from the Preface. In these sections, Hegel continues his criticism of views of philosophy that view it as culminating in intuition, arguing that Spirit requires the articulation associated with the Concept or Notion. He then discusses the present age as one in which a new world is being brought to birth -- and uses the metaphor of a child to illustrate how quantitative growth gives way to an unpredictable, qualitative leap
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: Solo Violin - BWV 1004 - Partita for Violin No. 2 - Recorded in Brooklyn June 26, 2011 specifically to be dedicated to the Public Domain
#Hegel #Phenomenology #Philosophy #Idealism #German #Dialectic #Spirit #Absolute #Knowledge #History

[@TheHamashwan]

I love how Sadler channels Hegel's sass to be equally as sassy towards modern new age types

[@GregoryBSadler]

The slow steady march of Spirit continues. . . . .

[@eupraxis1]

well, steady-ish.

[@GregoryBSadler]

1-2 videos per week, consistently. I'd say that's steady.

[@eupraxis1]

Gregory B. Sadler Sorry, I took you to mean the Weltgeist!

[@lyndonbailey3965]

+Gregory B. Sadler Much like the heavy inevitability with which the roman legions marched in.Prior to Cannae at least.

[@peterlambert5130]

Slow steady March? Like the Procession of Goethes Faust?. slow and Steady with Saturnic energies.

[@rasputinslover]

Dear Dr Sadler, I want to extend a heartfelt thank you for the investment of time you have made to this incredible project. Words cannot adequately express thanks for the gift of learning you provide. I for one am extremely grateful. There's a special place in the universal stream of human consciousness for people like you.

[@GregoryBSadler]

+Nicholas Harrington You're very welcome!

[@rubannielson]

yes thank you so much. Moving through this dense text in this way is very satisfying

[@GregoryBSadler]

Ruban Nielson You're welcome!

[@ezequielstepanenko3229]

It takes me a little more than two hours to watch each video of this series, With my copy in spanish in one hand, a copy of the original text in german in the computer (wich I revise sometimes word by word with google translate and my poor knowledge of the german language), and taking notes. Hegel's work is fascinating and also addictive. Thank you Dr. Sadler for this videos!!!

[@GregoryBSadler]

You're very welcome!

[@laseryohanna]

thanks for posting. I have been laughing to myself how each 30 minute video turns into hours. I also re- watch the videos and take notes again. You are certainly inspiring to me. Maybe the next time through with German.... who knows what i/we will be inclined to do after even a few months!!!!

[@MrVexedspirit]

this is probably the best thing on youtube to me)

[@GregoryBSadler]

That's some pretty high praise!

[@patriciabiral6659]

I totally agree with you, Mr. Abu Jaffar Shishani! This is brilliant work! Thank you so much, Professor.

[@lisa107b]

I really hope you are able to keep doing this :) I have never been so engaged in Philosophy than to hear your 'down to earth' comparison/explanations of the (it has to be said) verbose and convoluted text from Hegel - It makes me so much more interested to attempt understanding of it. I like that it feels as though you are exploring the text with us, rather than dictating it to us.

[@GregoryBSadler]

At this point, continuing it is largely a factor of finding the time to reread, plan out, shoot, and then edit the videos. So, no reason I shouldn't be able to continue all the way through. I'm glad to hear that it is helping you understand the text -- and getting you to approach it, to read it on its own account. . . that's the goal, not to be a substitute for Hegel's text, but to support those who want to study it

[@lisa107b]

Gregory B. Sadler :) exactly my point - I do have an idea how much time it takes to do these, and I'm glad you are still 'up for it' as it were, being as busy as you are I bet it proves quite a challenge!

[@GregoryBSadler]

It's tricky right now -- I'm finishing up my semester at Marist, building an Existentialism class for Oplerno, and the speaking engagements really filled up the calender in April and early May. By Mid-may, I've just got a few deadlines to meet, so I should be able to get more of these Hegel videos done and uploaded.

[@megazekemeister]

In Hebrew, we use something closer to German continental terminology and the Humanities the "Sciences of Spirit". (Israeli academia was founded by German scholars, so no surprise there) I never thought about how Hegelian that sounds lol - the idea that we aren't just dealing with "low human endeavors" but with the World of Spirit. In general, I've noticed a lot of Hegelian influence lingering here - Religious Zionist ideology is also often understood as being heavily influenced by Hegelian ideas. That's why I decided I should know more about Hegel and try and understand that connection. Thanks for these lectures! I don't always understand much and I feel like I probably don't have enough background in philosophy to understand a lot of it well, but I'm working my way through these lectures and I'm sure something will eventually sink in lol

[@kevinelruler]

Exciting endeavor, I'll listen to it every week!

[@GregoryBSadler]

Glad to have a committed audience

[@KismetLizard]

I'm coming to this to help give me more understanding and extra consumption of Hegel for a module on German Idealism at University. These videos have been great to have on while studying or working on other projects. Thanks!

[@D__Cain]

Bless you for this free content ! You doing the WORK

[@GregoryBSadler]

Thanks

[@philmcevoy1019]

Brilliant lecture - prevaded with a deep understanding of the history of science

[@GregoryBSadler]

Thanks!

[@Steegro68]

Great stuff, GBS, thanks for the effort.

[@GregoryBSadler]

You're very welcome. Glad you enjoy it

[@MrMarktrumble]

Preface, sec 10-12 thank you

[@infrajeger]

I know this video is 8 years old but I do want to say I appreciate you making all these lectures. To me Gnosticism really deviates from the concept of "Intuition with God," and more can be found in common with Hegel than one might think. In the Gospel of Philip, and in Valentinus' writings, for example, numerous references are made to building this wisdom with God that, true enough, can be found inside oneself, but has to be painstakingly reached by means of grappling with wisdom and thought, because it is through thought that Man finds his place in the Pleroma, not through Sophian experience and feeling. I suppose New Age Gnosticism is more akin to today's spirituality and mysticism, though.

[@GregoryBSadler]

Yes, it's not enough to find a few parallels or things in common to rightly view Hegel as a gnostic

[@aydnofastro-action1788]

This series is awesome! really enjoying it! At this point this sounds like a total indictment of The "New Age' - 200 years in advance! Like he was almost predicting the coming of such 'nebulous spirituality.' I've been around that community a lot, and philosophy is a welcome relief! Ha, So, I totally agree with Hegel. He hits the nail on the head. Its great to read a well constructed argument that explains what is behind the annoying aspect of 'popular new age' chatter', and its marketing.

[@GregoryBSadler]

Well, the "New Age" really isn't all that new -- you might find this video, from my Religion in America class (which is just about to wrap up for the semester), interesting: Religion in America #38 "America's Religions," Ch. 41 Health, Wealth, and Metaphysics

[@eupraxis1]

1) very good. As a life-long (well, since about '77 as an undergrad) Hegel ... person ("Hegelian" sounds too strong for any Hegelian to tolerate), I am very pleased with this. Hegel demands patience - just like this. 2) Wow! A real blackboard!

[@GregoryBSadler]

Indeed -- we bought the blackboard for the home studio, precisely so that I could be assured of always having one available

[@ericopaschoalbitencourt6236]

I am grateful for these videos during the Coronavirus. Finally getting to finish this book and what it is all about. It's great. Love the videos.

[@GregoryBSadler]

Working your way through the text with them will certainly eat up a chunk of time!

[@goldboolean6819]

After my wife recently had werecked my car, I had an epiphany on "totalization" thanks to and according to my insurance company. In this with all metaphors and puns aside, I was just glad everyone was ok. This is how i view life now. As far as learning and intuition I defer to Torah; that when you harvest, one should leave a remnant for the poor. That's me. I am the one gleaning the crop of Hegel, Dr. Sadler, and many others. I do not want to "throw the baby out with the bath water".

[@scottwilliams8389]

Wonderful stuff

[@GregoryBSadler]

Thanks!

[@mandys1505]

I'm watching this again... these statements would make so many people mad; when i imagine this, it clarifies what Hegel was saying; the people with very intense emotional convictions as to the depth of their experience, which is akin to getting high, would possibly turn sort of barbarous when asked to provide a clear definition of anything they might be referring to/there's nothing there.a feeling of profound intensity, yes, it is not worth living unless you have a sense of awe, but this sort of getting high, getting blunted and then getting up in arms about it. it would be better to say, THAT is its own thing, but not necessarily what you claim it to be~

[@GregoryBSadler]

Yes, for Hegel, unless you can articulate it --and not just to yourself -- you should probably be a bit suspicious about such experiences. . .. .

[@awildjosh1669]

Thank you for this, trying to begin to research Critical Theory, but realising I need a lot more Marx and a LOT more Hegel in my understanding

[@GregoryBSadler]

You're welcome!

[@grgr279]

Hello Dr. Sadler, Thank you so much for doing this immense amount of work. This series has made reading the Phenomenology of Spirit so much easier. I was struck with how much parallels there are with paragraph 12 and Kuhn’s Structure of Scientific Revolution. While Kuhn narrows his view to the natural sciences (and there are many arguments that his view really only applies to physics and chemistry) it seems to me that paradigm shifts and Hegel’s Notion of Science are saying the same thing. What similarities and differences do these two concepts have? And even better if you know (and have the time) what similarities and differences do these two thinkers have?

[@maryl8539]

Watching this for the first time, immediately thought of Kuhn

[@txpyro1885]

Hegel, impressive!

[@rinzaigigen8582]

It would appear that Heidegger, the most notoriously rigourous of the modern philosophers, was on the left side of this chart far more than on the right; in fact, the “Rapturous Haziness” Hegel describes seems like a description of the “ontological” domain instead of the superficial “ontic” dimension on the Right... if only because so many modern “rationalists” casually repeat the mistakes of Hegel and dismiss the Ontological in its Entirety, and with the advent of information technology they require no more rigour to substantiate their arguments than the authority of the first, one-line result to come up in Google. With regard to the term “holistic”, I’ve certainly been met with confusion in using it throughout my later youth, though it was not vague at all to me, and I had almost presumed that it would be self-evident to established adults. The work of Jung and his exploration of Psychological Types, as well as his incisive and articulate analysis of the relationship between “Spirit” and “intellect”, helped me to understand how best to DESCRIBE the “holistic” dimension that underlies the more “linear” approach ingrained in public education… but it did little more to reveal the Ontological Depths than to provide “justification” to those parties who were not entitled to that justification, for their authority was partial. Heidegger managed to make that Rapturous Haziness even more complicated and impenetrable than Hegel’s pretentious rationalism, but only by developing his own terminology, purely in order to describe those same vague feelings and immediate “experiences” that Hegel appears so contemptuous of. In short: it feels like a long, winding road back to the beginning, driven only by the momentum of rationalism, one hardly distinguishable from the Socratic pretensions that Nietzsche so expertly demolished in his debut. While we picked up much along the way, it mainly armed us only with a new appeal by which to compete in rigour rather than to contact the Unconscious: in short, Jung’s denunciation of the _misérable vanité des savants¬_ suffices to explain why so little actual ontological progress has been made in post-modernity, at least by the layperson, and Hegel is the culprit. Over all, I enjoy these videos as a historical record by which to account for the deterioration of Man’s Spiritual Journey in Modernity, both in the context of tradition as well as with regards to “his” immediate contact with Existence. I’m also reminded not to dismiss Sartre wholesale, only because the existentialists were a natural outgrowth of Heideggerean phenomenology who helped to restore Feeling to its proper place ALONGSIDE Thought (and if that’s not “holistic”, I don’t know what is, and if Feeling Types tend towards this more than Thinking Types do, then to ascribe “holism” to them is only fair). I look forward to your recent video on Foucault. Thank you again, Doctor Sadler. *[({R.G.)}]*

[@GregoryBSadler]

I'll take Heidegger over Jung any day

[@lyndonbailey3965]

I'm also curious what Hegel would have thought of Rousseau. I know that Roussseau's conception of the inherent goodness of man came in a flash of inspiration, not unlike a religious epiphany and I think Rousseau was inclined to have those kinds of insights.I have seen it mentioned that Hegel was influenced in some way by Rousseau but I don't know the content of that influence.

[@GregoryBSadler]

That will come up from time to time. Hegel considers Rousseau to have a very one-sided view on matters, and will unravel his views dialectically. . . .

[@jojoblazer777]

So in the video you are talking about this "rapturous haziness" that some people talk about. The idea that some people latch on to that there is some higher thought that they are engaged in that when looked at objectively is probably really just a matter of feelings. I am going through a lot of math this summer. Like, all the math. I finished Algebra and trigonometry in the spring, in summer I I did Calculus 1 and in a week I'll do Calculus 2. I'm pretty good at math. One of the reasons that I really enjoy it is that it provides me with the exact opposite of the rapturous haziness and breadthless knowlege that you and Hegel are describing. At the same time, the greatness that Hegel seems to associate with the scientific seems a bit in excess in my opinion. I feel this way when I consider the hubris that seems to inherently lend itself to the realm of the scientific/systematic. I feel like it makes every effort to ruin whatever meaning that the scientific/systematic tries to impart on the one studying. Maybe I will try to use some Hegel terminology here and say that I feel most frustrated when that hubris seems to detract from "die sache selpst."

[@GregoryBSadler]

You'll want to work your way through what Hegel means by "science", which is not exactly the same as what people tend to mean by it today -- then you'll be able to evaluate whether your take on his views are on-target or not.

[@jojoblazer777]

I get that Hegel is referring to all sciences from the human/social to the analytic/mechanical. Though you are probably right that it requires much more mulling than I've done :). I really like his views, but I don't think it changes my impression that it is really easy within the scientific (I mean to use Hegel's definition of the scientific here; wissenchaften) to use the "grandeur" of a science as a motivation or reason to study something. Does that make any sense? Hopefully nobody reads this out of context (these comments show up when you google my name) but the real reason that I like to think that I study mathematics is for the glory of God. Though I got the hint that Hegel is going to poke at that in this book.

[@jojoblazer777]

I guess I should say that by science I mean the sort of struggle with an idea that eventually matures into some sort of systematic analysis or thoughtful approach to a problem or subject. some mulling is happening. . .

[@GregoryBSadler]

Well, it's not just that Hegel is looking at the sciences -- plural -- as needing to be brought into a kind of unified perspective -- though that is part of it. It's also that Hegel's notion of science focuses not just on the object of knowledge, but on the process of coming to know, and the involvement of the knowing subject. You may be a bit disappointed when it comes to Hegel on Mathematics, though. . . . (but, actually, studying math for the glory of God makes sense to me)

[@jojoblazer777]

Ah! It makes sense to you! That's good, some people would probably gawk at the thought. Thanks. Disappointed!? Nooo, perhaps challenged. Perhaps. We'll see.

[@lyndonbailey3965]

wonder how Hegel would feel about the great novels,music,art and so on and poetry which can be sent or received with paradox the ineffable and tremendous depth that might not allow a description that would satisfy an analytic??As I recall Wittgenstein used to say this was the more important half of the questions of life...but we just cant talk about it in a philosophical mode (according to his early thinking)

[@GregoryBSadler]

+lyndon bailey Well, to give a short answer to that. . . . I'd say that in certain respects, Hegel would be more on the side of the Analytics when it comes to artistic/cultural products. He's interested in the consciousness and the ideas involved in them, and what he always likes best is when those are extracted from them in a conceptual form (i.e. as Begriff), rather than just in the representational or "picture" form (Vorstelling), let alone subjective "feeling" form (Gefuehl). You can see Hegel working with this sort of stuff to some degree in the Phenomenology -- e.g. when he's dealing with, e.g. the Antigone, or with religion in the form of Art. But, the place to go to see him in full swing would, I think, be his lectures on aesthetics

[@lyndonbailey3965]

+Gregory B. Sadler Would it be fair to say then, that we can accept transcendental 'experiences' or 'intuitions' in the sense of giving them the benefit of the doubt except for when they are obviously cheap, glib, superficial, hippy-dippy and so on, within that domain of life/mind, but that it does not cut the mustard according to the definition of philosophy that Hegel defines as its proper domain? I can definitely see something of what Hegel is saying with regards to online forums where new-agey types come on and apply a messy, catch-all, vague but grandiose claim, and seem to think it applies narrowly and powerfully to an extremely specific set of circumstances.

[@GregoryBSadler]

lyndon bailey Hegel doesn't define philosophy. In fact, if he's right in the way he sets things out, it's not the sort of matter that can be adequately defined.

[@lyndonbailey3965]

+Gregory B. Sadler Yes.That's what the preface is about, fair enough.I am giving this a second go, hence the comments. I got stuck last time around section 20 but hoping I can grasp it this time round.

[@Hegelianshitposting]

Could you go more in-depth about your comment about Gnosticism at 12:00? I have a basic knowledge of early Christianity but the context in which you referenced them confused me.

[@lyndonbailey3965]

I suppose I would be more hesitant than Hegel here.Based on my experiences with teaching language I can see that people often can have high-level understanding of a language without being able to communicate adequately their understanding. Also, just personally, I tend to have insights via bold leap rather than through diligent systematic exploration and there is a danger of getting drawn into a positivist frame of mind where you write off something based on it's perceived clarity rather than having a bit more charity. I agree with him that there are fuzzy superficial people but its really about callibrating your judgement to recognise the difference I guess.

[@GregoryBSadler]

Hegel's certainly no positivist. Some of this will become clearer as you keep reading on

[@lyndonbailey3965]

Gregory B. Sadler My mind is blown by how pithy and dense this book is. I can imagine doing a whole class and follow-up work and discussion based on just one small paragraph.It's a pity that the language is so impenetrable for those not well versed in German Idealism but these videos are doing 90% of the leg work to access it.

[@GregoryBSadler]

Hahaha! 90% might be FAR too generous an estimate! We ought to be more thankful to Miller, I think, for having done the work to provide a translation, and go through all the bother it takes to actually get it into publication (and, soon enough, we'll have Pinkard to thank for a better one).

[@jivanreyes6590]

How does one differentiate between "quantitative growth" and "qualitative leap" in the context of history (how can we tell if a particular age, say "enlightenment" or "industrial revolution", came about in either an aggregation of small changes that leads to the result, or a non-transitional 'leap' that jumps to an age)?

[@GregoryBSadler]

From Hegel's perspective, you tell afterwards

[@Mgawe]

In sec8 a point has been made that Spirit, with some effort, was refocused from the Medieval (metaphysical) to the Modern (empirical). However, in sec10 we see that Spirit is now held by the Intuitive Philosophers on their side. Is Hegel making a point here? Is he saying that this is how the Intuitive side sees things but in reality we are in the Modern, or is the struggle still at hand and the Spirit may still be wrestled to either side?

[@noah1130clawson]

I consider myself a holistic thinker, so I'll try and explain what that means for me. First, here's a definition I pulled of the internet. The theory that parts of a whole are in intimate interconnection, such that they cannot exist independently of the whole, or cannot be understood without reference to the whole, which is thus regarded as greater than the sum of its parts. Holism is often applied to mental states, language, and ecology. Medicine the treating of the whole person, taking into account mental and social factors, rather than just the physical symptoms of a disease. Origin I have ADHD and did not get very good grades in school. As a result, I have some minor narcissistic tendencies... For example, When I watch this video, I can feel an emotional push to devalue the narrator. This, I know, has to do with my own insecurities. For instance, if I get a feeling that the narrator is "stupid" chances are that he is saying something very intelligent. At that point, I would stop the video and replay the section that I felt the narrator was "stupid." Emotions shapes the flow of information that enters into one's brain. If I don't pay attention to these feelings, chances are I won't learn much. Most people would say that my subtle emotions towards the narrator are completely irrelevant to the material. They would say that I should just block them out. Since I have ADHD, this is very difficult to do. Instead, I let these "distracting" emotions facilitate the intake of information... I refer to this as holistic thinking, because I am using the WHOLE of my consciousness. I am using emotions that most other people would see as extraneous, irrelevant and distracting to the process of learning Hegel. I also tend to see the "big picture" because I'll be thinking of other things while I watch the video: narcissism, emotions, personality etc. This thinking process feels very chaotic and anxiety ridden. When It suddenly (and rarely) coalesces into a big picture, I feel a great sense of awe and satisfaction. This process at least gives me the feeling that the "whole is greater than the sum of its parts." I don't know for a fact that the whole really is greater than the sum of its parts. It simply feels that way to me. I don't see this "holistic" style of thinking as superior to a more rational or analytical style. This is not a thinking style I chose, it's just the way I am.. To learn this material, I will need to watch these videos several times without trying to pay full attention... After I get a "fuzzy sense" of what the narrator is saying, then I'll start focusing... I understand that people can be obnoxious with the whole right brain/left brain thing, but there is a grain of truth to it. As a final note, I do feel that I rely on my intuition far more that other people rely on theirs. I think this intuition is a type of cognitive heuristics... My intuition is very useful for getting me in the general area of truth, but it does not take me all the way there... Like every one else, I have to work very hard to arrive at understanding... Anyways, I hope this illustrates what holistic thinking might look like.

[@GregoryBSadler]

Well, that's fine. But it's quite different from the holistic thinking Hegel is engaged in

[@noah1130clawson]

Gregory B. Sadler I don't yet know what Hegel was engaged in, I haven't put the appropriate time in yet... I'm going to go back and listen to these tapes several times. You have managed to hook me... BTW, I feel that you have done a great service by uploading these videos... It's a luxury to be able to watch these videos from my apartment for free and for as many times as I want. I have read some Sartre, and I understand that many of Sartre's ideas are ultimately derived from Hegel. To me, Sartre's play THE ROOM embodied an object relations perspective on Narcissism. I get the sense that much of Hegel's philosophy might facilitate the object relations based therapies. Ultimately, I think Hegel's ideas can be used to help improve peoples mental health. I am going to find out Thanks for posting this series of videos.

[@GregoryBSadler]

Well, some of Sartre's ideas are derived from Hegel. Definitely not all of them. If you mean "No Exit" by "the Room", yes, I think one could make a case that the characters are rather narcissistic. You might like the video I did on that play recently, as well as the one on Marcel's criticisms of Sartre -- all of which you can find in the existentialism playlist

[@noah1130clawson]

Gregory B. Sadler Yes you're right... It is "No Exit." I will definitely check out your videos on existentialism... Thank you.

[@VermeersLens]

The two approaches to philosophy discussed in this video (intuitive vs analytic) reminds me of the discussion in 'Zen and the Art of Motorcycle Maintenance' where the narrator claims that both are born out of 'Quality'; which is itself undefinable (but we know it if we see it) because it is sort of at the level of pre-analytic awareness. And he further claims that it is this 'Quality' that helps us pick, among the infinitude of hypotheses the ones that lead to fruitful discoveries (Also resolves the conflict between the above dichotomy). Is this an original thesis of the author or has it already been discussed elsewhere in the philosophical canons? Do you think it is bs? (Btw I think it's an awesome idea) Also, I am quite sure if you put an excellent chef to the Socratic interrogation, you can show that he/she knows nothing about cooking! This is also a criticism by the author (of ZAAM), of such scientific approaches; that it has the ulterior motive of undermining beauty.

[@GregoryBSadler]

It's an oversimplification, which Hegel will undo quickly enough. Are there others who make that sort of distinction in the history of philosophy? Sure. Lots

[@g.boychev9355]

This actually articulates very well a problem I've had with Zen Buddhism, at least the way it was presented by a Western thinker like Alan Watts: this appeal to directly experience awakening, to directly understand reality and the meaning of it all. It struck me as a very shallow and self-centered way of thinking about reality.

[@GregoryBSadler]

Yes, after getting over the initial excitement that those sorts of ideas can provoke, it's typically a dissapointment

[@ridicule1313]

My understanding, as a personal Zen Buddhist, is that the “direct experience of awakening” is basically what can be understood as an experience of the infinite. It is nothing more than life’s spontaneity hitting you in the face in whatever way, good or bad, and the emotional response to that. In those “moments” I’ve had, it’s not that I came to know “the answer” and then must spread it to all (that’s where the problem sets in). It’s more that I came to finally look to myself as the one constantly struggling so vigorously for it, and ultimately not being able to find something I could concretely grasp on to with certainty. Utter groundlessness. Absurdity. The feeling associated with this is what some can consider to be God, and they often try to spread it to everyone they know and love as a result (often to their own dismay). To me it can be summed up as simply as saying “coming to know how little you know.” Idk just my thoughts on it as a zen Buddhist myself

[@ridicule1313]

Overall, I do think it is sort of a misunderstanding of zen Buddhist tradition to say that we assume to have found “the meaning of it all.” Maybe plenty act in that way as a result of their individual experiences. But it’s actually quite the opposite. It’s a lot more similar to a sort of Optimistic Nihilism. There is no external “thing” for us to hold on to-everything is impermanent, arises simply due to the causes and conditions that led it to arise, and will eventually wither away as well. Zen itself is aware of its own innate lack of answers in that way. Meaning and purpose is something that we decide and create for ourselves.

[@mandys1505]

on that first paragraph- that is so well stated; because many times, people get carried away with the feeling of pleasure, which grows into ecstacy or religious conviction...my friends who have been philosophy majors told me about this happening in class...even getting cult-like, this happened with derrida and heidegger....but it has happened to me personally, and then i think,-wait, this is too flakey- this isn't right- and i return to a balance of being enchanted with the material, but keeping it in a foundation of science. also, people on thee religious side of things are distrustful against science.....i find science articles to be as poetic as any literature...but what a strange, uncomfortable divide in our society!!!

[@GregoryBSadler]

Well, I suppose the appeal to intuition can come equally in religious or in non-religious forms. What's Hegel is calling "science" would be something a bit broader than what people call it today -- in fact a good bit of the "science" side in the "science vs. religion" stuff, is, from a Hegelian perspective, equally one-sided

[@alexnelson7744]

So does Hegel have much to say about the Counter-Enlightenment? (I am reading the Phenomonology "with you", in the sense that I'm at paragraph 12 at the end of this video...so if Hegel talks about the Counter-Enlightenment in paragraph 13 or later, I'm so sorry for asking!) (Also, note for future me: 13:18 for paragraph 11, 21:38 for paragraph 12)

[@GregoryBSadler]

Not in the Phenomenology, no

[@alexnelson7744]

@@GregoryBSadler Cool, thanks.

[@helmutglavar6839]

Usually the German term ‘Begriff’ is translated into ‘concept’, in the Miller translation however it is translated into ‘notion’. While the term concept is probably more appropriate, notion, in this particular case, seems to me more helpful. Any thoughts on this? Somebody suggested replacing ‘notion’ with program (like a computer program) would that be helpful ?

[@GregoryBSadler]

Well, since Hegel himself is using Begriff in his own way, differing from other German philosopher's use of the term as well, I'm ok with either "concept" or "notion". I can't see replacing it with "program", no. . . .

[@helmutglavar6839]

Gregory B. Sadler Thanks, that makes sense, and confirms Q. Lauer's remark that Hegel uses Begriff in two ways (a) as full conceptual comprehension and (b) as mere 'simple' concept which is no more than abstract representation. I, by chance, found a very good additional explanation why notion would be more appropriate (in A. Orbe, Analecta Gregoriana in (Jesus after the Gospels): ‘The first motion of the mind in relation to anything is a notion (ennoia)’

[@GregoryBSadler]

I suppose, though ennoia is also translated in multiple ways as well -- and is a term used by many different thinkers, with widely different perspectives. . . .

[@chrisc7265]

Walter Kaufmann has strong thoughts on the matter: "The ordinary meaning of Begriff is definitely concept. Because this is one of Hegel’s most characteristic terms, and he associates more than its ordinary meaning with it, some nineteenth-century English translators felt that a less ordinary term was called for and hit on “notion.” This word is utterly misleading as it suggests vagueness and caprice, while Hegel takes pains to attack haziness and subjectivity, opposing to them “the seriousness of the Concept” (cf. 11 below). He upholds rigorous and highly disciplined conceptual analysis. Begriff is closely related to begreifen (to comprehend)-an affinity that unfortunately cannot be recaptured in English-and Hegel considers it the task of philosophy to comprehend and not merely to feel and rhapsodize. "

[@abcrane]

Why did Hegel cross the road? Sorry guys, KZbin has less than a 600 page limit for its comment section.

[@john-sw9bu]

at 5:05 "which is ACTUALLY the opposite of death, DEPTH..." lol. That slip gives away way too much to keep in the final cut!

[@mandys1505]

"Unless you can articulate it" /Well, what about poetry? I've been trying to get further into Hegel's criticism here; Poetry is an articulation of the Sublime, isn't it? :)

[@GregoryBSadler]

Well, good poetry might be. Most poetry these days certainly isn't. And if you're writing poetry, you're articulating, right? You're not just pointing and saying oog, oog, oog. . .

[@mandys1505]

@@GregoryBSadler for sure...

[@mandys1505]

@@GregoryBSadler probably...most poetry in all the ages wasn't too good...but we just see the cream of the crop...you know? like, for the past century,,,, i think a book such as "The White Stones" by J.H. Prynne is really good....it incorporates both sides of what Hegel was referring to here, in my opinion.....Tarrying with the Sublime.... not just a moment of awe at the Hazy Magnificence of it, but paying it Homage....with a life's work.

[@chrisc7265]

@@GregoryBSadler there is some articulation and structure in art; without structure there is only noise. But there is less articulation than philosophy. Philosophy might be considered art that is articulated to the point it is no longer artistic. Feeling and intuition, the things on the left side of the board criticized in this lesson (though you hint this is not a bad/good dichotomy, and perhaps we'll get into more nuance later on), are the modes of the great artist. The great poet feels and intuits the sublime, and is, through minimum articulation, able to communicate that on the page. This is the concept beneath "show don't tell"; if the artist puts too much of their conscious, systematic thought of what they believe their art to be into the work itself, that spark of the sublime is smothered. CG Jung criticizes the psychological novel by pointing out that all great novels are psychological, in that they have characters with psychological depth. Great novels are of interest to the psychologist, because the characters within can be analyzed as real people. When the novelist tries to, in the process of writing, psychoanalyze their own characters, to show off how "psychological" their work is, the characters become stilted, and that not-wholly-articulated-humanity, that emotional connection that occurs beneath the conscious level, and by extension the verisimilitude of the human characters, is lost.

[@mandys1505]

To be fair, i think that there is a response on either side of that dichotomy, wherein a deeper, or more superficial road can be taken... I understand Hegel's annoyance at the superficial response to spirituality, or the hidden world. It can and does lead to religious tyranny ..it also leads to a very hippy dippy response which is without any invovlement of the higher mind, and therefore is very annoying to be around! But the higher response to the Sublime is articulated by poetry, and not just poetry but occult magic , such as grimoire tradition and also renaissance astrology, as opposed to modern or watered down, pop-astrology. And of course, the response to studies of exoteric arts and sciences are also plagued by egotisitc simplistic lazy emotional or pompous rhetoric. Of course, you went out of your way to clarify that this dichotomy is to be taken as not black and white..... the reason that i bring this up now is because the political right uses a similar kind of rant to just....shut down and disqualify the romantic poetic dreamy kind of side to life...and i mean, to shut it off completely, as in cauterize it in an anathema respect....so at this juncture in Hegel.... it was important for me to further emphasize and clarify what you had said in the previous video on this dichotomy.... both sides are very crucial to human being, and there certainly is a deeper and superficial way to encounter either! /Thank you for these videos; this is probably the fourth time I've gone over the beginning of the preface, because it is so important to understand....and thank you for explaining the German words, such as Begriff, as Concept, or Notion...because one subtle use of the term makes a big difference. I am really grappling with the Hegel... :)) and enjoying every second. It is getting more and more relevant and therefore more serious for me, in forming my own world view.

[@mandys1505]

my point is, it is a false argument to say : that since the person can find all of these bad examples of the responses to a certain area of study or a certain topic....then, therefore, the entire topic is now proven to be invalid. The true discernment is that, there are both shallow and enriched responses to both esoteric and exoteric topics. / i have seen in the rhetoric of political propaganda lately, right wing speakers with an agenda to create a myth of the left coming to power thru the universities, and thru postmodernism, entirely discredit the field of postmodern philosophy using the same faulty argument.... look at these bad responses to this topic...whell, i guess the whole topic is now illegitemate....so yeah--- i was saying this, hoping that HEGEL was not guilty of making the same mistake.

[@gwendeseminat8r]

The earth revolve around earning currency, copernicus - hegel

[@TheGerogero]

I wonder what Hegel would think of Wittgenstein.

[@GregoryBSadler]

I doubt he would have put up with his quirks all that long. . .

[@AnthonyKrupp]

Why does Hegel refer to "Horus" here?

[@GregoryBSadler]

He doesn't. Read the text closely and you'll see the word he uses, which is the Greek term Horos

[@AnthonyKrupp]

@@GregoryBSadler oops, yes, sorry! (Literally waiting on a new pair of glasses, lol.) Ahhhh, so boundary/limit. Not the sibling of Osiris or whatever. That makes sense! Thank you.

[@themasterbather]

Developing a philosophical system by trying to encapsulate and (contribute to development of) every contemporary "subject" (although they were in their infancy's) and apply it to a total philosophical system... sounds like the most arduous endeavor ever attempted by a human. Before watching even these first few videos I always thought of an intuitive (spirited) side of human's to be inexplicable and a deviation from linear thought (especially after reading lots of Alan Watts on eastern philosophy). It seems as though Hegel would attribute Taoist or Zen philosophy as intellectually lazy.

[@burngrace5205]

So the opposite of ibn arabi? “the intellect restricts and seeks to define the truth within a particular qualification god does not admit such limitation”

[@GregoryBSadler]

I wouldn't try to set up "opposites" on the basis of contextless sentences

[@dougcl_]

I'm going to come to the defense of holistic thinking from hopefully a more rigorous position. Linearity, strictly speaking, is saying that the whole is the sum of its parts. This permits an analysis of the parts as a means of understanding the whole. The approach fails for nonlinear systems. Great example, monitor the behavior of children in a classroom, each individually, then attempt to make a prediction about their behavior as a group. It would be a complete failure. Most physical models require non interacting elements so that linearity holds. Holism I think is a reluctance to make that assumption, and is probably correct in almost all cases.

[@GregoryBSadler]

Then you're talking about "holism" in a different sense. You might distinguish then between rigorous holism and vague holism

[@gda295]

the self delusion of the ecstatic...para 10

[@adocentyn9028]

deep - sufi dreams

[@54gemini23]

left brain and right brain is a myth we use both sides for both purposes

[@GregoryBSadler]

It's certainly a myth in the way that many people use it -- where there's some sort of rigid distinction between the two hemispheres, and between people.

[@romanovrex]

Seems like Hegel is not seeing the dialectic here. The truth of the situation is the unbridgable gap between the two sides, intuition/ratioality. Furthermore if something is not able to be articulated does not mean it does not exist, perhaps its language has not yet been formulated. To translate an experience into a set of randomly chosen signs(language) does not justify it, in fact it doesnt do much at all. Experience is of primacy to existance.

[@GregoryBSadler]

Yeah. . . Hegel's not seeing the dialectic "here". Cool that you've fixed his mistake

[@GeorgeEdwardsVlog]

Ludwig von Mises talks about social sciences being different than hard sciences. He was an economist, of course, but didn’t believe in the “economizing man” as sociologists tend to whine about... even today. Instead, he uses praxeology, or the logic of human action, to develop marginalism.

[@GregoryBSadler]

Yep. Learned about him a long time ago. His fans are real committed. This series will be about Hegel, not Mises

[@GeorgeEdwardsVlog]

Gregory B. Sadler Okay... that wasn’t something I doubted, of course this is a course about Hegel. You mention in the video how people in the US tend to view science from one perspective (the scientific method). I’m not randomly promoting a person or ideology, just relating the first time I learned of science being possible from another method, specifically praxeology. You mention the word “Verstehen” (if I heard correctly) and it’s something I saw in Mises’ “Human Action.” I’m not exactly sure what would make you defensive about my comment. I’ve been enjoying your stuff but... fuck

[@GregoryBSadler]

@@GeorgeEdwardsVlog Yep. Fuck. I've met my share of Mises enthusiasts. Never miss a chance to tell us all about praxeology.