Half Hour Hegel: The Complete Phenomenology of Spirit (Preface, sec 13-14)

[@omidnasimfar3272]

I self study philosophy, and may god bless professor Sadler for the abundance of resources he has made available for us in this field. Surely hours upon hours of my time was saved through watching your videos.

[@GregoryBSadler]

That's great to read!

[@StephenDeagle]

I'm taking this slowly (about two or three videos a day, my own copy of the Phenomenology, and a notebook), but I'm really getting a lot out of this series of videos so far. Really grateful for all the effort you put into these.

[@GregoryBSadler]

You're welcome -- yes, this is not the sort of thing you could productively binge-watch, I think!

[@RoyalAnarchist]

I have been binge-watching these videos but only after reading the corresponding text by myself

[@KushKussh]

AMEN

[@Bobbleheads56]

I felt that this section was very important especially the gordian knot metaphor. It seems like in Hegels time the “intuition” side was dominant but these days the empirical/materialist side is in control.

[@GregoryBSadler]

I'd say both of those were major motifs in Hegel's time

[@warrennotes3575]

I love this approach and thank you for it. I hope you will apply this format again, where you deem it workable. So much better than a classroom lecture where you have to be more general. This is great work - thank you.

[@colomblanc]

What you are doing is a great, great gift - thank you!

[@GregoryBSadler]

You're very welcome!

[@KushKussh]

Amen!

[@GregoryBSadler]

Next installation of the series -- in which Science ties itself into a Gordian Knot

[@peterlambert5130]

Greg- I thought I was the only person who noticed that Nietzsche was incorrect in that the problem started with Socrates. The problem actually started with Aristotle. You mentioned this on a PEL podcast. Thanks mate.

[@DaikiTorusukii]

Hegel’s articulation of the problems that arise without structure really illuminate why the present age and our relationship to social media/the media have such a negative impact on people who aren’t very, intentional with their use of it. With no inherent relevance to ourselves, the overwhelming amount of content and information, that of course is specifically presented in ways that produce a false sense of urgency, seems to really have a corrosive effect on any self imposed structure of what’s important or relevant. This seems to also provide a clear way of understanding what Kierkegaard was trying to warn us of.

[@DaikiTorusukii]

“Without a destination there’s no favorable wind” articulates a clearly perennial problem, but this problem seems especially nebulous in our current situation when you consider AI and what the algorithms underpinning widespread cultural platforms. What are these algorithms optimized for? Leveraging current neuroscience and psychology to keep someone engaged for as long as possible. Continual engagement is the primary goal. However what remains widely unnoticed is the manipulation involved in reaching that goal. With a simple sleight of hand, they paint the picture of what they’re doing as “tailoring content to users interests”. Yet the way the platforms leverage your emotional triggers makes it worth asking, Who is influencing the users interests and at what point do we distinguish between what someone wants and what someone is manipulated into wanting?

[@Garland41]

I recently started a reading group of Hegel's Phenomenology where we primarily watch these videos and then discuss the text, and during our last meeting, we spent a long time the old science vs the new science, content-form vs immediate rationality, and the sort of relationship, in our modern society, of who has access to the knowledge of science. We all know the difficulty of Hegel thought, but the question I raised during the meeting is if we were overthinking these sections. So, I guess a general question to you is "can we overthink this part of Hegel?" Another thing that came up, and those of us who were there have all read the Preface before (alone), is whether this counted as philosophy. I was on the side of "yes, the preface is philosophy" while another member of our group was arguing that it was not. I even gave up ground to say that the Preface is in a sense cognitively educational, and therefore an educative process of philosophy, but they were still adamant that it was not philosophy. I'm not asking you to settle this score for us, but, as Hegel calls out philosophizing in Prefaces, is he doing philosophy? Sorry if these are awkward questions. The fact that we formed a group to think through Hegel, no matter how slow we are going, has opened my eyes to questions I haven't thought of without them.

[@GregoryBSadler]

You can probably overthink any given part of Hegel's text, I'd say

[@ageofbumfires5216]

Just like anything else, there are structured practices of mindfulness, skillful means, and well, unskillful means. Id like to think that you'd probably agree that the mindfulness taught by Thich Nhat Hanh was not some flippant, wishy washy thing, but a serious, elaborated upon, lived practice and way of life and living. edit: thanks for the thoughtful reply GBS, well said. Btw, very grateful for the series you've put together here. Very well done and appreciated 👍🙏

[@GregoryBSadler]

Yep. But the mindfulness practiced by people who just reference Thich Nhat Hanh can easily be silly dreck. Same goes by the way for people who claim to be into Hegel. Some of them are the real deal. Many more aren't

[@lyndonbailey3965]

I can think of another example, the way maritime terminology and other elements lives on in planes (galley, flightdeck) and also the way that cinema still retains some of the trappings of theatre

[@CompilerHack]

This sounds so modern. We haven't changed all that much since that time.

[@GregoryBSadler]

Quite true

[@joseleperez8742]

In your example of minute 4:49 of how internet had its impact in education, you talk that for education to adapt there would be necessary not only to change the form but also the content. But, this is provoked by a change in the medium of communication, here is my question, did Hegel think that for the new world to come it is necessary to change the medium in which we produce knowledge? I mean, a change in the scientific method or in the way philosophers argue?

[@adocentyn9028]

The coining of scientific knowledge for masses reminds me of Russell's attempt to explain the "ABCs of relativity". Interesting stuff.

[@Obsidean]

Thank you for doing this, really. I have also wanted to understand Hegel, but I knew I was always doomed from fully comprehending him, simply because his language was always above me. You can convert his coded language and make it understandable to this layman. Sometimes I wonder if you are just an egoistic and simply flaunting your knowledge, or you are truly a Popularphilosoph - haha hopefully I am using that term correctly ; )

[@GregoryBSadler]

I'm glad to be able to do this sort of activity -- it's turning out to be useful for quite a few other people, and it lets me do something that I'm able to do (make sense out of Hegel's text) but never got a chance to do in my own teaching career. I suppose one could flaunt knowledge of Hegel's text -- but that's a pretty low-yield way to satisfy one's own desires of that sort, isn't it? One would be better off doing so with someone more "sexy", as we say (i.e. as in the public eye). I tend to think that, with work of this sort, if your motivation is something like egoism or pride, it would be tough to sustain the project -- and one would be going against what Hegel himself teaches one about oneself in the process. . . .

[@songsmithy07]

The process of explaining something to others sets a prerequisite of being able to explain said thing to oneself. Your "wealth of previous experience" affords you a "range and specificity of content" that enables you to describe Hegel in a way that makes it more accessible to some of us for whom his notion of the Notion may hence seem less esoteric. ...heh Anyway, I think Hegel is kinda sexy.

[@garibaldi4971]

@@songsmithy07 Agreed, Hegel is sexy as hell

[@VermeersLens]

But it seems to me there need not be a Gordian knot. If I am not mistaken, one side has less content, but what it has are more rigorously developed; the other side, more content but based on intuition and less rigour. It happens quite often in theoretical physics that physicists would do calculations using mathematics that pure mathematicians consider ill-defined (intuitive to physicists), but are able to make much more predictions to be tested against experiments (Think the entire Standard Model, being tested in particle accelerators). This usually result in much more scientific progress than, if they calculate only what is defined to the rigour of mathematicians. Usually mathematical rigour will eventually follow (in the mean time physicists don't simply sit on their hands). Quite often too, the topics uncovered by physicists (through physical intuition; a quality prized among physicists) are picked up by pure mathematicians and new branches of mathematics are developed. Just as often, physicists when stuck with the maths, found the solutions to be completely developed decades ago by mathematicians. There is rather, a symbiotic relation, in my opinion.

[@GregoryBSadler]

Keep reading. . .

[@peterlambert5130]

Is there a place where I can find all the POS videos- and perhaps follow them in order?

[@GregoryBSadler]

Plenty of places. The playlist, the blog - easy enough to Google search

[@arcebat]

If we look at the whole, we need to have a scientific approach, that means we have to look at things in a way that's not intuitive, but rather fcused on the notion. On the other hand, if we want to think of our ethic's lives, our substancial lifes, we have to bite the bait of love, religion and spirit (sec7). So there is an oppostion (a dialectic?) between the way we have to behave towards the substancial life and the way we have to behave towards science?

[@dantheman6008]

Is it cheating to be relying on these lectures too much? I mean I know they are for helping. I just feel like I am stumbling my way through this book and having to turn too much to your helpful explanations rather than piecing it together myself. This is a hard book, but I don't want to sell myself short.

[@GregoryBSadler]

I think it's common to struggle with Hegel. You should expect to need to go over the text multiple times - and that's ok

[@alingle23]

Thank you so much for this work. Would it be unfair to say that Hegel’s idea of Science’s press toward development is related to what Nietzsche meant by “Will to Power.” I am new to the study of philosophy, so I am trying to make sense of these unfamiliar terms and concepts. Thanks again for your work.

[@GregoryBSadler]

No, I wouldn't try to connect those two thinker's ideas up in that way

[@alingle23]

Gregory B. Sadler thanks! *scurries back to the drawing board*

[@dasfabelwesen]

Gordian Knot is actually an incorrect translation. He says "hauptsächlichste[r] Knoten". It is not a major difference (Gordian can just be untied by a sword), but I was a bit confused by it.

[@GregoryBSadler]

Well, the Gordian isn't actually untied by a sword. . . Alexander cut through it, according to the story, which definitely isn't solving it the way it's intended to be solved, that's for certain

[@dasfabelwesen]

If it is a major difference for you, you should mention it in the description. I personally would translate it with "main problem", although that would be interpretive. "Hauptsächlichste[r]" is the superlative of "main". As this is impossible to translate literally, that could be the reason why the translation is incorrect. In this ( books.google.com.mt/books?id=-70AAAAAcAAJ&pg=PA327&dq=hegel+phenomenologie+des+geistes&hl=mt&sa=X&ei=tO50VIWvCtDPaOXygNgE&ved=0CFQQ6AEwBw#v=onepage&q=hegel%20phenomenologie%20des%20geistes&f=false p.12) edition of 1832, he just speaks about a major problem that is in the process of being solved by two forces. The metaphor of the "knot" is used to indicate that it is a slow and delicate progress, which is connected with the complexity of the problem, that is yet to be fully analyzed. But in fact the solving of the problem is also connected with the conventional untying of a knot. Marry Christmas and thank you for all the videos!

[@GregoryBSadler]

You're welcome -- Merry Christmas to you as well

[@TTFMjock]

Interesting question, if it is the question, as to whether Science, properly understood, can provide an intelligible articulation of the totality, or whether it must lead to some Tower of Babel complex of infinite divergence and compartmentalization, where people in one branch cannot even understand what people in the other branch talk about. My tentative guess is the Tower of Babel holds, at least for any Science as it is conceived today. For one, I doubt if Science will ever penetrate into practical reasoning, that any understanding of Science could ever produce a science-based 'ought'. And I doubt Science will ever answer a matter of moral or final causation. But then, maybe Hegel has something up his sleeve when it comes to expanding what he means by Science.

[@GregoryBSadler]

Hegel has a very different conception of science -- as I've noted in several of the videos before this -- than the one common today.

[@ohyeahsubscribetomaximilia5694]

Why does it say in the eng version „articulation“ when in german it says „Ausbildung“ shoulnd‘t it be „Artikulation“ then?

[@GregoryBSadler]

Because Miller translated it that way.

[@ohyeahsubscribetomaximilia5694]

Gregory B. Sadler yeah I‘m kinda confused, because these words have different meaning. Is it meant in the sense of expressing something or is it just the development of something?

[@GregoryBSadler]

@@ohyeahsubscribetomaximilia5694 So. . . you're asking why the German word isn't determined by the English translation? That's backwards and really makes no sense asked that way. Remind yourself that translation is not 1-1 in every case, and keep on reading.

[@SteppinDarqawa]

One thought I'm left with after this hearing: is it not that the 'modern sciences' are restrictively directed toward the future when there is a 'vast expanse of content' still to be usefully comprehended?

[@GregoryBSadler]

+Umar Jafar I'm not sure what that would mean, i.e. "that the 'modern sciences' are restrictively directed toward the future." Taking the words at face value, this doesn't seem to be the case at all. After all, scientific research about experimentation is, by the time it is published, about the near past, when the experiments were carried out

[@SteppinDarqawa]

+Gregory B. Sadler My initial thoughts were clarified when I listened to the subsequent installment -Hence my comments there. A thing I have to be aware of whilst reading: I find, due to my following the developing arguments I myself develop a notion of 'where' the author is going. I need to acquire some patience ... But ... My ruminations on my response. You, on a quest to promote philosophy. Me, trying to live philosophically, despite the internet (watching plucky, little England, in Berlin, come from the hopeless position of 2 - 0 behind against the mighty, indomitable Germans ... By now, you know the outcome (football/soccer friendly international)). Anyway: Wouldn't it be reasonable to conclude that, in the present, we have more than enough knowledge? Now, its principle application: Is it 'now focussed' or 'future focussed?' I appreciate, it's doubtful that either of us have time for this. Perhaps I should get through your 'Intro' -The whole series. Not just the 'Preface' - and allow you to continue on your Quest. [Edit.] Or should I be following Bruno Latour?

[@williamkibler592]

big application for anyone in the upper science which is naturally driven toward research. They gotta feel attached to their work to get it done, but capitalism allows some pretty f'ed stuff usually for the favor of corporations. there needs to be clear recognition with financial reward then they need a clean break from the esoteric ownership of the new technology. thank you for your comment section

[@KushKussh]

Im at keiser hooked up getting a brain scan for days ahah. Great for improving the mind ❤️Dr. G

[@GregoryBSadler]

Well, this'll certainly keep your mind active

[@gda295]

content gets to be content via form = rules must be l/earned , protocols must be followed [ in a word , WORK ]...para 13.

[@TheGerogero]

I think the Twitter handle "New Real Peer Review" shows that science is hitting some limits.

[@MrMarktrumble]

thank you for Preface, sec 13-14 the human body is a totality. It is comprised of, but more than each organ. Prior to analysis, there is but only one integrated simple functioning whole. A table of organs randomly stapled together does not act in this way. But organs do not exist on their own. No one ever saw a liver walking down the street. The organs only function in right relation to each other, and each organ depends on the whole. But the whole as well depends on each organ. This concomitant and reciprocal dependency of whole on part and part on whole presupposes a completeness which is the totality of the whole. but Hegel would say whole worlds are incomplete, and transitions to new worlds may identify and relate new organs, distributing new or revised functions. A babies genitals are merely for the removal of urine. At a later state of development, they are used for reproduction.

[@MrMarktrumble]

perhaps one could imagine the uni-verse as one concrete totality comprised at this moment of organs organ-ized by interrelations to each other. But this totality would also have a history, so the total would also include the history of its development. Changing one aspect would change relations in the whole: the best metaphor I could use is the Ship of Theseus, where the totality of the ship ( it still floats) remains the integrity in spite of the replacing of the keel boards. But to mix metaphors (uh oh) , consider a whole comprised of organs, where when one organ changes, and while integrity remains, organs are re-organized. I will attempt to exercise discipline and listen, instead of think (yet) Thank you for this series. This is what I have been looking for. Not superficial crap. I will tarry with the philosopher and thank you for your guidance.

[@uniphcommunity.thewhitetower]

A splendid presentation with many things to learn about like... How is consciousness caught between the polarities of the Old and New World? What is scientific knowledge and how is it developed? Is science an esoteric possession of a few individuals? What is the "Gordian Knot" of science? Many thanks! 🙂

[@GregoryBSadler]

You're very welcome