Half Hour Hegel: The Complete Phenomenology of Spirit (Preface, sec 18-20)

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 eighth video in the new series on G.W.F. Hegel's great early work, the Phenomenology of Spirit, I read and comment on the eighteenth, nineteenth, and twentieth paragraphs of the text, from the Preface. In these relatively short paragraphs, Hegel continues exploring the insight that Substance is Subject -- an awareness arrived at historically through thinking in terms of God.
He discusses the living substance as negativity, opposition, and self-restoring sameness. He also insists on the patience and labor of the negative -- the need for effort, development, even suffering in order for the dialectic to proceed. In these paragraphs, he is primarily focused on the Absolute, or God, but some of the same insights will apply to human subjectivity as well.
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

[@scottwilliams8389]

Its a fascinating time we live in when this quality of instruction can be accessed so easily virtually for free from anywhere. Greatly appreciated. The world Spirit googling and youtubing itself

[@GregoryBSadler]

Yes, I guess that's Hegel's most recent revenge!

[@abcrane]

ha ha!

[@andrewcarteducation5718]

Its been said but ...it doesn't hurt to say it again , thanks for the work you have done here , its a brilliant gift to people.

[@GregoryBSadler]

You're very welcome - and thanks!

[@sommetbleu]

Gregory, I Just want to thank you immensely for posting these lectures on KZbin. I am winding my way through Hegel's work, including the brilliant secondary work by W. T. Stace, Charles Taylor, and Lucio Colletti. But having a guide such as yourself as we walk through the complexity of Hegel is invaluable. I hope you consider doing another of his works, such as the Logic. Bruce Wilson

[@GregoryBSadler]

Hahaha! This project has more than two years left to go, so I won't make any promises about the Science of Logic!

[@sommetbleu]

It must be monumental task, but I just wanted to tell how much I appreciate it.

[@TTFMjock]

And I too am becoming very much a fan of this, and highly appreciative of what you're doing...thought it was time I mention this.

[@GregoryBSadler]

Glad to read it!

[@GregoryBSadler]

the next three paragraphs in the series. . . .

[@itsvanic8063]

Gregory B. Sadler's explanation of Phenomenology of Spirit is better than Hegel's Phenomenology of Spirit itself, because here the book is aware of itself and historized via the internet for generations to come. said it multiple times, and will say it again, thank you so much, i have read the book and now i am studying 2 videos a day, will keep doing that until i finish the whole series.

[@GregoryBSadler]

I suppose if we look at it that way, then all the engagements by other people with Hegel through the series might deepen that self-awareness of the book

[@MrMarktrumble]

Preface, sec 18-20 thank you.

[@juliusaugustino8409]

This is great! A huge resource now that I'm finally reading this text.

[@GregoryBSadler]

Glad it's helpful for you

[@GeorgiosMichalopoulos]

Excellent explanation. Thank you.

[@GregoryBSadler]

+Georgios Michalopoulos You're welcome!

[@karakia1444]

I have gained so much insight into our internal conflict and the unfolding of ourself through self definition and doubt, thank you !

[@GregoryBSadler]

You're welcome

[@ArsenioGut]

As a journalist, it's so antithetical to my character to be reading something that lacks the brevity and clarity of a news story, i.e. a philosophical work. But there's something deeply cathartic about getting so hopelessly lost and confused in Hegel's world of language. I think part of me is exhausted by a discipline that categorically discards ambiguity.

[@jonblaze32]

Perhaps, the ambiguity of Hegel is an appearance, masking something fairly unambiguous in a mode of language we aren't super familiar with

[@ArsenioGut]

​@@jonblaze32 That's a really great way to put it, actually. I definitely feel like certain topics lie outside the scope of the linguistic *so* much that they seem more arcane than they really are. Hegelianism is particularly fragile in this regard because I've seen that once you deconstruct his ideas into metaphor and analogy, you start losing the essence of his prose. Everything from the politics of race and even computer instruction sets (lol) fall within this "extralinguistic" category that makes them all the more alluring, but all the more threatening as well.

[@poopadoncic4023]

Thank you Dr Sadler. I hope life is going well.

[@GregoryBSadler]

It’s going well, but fast

[@abcrane]

Buckminster Fuller seems to have really grasped the essence of Hegel...in all of his (own) works....both literary and technological invention....and when he stated...."I seem to be a verb."

[@devinfeher571]

I keep getting reminded of him while going through this

[@hareeshscifi13]

You are doing god's work

[@GregoryBSadler]

Thanks!

[@nihilism2]

I think that in order for this truth to be alive, it must go through this dynamic. It is true that it exists without going through it, but it will become without soul and life like a corpse

[@TTFMjock]

Mediation of self-subject unto self-substance as requisite for purposive activity makes perfect sense for a personal being, humans/angels/Divinity. Interesting to see how Hegel applies it to universal substance.

[@GregoryBSadler]

Yes -- that's really key to any philosophical idealism -- the conception that, at bottom, it's subject, with purpose, agency, etc. , not just inert substance

[@podcasts.3560]

Gregory I owe you a beer for helping me preparing my presentation of Hegels Preface.

[@GregoryBSadler]

Hahaha! I think you'd probably have to send it. I don't get out and about much these days!

[@Nick-pl8st]

Thank you for these videos. I’ve only recently found your channel and I’m staggered by the wealth of information you’ve made available. I have a question. At 22:17, what do you mean that the process cycloidal and approaching what is really essential. I get that the process of the dialectic involves stripping away and adding on, but it seems like you’re saying there’s an end point to the dialectic or that the more you do the dialectic process the better the essence is. But I don’t see why that would be the case. Why not say that the dialectic is an eternal straight line?

[@GregoryBSadler]

Hegel thinks the dialectic does reach end points. That's why the book ends

[@ShotTehTrick]

I have begun watching this series and I have also picked up a copy of Phenomenology of Spirit and find the most difficult aspect is being patient, if I read carefully and take the time to think I am able to understand what Hegel is saying, the only problem is that I get impatient because I'm so curious about his philosophy that I want to devour it all at once on a first read. I also get impatient because I may want to read another philosophical text like Kant's Critique of Pure Reason, so then I switch over to that and then the same thing happens, I understand what Kant is saying when I read carefully and think critically but I get impatient because I want it all at once, do you have any suggestions on how to cope with this Dr. Sadler?

[@GregoryBSadler]

I'd say realizing that you can't get it all at once, and then reminding yourself of that when that desire arises is probably a good start

[@mburkhart41]

Commentary on #19, reminds me of the Christian belief of God taking the form of man enduring alienation, suffering, and otherness from God the Father.

[@GregoryBSadler]

Hegel will discuss that much more in the Religion section, and in his Lectures on the Philosophy of Religion

[@CoranceLChandler]

I'm going to have to let this marinate in my brain for a while

[@GregoryBSadler]

Yes, Hegel's thought requires some thinking about it

[@CoranceLChandler]

​@@GregoryBSadlerindeed, when I tried looking into him a few years ago, I hardly understood a word he said; I thought he was full of hot air. But now I'm beginning to think you may have had the right of it; he might have just been one of the most profound thinkers of our age. Perhaps the reason we believe genius and madness are so much alike is merely due to our inability to understand either of them.

[@thebeautypart2817]

Thanks as always. Can we get another Bach piece post the Preface?

[@GregoryBSadler]

I don't know what a "Back piece post the Preface" would mean. I'm going to do exactly what I said I've planned to do -- go through each paragraph.

[@thebeautypart2817]

Gregory B. Sadler Very sorry -- that should have been "Bach." Slow morning here. Do just what you want, of course -- this is a marvelous series. I'm just referring to the music in your intro screen -- there's so much good Bach, so many sections of Hegel, and I wondered if some of the former might meet some of the latter.

[@GregoryBSadler]

Yep -- somewhere on one of these vids I mentioned I'll be using other pieces for other sections

[@MrMarktrumble]

what is "spontaneity" when understood in terms of the self?

[@DerFilc]

So about definitions and that the essence of the thing changes etc: At first I thought about like formulas in mathematics or physics, that these inside their field are defined in a way, that their meaning / essence would not change even over hundreds of years, right? But then I thought about like for example euclidian space that was considered like the only way you can see space for a long time and with quantum physics and all these drastical changes to physics in the 20 th. centuries even newtons laws and basically everything is viewed as something differerent because of the relation to the progress in this field. Formulas are not used in the precise situations like hundreds of years ago and therefore it's essence even as an abstract men made entity changes. Would Hegelians kinda agree with this thoughts or is this too simpliflied or esoteric or just wrong?

[@lyndonbailey3965]

. Is the 'self-othering' only proactive by the subject or partly conditioned by the environment?

[@GregoryBSadler]

Could be either, depending on what's going on -- you'll see that when we get to specific dialectical developments later on in the work

[@The31JOEISANERDS]

Hey don't know if you're still replying to comments, but I have been OK with most of the stuff until para 17 and now this video. I'm really confused by some of the terminology (viz. in-itself, The Absolute etc.) ... I know Hegel expected people reading this to be aware of some of Kant and Post-Kant philosophy when reading this, which I have not done. Would you recommend any reading to help me get to grips with some of the terms??

[@GregoryBSadler]

I'd recommend sticking with the Hegel, and just hanging on for the ride, the first time around. He's doing something quite different than Kant a good bit of the time. A good bit of this gradually becomes clear as you continue on. Then, there's also the online Q&A sessions we hold monthly - good place to ask in-depth questions. And, if you're really stumped, and want to book my time to go over matters 1-on-1, here's my tutorials page - reasonio.wordpress.com/tutorials/

[@The31JOEISANERDS]

OK I'll think about it. Also another question... I have just been watching one of these videos a day to try and get through it, do you think it would be worth reading ahead and then coming back to these videos?

[@GregoryBSadler]

Yes. The videos are really designed to help people who are reading the text, not to precede reading

[@scotgat]

First, I would like to extend my gratitude for your generous time in explaining a very complex and dense text such as Hegel's Phenomenology of Spirit. You are truly providing a community service and I would hope that the educational institution in which you are employed recognizes such generosity. I have been studying (I should say struggling) Hegel for more than thirty years and your lectures have illuminated ideas within Hegel which I'm embarrassed to say I woefully missed. However, I suppose I can take refuge in the knowledge that I am not a student of philosophy. In any case, I've wondered for many years what Hegel would have thought about pursuing such a theory as The Theory of Everything as espoused by such physicists as Steven Hawking. Do you believe that Hegel would have been dubious of such an endeavor? Your thoughts on this matter would be much appreciated.

[@GregoryBSadler]

Glad to read that the videos have been helpful for you. I'm not supported by any educational institution, so if you're interested in supporting the ongoing work of the project, consider becoming a Patreon backer: www.patreon.com/drgbsadler So, a "theory of everything". Hegel is in effect trying to provide one himself, so he's not going to be against such a project. When it comes to how people like Hawking are trying to do it, he'd be against that. . .

[@VermeersLens]

It seems to make more sense to replace 'Truth, Essence and the Absolute...' with human understanding of 'Truth, Essence and the Absolute...'. Then one could come up with a wealth of examples that makes perfect sense: for instance, in learning new concepts in any subject matter, eg. maths. To reach any real understanding one has to practise solving math puzzles, which involves negating the negation of the concept, as oppose to merely verifying positive statements; you have to look at what's false to deeply grasp what's true. And also, why speculate about Divine Cognition, when the most one could say is; it's kind of like human cognition?

[@angstgegner4154]

There is no Absolute outside the human understanding (or maybe: human experience) of it. Same for truth, maths, and so on. That's exactly Hegels point. Still, of course, you can come up with your examples. It's just a somewhat "domesticated" Hegel, then.

[@helmutglavar6839]

How would we know or recognize that something is fully developed, unfolded and brought to its perfection? In other words, what makes the whole the whole? How would one know that it is fully perfected, that it is in its finished state? Might there not be the possibility that something is still missing? Is it (the absolute) not in a permanent state of development and we thus driven to the conclusion that ‘the true’ can never be known.

[@GregoryBSadler]

Yep, that's the Hegelian epistemological problematic -- the reason why the Phenomenology culminates in Absolute Knowing at the end. Even if there is no such final state, however, within the development of each stage, there are more developed vantage points, what me might call "the full developed (as best we know)."

[@angstgegner4154]

Dear Gregory B. Sadler, Now, that i've arrived at these paragraphs and i "get" them, it seems an appropriate moment to thank you for your videos. This is my third try at Hegel, and i finally "get" him. As far as i can tell as of now, but i'm not only talking about the introduction to the phemenology, i'm reading a lot of Zizek at the same time, and the Science of Logic as of now. Nevertheless, for the loose ends to come together, this introduction is absolutely crucial. And your videos were an immense help in getting it straight. I'm a german native speaker, so i actually read the paragraphs in german (Suhrkamp edition) and then watched your videos, and this was really helpful as well, for while of course it's an advantage to read him in german, at the same time the english text is easier to understand, particularly because Hegel himself uses really complicated grammar, even for german, which - particularly at crucial passages - often lack the clarity of the english translation. But that only as a side note, actually. It's not that i didn't have an idea of Hegel before, i also worked my way through parts of the Phemenology, particularly the Master-Slave-chapter, but i now realize that i only scratched the surface before (which, in a way, means to get Hegel wrong). Besides a really close reading, in my earlier attempts i had still been missing some other prerequisites, one of them was a thorough understanding of Kant. (And only when placed in that context, i realize how deep Hegel actually dug.) I've worked 20 years in social research. I wish i had that level of understanding of Hegel back when i started. It changes everything. (Which i will have to prove by bringing it to life in work to come, but i have no choice but to accept that challenge.) Your videos were of great help for this personal breakthrough. So thank you so much!

[@adocentyn9028]

'the circle that presupposes its end as its goal' makes me think of Isaac luria's concept of the tzimtzum. Or maybe he just thinking like euclid. this preface is tooo deep. O yea he could be thinking ouroborus as well.

[@mandys1505]

Otherness and Alienation as essential to knowing and Truth: IT SOUNDS almost like mental illness, as our modern world society conceives it. Or am I wrong? :) It's a great new insight.

[@Mevlinous]

30:28 this idea of continual othering in the self, brings to mind the yin yang symbol in which the other is found in the either side. This would seem to me to appeal to a continual negating, and eventual inversion, from self to other.

[@GregoryBSadler]

That would not be Hegel.

[@Mevlinous]

@@GregoryBSadler fair enough sir, I subordinate to your knowledge, I’m still working through the preface. 👍

[@samaleks4390]

so the process of mediation or the inclusion and overcoming of the negative (otherness) has to be included in our understanding of the essence of the Absolute Truth, because in the essence of the Truth exists a constant development which retains its Subject while subjecting it to change? In other words, reality on its way to becoming absolute includes a process of self-development which is made up of things which change by means of preserving good past qualities, while adopting good new qualities in light of negative circumstances and we have to acknowledge this process as opposed to thinking that the absolute is given to us and we've figured it out entirely by means of certain fields of study?

[@GregoryBSadler]

so the process of mediation or the inclusion and overcoming of the negative (otherness) has to be included in our understanding of the essence of the Absolute Truth" -- yes, and that's tough to do! "which retains its Subject" -- so, "subject" does not mean the content or issue being investigated or discussed. Instead, Subject means something that has agency, even personality. We speak of e.g. a "human subject". "reality on its way to becoming absolute includes a process of self-development which is made up of things which change by means of preserving good past qualities, while adopting good new qualities in light of negative circumstances" -- yes, that's exactly it "we have to acknowledge this process as opposed to thinking that the absolute is given to us and we've figured it out entirely by means of certain fields of study" -- that's right as well. The Absolute (or really any moment in the dialectic) requires us to adapt ourselves intellectually to it, through our work, not just get it in, e.g. a textbook or handout form, as a finished thing

[@samaleks4390]

Gregory B. Sadler Thanks for the lecture, i'm glad I was able to make sense of these.

[@GregoryBSadler]

Hahaha! I'm glad you were able to make sense of them too, since that means they actually make sense -- with Hegel, you can never be sure whether you're getting sucked into dialectic-language or not!

[@lafavemark]

With the likes of Aristotle, you have the division of philosophy into species of philosophy (such as: epistemology, metaphysics, physics, logic, and psychology) that treat of different subject matter. I may be making a premature judgment here, but it seems like Hegel is not bothering to make the distinction among the various types of philosophy. So, it’s ironic that he is criticizing people of either being to “unsystematic” or “mistaking the whole for its parts” because he seems to doing both of these.

[@GregoryBSadler]

Yes, you're making a premature judgement

[@Damion00000]

+Mark Athanasius premature judgement is what he is criticizing.

[@mandys1505]

the horror! yes, from a young age i was taught that God, or the Absolute, is unchanging, and that this is equivalent with security. So, to think that maybe, the Ultimate is actually dynamic, and changing, and is revealed in a mediated process, its really a challenge to a personal belief. But, i like it. Or, it could be that, there is a true ultimate God hidden behind everything, like in the Bhagavad-Gita, but what we as beings can apprehend, is this dynamic "SELF". I think that the jewish kabbala says that too....wow, anyway, this was fun, especially the essence section...i thought of the jim henson children's film, The Dark Crystal, because that was the first time (i was about 5 yrs old) that i encountered this idea of ESSENCE. -right on -

[@GregoryBSadler]

I tend to think that being unchanging, in the sense of being like "unchanging" things in our limited worldly experience, is very different from the attribute of divine immutability, as great theologians have conceived it. Inadequate catachesis so often comes from watered-down or poorly understood theology on the parts of those teaching

[@mandys1505]

yeah, it's too bad; this could be a great opportunity to develop children's minds....i know thati was really into the once a week catholic catechism but, no one else seemed to be interested(students or teachers)

[@GregoryBSadler]

Yep, my CCD was pretty bad as well.

[@Garland41]

You call these Half Hour Hegel, but I've spent over a half hour on just rewatching the first paragraph of this, taking notes, are replaying it just to make sure I heard that correctly.

[@GregoryBSadler]

The videos are roughly half an hour long

[@Garland41]

Sorry, I wasn't taking into question the name of the video as such; rather, I spent half an hour on the first 11 minutes of this video. Without this series, I could see a person spending an entire day on one paragraph. Basically, I am in awe of the amount of material packed into one paragraph of Hegel, and was commenting on that.

[@GregoryBSadler]

Aha! So they are a time-saver after all

[@TTFMjock]

'The divine essence is not to be conceived or expressed merely as essence...i.e. as immediate substance or pure self-contemplation of the divine, but likewise as form, and in the whole wealth of the developed form. Only then is it conceived and expressed as an actuality. Strong Kingdom of Heaven overtones here, at least to my ears; brings to mind for me N.T. Wright's exegesis...if my comprehension is at all accurate.

[@GregoryBSadler]

Well. . . . Hegel's going to end up pretty unorthodox when it comes to actual religion, and to his conception of God -- but we'll really only see that much later on, towards the end

[@MrMarktrumble]

A is A. This principle of identity is used any time anything is identified. It asserts that A is and implies that it is bounded, completed. But to say what is this A, A is being compared to itself. A is A, it is a comparison of itself to itself, in order to posit an essence. But even though there are two terms in the comparison "A is A"( the first A that which is compared and the second A that which it is compared to) what really seems to be implied is that A is numerically one and it is ( one could consider unity as the principle of existence). Hegel uses this "contradiction" [( "A is" Where A is numerically one and thus exists) and ("A is A", where a comparison of two terms where one is the token and the other is the type and ambiguity between the number of A's alternates from one to two to one again)] in every step of the phenomenology. Whether he is identifying a now ( or a patch of red) , an individual human , or the completed state this ambiguity in identity is utilized to discern (sift) through the possibilities, and is mediated through it. But most interesting, the order of the steps of the ambiguity of identity is not haphazard. Hegel starts with each individual's perception of concrete reality, and each resolution in discernment leads to the concrete totality which was always assumed as potential to the person, but actual in the absolute.

[@GregoryBSadler]

That's all on track -- what's missing here, though, is that in undergoing mediation and self-othering, the A relates itself to things outside of/not coming from/different from itself, a B, a C, a D -- sometimes, even the knowing/acting subject, S.

[@MrMarktrumble]

Thank you for your comment.

[@MrMarktrumble]

A is A is a self same referral that is responsible for the maintenance of essence. It designates am absence of change of the entity through any difference. If the difference where time in the aspect of time for example, at the first moment, A is A , and then a moment later, A is still A, thus the essence of A remains constant and fixed through both moments. But Hegel has a transition and change of essence in the Phenomenology. How does A become B? I have already identified the ambiguity of essence the self-same referral of A to A. The duplication of A’s in the comparison creates an ambiguity of which A is the standard of comparison. IN the” A is A”, it seems the First A is compared to the second, making the second the type, and the first A the token(when really we want to imply merely that “A is” perhaps) . IN comparing A to A, we are exploring an internal relation that appeared in what seemed to be absolute simplicity. But unity as the principle of entity may only apply the whole. As each thing is part of the completed whole how does one deal with perhaps the transition of a less total entity to another? The answer may be within the alternaity of the principle of identity itself, and the difference between continuous and contiguous relationships. To illustrate my meaning I want to contrast the stacking of two separate groups of three boxes. The first set of boxes is comprised of boxes where each box is bound and complete as compared to itself. By this I mean they have six sides, and there are no open sides or holes in them. The second are sound except they have no lids. One side is open. Thus each box in the second stack is incomplete in itself. IN the first stack of three boxes, none of the boxes share the same limit between the box below and the box above. Each box is self-contained and complete. The bottom of one box is not the top of the box below. This is a contiguous relationship between boxes In the second set of there is an identity in between the two boxes above and below in the fact that they share the same limit that completes each box and the total stack. The lid of the bottom is the bottom of the top, and both boxes share, is completed by, and are distinguished by this limit. These two boxes are in a relationship of continuity, and each box is made complete only by relation to each other, and thus the totality of the stack.

[@GregoryBSadler]

You gotta pay attention to the language before going off into these long, long, long. . . . . excursions. I wrote: "A relates itself to things outside of/not coming from/different from itself, a B..." I didn't write: "A become[s] B" here. I'm going to say once more what I've said in a number of comments -- and after that, I've got a lot of work to get to, and won't be reading further long comments: this is the Preface. Hegel openly says that this is just the Preface, and that seeing how the dialectic works concretely will need to wait until we're past the Preface.

[@MrMarktrumble]

sorry if I have used up too much of your time. I will refrain from commenting, except to thank you for the lecture.

[@lyndonbailey3965]

Rightly or wrongly, the static in-itself really reminded me of those armchair, champagne socialists in comparison to the later Marxists who were generally about getting their hands dirty and not necessarily having a comfortable and pleasant life.

[@GregoryBSadler]

In my college days, we called those "Nieman Marxists"

[@lyndonbailey3965]

Gregory B. Sadler From Urban dictionary :) :) 'A college-educated vaguely bohemian liberal (usually female and white) who, while shopping for $400 jeans and planning visits to exclusive Vegas nightclubs, espouses Marxist revolution, loves Che and/or anti-WTO protests, and claims empathy for the poor and oppressed as long as they don't move in next door. He or she will have traveled to a relatively safe city in the developing world with Starbucks, like Dubai, Buenos Aires, or Cape Town. Will have a piece of "ethnic" art in his or her condominium and/or suburban house in a gated community.'