Half Hour Hegel: The Complete Phenomenology of Spirit (Preface, sec 21-23)

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 ninth video in the new series on G.W.F. Hegel's great early work, the Phenomenology of Spirit, I read and comment on the twenty-first, twenty-second and twenty-third paragraphs of the text, from the Preface. In these sections, Hegel begins to discuss the nature of mediation -- a key concept in his philosophy --and its intrinsic connection with reflection. It turns out that nothing that appears to be simple actually is, since it already involves mediation in relation to itself. Mediation involves the positing and overcoming of antitheses.
Hegel also discusses Reason as purposive activity, reintroducing teleological considerations. He then carries out a set of dialectical analyses focused on God as a subject, and the predicates that are said or thought about God, giving us a foretaste of the dynamicity involved in being a Subject.
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

[@GraveArchitect94]

You're an absolute madman for doing this. Valuable work, thank you!

[@GregoryBSadler]

You're welcome! We're past the 160 video mark now - almost done with the Reason section

[@GregoryBSadler]

The next three paragraphs of Hegel's master work

[@mburkhart41]

I'm amazed that I am following the text as well as I am (so far!) after spending this time with Dr. Sadler. Now if the daily job would just let me study Hegel all day.

[@GregoryBSadler]

Or mine

[@Garland41]

I value this work, but there are times when I feel that half an hour is not enough, but that there is also the fact that, as the passages imply, we must move on. I have gone back and forth to this series, stopping at times to read others things in the meantime, but each time I feel like I have new questions and see things in a new way. The first time I attempted this series, I hadn't read any Kant, but now I've read Kant and more. The reason I point this out is because in the CPR Kant starts with Intuition as the mediation between ourselves and the object, and in reading that I have a different idea of mediation than I would have. I have also been reading C.S. Peirce who was definitely influenced by Hegel, but I feel that he missed the reason for Hegel's emphasis on becoming. But I would not have this if not for Peirce and his Phenomenology/Phranoscopy. I guess what I'm saying is that I find myself spending much more than half an hour on each paragraph because before I watch the video, I will read the paragraphs in the video and take my own notes for them, then I will watch your video and take notes on them, and then I will read the passages again and take notes a third time before starting over with the next section (I feel like I need three notebooks) And the reason I state this is because I've spent so much time on this one line from Sec 21), "For mediation is nothing beyond self-moving selfsameness..." Of course I reflect on it with what you brought up in Sec 23)--the workings of the Subject, Predicate, and Copula--but the reason I spent so much time on it is to question whether it means that mediation is "a" or "the" nothing beyond self-moving selfsameness, or mediation is only self-moving selfsameness, and whether there is a difference between these two kinds. So, keep up the good work, and I'll keep going through Hegel (slowly).

[@GregoryBSadler]

The videos are half-hour portions, hence the name. Nothing about that says any individual reader can't spend as much time as he or she would like or sees fit on parts of the work. As you doubtless already know, each 1/2 hour video requires about 4-5 hours work on my part, and that's after reading Hegel myself for more than two decades

[@noobmaster2186]

Best quote: "God is . . . ~jinky-jinky." Loll Gregory I cannot thank you enough. You have turned my Hegel experience around from completely daunting - to respectably comprehendable. Jazaakallahu khayran [May God reward you].

[@GregoryBSadler]

Hahaha! "respectably comprehendable" -- that's probably about as good as it gets with Hegel. I still find his thought slipping out of my own fingers as I reread, and I've been reading him for over 20 years!

[@noobmaster2186]

Lol. And you speak German if I am not mistaken? :/ After my experiences with Classical Arabic, the Qur'an, and the huge disparity between its 'substantial meaning' and the 'general understanding' of a vast majority of ~Arabic speakers, I can only hope your German is as good as my Arabic lol. So far the concepts seem pretty consistent, very little has remained abstract - let's hope for the best shall we. :D Cheers.

[@GregoryBSadler]

I read German more than speak it. It's been a long time since I've lived in Germany, or had much chance to use it for more than a week at a time. I've got a video over in my channel about the languages I use for my work.

[@samnewhouse4885]

“Or Gbla gbla. Or the pasta monster in the sky.” Finally dr Sadler reveals his religious beliefs.

[@alaabrick9949]

Thanks a lot Dr.Sadler, those videos are beneficial.

[@GregoryBSadler]

Glad it's helpful for you

[@MrMarktrumble]

Preface, sec 21-23 thank you. The end of the lecture clarifies the subject as empty, and the predicate as mediating the subject. This is helping me to have insight. Thank you

[@thehamidaify]

Thank you very very much for your work on this series. I am following it slavishly, preparing and taking notes on each paragraph. Its taken me 4 months to get to paragraph 90, but these have been some of the most educational months of my entire life. Your tutorials are excellent anchors to get through the dense maze of Hegel's ideas. I have one question though, which has been bothering me throughout the reading (I've, unsuccessfully read a lot of other tutorials, Hegel texts, other philosophers etc to find an answer). I don't understand the difference between the terms, Sublation (Aufheben or whatever you want to call it.), Mediation (As you use it) and Negation. It all seems to be the same process he is referring to, or am I completely off the mark? I hope you will find the time to answer this.

[@eylon1967]

sublation occurs through the mediation of a negation is my bet

[@DaikiTorusukii]

Interesting recent development that Hegel seems to have been way ahead of, is that homeostasis does not apply to living beings. The way living beings actually operate is through Allostasis or “Stability through change”. This fits the continuous development being articulated as necessity thus far, to my understanding at least.

[@paulgiurlanda9176]

Wondering what Hegel would think of the Buddhist notion of "no-self" which is so "in" at the moment among the techie Buddhists in my Northern California world. Would this be a failure to appreciate the true subjectivity of God, more or less what Novalis was doing according to Hegel?

[@TrismegistusMx]

This lecture is absolutely brilliant. Hegel was far too dense for me to pick up on first encounter. You make it make sense.

[@GregoryBSadler]

Glad the commentary is helpful for you

[@dolphinking1417]

Fantastic series, Dr. Sadler. Could you guide me in the right direction? When you speak of the Subject-Predicate dynamic in relation to God and the Absolute, I initially took it as to view a God or an Absolute in this system of thinking was limiting because this could only take you as far as the predicate would allow. I thought the predicate's modification of the subject was restricting. However, in the final moments of the video it becomes clear that the Subject-Predicate dynamic works out because the Subject is using reflection as a means of mediation which allows itself to understand the predicate and return back to point A (the subject) with a more revealed and aware state? Am I grasping this correctly?

[@GregoryBSadler]

+Brandon Miller Well, there's really two things to be said. One is that Hegel is suggesting that we need to do something more than just Subject-Predicate -- though we can't entirely get away from it -- we're always, as it were, getting sucked back into it. The other is that we've got more than one "subject" at play here -- a subject (e.g. Hegel, us as readers) grasps the Subject-Predicate relation through reflection -- and also, possibly (depending on what the particular dynamic or "shape"/Gestalt is) as being there as subject in the Subject. That way of discussing it here, I imagine, could be confusing.. . .

[@dolphinking1417]

Thank you!

[@Mevlinous]

This work is absolutely needed in THIS time, this IS the spirit of THESE times, which needs to find its expression in culture. Thank you for this amazing endeavour. Although this work is at heart an individuation process, there is a greater need for it to be made more public. Would you be willing to talk to someone like John Vervaeke on this subject? I think it would be extremely useful to bring this work into the wider Zeitgeist.

[@GregoryBSadler]

I already know Vervaeke. He can reach out any time he wants to.

[@Mevlinous]

@@GregoryBSadler I see, I hope he does though of course it would come down to sharing a common interest and goal, as well as being willing to explore each other’s work with some openness. I just want to say I really appreciate the work you have done here. I attempted to read Hegel’s Phenomenology of Spirit after going through a kind of awakening process myself and looking for both answers and direction. I really resonate with what you are explaining here.

[@samaleks4390]

I had a bit of trouble understanding 21 and 22, but my overall take away is that Hegel explains, as you clearified earlier, that we must view the Subject as an active and dynamic agent, one that develops itself through the process of mediation rather than viewing it as something that can be readily defined. So in the God = The Absolute example, Hegel means to say that the Subject, God, is an agent which undergoes mediation and thus includes and overcomes "otherness" outside of the subject/predicate statement. Is that right? I feel like i'm missing a puzzle piece here.

[@GregoryBSadler]

You're on the right track, actually. Keep in mind that this is just the Preface so far, not the actual processes which are followed out in detail in the rest of the book

[@samaleks4390]

Haha right, I sometimes forget that this is only the beginning.

[@Nalhek]

So pertaining to Hegel's notion of essence as something which is not fixed, but rather as a kind of destination; I've always considered Marx's philosophy to be centered around his conception of humanity's "species essence", due to it's relation to the notion of alienation. Yet in many ways it seems like Marx does seem to consider the essence of human beings to be "fixed" with regards to how such an essence is always a matter of material relations. Would it be fair to say that Marx is conceptualizing the human species essence in a Hegelian way in the sense that dialectical materialism is a realization or consummation of the human essence? Does Marx see socialism as ultimately a matter of humanity achieving its essence, or does Marx's rejection of Hegel's Idealism preclude this kind of interpretation somehow?

[@lyndonbailey3965]

The language around simplicity also seems confusing to me, if anything, the becoming, reflection into the self, self-movement and so on, seem like developments, specifically from the simple to the complex.In fact, Hegels description of the self, or the I sounds a little like cosmological accounts of the emergence of the universe of particularity out of the original singularity.Maybe I need to see more passages to see where he is coming from.

[@fartsneed9464]

Have you considered uploading the audio to different podcast platforms as an RSS? I would love to listen to this on long drives.

[@GregoryBSadler]

You mean like this? soundcloud.com/gregorybsadler Editing takes a good bit of time. So, for the time being, I'm converting my core concept videos.

[@GregoryBSadler]

kzbin.info/www/bejne/p4PZfWOdptGsqNk

[@MrMarktrumble]

self -moving self-samesness = the ship of thesus Reflection into self = to identify one thing separate from another is to assume the principle of identity and after to relate one thing to the other in the relation of difference. This relation assumes two terms, and one relationship, and this one relationship of difference is what the two terms have in common. Asserting the primacy of the relationship dissolves the entity of each of the terms. Green is not red, red is not green, but they are each colours. instead of identifying each as numerically separated as red or green, we truthfully say "they are colours" . this way we preserve their differences, and yet transcend them

[@GregoryBSadler]

I wouldn't identify self-moving selfsameness with the ship of Theseus idea. The latter could be an example of it, but certainly isn't the pattern for all such

[@MrMarktrumble]

okay.

[@theleninistplaysgames1682]

how would you define "self-motion"?

[@GregoryBSadler]

I wouldn't. You won't find an awful lot of definitions in Hegel, or in my commentary on him.

[@Fans_of_Eastman]

Jinky jinky, indeed, sir. Jinky. Jinky. Indeed. I'm procrastinating on all sorts of different sorts of work by binge watching these. Ah, the hazy creative stage, the day dreaming, such a nice sensation.

[@GregoryBSadler]

I'm not quite sure what "jinky" means in this context

[@Fans_of_Eastman]

You yourself used that term in your video! You're right, my useage was devoid of context, whereas your useage was intended to make a point at around 24:29, regarding the importance of the predicate imparting meaning. Jinky jinky is God, all other gods are false gods, accept Jinky Jinky into your heart and you will be saved.

[@Fans_of_Eastman]

gifsound.com/?gif=media.giphy.com/media/26xBwDKeIIWdv9i92/giphy.gif&v=MupCVLUciBE&s=1469

[@Fans_of_Eastman]

The Absolute Meme

[@Fans_of_Eastman]

I could create some context for it, choosing jinky jinky as an initial kernel and building context around it, but in this case, it was more used as content for the structure of, "Phrase, repetition of phrase, affirmation," "Repetition with more emphasis" that has taken off with the kids these days. No disrespect intended, this is how I say I like you and your work, a lot. I started as a math/analytic person and grew from there. Just ignore me when you get a notification. Congrats on the partially examine life thing, they are my favorite podcast...I listen to them when I do the dishes, when the water in the pipes isn't frozen here in Alaska. To be honest, I watch and read about these things to keep my mind limber as someone heavily involved in local politics, to help me keep a continuously fresh perspective and assist with my ability to analyze situations, aesthetics, power, etc. So, thanks for that, too. Sort of...applied philosophy. Rambles. Thanks for doing all this stuff, love the content.

[@lyndonbailey3965]

I still dont completely get self-moving self-sameness I have to admit. Also considering Hegels talk about positivity and negatitivy, I know its not focused on ontology as such, but i'm wondering if he is indirectly addressing Parmenides via Aristotle or some later thinker? He seems to be saying something similar but more nuanced than Parmenides, yes there is only one absolute but it has complex parts, dimensions.

[@GregoryBSadler]

The entire work is indeed a work of metaphysics. As I mention in a number of the videos, Hegel is actually using Aristotle at many points, and likes him quite a bit. In that it's ultimately a monism, one can see some connection between Hegel and Parmenides, but that's pretty much it

[@eupraxis1]

Well, you're into it now. No turning back. (You should have used Beethoven's 3rd for the music. Both were inspired by the tumult of the day, ... and Napoleon.)

[@GregoryBSadler]

Well, I'll be switching up intro music for sections -- but it's got to be a public domain performance, so that narrows it a bit

[@GregoryBSadler]

***** It's tough to find stuff that's deliberately placed in the public domain -- if you see any versions of those, send them my way

[@noobmaster2186]

Gregory, given the theological context of this particular lecture, could it be said in regard to the reciprocal nature between the predicate(s) and the subject of "God" - that it is not merely "reflective into itself" - but rather an eternal sequence of complementary attributes (I.e. predicates). In other words, when we seek to predicate attributes to God - that we should do so not only with attributes befitting the Divine Majesty - but rather, that the very "predicate" itself should only be ~predicated with another complementary (and Divine) attribute. For example, "God is . . . ~Absolute." Then in seeking to descride and qualify the predicate "Absolute" that we can are confined to do so only with other Divine qualifications/ attributes/ predicates. In this sense, it forms a consistent "Unity" (in contrast to an infinite regression of predicates that are unsubstantiated by the essence itself, hence: (Proposition): "God is Absolute" What is Absolute? > Eternal What is Eternal? > Unlimited What is Unlimited? > Sublime What is Sublime? > The most Powerful What is the most Powerful? > Omnipotent And so on, yet notice that all of the predicates in this sense are being described and qualified by other predicates which are intrinsic to the Divine essence itself - and not exterior or foreign to it, for by doing so a complete "Unity" of subject & predicate(s) is maintained. In respect to 'negative' attributes - it is precisely similar to Jacque Derridas' Deconstruction - and that of the Ancients (like Hindus for example of "neti-neti") in respect to maintaing pure "otherness", that is "not this" "nor this" and "not that" but completely other. Apologies for the rant, but it's Hegel here :P Am I on the right track with Hegel's train of thought? Cheers, Jonathon

[@GregoryBSadler]

"Am I on the right track with Hegel's train of thought?" No, I wouldn't say so -- though it's not as if it couldn't be "rolled into" Hegel's account, so to speak. It's interesting, to be sure, but Hegel is concerned -- as you'll see when we get to the sections on Religion later on (you can also see this in his Lectures on the Philosophy of Religion) -- with developing a fully conceptual (begriffliche) account of God, which is going to end up with God immanent within the human community, entirely grasped by the human subject.

[@noobmaster2186]

I appreciate your feedback Gregory :D By "immanence" does Hegel incline to a panentheistic persuasion?

[@GregoryBSadler]

Sort of. . . Usually when we're thinking about "pantheism", everything is sort of leveled out. Since everything is God, it's all God, more or less equally so. With Hegel, everything is within the scope of Spirit, so there's the "pan". Not everything is equally divine, though. There's a definite priority to the human, cultural realm.

[@noobmaster2186]

Just to be sure, I did intend the term: "panentheism" (not pantheism). I found a few Philosophers in the past (unfortunately) attribute "pantheism" [wahdatu-l wujood] to Spinoza - beyond his personal reiterations to refute such claims. I found also however, that there exists a lack of clarity in the 'pan/panen-theism' dichotomy.

[@lyndonbailey3965]

Funny, I remember seeing an interview with Derrida where he was asked what deconstruction was, and he said that it was calling to attention all of the conditions of the interview, the pretend situation, the predefined patter, the presumed questions, the fake naturalness of the artificial situation, the biased arrangement of the camera and so on. (I'm paraphrasing horribly from memory) Oddly it sounds like something that a Hegelian would agree with, to understand the interview situation, one must factor in its entirety and all of its mediation, not just a pale and biased and fabriacted impression thereof

[@GregoryBSadler]

+lyndon bailey Yes - it is something a Hegelian would agree with (or someone like Merleau-Ponty). Derrida just wouldn't think one actually could take account of all that

[@hareeshscifi13]

God is the big guy in the sky is my favorite definition now

[@GregoryBSadler]

Hareesh Nair It’s a decent one

[@pirbird14]

My favourite: God is the first person subjunctive.

[@beanatta3905]

You said that you're hiding the fact that you're mediating... but also setting things up in a way to only grasp the realities you're trying to grasp. Is that like seeing what you want to see? Confirmation bias? Rose colored glasses? And the like...?

[@jl3977]

24:25 is what Hegel reads like without Sadler's help

[@GregoryBSadler]

It's not quite so bad as that!

[@goodleshoes]

Jinky jinky!

[@JackPitts]

Meaning no disrespect (I promise!), I might be starting to get an inkling of the source of Kierkegaard's impatience with Hegel (and the whack-a-mole trolling by which he expressed it).

[@GregoryBSadler]

Well, this is very early on. So, if you're impatient with Hegel already, you're probably not going to go much further. Quite honestly though, despite his criticisms, Kierkegaard draws quite a bit from Hegel

[@JackPitts]

I'm not impatient with Hegel OR your discussions :) I *do* enjoy occasionally throwing an uninformed elbow into the ribs of people I admire though.

[@chrisc7265]

The only thing that's dragging me forwards through Hegel is the fact that a lot of people I respect attest to his greatness (which is of course something). I believe the better one's ideas are, the more one tries to express them clearly (and vice versa). I'm really looking forward to the point where I can say, "Hegel could not simply state his ideas directly, because..." ...and I hope the because won't be Stockholm syndrome, eg: because I've sunk so many resources into this guy there has to be a pay out of some kind.

[@enricomachado881]

Chris C exactly the same here man

[@lyndonbailey3965]

Why is 'simple becoming' an abstraction of the I/pure negativity.I'm just going to let pure negativity fly at this point , but i'm not entirely sure what sense of 'abstraction' he is using here. It almost seems like one needs a 'Hegel Dictionary'

[@dena180]

Jinki Jinki is Love Jinki Jinki is moral world order Jinki Jinki is eternal *ACCEPT JINKI JINKI OR FACE MY WRATH*

[@liasenko]

I love Kant but always thought there's nothing more boring than Hegel. Never warmed up towards him and completely blanked him out when doing my masters in philosophy . Luckily got away with it

[@GregoryBSadler]

And you're telling me this on a Hegel video because. . . . .

[@liasenko]

Gregory B. Sadler sorry, there's no particular reason :) just expressed my thoughts . You're doing a great job here.

[@liasenko]

Gregory B. Sadler wish you'd do some videos on Apel and Habermas and the discourse ethics

[@GregoryBSadler]

kzbin.info/www/bejne/rJy7fKeuocp6d5o