Half Hour Hegel: The Complete Phenomenology of Spirit (Preface, sec 29-30)

[@dantheman6008]

I'm in my finals week and realized that I have spent too much time watching these videos and not doing my homework. I am beginning to use each of these videos as a reward for doing my homework for a certain amount of time lol.

[@GregoryBSadler]

That is a prudent way to set things up. I've done stuff like that before - like rewarding myself after some grading with reading some e.g PK Dick novel

[@MrIvanjose5]

@@GregoryBSadler aaaaaaaa

[@GregoryBSadler]

Grading is not yet finished, but I did get back to creating one more Hegel course video. . . . more to come next week

[@wxyxx4795]

Again, thank you so much with the incredible commentary! Frankly, I never liked philosophy before. I have tried reading other philosophic texts by myself but gave up easily after a few days. But Hegel is somehow different. (Of course, his works are difficult and dense as hell). His ideas seem so fluid, so dynamic, and meaningful to me. He is not throwing out new "general principles and points of view" to interpret a thing. For example, when I read John Rawls's a theory of justice, I only focus on the Two Principles of Justice and how he explains and applies his two principles. I feel like Hegel is trying to introduce a "process", not just some static "products"/ theories/principles/disciplines, to interpret the "substantial". To me, Hegel seems to be in a higher position. I might be terribly wrong because I have never been trained philosophically nor do i have any prior knowledge about sub-fields of philosophy (I am a social science student). Do you think Hegel is quite unique in the realm of philosophy? Your commentaries are great but i also think an official training in philosophy is necessary if i truly want to understand Hegel correctly and easily. So in your opinion, what philosophic backgrounds such as ethnics, metaphysics, philosophy of science, logic, and epistemology, are required to understand Hegel?

[@thecelticgiraffe]

That A to B example really cleared up what sublation is and what Hegel was thinking!

[@laseryohanna]

Thanks for that reminder. My goal is to get myself to continue daily exercise in both. Also thanks for even responding... so the analogy is a buttress of faith at this time. 👍

[@MrMarktrumble]

Preface, sec 29-30 thank you

[@brentwejrowski]

It's when we take part of a larger process that we have agency/significance --- I'm starting to understand how people like Kierkegaard and others talk about Hegel. I always saw him as pretty subjective, which at some degree he is (especially moreso than Kant), but he's also pretty systematic, or concerned more with the whole. Still trying to figure out the relations between all these guys!

[@lyndonbailey3965]

In a way it feels like the Hegel Ian perspective is suited to approaching conflicts in intellectual culture,say modernists and postmodernists,innatists and empiricists,Popper vs Wittgenstein,underdetermination versus falsifactionists and so on.

[@GregoryBSadler]

+lyndon bailey I'd say that's right - once it's been reinterpreted. I don't know that Hegel's own System works for that.

[@lyndonbailey3965]

when I think of what Hegel is opposing,I think of The Whig theory of History: All of history is just heading towards liberal democracy and that is the inevitable zenith.It is like the counterpart in history to ethnocentrism in Anthropology.

[@GregoryBSadler]

+lyndon bailey Well, Hegel does think history is headed somewhere. And some sort of political and spiritual community where the individual is free and lives in connection with others is what he thinks is at the end of it all. But, it doesn't appear to be liberal democracy as the end point.

[@mandys1505]

I've recently heard a public philosopher comment upon a topic which, i felt he did not know truly about. My friend mentioned the concept of attaining a creative identification with an author, and further, a topic. I felt that this particular philosopher lacked the rigor required for his field---i lost some respect for him; it made me sad because i value his thought. However, i knew that he had not tarried with the subject for long, b/c i have studied it for 10years, and just recently achieved a sort of fundamental understanding. thanks for this talk

[@GregoryBSadler]

There's definitely something to be said for spending "quality time" with a text, a thinker, even a complex idea. Very tough to explain why in terms that those who haven't experienced that will "get", so it's unsurprising that there's a lot of people who think that they can just learn (and linger) a bit and then speak intelligently about a matter

[@MrMarktrumble]

I stand for the search to become wise.

[@laseryohanna]

The "permission" to tarry is deeply appreciated. It is a bit of a challenge to spend the time necessary to wrap my mind around early Preface paragraphs (until i grasp it) when the current videos are so "bright and shiny" (and way beyond me). the analogy i am using is learning mathematics.... cannot skip stuff and cannot move forward before a real grasp has been accomplished. Does this work as a helpful analogy? or am i leading myself astray in some way?

[@GregoryBSadler]

I'd say that works as an analogy, though like all analogies, it's going to only go so far

[@Mgawe]

In the "History as an narration of what changed and why did it matter" statement are we to understand History as a primary source, or History as a secondary source work and commentary? For example study of "Dead Sea Scrolls" as a primary source document or looking at books and articles that surround "Dead Sea Scrolls" and their impact on disciplinary study of History of Dead Sea region. If "Primary Source" is the more correct version Hegel's argument regarding history would be contingent of new primary source discoveries. On the other hand if the "Secondary Source" is more correct then Hegel is contingent on availability of primary sources and now also the interpretation and commentary of others. Yet I feel that by now it is safe to assume that Hegel is not going to present us with a "turtles all the way down" view of the universe.... So how do we account for "Gestalt" of the past that Hegel have chosen for us if it is all in flux?

[@pongskills1]

An example of necessity in one stage but not another may be something like how God was a required postulate for philosophy and empirical sciences up until the Enlightenment. Slowly the God hypothesis was no longer necessary in that new epoch of Geist. Would that be a fair example?

[@boogiereverie]

🎶Hegel said there would be days like this, there would be days like this, Hegel said🎶

[@GregoryBSadler]

And sometimes whole months

[@vegardt3433]

Could you say that Hegel's use of the word necessary could be rephrased as "contingently necessary"?

[@GregoryBSadler]

Depends on what you mean by that

[@vegardt3433]

Ok. I see there can be several ways of interpreting that phrase. My thought behind it was to make it a shorthand way of saying that, although the future states are contingent, in the most common sense, our actions today are necessary for bringing forth a particular future state. By the way, did Hegel see history as linear or branching? Are there only one future state that we are all striving for or are there several possible states, that we as a whole have to choose from?

[@garrettgeorge6856]

Regarding Hegel's use of the term "individual", it seems to me he's speaking of a single person because of the use of gendered possessive pronouns, i.e. "his own substance" in §29. However, starting with §28 and emphasized notably here, you seem to be saying that his use of "individual" is meant to be far less literal and that Hegel is concerned more with individual moments rather than people. Would you say that this is in part a translation discrepancy or is Hegel using the individual person as a metaphor for an arbitrary supra-personal moment in history? Following up to that, is your view, as expressed in this video, a (justified) projection of someone who's lingered with the text as you have and seen what Hegel really means?

[@ShotTehTrick]

It would seem that once an individual is able to make connections between the subject of inquiry to other subjects outside the former subject in a more 'abstract' manner, that one is able to say with some confidence that he understands what he is talking of. Would you agree Dr. Sadler? It just seems to me that the majority lack understanding due to a lack of ability to make connections between various subjects, objects, or whatever one wishes to call them. Like for example, many political theorists were able to make predictions on what was to come if society stayed on a specific course, they understood what would happen because they used the past as reference and combined that which happened in the past to what they observed in their own time. Alexis de Tocqueville stated, "The American Republic will endure until the day congress discovers that it can bribe the public with the publics own money." And now, if one looks upon modern America, one will accurately see what he said to be quite accurate. It has always interested me how after the enlightenment that many philosophers started making predictions of what is to come, from Hegel to Nietzsche to Kierkegaard to the countless political philosophers, ect. And when one combines all which they have said, observes our present society, and reflects upon it, that one cannot help but think that we are close to 'the end', especially when one uses Biblical Revelation. It is always easier to predict the outcome of a sports match when the time is running out.

[@GregoryBSadler]

So you're really asking two different questions here. "once an individual is able to make connections between the subject of inquiry to other subjects outside the former subject in a more 'abstract' manner, that one is able to say with some confidence that he understands what he is talking of." I suppose that's the case. But often those "connections" turn out to be mistaken or inadequate. Are things really winding down? And do the predictions various philosophers have made, coupled with whatever interpretation of "Biblical revelation" (since there's so many interpretations available) one wants to add point towards a nearby end? I don't see that myself, no.

[@ShotTehTrick]

Gregory B. Sadler You have mentioned in recent videos that you live around Brookfield, I believe? I live in Ozaukee county, so roughly 30-35 minutes from you. I live in Saukville, a town near Port Washington.

[@GregoryBSadler]

Adeodatus de Lancella I've mentioned that my wife grew up in Brookfield (I grew up on the border of Delafield and Wales). We live right downtown in Milwaukee. I've been through Saukville, years ago, and we get up to Port Washington every once in a while. We ought to meet up sometime for a coffee.

[@ShotTehTrick]

Gregory B. Sadler Milwaukee is a nice city, I go down there to meet up with my friend who is in college. And most definitely, I would enjoy meeting up for coffee at some point. A question I have always been meaning to ask, do you think and 'study' of philosophical like material for most of your day? I find that it is mostly what I think of and I was curious as to whether or not other philosophers do the same.

[@GregoryBSadler]

Adeodatus de Lancella On the most enjoyable days I get to spend the majority of it reading and thinking about philosophical works. I wouldn't say that's most of my days, give the kind of work that I do - but I enjoy that work as well

[@chrisc7265]

I take it Hegel is not a relativist --- he wouldn't say, regardless of where history takes us, that is the correct place, because history has taken us there. He has a particular endpoint in mind. That being the case, there are individual actions, cultural and political movements, technological innovations, and whatever other drivers of history, that will push us _away_ from Hegel's end point. So if Hegel's endpoint is not inevitable, what does he make of historical (and present/future) movement away from it? I'm sure he will elaborate, but early on this is the big question on my mind.

[@GregoryBSadler]

Hegel thinks we've already reached the endpoint, at least ideally

[@chrisc7265]

@@GregoryBSadler thank you, this is a very helpful clarification. Novel to ask a question on youtube and receive an authoritative reply --- I really appreciate what you are doing here.

[@goldboolean6819]

I wonder what Hegel would have thought of the Earth from an orbital view

[@bluelarry1674]

Is this similar to that theme in Jurassic Park where Dr. Malcolm chastises Mr. Hammond about utilizing this science (of resurrecting dinosaurs) without acquiring the discipline to attain it?

[@GregoryBSadler]

I suppose it's tangentially related. Hegel is onto something going beyond and encompassing the discipline (and also practical wisdom, or prudence) needed to make good use of what science offers us

[@bluelarry1674]

He is indeed. thank you for posting these videos. I enjoy them greatly!

[@chrisc7265]

This is where my mind went, too. Michael Crichton used the example of martial arts: built into the system of martial arts is a code of ethics, such that, if one masters the ability to judo chop someone and insta-kill them, they have also mastered the self-discipline not do so unless absolutely necessary. Science (modern, not Hegelian definition) is all judo chopping with very little self-discipline-not-to (Crichton would have argued, and I agree). Social media was developed because it seemed neat and profitable --- very little emphasis is given to the mounting psychological evidence that it inflicts unacceptable harm (especially on children). The stance on AI is that, there should be no ethical restraints on developing AI, because if we don't go all in, our geopolitical enemies will (a repeat of nuclear armament). From this lecture and Dr. Sadler's post above, I take it that Hegel's emphasis is less on individual responsibility, and more on a worldwide culture of responsibility --- a world where nuclear disarmament could take place, for example. Which sounds Utopian, but I'm very curious to see where Hegel goes with this.

[@JackPitts]

In what sense are the cliff notes insufficient? Certainly when you start talking about cultural literacy, we really have to appeal to the cliff notes. As a literate American, I am expected to know not just the teams and championships of Kareem Abdul-Jabbar and Frank Gifford, but also to really have a sense of what kind of players they were. Meanwhile, I'm just proud of myself that I took the initiative to sit down one afternoon and watch Muhammad Ali's most celebrated matches.

[@GregoryBSadler]

"Certainly when you start talking about cultural literacy, we really have to appeal to the cliff notes." No, we don't

[@JackPitts]

This is a rather remarkable ability. Is it to be achieved somewhat unconventionally? Will the method be borne out in the text?

[@GregoryBSadler]

No idea what you're asking about here.

[@JackPitts]

As mere mortals, we have only finite time to read literature, newspapers, and go to museums and football games. There has to be some curation on the individual's part to decide what to omit from our cultural literacy. I don't know what you mean when you say we can do without the cliff notes. If you mean that we can linger on things in a way that the cliff notes do not, then that is fine. But if you mean that we can avoid neglecting most of the details of the world around us, then that is difficult for me to imagine.

[@GregoryBSadler]

Cliffs notes are the low-level, often partly right, partly off-base summaries. Sooner or later, if you want to actually understand philosophy, you make time to read the original texts

[@netsaosa4973]

:)