Half Hour Hegel: The Complete Phenomenology of Spirit (Preface, sec 52-53)

[@songsmithy07]

Where has Hagel been my whole life? I'm thinking now, as I move through this process, surveying the Negative toward becoming, I am grateful to have your videos to walk me through it all, line be line. This content does in fact test the student/practitioner. This series is really resonating with me. Thank you for taking time to publish it on KZbin..

[@GregoryBSadler]

You're welcome! Glad it's useful for you

[@asgilb]

I concur with Matt completely. Not only are you testing us students, you're also simultaneously testing/creating a new form of teaching philosophy here on KZbin. I don't know of anything else like this. I'm quite convinced that reading this book slowly and having days to mull over each section is the most effective way of understanding it. The temptation in today's fast-paced, publish or die world is to try to absorb things very quickly and schematize as you go in order to do that. So Hegel's text is very fitting in this respect. I kinda think that what the slow food movement has done for cuisine, you're doing for philosophy... Or even just education in general.

[@GregoryBSadler]

Interesting -- I've just been interacting with some of the broader "slow movement" people -- mostly Danes, as it turns out. I guess it does make sense as a comparison -- something I have to think about a bit more. Thanks!

[@humblejumpify]

You're an excellent professor-- concise, cogent and completely logical

[@GregoryBSadler]

Thanks! Very nice to read. I have to admit, it doesn't always appear like that to me!

[@mikehansbury2542]

Really enjoying your teaching... I came across Hegel in reverse application. You are starting to make sense of how I got here. Thank you.

[@GregoryBSadler]

Glad you're enjoying it

[@chemadelgadoq]

I cannot be grateful highly enough of you for giving us the opportunity to watch all these amazing videos, which I will continue to watch right to the end. Hegel is, in my opinion, the best philosopher who has ever lived. Up to this point, it looks clear to me that the preface is not a sort of introduction to the Phenomenology but rather to Hegel’s whole system. I wonder what you think about it. In this respect, it is convenient to remember that Hegel considered this book, initially, as an introduction to his system.

[@GregoryBSadler]

more Saturday Night Hegel. . . not live, to be sure, but perhaps lively

[@laikathestardog]

what you say about language science studies is very true

[@GregoryBSadler]

more Hegel for a Saturday night. . .

[@MrCorreale]

When Hegel talks about "the movement of a being that immediately is" what "being" is he talking about? Is he referring to a thing that exists in the world or just our conception of that thing? Is this "otherring and return" a phenomenon that is happening to things in the world themselves or something happening within our cognition of them?

[@GregoryBSadler]

+Dave Correale To answer your last question first, it's both. Hegel thinks that within things in the world, there is this dynamic of self-othering and return (as different, as more developed) at work -- but it is also how they are "for us," or for consciousness. You'll see this sort of thing play itself out as we get out of the Preface and into the actual sections of the work.

[@MrCorreale]

+Gregory B. Sadler Thank you for such a prompt response and such valuable videos.

[@danielcox6193]

I think another example (in line with your thoughts about philosophy of language "experts" who don't know other languages) if people who study the philosophy of religion without making an effort to confront the practices internal to religious groups: prayer, meditation, community membership, etc. These people think they can understand the whole field from watching KZbin videos, reading Sam Harris, etc.

[@GregoryBSadler]

Yes, that's a good analogy, I'd say.

[@chrisc7265]

The "becoming other and taking back into itself" makes intuitive sense to me when considering conscious beings; I think it's an accurate psychological description of human development. I am confused by Hegel's explanation of conscious and not-conscious being as both engaging in this process. When Hegel talks about inanimate things, is he talking strictly about our understanding of inanimate things (ie inanimate things as perceived by conscious beings)?

[@hindalawadhi1136]

Hi professor .. I don't know much about philosophy and i just started watching your intro to philosophy videos and i live in the middle east and we don't have that subject around here or a major .. I'm honestly extremely interested in learning, thing is we also don't have any philosophy books here except for a "Rumi's daybook" .. i would love to order books online that will help me learn more about philosophy and philosophers its would be better if i ask you if you do mind a few titles would do .. thank you

[@GregoryBSadler]

That's a great set of questions. I think what I'll do later this week is shoot another video about "recommended texts for studying philosophy", and I'll write a corresponding blog entry in one of my main blogs, Orexis Dianoētikē gbsadler.blogspot.com/ -- I'll include links in that entry

[@hindalawadhi1136]

Gregory B. Sadler thank you im waiting for your update 😍

[@FreshJordans507]

If I understand this “self-othering” correctly, I believe it is similar to Schopenhauer‘s idea of the pure subject of knowledge

[@GregoryBSadler]

I would not try to use Schopenhauer to understand Hegel

[@FreshJordans507]

@@GregoryBSadler thanks Dr. Sadler. Much respect.

[@FreshJordans507]

@@GregoryBSadler I think i'm understanding the text better, thanks to arduous, patient persistence (Hegel would be proud). I now realize (still early in the book) the concepts of a reduction to the first stage, it's negation, and then a return to itself, in a new and more complete stage. The process continues and with each movement, a lessening of the void between the individual and the external object takes place.

[@FreshJordans507]

You're right, Schope doesnt say the same thing in his theory of the pure subject of knowledge, but Arthur's concept does help the scientific process