Hegel’s Most Difficult Idea

Рет қаралды 4,884

Күн бұрын

Пікірлер: 27

@julianphilosophy 7 ай бұрын

My Guide to Hegel ebook (titled “The Night of the World”) is currently available on patreon: www.patreon.com/julianphilosophy

@stathispanayiotopoulos9800 7 ай бұрын

You are the biggest help I could find in reading these insanities alone with no academic program...thank you very much julian

@utkuarseven5318 7 ай бұрын

Really love the new series and consistency

@LorentzHaugen 7 ай бұрын

Me too!

@simonragnarson22 7 ай бұрын

Hi what happened to your older videos ? I was looking for one today about Nietzsche on Wagner but can’t find it. Love your stuff!

@tehdii 7 ай бұрын

I will only give you an answer I will no longer judge this solution. He had mention few months ago that all videos will be deleted and will be uploaded as if we are in a new cycle. Just wait 3 years and what once was will be here once more... That is why I download everything :) I like his videos very much and I hope they will come back sooner than 2 years :)

@Laracnarok 6 ай бұрын

@@tehdii is there anyway you can send them to me especially those related to Plato kant and hegel ! Thanks

@tehdii 6 ай бұрын

@@Laracnarok I did not mention that I have videos in disarray and on multiple discs... I will try to look through the weekend in few folders. Let us hope I will find them ;)

@Laracnarok 6 ай бұрын

@@tehdii thank you appreciate it

@marabestani 7 ай бұрын

Thank you! Well articulated explanation.

@Anabsurdsuggestion 7 ай бұрын

Great short video.

@wandersonmartins5597 7 ай бұрын

Nice, my friend

@kapparo4746 7 ай бұрын

6:58, can someone explain here? I lost it on that part. And, the ccs are not available, not fully understand the words

@mariuslazar8686 7 ай бұрын

What I think he is trying to say is that you take the structure of the Socratic rhetoric and instead of applying it to a conversation with someone, you apply it to the subjectivity of how others interpret the 'ideal', and you have different theories 'bouncing' around about the attainability of the 'ideal' etc, hence the non-linearity of history when it comes down to the development of a grand theory describing the 'ideal'

@julianphilosophy 7 ай бұрын

Thanks for highlighting this moment in the video, as it’s arguably the most important and most difficult part. Hegel’s argument is that substance and subject (the antipodes of traditional idealist metaphysics) are in fact dialectically mediated. So instead of Socrates vs. interlocutor (or the self expression of the idea through it’s supposed antithesis), we can discern a substance (Geist) which posits its OWN presuppositions through that which appeared antithetical to it, namely subject. This is of course still highly dense, so I’ll keep trying to come up with more accessible examples.

@marcsilverstein7991 7 ай бұрын

Ive always seen Verstand and Vernunft translated as Understanding and Reason respectively in most hegel books and commentaries ive seen

@Amelle24 2 ай бұрын

I can't help being reminded of Buddhism - and how there is a concept of duality in life (constant contradictions) and reality that transcends duality (higher truth).

@thinker8923 7 ай бұрын

Hey Julian i have a problematic i am hoping you can offer your insight into: Zizek sometimes endorses the ethical maxim to do the right thing for the right reason as opposed to for the wrong reason; but how does this position work within the big Other of the shared space of social interaction? Meaning, a person does kind acts in public life for their friends, strangers or co-workers, to which they are perceived as a decent upright person. However, if they do these acts for cynical gain or narcissistic enjoyment (the desire to be praised or thanked for being so nice), then according to Zizek’s logic it would be unethical since their objective behaviors that others recognize in the symbolic space (a person receiving their kind treatment or witnessing it) is belied by their underlying subjective stance (i’m only doing this for my own benefit); and yet, the effect or symbolic efficiency nonetheless occurs because others in social life only register the actual behavior itself. Wouldn’t this imply then that although their form (why they do it) belies their content (the actions), the act is what matters most since it sustains a degree of peaceful coexistence, civility, common decency, etcetera, within public life? And if the reply to this is that one would have to also see how it is they go about their private existence, e.g. the way they organize their domestic lives since they can very well be an abusive husband or fail to maintain those same public behaviors; would this not to a certain extent be irrelevant in the eyes of the big Other? given the fact that civil society perceives this person (their public life) as being altruistic, courteous and having manners? in other worlds, is doing the right thing for the wrong reasons in the context of everyday life and civility, not matter? I truly hope to hear your feedback on this seeming contradiction i am trying to reconcile, thank you

@beansworth5694 8 күн бұрын

I think you can only definitively determine the character of such acts in which there may be a potential subjective contradiction to the ends in retrospect, when an instance or pattern of behavior can empirically lay bare which has been taking precedence: in your example, the pursuit of affirmation, or the pursuit of the result. In other words, you can't really understand the sincere ethic of one's actions except through demonstrations of how that person acts in response to pressures or absence thereof from different angles.