Hegel's Phenomenology of Spirit - Introduction (Bernstein - 2007)

Professor J.M. Bernstein introduces Hegel and discusses his initial moves and philosophical project, including the departure from Kant and Kantianism. This is the first lecture in his 2007 course on Hegel's Phenomenology of Spirit, known as "the Bernstein Tapes". Note, the audio has been heavily edited and improved (especially the first 45 minutes or so). The reason for this was simply to make it easier to listen to and thus to appreciate these great lectures.
#philosophy #hegel #kant #epistemology

[@ozachar]

What a timeless treasure find. Thank you for providing.

[@evinnra2779]

Very interesting lecture, thanks Philosophy Overdose! That is not to say I can easily relate to every point made here, but I will try again. That's the best thing about KZbin, IMHO, that one can just re-listen , re-analyze complex ideas again and again.

[@vhyome9786]

THANK YOU FOR UPLOADING BERNSTEIN LISTENING TO THE TAPES ON THE WEBSITE WAS SO INEFFICIENT AND FRUSTRATING

[@JonSebastianF]

Which website was this? :)

[@noaan]

@@JonSebastianF bernsteintapes has the original audio, a bit less clean than this one.

[@CromCruachTheElderK]

What an amazing lecture, just what I needed. It attaches well to what I've already learned. Thank you all involved into it being accessible here for me and huge thanks to the lecturer!

[@languagegame410]

more HEGEL, please. i need this, Philosophy Overdose. more than words can say...

[@user-vi3sz3fg2r]

kzbin.info/www/bejne/a6G0aYiAg76fb5o

[@lizgichora6472]

Great lecture and timely. Hegel's philosophy completes Kant; on Space, Time and History. God's way of bringing himself to man through spirituality through Wisdom, Spirituality is in relation to virtue. Thank you very much.

[@tomisaacson2762]

Yessss, this is an excellent lecture so far. I hope there's more.

[@Refr4me]

Terrific, thank you. Especially in the context of other you tubers making videos about Phenomenology...

[@renaissancefairyowldemon7686]

Thank you, I'm hope you be releasing the rest of them in the coming weeks.

Excelente exposição da Fenomenologia do Espírito de Hegel. Eu escrevi uma obra recentemente com o título "Fenomenoespíritosofia do Ser: prolegômenos para uma nova ciência e a quadridimensionalidade do conhecimento humano, onde eu trabalho os 4 Sistemas filosóficos maiores do Ocidente: Platão, Aristóteles, Kant e Hegel, onde na parte de Hegel, eu uso justamente a Fenomenologia do Espírito para falar sobre os conhecimentos que adquirimos da realidade por via do espírito objetivo.

[@CromCruachTheElderK]

10:43 Not strictly speaking a philosopher (no "business to reason and compare but to create" and all) but William Blake definitely received history and collected humanity in a strikingly similar way (which is why Thomas J. J. Altizer draws on Hegel as an interpretative key for his extended study of Blake's thought).

[@joshualove3073]

Friedrich Nietzsche is a philosopher who sees the role of history of self-consciousness, especially in the development of moral thought and consciousness; this is what the Genealogy of Morals is about in one aspect, and he is a continental philosopher who in no way is just doing Plato and Aristotle.

[@jakecarlo9950]

I hope there’s time in your schedule for the rest of the Bernstein tapes! Thanks again.

[@PreachamanTV]

Brilliant lecture. Really enjoy Philosophy and this is a great breakdown

[@darioplant8029]

I lament the video does not show everything we can hear him writing on a board as he gives those amazing connections back and forth between Descartes, Kant, Fichte, Hegel...and even Foucault! I am...gee man, you rock.

[@tomisaacson2762]

Even better the second time!!!

[@usobobis3125]

Hi! Great work! Will you be editing and posting the other lectures?

[@osmangun2103]

he tells IT ALL in fhe first 5.5 minutes truly amazing

[@terencenxumalo1159]

good work

[@prismaticsignal5607]

Can someone explain to me the point that Bernstein makes at 15:00 ,about how formalism and atomism are connected to the concepts of universal and particular.I can't figure what is the main point.Thanks

[@Tuber-sama]

If there's any structure to be understood, then you can apply that same scructure to everything that's considered "equal" to that first object you observed. There's a form (structure) above the particulars that can be seen in other particulars as the same form, and, therefore, only the form can be understood as any source of truth whatsoever, because it's only from the forms that we can predicate similarity and difference.

[@Jersey-towncrier]

I must bring to your attention something that has been on my mind lately concerning this subject. Maybe someone can help me with it. I have often heard declarations that, in one way or another, Hegel held Logos responsible for the development of reality. I still believe this to be partially true, but I also realize that it is an oversimplification. Having studied Hegel relatively intently lately-as well as many other doctrines from other philosophers-my conceptions and conclusions have undergone a few peculiar and definite refinements. So please tell me what you think about the following idea: Everytime I sense Hegel talking about his idea of selfsame opposites maintaining unity, my mind always drifts into the analogous concept in the computing world of sequential versus parallel processing. And from there my thoughts associate to other analogues like space versus time and, finally, masculinity versus femininity. I have this idea concerning the way in which the historicity of Hegel comes alive for me. Although Hegel managed to generate an entirely unique conception of what is meant by the notion of logic, he also did not deny the merits of traditional Aristotelian logic, i.e., the formal elimination of contradictions. On the other hand, Hegel obviously also revived the significance of contradiction, elevating it to a prominent and indispensably vital role: the driving force behind the development of all human history. Meanwhile, following on the heels of Kant, Hegel further endorsed the claim that our entire experience as conscious beings is organized around space and time. But space and time each themselves carry certain connotations or associations: space has a sense of stability and fixity, more or less sturdy and static, whereas time is all about change and mutability. (I note in passing that the zeitgeist of Kant and Hegel's day strictly compartmentalized space and time as wholly separate, in contrast to our modern conception of the space-time continuum whereby these two are basically the mathematical inverse of each other). Now, coming back to Hegel's acceptance of formal logic, the word 'logic' itself derives etymologically, as I'm sure everyone knows, from the word Logos. That word has also, since ancient times, been associated with masculinity and consciousness. Interestingly enough, doesn't masculinity also connote a sense of stoic, immutable and geometric permanence, much in the way of space? Thus we might arguably tie notions of masculinity to our spatial conceptions, and, by further extension, to our stubborn fixation on the elimination of contradiction. But where, then, does that leave femininity? Let's consider an old metaphor I've always used for helping friends to understand their opposite sex relationships. I always explain it simply by relating men to a large rock up against which the constant churning of ocean waves crash, again and again. I always tell my male friends that they should think of themselves as a Rock-strong and immutable-and their women as the Ocean-deep, mysterious, constantly and internally in motion, given to occasional upheavals of fierce and explosive power, always crashing against their Rock, always seeking to dislodge their Rock at his weakest points. Moreover, I also frequently quip (in a less than facetious mood) that women possess an entirely different "logic" than men; it would not be a stretch to say that very embodiment of femininity-i.e., women-sometimes seem to be the very embodiment of contradiction itself! I've had countless experiences in which women have stared me dead in the face, perfectly serious, and asked me to do--simultaneously--two things that were completely contradictory and illogical. (I have developed a rather cynical view of this behavior, since I believe women have been designed by God to weaken men by confusing our desire to eliminate contradiction). It's as though what seems like a clear contradiction to a man is perfectly sensible and rational to a woman. Anyway, my point is that if we can in this way associate Logos with our fixed sensibilities pertaining to spatial conceptions, then, by comparison, (as an antinomy, I suppose) we might similarly associate feminine Eros to our common sense of change-the key feature in our concept of time. For if by Logos we mean the eradication of contradictions, then plainly by Eros we mean the retention and deployment of contradictions for the purpose of change and development. Indeed, could it be that Hegel was trying through his philosophy to demote Logos to a place of at least equal significance to that of Eros by demonstrating how the latter is the prime mover behind spatial reconfiguration and thus the source of History? Could it be that he was doing so without being all too explicit about it? Could this be why so many after him, including Freud-perhaps via unconscious osmosis of a zeitgeist generated by Hegel-saw sexual potencies as the structure of history, i.e., of space (being) and time (change)? Indeed, is space the Logos, and time, Eros? I often wonder at whether this is what he meant when he said something enigmatic, along the lines of "Lacking strength, Beauty hates the Understanding for asking of her what it cannot do"! (See Para. 32, Pg. 19, Phenomenology of Spirit, A.V. Miller) At any rate, were this so, then it leaves me struggling to designate which would be the analogue to sequential processing and which to parallel processing. I suppose sequential processing would be akin to time and thus feminine, whereas parallel processing is by contrast akin to space and thus masculinity. 🤷🏻‍♂️🤷🏻‍♂️ Can someone please help??

[@jamesnaughton5657]

Thank Christ Anglo-American philosophy turned its back on this.

[@sanfordsanford295]

Interesting lecture but noisy, Maybe the mic was poorly mounted

[@exalted_kitharode]

Thanks.

[@elel2608]

1:15:00

[@edwardj3070]

Is this Woody Allen speaking?

[@elel2608]

1:30:00

[@SagesseNoir]

Hegel discerned that individuality itself must have a social foundation to exist at all.

[@AdultDevelopmentInstitute]

So we all share a common foundation from which we construct our individuality. What are those common facets of being? Constructed Development Theory might help.

[@VidaBlue317]

@@AdultDevelopmentInstitute I don't share a damn thing with you

[@williamunderhill846]

@@VidaBlue317 - Such a ridiculous and ignorant comment. If Darren is an asshole, you'll at least have that in common.

[@AdultDevelopmentInstitute]

@@VidaBlue317 - I liked William's comment.

[@adamstein4104]

Indeed and Charles Taylor and Jean-Luc Nancy followed Hegel in this

[@AdultDevelopmentInstitute]

I took Descartes' phrase and made it more useful in my own doctoral research: Cogitandi mea intentio est, ergo sum. "My thinking has intention, therefore I am."

[@SagesseNoir]

In what area have you been doing research?

[@AdultDevelopmentInstitute]

@@SagesseNoir - My PhD is in cognitive psychology. I created a new theory which required a new approach to thinking. Hence the Intention, Awareness, Choice and Response of it. Thank you for asking.

[@zackalil2920]

@@AdultDevelopmentInstitute Your unconcious sets the intention before your concious, therefore how does that phrase sit ? I've developed a better phrase, "I am, therefore I am" You do not need anymore properties of being to know you are other than the properties of being itself making itself apparent by virtue of being

[@williamunderhill846]

@@zackalil2920 - I think that there is no unconscious. A book by Nick Chater says the Mind is Flat. However, to Darren's point, any thought has an intention. Just because you don't know it at the point of origin does not mean it's not there. So by stating your position, you support his claim.

[@zackalil2920]

@@williamunderhill846 No offense, but by the language you are using means you don't understand the extent of what you are saying. Every thought is brought forth with an intention, YOU are not the one bringing it forth. The mind is not flat, the unconscious very much exists, how else do you think any mental processing happens?

[@joshualove3073]

Become who you are; not become what you are. A what is not a who; subjective identity and character is different than objective identity like race, class, age, or gender-none of these things tell you what a person's personality, hobbies, likes, dislikes, and beliefs are though they have broad correlation.

[@NikolaiRogich]

“Progression is essence.” I was afraid that’d be the takeaway from this lecture. I see Hegel’s appeal to the political left clearly now.