Understand ALL OF HEGEL in a Half Hour

[@chemadelgadoq]

Excellent summary of Hegel’s philosophy. Keep doing this type of video. I cannot say thank you highly enough

[@hegeliankid1226]

Came here after the 9hour Zizek video and so on and so on

[@briteness]

This was perfect! Now, where do I go to learn to speak fluent Japanese in just two weeks?

[@tonyj7205]

Japan?

[@ceaser500]

I'm sure he will be doing a video on that next

[@anderzonmanrique6200]

ha ha ha just use witchcraft

[@rayclam8079]

Paul can teach you in 2 hours.

[@onikin]

I don't know, but I can get you rock hard abs in only 10 days.

[@meltingpoint97]

This channel is a goldmine, looking forward to working my way through these videos

[@b.l.6349]

Thank you so much!! Your channel is pure gold!! Such a high quality work! ❤️I would love to listen your view on aesthetics! 😘

[@thepurpleenigma]

This was a very succinct and digestible overview of Hegel's philosophy! I really appreciate it.

[@ezraangelowsky5379]

As difficult and some times utterly incomprehensible Hegel’s dialectics is for an ape of average intellect like my self, thanks to this video and innumerable diagrams and notations I did for myself, I’m one step closer to star preparing in my endeavor to understanding it…

[@jamesreynolds1250]

Thank you for this. I think you are right that past his style, the core ideas are quite comprehensible. Great job on threading them together.

[@zacoolm]

What an amazing introduction to Hegel! Thank YOU!!!!!!

[@PaulJosephKrause]

Glad it was helpful!

[@zacoolm]

@@PaulJosephKrause thank YOU!

[@BeachGuyNice]

Played it in double speed, learned alot In half the time

[@JarinUdom]

It started off good, but then it made my eyes gloss over like Hegel

[@toericabaker]

15:50 really love this bit about how being connected to society makes you more human

[@planetruths]

And it's counterpart at 31:30. The greatest gift is love.

[@TueLesPigeons]

What if your society is shit

[@thesnakecharmer2531]

Can you please do a basic reading list/course plan for those who love to study philosophy but can't at university? Would mean a lot :)

[@PaulJosephKrause]

It is of course difficult to truncate a degree in philosophy, let alone two (as someone who has a grad degree in the subject) but a cursory canonical reading list would minimally include: Plato (The Republic; Timaeus; Critias; Crito; Symposium, minimally), Aristotle (Politics and Nicomachean Ethics, minimally); Cicero (Republic, Laws, On Obligations/On Duties) to cover the ancients. Augustine (Confessions, De Trinitate/The Trinity, minimally); Boethius (Consolation of Philosophy); Anselm (Proslogion, On Truth, On Free Will, Why God Became Man); Aquinas (Oxford Selected Philosophical Writings will suffice) to cover the Christians/medieval era. Machiavelli (The Prince & Discourses on Livy); Descartes (Meditations); Hobbes (Part I of the Leviathan); Locke (Essay on Human Understanding); Hume (Treatise on Human Nature); Leibniz (Monadology); Kant (Critique of Pure Reason) to cover the early moderns. Hegel (Phenomenology); Schopenhauer (The World as Will and Representation); Wittgenstein (Tractatus), Max Weber (Vocation Lectures); Heidegger (Being and Time); Sartre (Being and Nothingness); Beauvoir (Ethics of Ambiguity) to cover the moderns. (You should probably Husserl too but I'll leave that up to you.) I would recommend, as a reference guide, Copleston’s "History of Philosophy" series which is far superior to Will Durant and Bertrand Russell which doesn’t neglect the religious philosophical tradition (he is a Jesuit after all) and doesn’t belittle the continent tradition of modern philosophy (Hegel and afterward which pretty much will be the majority of modern philosophical reading) like Russell’s god awful book of prejudices or the relative superficiality of Durant’s. I would also recommend William Barrett’s "Irrational Man" for a 300-page guide to the existentialists which has dedicated sections on Heidegger and Sartre (Nietzsche and Kierkegaard too, on top of a long cultural and historical analysis of the roots of existentialism going back to Christianity and Romanticism). If you minimally read the above over however long it may take you should have a very good comprehensive yet concise understanding of the Western philosophical tradition. Certainly far superior than most public commentators who pretend to know a thing or two about our philosophical heritage.

[@thesnakecharmer2531]

@@PaulJosephKrause Appreciate this, a lot. Have you chanced upon A.C. Grayling's History of Philosophy? It seems like a good handbook as it covers both Eastern and Western philosophy.

[@PaulJosephKrause]

@@thesnakecharmer2531 I hold Grayling in very low regard as do so many professional and academic philosophers and historians. One might say he has the reputation of a hack outside of his clique among the crude Whiggish materialists. If the eastern philosophy is what interests you with him he only has like 70 cursory pages on the matter (half of which is devoted to Arabic philosophy and not really "the east" i.e. East Asia or India). Bryan Norden's "Introduction to Chinese Philosophy" is very affordable and has around 250 pages of good summary material on eastern philosophy and would recommend that if you want a good summation of eastern thought from an expert in the field. If you're looking for a good one-volume history in lieu of Copleston's multivolume work I would recommend Anthony Kenny's "A New History of Western Philosophy." At twice the length of Grayling, Russell, Durant, et al., his work is modestly concise but also provides far more depth and substance than the others. His organization providing metaphysics, ethics, and God through the ages is also good for seeing the movement of thought on these subjects over 2500 years. If, however, you need a guide for substance and learning, Copleston's work is still the definitive choice since multivolume works generally allow for such depth and analysis. (Though for price concerns it's understandable if you would prefer a one-volume option.) Cheers!

[@hyperduality2838]

@@PaulJosephKrause Teleo-philia is dual to teleo-phobia. Being is dual to non being creates becoming -- Plato. Thesis is dual to anti-thesis creates converging thesis or synthesis -- the time independent Hegelian dialectic. Teleological physics (syntropy) is dual to non-teleological physics (entropy). Syntropy (prediction, convergence) is dual to increasing entropy (divergence) -- the 4th law of thermodynamics! The word syntropy means "a tendency to converge" or integrate, unite into a whole, holism (religion). The word entropy means "a tendency to diverge" or differentiate into new states, reductionism (science). Divergence is dual to convergence, differentiation is dual to integration, reductionism is dual holism, division is dual to unity. "Science without religion is lame, religion without science is blind" -- Einstein. Science is dual to religion -- Einstein. Syntropic or converging processes result in optimized predictions for target tracking -- teleology. Science wins through consensus. Consensus = mutual agreement or objective democracy! Objective democracy = target or goal -- teleology. The laws of physics conform to a principle of objective democracy, they are the same and equal for all observers. The laws of physics are independent of the observer's (agents) perspective:- The velocity of light is the same and equal for all observers -- objective democracy. "Always two there are" -- Yoda. Duality creates reality.

[@hyperduality2838]

@@PaulJosephKrause Hegelian metaphysics leads to the 4th law of thermodynamics. Gravitation is equivalent or dual to acceleration -- Einstein's happiest thought, the principle of equivalence (duality). There is also a 5th law of thermodynamics:- The conservation of duality (energy), energy is duality, duality is energy (in physics). Potential energy is dual to kinetic energy -- gravitational energy is dual. Electro is dual to magnetic -- electro-magnetic energy (photons) is dual -- Maxwell's equations. Apples fall to the ground because they are conserving duality. Action is dual to reaction -- Sir Isaac Newton. Energy is dual to mass -- Einstein. Dark energy is dual to dark matter. The big bang is a Janus hole/point (two faces = duality) -- Julian Barbour, Physicist. Topological holes cannot be shrunk down to zero. Absolute truth is dual relative truth -- Hume's fork.

[@brentweissert6524]

thank you. i'm reading Hegel and your lecture is most helpful.

[@josephstraub5401]

Its much easier to worship one's theories and to ignore the murderous consequences of them when enacted, than it is to oppose the institutions which hold those theories in the cores of their doctrines.

[@mrminer071166]

In this portrait, he has those famous eyes that follow you around the room.

[@nooneinparticular87]

Your lectures are extraordinary! Thank you so much! Would love to hear how Soren Kierkegaard fits into all of this.

[@marcgorcey8194]

Thank you Jon Lovitz

[@Rico-Suave_]

Great video, thank you very much , note to self(nts) watched all of it 37:07

[@ryanhoffman5477]

This seems like it can be a religious system with all it's metaphysical language. One thing I hate about philosophy is that it's language is so abstract that it can easily be categorized as a religious system without a deity.

[@fullfildreamz]

In this case, it definitely is a system of faith which runs counter to modern science.

[@slickmechanical]

This philosophy is a religion. It starts with unprovable axioms (History is a process, it is going the right direction, it will become perfected etc...), it has original sin (historical stagnation), salvation (awareness of History and your part in it), an Eschaton (the end of History), a clerical class (philosophers who have awareness of the process), adherents and everything else. In fact, denying anything in his philosophy finds one guilty of heresy. This is a religion, and it isn't even as good as the religion it is trying to supplant because the work of the old religion is to reform yourself and become virtuous and this one doesnt require personal improvement, it seeks to agitate and foment distress to raise the awareness of others so YOU can reform THEM. It is a gnostic, hermetic, alchemical bullshit religion.

[@ryanhoffman5477]

@@slickmechanical Well said! I've been thinking about the phenomenon of how we seem to gravitate to utopia ideas and fantasies or to dysphoria ideas. Some not all philosophers seem to have a justification for a vision of utopia or secretary wanting a dysphoria. Just as you said, no inter self-reflection on their unconscious motivation and values. It seems that a title like philosopher, doctor, or scientist has become the new priesthood. People fail to understand that a title name doesn't make a person a good morally person. Our modern world is full of levels of dead people from the past and their words and language that hasn't been challenged properly and is causing problems evermore rapidly with social media. There's so many social contagions and mass Hysteria types that are compounded by bad philosophers from history and pseudo science disciplines. I can see where Marxism has its roots in from this video.

[@slickmechanical]

@@ryanhoffman5477 if you've got three hours to spend, check out the KZbin channel New Discourses and watch the one titled "The Theology of Marxism". The link will be crystal clear for you.

[@ryanhoffman5477]

@@slickmechanical Right on! I'll look into it.

[@nancywysemen7196]

enjoyed your presentation and clear,rhythmic speech.

[@ericrawson2909]

I found it rather difficult to concentrate. Quite slow delivery due to numerous pauses, so tried 1.5 times speed. The words per minute was then good, but the constant pausing is even more noticeable and very distracting. In other words, I guess the rhythm is syncopated!

[@nowhereman6019]

This is great, I'm finally starting to understand why Schopenhauer hated Hegel so much.

[@parkeriv]

@@smkxodnwbwkdns8369 Nah, he was genuinely jealous of him in real life.

[@tylerhulsey982]

Irony? No, Schopenhauer genuinely hated Hegel. It was even beyond philosophy, it was personal lol

[@smkxodnwbwkdns8369]

@@tylerhulsey982 I know, idk why I wrote that lol. Generally that’s true but yes with Schopenhauer and Hegel it was personal mostly due to Schopenhauer’s defective personality of petty envy and bitterness

[@recuerdos2457]

Could you explain why ? Thanks

[@TchaikovskyFDR]

He hated him because he knew he was right, he just did not know why. Fucking dialectics man.

[@optimusprimevil1646]

so things happen and people do things wow my mind is blown

[@AynManRand]

This is awesome. Now I know why Ayn Rand was so pissed at Hegel

[@jnagarya519]

Ayn Rant was an aristocrat reactionary -- who reacted to the Russian revolution by becoming an extreme irrational right-winger. She preaches unleashing the power of the powerful on the less powerful.

[@AynManRand]

@@jnagarya519 she was a typical bourgeoisie. That is: a small productive class with new skills that the Ancient regime didnt want to share power with and was under appreciated by the proletariat. It was Ayn's class that enacted the 1905 revolution and set free millions of laborers. They would have ushered in a golden age, but the Leninists were in a hurry to capture the remnants of the Empire and they were happy to kill wholesale the very ppl that only recently been freed from bondage.

[@razzberry6180]

@@jnagarya519 You could not be more misguided in your opinion. Ayn Rand essentially advocates for the idea that the circumstances to which everyone is born into is not the result of a moral agent's doing. i.e. It is not "unjust" for someone to be born in the back country of Somalia, and therefore you cannot hold morally respnsible someone who was born in better circumstances. She wanted everyone to understand that productive people were not meant to be enslaved to the lesser productive by the force of the state. Her philosophy, which I think exceeds the denialism of the idealists by actually accepting the truth of existance is this: That nature gave you the tools for which to forge for food, it does not gaurentee a full plate each night.

[@bigtimes1]

@@AynManRand Bourgeois means middle class in French. Go learn another language first.

[@aesop1451]

@@jnagarya519 Ayn Rand was a Jew.

[@Victoria-gq7om]

It is a pleasure to listen to you speak.

[@neilkiots]

thanks been listening to the series all morning. i understand why Nietzsche doesn't accept this.

[@highorion5379]

I believe Hegel would not agree with himself on many things if he lived today.

[@minayowitz3268]

Yes, a very good presentation of Hegel's philosophy. You almost hinted to the strong hermetics elements present on it. The whole system can be seen like the theosophical foundation of totalitarism. Not in vain was he a student of theology while also another gnostic denier of Christ.

[@PaulJosephKrause]

Have you read Glenn Magee's Hegel and the Hermetic Tradition? Good book explaining this part of Hegel's philosophy.

[@sonounguerriera]

thank you sooo very much!!!♥

[@thenowchurch6419]

Like Krishnamurti, Hegel understood that existence is fundamentally relational.

[@DuskLegend]

Is that really such a hard concept to grasp? Did popular thinkers up to the time really not believe that?

[@F--B]

Isnt it only moderns who have ever thought otherwise?

[@thenowchurch6419]

@@F--B So true.

[@lokeshparihar7672]

I am also coming from krishnamurti-bohm series , can you advise on what to study in hegel ?

[@thenowchurch6419]

@@lokeshparihar7672 My entry to Hegel was a small book called Introduction to The Philosophy of History, translated by Leo Rauch, published by Hackett Publishing Company. A very good book. He is more complex in his explanations than K, but they reach a lot of the same conclusions.

[@fluke278]

at 4:14 what is the term said, I was able to find the word for individuality (Einzelnheit)

[@PaulJosephKrause]

Einzelheit is the term Hegel uses, yes.

[@fluke278]

@@PaulJosephKrause thanks for replying, I am not sure about the word used for what is described as "uncultured naturalistic simplicity", the auto-generated caption spells it out as "inga builder", which i assume is not right

[@MAX-tw3qz]

How the gods must laugh at Hegel, comprehending 'The System' then getting it off by rote.

[@slu77y]

this is so good if you don’t like reading books

[@brandonlamontcooper8141]

thank you

[@johnstevenalejandro3034]

Thank you for this.

[@catsaresocute650]

This is actually really compehensible and resonable, how did this move into we need to destroy everything?

[@catsaresocute650]

Is it like over the sacrifice being acceptable into normal, neccery or good? Or over deciding no to the family? or

[@catsaresocute650]

I mean I have the most problems with the sacrifice part, becurse well there is no excuse for harming somone

[@catsaresocute650]

But it is interresting that Peterson dosn`t ever appear to mention him, considering his look for achetyps. I wonder what exactly he finds that disagreeable, but maybe it is his problem with the SJW

[@rileypare7946]

We really gotta stop doing this as Hegel scholars (assuming you are one). We just can’t explain him so quickly lmao.

[@DuskLegend]

Apparently you can. What’s the problem?

[@daveklebt7732]

a new religion requiring as much faith as all other religions.

[@shemuelthesabbatian1254]

no read him he uses evidence lmao this was a 30 minute video

[@shemuelthesabbatian1254]

@@nealdee1755 wow perfect argument, really showed me!

[@daveklebt7732]

@jcrunk i was referring to hegelian, and postmodern atheistic religions.

[@Tuber-sama]

If you have eyes to see, you'll see.

[@TueLesPigeons]

​@@daveklebt7732yes. And this is true of most post-idealism thinkers ("grifters")

[@hyperduality2838]

Being is dual to non being creates becoming -- Plato. Thesis is dual to anti-thesis creates converging thesis or synthesis -- the time independent Hegelian dialectic. Teleological physics (syntropy) is dual to non-teleological physics (entropy). Syntropy (prediction, convergence) is dual to increasing entropy (divergence) -- the 4th law of thermodynamics! The word syntropy means "a tendency to converge" or integrate, unite into a whole, holism (religion). The word entropy means "a tendency to diverge" or differentiate into new states, reductionism (science). Divergence is dual to convergence, differentiation is dual to integration, reductionism is dual holism, division is dual to unity. "Science without religion is lame, religion without science is blind" -- Einstein. Science is dual to religion -- Einstein. Syntropic or converging processes result in optimized predictions for target tracking -- teleology. Science wins through consensus. Consensus = mutual agreement or objective democracy! Objective democracy = target or goal -- teleology. The laws of physics conform to a principle of objective democracy, they are the same and equal for all observers. The laws of physics are independent of the observer's (agents) perspective:- The velocity of light is the same and equal for all observers -- objective democracy. "Always two there are" -- Yoda. Duality creates reality.

[@thenowchurch6419]

Thank you. Lots of truth there. I do not know about the speed of light thing though.

[@hyperduality2838]

@@thenowchurch6419 Fundamental physics. You should watch some videos about Einstein's theory of special relativity. Time dilation is dual to length contraction -- Einstein. Space is dual to time -- Einstein. Gravitation is equivalent or dual to acceleration -- Einstein happiest thought, the principle of equivalence (duality). Energy is dual to mass -- Einstein. Dark energy is dual to dark matter. Once you understand and accept that duality is real then you can create new laws of physics and the philosophy of Hegel, Kant, Descartes, Plato etc. supports the physics. Potential energy is dual to kinetic energy. Apples fall to the ground because they are conserving duality. The force of gravity is empirical proof that duality is real.

[@shemuelthesabbatian1254]

lmao gay

[@hyperduality2838]

@@shemuelthesabbatian1254 Energy is dual to mass -- Einstein. Dark energy is dual to dark matter. Energy is duality, duality is energy. "Perpendicularity in hyperbolic geometry is measured in terms of duality" -- Professor Norman J. Wildberger in universal hyperbolic geometry. Perpendicularity or orthogonality = duality. The Christian cross is composed of two perpendicular lines = duality. Christians have been worshipping duality for thousands of years. Thesis (God) is dual to anti-thesis (the Christ consciousness) creates the converging thesis or synthesis of the holy spirit or mind/soul -- the time independent Hegelian dialectic. The council of Nicaea in 325 AD was set up to answer the question, is the Christ consciousness the same substance as God or a different substance? Same is dual to different, homo is dual to hetero, homoosious is dual to heteroosious. Christianity is actually based upon duality and not triality or trinity. Questions are dual to answers. Duality (energy) creates reality! "Always two there are" -- Yoda. God is a dual concept. Concepts are dual to percepts --- the mind duality of Immanuel Kant. Mind (the internal soul, syntropy) is dual to matter (the external soul, entropy) -- Descartes. The mind/soul is dual according to Descartes, Kant, Hegel, Einstein et al. Homo (gay) is dual to hetero (non gay). Lacking is dual to non lacking. Being is dual to non being creates becoming -- Plato. "Fear is dual to anger, anger is dual to hate, hate is dual to suffering" -- the Yoda dualities. Male (thesis) is dual to female (anti-thesis) synthesizes children, offspring -- Hegel. Biological sex is based upon conserving the duality of the Hegelian dialectic.

[@xxGoldenBoyxx]

*The appearance of duality

[@anonymouseovermouse1960]

Hegel literally started asserting random esoteric bullshit and called it truth lmao

[@PaulJosephKrause]

You're not wrong! ;)

[@anonymouseovermouse1960]

@@PaulJosephKrause Thanks for the comment :) Good video though, i just find it baffling how so many philosophers are often cited as such great thinkers of some sort, when the majority of their work then turns out to be the 18th century equivalent of confident schizoposting. I mean, some philosophers at least recognize their inability to objectively understand reality, and that all they can say about reality is their opinions, which are worth nothing more than what opinions are worth (despite how strongly they might believe in them), but hegel here seems quite sure and assertive of this stuff, with little justification. Still, it's a very difficult thought system to understand, probably specifically *because* of all that, so thank you for the video, it helped me get a slightly more informed opinion on this stuff :)

[@timber750]

@@PaulJosephKrause Yes he is--as was Schopenhauer, who said largely the same about Hegel. Giving up is not understanding.

[@md.abuabdullah2446]

What is this spirit thingy?

[@TueLesPigeons]

Hegel's view on everything

[@greggvillanueva1291]

It is a good attempt but you cannot approach Hegel by skipping his Science of Logic which constitutes his ontology.

[@HansMcc1984]

What is spirirt?

[@christofeles63]

"Geist" is German for mind AND spirit. Himmel is German for sky AND heaven. It does not have these distinctions. Similar to the French 'esprit' = mind/spirit. L'esprit Saint = the holy spirit.

[@HansMcc1984]

@@christofeles63 And Spirit is?

[@christofeles63]

@@HansMcc1984 consciousness/self-awareness

[@HansMcc1984]

@@christofeles63 Thanks you.

[@megenberg8]

just today i thought about moral joy - so few seem interested. how very disturbing. morality as completely joyous - could it be? yes! says the sage: 'virtue is its own reward'.

[@jasonshapiro9469]

I think you underestimate how slow of a learner i am, sir. It took me 20 minutes just to google what phenomenology meant, and I'm still not sure i actually understand it..this is going to take way longer than half an hour

[@DuskLegend]

So...we become individuals by abandoning individuality? And we praise this guy?

[@shawnsaul7759]

in the sense that were giving up a selfish primitive manifestation of individuality by developing our identity through our connections with our community.

[@DuskLegend]

@@shawnsaul7759 if you’re developing your essence of self solely through the contrast of your choices with the choices of others (and then you have to ask where your initial and innate choices come from) you’re just admitting that the community destroys individuals and we need to distance ourselves from it

[@christophercrane5831]

Hegel is a dialectical. In his view the individual is a member of the collective and the collective is made of individuals. Hegel isn't saying "we become individuals by abandoning individuality," he's saying we will be free to self actualize by becoming more ethical and community oriented, by taking care of each other better, essentially what comes around goes around. The world spirit is the natural inclination humanity has to be more social in this sense. A good example is just how much progress capitalism has permitted through social production, division of labor, and technical expertise etc. This is a much more ethical society that what preceeded it.

[@eskilandersen479]

No, for there to be individuality at all there must be multiplicity. It is by recognizing others that you can contrast what you are and how you stand apart from others.

[@DuskLegend]

@@eskilandersen479 not true. Individuality is a given that extends from existence as an individual. As an individual exists, he or she will act in ways that develop them individually.

[@nancymohass4891]

“There is higher reality “. , Humanity ! All humanity not just Europeans ! Right?!

[@andrewhoward7200]

For those that share the same core values-Weltanschauung.

[@Matt-zp1jn]

The higher reality will be reformed by the Elites/Clerics/Scientists etc for ALL humanity as nwo citizens. Of course they will still be the Bourgeoisie and WE ALL will be the proletariat serfs. 😮

[@Vaughan2323]

Hegel was speaking pros all along

[@aesop1451]

Only Schopenhauer understood and built upon Kant. Fichte, Schelling, and Hegel are idiots. If you want good process philosophy which talks about the coincidence of opposites, read Whitehead and Hartshorne. Hegel thought the Prussian state and constitutional monarchy were the pinnacle of political theory. Kant's philosophy is better because he's responding to the serious intellectual challenge posed by Hume. Hegel is just asserting things. At best, you can see him as a historian like Thomas Carlyle, trying to understand themes in history. But does anyone seriously believe that national geists have ontological existence? Stirner would call Hegel's "metaphysics" a spook.

[@muai]

Hegel did not try to build upon Kant. How is Hegel "just asserting things"? Provide examples

[@cannonfodder8287]

Interesting to have found out on my own that Hegel was a Virgo, the most hermetic of the zodiac signs. The Hermit is also the card of Virgo in the tarot. Makes sense for a philosopher of his style.

[@eskilandersen479]

That might apply to Nietzsche, but Hegel seems to me like the anti-Nietzsche.

[@christopherlin4706]

Philosophy takes flight from the overman

[@koboldgeorge2140]

You seem to be pretty active in responding to comments, so I thought I'd post this instead of just struggling internally with it I want to listen to this video, but I also know that I have a very bad habit of taking other people's readings and appropriating them. Then I never actually engage with the author myself, and I particularly don't want to do that with Hegel (and Kant). This is something I have struggled with for sometime. My friends and family think I'm brilliant, but really all I'm doing is taking other people's interpretations of different philosophers and playing around with the ideas they communicate. Can you recommend on how I could overcome this? It's unclear to me what path I need to take.

[@PaulJosephKrause]

If I understand the problem, you mostly get your knowledge second hand from interpreters rather than from the primary authors and their writings? I wouldn’t worry about what others think of you and your intellectual acumen and whether you think it's justified. That’s somewhat irrelevant. I don’t post lectures on YT or write in the public sphere to win the adorations of others. If I do that is only an add-on perk. (Granted it comes with respectability as someone who also publishes professionally with publishing houses, popular and academic.) I write and post stuff here for the expressed purpose of helping students and laymen who feel they need some context and interpretative cornerstones before proceeding into the first-hand material on their own. I’m a big believer in providing context and even introductory interpretations for first time readers. We can’t all have the fortune - as I did - to have a very fine education in classroom settings with profs at Yale or Roger Scruton. Since that is the reality for most people it is best to have some sort of background, context, and aiding guide before launching into big topics and thinkers (like Hegel and Kant). It will then hopefully inspire readers to read the primary stuff. First, do you study these writers in any professional setting? School? Or is it a lay interest? Second, why do you find yourself going to others’ interpretations? Is it because you lack the context and background as hitherto stated, or is it because you lack the time to really devote to the primary authors? I wouldn’t beat yourself up if you turn to quick guides to compensate the lack of time. I’d consider that completely normal. Not everyone can have a job which affords them a nice salary and the free time to read multiple works a week. If you do have the time, then you just need to start slowly committing yourself to a habit of reading. Taking a bloc out of your day at specific times and say: I’m reading X, Y, or Z. I tell students, especially aspiring writers since I’m a writer myself, if you don’t get on a writing schedule you will never be a writer. Same goes for reading. If this is your case I would recommend starting small and growing from there. If you go to others and get some context and interpretations already, you have a window into reading that will make it somewhat easier for you (in the sense that you may not be completely lost opening up the pages of Hegel or Kant, etc.). I’m not saying that everyone needs to be like me. But I wake up at the same time everyday, roughly, weekday or weekend. I have an orderly schedule for myself, including designated reading hours, exercise, and writing. It is important to build that virtue of habit, as Aristotle would say, because that will impact your whole life. So if you find yourself lacking the want and will to read, start small in the morning, or evening, whatever time you have - 30 minutes, an hour, doesn’t matter - and just start reading. In time, it will become part of your being and you won’t even consider it “work.” Start small and manageable, because if you overshoot, you'll get deflated. Cheers!

[@hansfrankfurter2903]

I actually have a somewhat similar problem. Everyone thinks im smart but all i do is rehash what ive heard from others.

[@treesurgeon2441]

@@hansfrankfurter2903 I have felt the same but in reality despite the value of interacting with the original text everyone is just compiling multiple sources and making of it what they will. I would say even in a rigorous educational setting your still just getting the professors compression of the material that they most likely got from other sources.

[@jnagarya519]

@@treesurgeon2441 Except that that is not how university education -- any legitimate education -- works. Education doesn't exist to hand you the "answers" all ready-made; it is to teach you how to learn, so you can continue to pursue that WORK on your own. A syllabus -- reading list -- is only a beginning. You may not read everything on it -- but it should you lead into your own explorations, with the fundamentals of "How to Learn" as your guide.

[@Renegen1]

from your video I agree with pretty much everything from Hegel!

[@strategy0]

Superb

[@sheepshoe]

But why would anyone want that?

[@zo1dberg]

Even this distillation is way too heavy for a mere mortal like me to understand. A few fancy words I probably need to get familiar with here I guess.

[@DuskLegend]

It’s mostly just the writing relying on definitions used for their own contained arguments. A few definitions and you’ll basically “crack the code” of what they’re trying to say

[@zo1dberg]

@@DuskLegend Thanks, I'll definitely put a bit more effort into it.

[@magavsschwaga7834]

Another video is titled understand Hegel in 15 minutes and another 90 minutes . Neither are possible.

[@prometheusboat]

Why do I need to understand ANY of Hegel in ANY amount of time?

[@jrb4935]

Why did you click on this video?

[@prometheusboat]

@@jrb4935 youtube told me to. I obeyed.

[@matheusv.deazevedovenicism6883]

Man, hegel's look is really creepy.

[@TW1NKFN]

He was creepy

[@aliakhan9805]

Can someone time the topics

[@F--B]

Did Hegel not realise that history had already 'realised' his higher ideal in the traditional, indigenous ways of life that preceded civilisation?

[@timber750]

In a way, yes. The absolute is completely present at every stage of its development. Its self-understanding develops.

[@user-or7ji5hv8y]

Do you think there is too much opinion in his philosophy?

[@RoofDoctorsJoanne]

I still don't get it? Lol

[@AustralianHistoryx]

Honestly, you should use more jargon in your presentation

[@kevindickson2178]

a philosophizer.

[@jdzentrist8711]

I pause for the night at Hegel's appreciation of the individual; somewhat surprising and delightful. But, I mean, he knew exactly who he was.

[@LANCSKID]

Mind is not something encapsulated within the skull, so stop pointing at your heads when speaking of thought and thinking, please.

[@evinnra2779]

Not bad but not good either. Half an hour is nowhere near enough to touch on Hegel's philosophy IMHO. Though, to be positive, at least this exposition incentivizes people to read Hegel for them selves, rather than read interpretations of his work.

[@masoudnavard4436]

Did not understand shit.

[@jejethejeplalq821]

What a bunch of spooks. I knew Schopenhauer was right all along by calling Hegel a charlatan. Good video, I just disagree with Hegel.

[@byronanomaly8447]

Another would-be saviour

[@DuskLegend]

Another collectivist.

[@masoudnavard4436]

Me Tarzan you Jane.

[@johnnysparks3417]

A more perfect union. These ancient principles must have been shared as they were discovered in the age of reason. Secular vs The Vatican.

[@nashmontana8462]

👏👏👏👏👏👏👏👏

[@masoudnavard4436]

Friend good.

[@TheArdipithecus]

Whoah

[@saimbhat6243]

Good lecture. But I don't think you need to froth with attempting to passive aggressively defend hegel's ideas. After all hegel's ideas are borderline mythology, on par with old testament. You shouldn't forget that hegel's ideas are derived from a germanic perspective and germanic civilization was born thousands of years after first philosophical works were written in other parts of the world, for example vedic and chinese civilizations. There is a hegel like philosopher walking in every street, if you are patient enough to listen to their mythology, LOL. Man is a mammal, with much larger cognitive capacity than other mammals. Who was born out of natural selection on a tiny planet in a universe with billions of galaxies, get down from your high horses. Human consciousness is an emergent property of atomic and molecular structures. If an asteroid hits earth and all conscious beings are evaporated, nothing changes in the universe. You narration is good, bdw.

[@bernarditadelacruzkojima6371]

Wow! Hello im from Philippines,im studying now about Hegel Philosopher,he's birthday today August 27 😱😱😱OMG

[@byronanomaly8447]

objectifying the unreal

[@DrEhrfurchtgebietend]

All you need to know is that he is the root of all the worst ideologies

[@DrEhrfurchtgebietend]

@@forbidden-cyrillic-handle The worst ideologies are the ones that murder millions of people for not being the same as everybody else. Communism, fascism national socialism and critical theory all come from Hegel

[@DrEhrfurchtgebietend]

@@forbidden-cyrillic-handle this is why capitalism has been the best thing for the standard of living for the common folk. The incentives are right. This is why Liberalism and John Locke is better than Hegel

[@DrEhrfurchtgebietend]

@@forbidden-cyrillic-handle Since China switched to something a little bit closer to capitalism there's been a huge drop in the poverty rates there. At some point it was like a million people a day. Are you saying that capitalism in some countries hurts the countries that are not capitalist?

[@DrEhrfurchtgebietend]

@@forbidden-cyrillic-handle so you are in a former soviet bloc country? I do not think you can blame capitalism for the legacy of soviet rule

[@DrEhrfurchtgebietend]

@@forbidden-cyrillic-handle you miss the point. Its a culture issue. Blacks in the states are poor because slavery caused them to have a bad culture. You country was never prosperous. Communism robbed it of what little it did have. Trying to blame capitalism for the current situation is silly. Capitalism is the freedom to prosper not guaranteed prosperity. This is a huge tangent anyway. The point is that Hegel and Hegelian thought has never lead to anything good. The enlightenment (Liberalism and capitalism) is not perfect because noting is. Trying to blame it for you problems does not make sense

[@Gaxi2]

Nice clickbait 😊

[@clutchcarabelli8054]

I'm no historical oncologist but that looks like a malignant leftist tumor

[@philv2529]

I blame Hegel for communism.

[@emindeboer5280]

Hegel is in principle a bullshitter - do not waste life time on this joke

[@ChadHowarth]

This bears an uncanny similarity to leftist gibberish.

[@sillylily807]

what the hell are you talking about, clearly you've never asked a leftist what they think of hegel, hegel is pretty much universally considered extremely dense and difficult to understand@jcrunk

[@Kar-Kan]

"Ethical community" omg only german, and only in XVIII-XIX century can someone came up with that kinda naive and idealistic vision. Oh well, nice show...

[@jnagarya519]

The Founders based the system they established on rule of law and virtue (not that all of them acted virtuously). It's difficult to the have a community/society. let alone an "ethical" of either, if the focus is extreme individualism -- a democracy in which the ignorant consider ignorance being as good as anything else.

[@DuskLegend]

You can have an ethical community but reaching it by forsaking the self in service of the collective is like asking people to vote the right guy into office by piling into a giant car and trying to steer all at once to get to the polling station

[@slu77y]

this is so good if you don’t like reading books