Why Schopenhauer Hated Hegel

[@WeltgeistYT]

Keep exploring at brilliant.org/Weltgeist/. Get started for free, and hurry-the first 200 people get 20% off an annual premium subscription.

[@ReverendDr.Thomas]

Great work!!

[@horustrismegistus1017]

You really need to UP regulate your volume. Your videos are good, but quiet.

[@ReverendDr.Thomas]

@@horustrismegistus1017 Good and bad are RELATIVE. 😉

[@TrggrWarning]

Two of my favorites lol

[@DzogChen2]

What an utterly bizarre video! Not only did hardly anybody turn up to hear Schopenhauer (at the famed lecture-time clash) but the legacy of Hegel has been huge in comparison to Schopenhauer’s. Like Jordan Peterson today, Schopenhauer was just simply a lightweight in comparison to Hegel!

[@erenozdemir5528]

To be honest, Schopenhauer is not the kind of a man who would "disagree" with someone just because he dislikes him/her. There are some examples where he praises people who he dislikes.

[@Big-guy1981]

Schopenhauer didn't "dislike" Hegel. He hated his guts. Besides, while Hegel was in line with the zeitgeist, Schopenhauer was too much ahead of his time and clearly resented it.

[@ReverendDr.Thomas]

@@Big-guy1981 even though Arthur's concepts were strongly in alignment with ANCIENT Indian philosophy. 🙃

[@nicolaswhitehouse3894]

@@ReverendDr.ThomasThere was on orientalist mouvement in Germany and Europe in general where artists, scientists and philosophers were interested in Asian philosophy and art

[@theinternet1424]

No, but Schopenhauer would absolutely hate and constantly attack *anyone* who did *any* kind of supposedly Kantian philosophy after Kant. He somehow convinced himself that his philosophy which bore little resemblance to the way Kant argued things and was in no way more similar to Kant in conclusions than his peers, was the sole proper inheritor to Kant. Schopenhauer's approach to philosophy was more personal and akin to religious thinking than Kant, not just other competitors for Kant's legacy. Yet he somehow came to a point where those who emulated Kant more closely and didn't reach the same preacher-like conclusions as Schopenhauer somehow had no clue what Kant really is.

[@NickDaskalopoulos]

@@theinternet1424 Thaaaaank you.

[@orktv4673]

A few years ago I decided to read some 19th century philosophy for the first time. I've always been interested in philosophy, and I don't mind reading through chapters of tough material, but when I got to Hegel I had to put it down after just a few pages. It was just too incomprehensible. This would have curbed my entire faith and interest in philosophy, if it wasn't that there was a text by Schopenhauer right afterwards. What a breath of fresh air. His thoughts are actually clear, and when I searched some background info on the guy and read about his beef with Hegel, I was laughing out loud.

[@luxio7916]

filtered

[@monke8478]

Legend

[@lm2668]

Well to understand Hegel you should read idealists first and before that Kant and before that a realists and empirists. But thats’s tough so I would suggest to get a manual from a well established philosopher.

[@701delbronx8]

@@lm2668if you need to read 5 other philosophers before then that philosophy is trash

[@lorenzomizushal3980]

@@701delbronx8 this so much! I hate most higher level science because you need to know so many foundational subjects. Like theoretical physics requires you to know algebra, trigonometry, some geometry, calculus, classical physics, modern physics, and many other supplementary shit, theoretical physics and the higher sciences are TRASH!!!

[@nonserviam751]

I can't help but actually laugh whenever I hear Schopenhauer on Hegel. I don't know why I find it so hilarious. A vivid and searing roasting.

[@acardinalconsideration824]

Talkin mad shit fam

[@wlrlel]

And also dumb

[@rickyspanish4792]

Same, and tbh I can totally relate to him lol

[@Selderij]

Schopenhauer serves some brilliant burns! :D

[@nonserviam751]

@@Selderij That he does.

[@noah_d_turtle1435]

All geese have 2 legs, you have 2 legs, therefore you are a goose. Schopie was a comic genius, and I’m a goose. 😂

[@nevilleattkins586]

Did he choose geese, because it sounds like Geist spirit, a key Hegelian concept, admittedly geese is Gänse in German, but still?

[@afrosamourai400]

He was funny as hell...

[@thequeenofswords7230]

Too bad he was wrong. Weight is a function of acceleration acting upon a mass.

[@motherisape]

​@@thequeenofswords7230yes exactly that's what I wanted to say . Hegel was right

[@rodnee2340]

More like Police: can you describe this person? Hegel: yes they had two legs with feet on the end. They also had two arms, a head with a face, two eyes a nose and a mouth... Police:😒

[@dullyvampir83]

For me Hegel is a symptom. In Germany you have an entire class of Bildungsbürgertum, Burgois whatever you want to call them who justify their positions and privileges with being smarter than everybody else. By definition most of them will be mediocre, so what do you do? Along comes Hegel who teaches you an incomprehensible jargon that gives you the ability to make everything so incomprehensible and vague, that you can fool the other classes and even yourself into thinking that the people who use it and again yourself into thinking they something figured out. As an adaptation for the class very good to ensure their survival. For society as a whole disastrous. It has turned so many philosophy departments in a breeding ground for Scharlatans and con artists, seldomly seen outside esoteric fairs. Worst of all it has crippled the ability of political and sociological analysis to point of making social movements almost utterly ineffective

[@JosephK.-ph7nr]

You do realize that Marx just appropriated nearly all of Hegel's ideas, inverting Hegel's dialectic, thereby creating his dialectical materialism, right?

[@dullyvampir83]

@@JosephK.-ph7nr Well, I would say the results speak for itself.

[@mariocampos1969]

After trying to understand Hegel's philosophy, I acquired a deep sympathy for Schopenhauer.. If the hegelian philosophers are unable to reach a minimum concensus on what their master's writings really meant, it is completely fair to ask if they actually meant something. Moreover, if the purpose of the Geist is the realization of the human potential, our potential seems to be to become piles of ashes on black smoking ball nowdays known as Earth. Hegelianism seems the philosophy of wishful thinking. And if I had misunderstood it all, that's Ifault of his terrible writing.

[@existenceispain2074]

hegel was a terrible writer, but I do think his idea are very useful even if he employs some "wishful thinking" and not as he claims that his philosophy has no presuppositions. I am mainly from a mathematical background, I do find his ideas actually mirror some ideas in morden math and he actually "predicted" at least conceptually but obviously not technically which I find very interesting. ok I have read science of logic but haven't read the Phenomenology of spirit.

[@mariocampos1969]

@existenceispain2074 Well, I only tried (and abandoned) The Phenomenology of the Spirot. I am under the impression that Hegel was just adhering to the principle later formulated by Niels Bohr: "You should never express yourself more clearly than you are able to think.". But I am curious about what you found on Hegel and will gladly swap an old wrong belief of mine for a fresh discovery.

[@derpfaddesweisen]

​@@mariocampos1969The phenomenology is the most difficult work of Hegel. I would never start with that.

[@ahuman5150]

As opposed to Schopenhauer whose writings still apply to today's state of society 😂

[@skeletorlikespotatoes7846]

​nope he wasn't terrible

[@dimosthenistserikis5901]

Well to be fair, it was Hegel who ruined Schopenhauer’s academic career, be it that all students abandoned his classes to go attend Hegel’s. So there is definitely an element of personal resentment hidden in his critique. Ironically enough, Hegel ultimately died of a pandemic that Schopenhauer foresaw and abandoned the city.

[@wlrlel]

Well Schopenhauer purposely set his classes at the exact same time as Hegels...

[@bradsmith1887]

If Hegel had so desired, he could have vetoed Schopenhauer's appointment at his school - yet he didn't.

[@keithprice475]

Hegel did forsee it and left with his family but his sense of duty to his academic work brought him fatally back, and it was hardly Hegel's fault either that people did not want to go to Schopenhauer's lectures! The latter also sounds like a rather unpleasant person, and was also a notorious woman-hater, btw...

[@wlrlel]

@@keithprice475 exactly

[@rizanz2108]

Deliberate collective ignorance results in collective perishing.

[@michaelpastorkovich9341]

As Wittgenstein says: "Anything that can be said can be said clearly." Schopenhauer's critique of Hegel is spot-on.

[@raminagrobis6112]

Err... Wittgenstein was merely citing 2 verses by Boileau, a 17th century French writer: "Ce qui se conçoit bien s'énonce clairement Et les mots pour le dire viennent aisément"

[@michaelpastorkovich9341]

@@raminagrobis6112 well, of course, everybody knows that. But Wittgenstein was citing them approvingly and including them as fundamental tenets in his master work.

[@lorenzomizushal3980]

Lol, and then Wittgenstein wrote two books that were the opposite of clear.

[@krystal7958]

"One could call Schopenhauer an altogether crude mind... Where real depth starts, his finishes." - late Wittgenstein. Yeah, I don't think that Wittgenstein would be on your side here. In fact there's far more in common with the Wittgenstein of the Philosophical Investigations and Hegel insofar as both are fundamentally concerned with how concepts and norms are discursively expressed in a language community. Both have very different methodologies and correspondingly pictures of such communities, but their project is far more closely aligned than I think Schopenhauer and Hegel would be.

[@krystal7958]

​@@michaelpastorkovich9341It is *very, very, very,* controversial to characterize the Tractatus as his master work.

[@eddiebeato5546]

Superb analysis! Thank you for explaining the reasonings behind Schopenhauer’s well-known acrimonious attacks on Hegel as a philosopher.

[@WeltgeistYT]

Glad you enjoyed it!

[@nicolaswhitehouse3894]

I've found Hegel very tough to read unlike Schopenhauer or Nietzsche. Perhaps, it has something to do with Schopenhauer and Nietzsche who were inspired to write in the classical french way, which is to write an idea as concise as possible.

[@TwoFace0711]

I'd agree with your analysis regarding Hegel and Schopenhauer but Nietzsche and his Aphorisms are in my opinon utterly complex. I guess that's why also still the majority of people don't really understand Nietzsche

[@j.langer5949]

@@TwoFace0711 The reason would probably be that Nietzsche wasn't writing for the majority, right?

[@nicolaswhitehouse3894]

@@TwoFace0711 Nietzsche is easier to read once you've read past philosophers and the bible before him. There is such things as the Nietzschean humour and irony that not many people can't grasp if they hadn't read other past philosophers. But indeed Nietzsche is a philologist and a thinker of long time periods, and so he invites us to read slowly his works over a long periods of time.

[@Confuzius]

@@nicolaswhitehouse3894 My view is that Hegel did write in an unnecessarily complicated way. I feel like his ideas are not that difficult to grasp, at least after having engaged with similar material enough. I seem to understand his ideas quite easily through secondary literature. His own writing to me seems to be unnecessarily complicated and i don't subscribe to the perspective that it's just him outsmarting the rest. Writing is a skill, not entirely coupled together with the skill of thinking. And i think Hegel's writing skill isn't that great.

[@nicolaswhitehouse3894]

@@ConfuziusIndeed, I appreciate Hegel’s down to earth thinking, and his ideas are very ingenious and profound but boy is his writing ugly. Similarly to Kant I should say.

[@Mahlerweber]

Liked video. Also, he/Schopenhauer indirectly prophesized in his writings he wouldn't make it until late in life. He mentions Locke and Hume (icons of his) as examples of philosophers whose writings weren't truly acknowledged until they were over 50.

[@esmolol4091]

Hegel was important because he made us realize that there were real geniuses out there, schopenhauer was one of them.

[@aisthpaoitht]

LOL Hegel is still getting burned today

[@Impaled_Onion-thatsmine]

It's dirty and I can see the filth on the pages in the book I just walked it was a fresh print

[@wes4736]

​​@@aisthpaoitht- I began reading Hegel on art and beauty for fun last year, then a pen and paper to begin writing down some propositions he made and my amateur rebuttals to his assumptions. I lasted 15 pages before I gave up. He is so infuriatingly contradictory, changing his terms so his immediate premise can fit to cram his worldview into this hodge podge of nonsensical drivel! I'm just discovering Schoepenhaur, and man am I glad that I'm not the only one to see this, because I feel like I am in my immediate academic environment.

[@ukaszwojtalik8198]

​@VulpeculaVoloI have a feeling you got it right😅

[@skeletorlikespotatoes7846]

Nope hegel was 😅

[@MustafaKulle]

I can sense Slavoj Zizek coming to Hegel's defense right now. XD

[@nupraptorthementalist3306]

Gross.

[@JohnE2B]

@@nupraptorthementalist3306 Very gross indeed.

[@reginamemoriesforever-vc8ql]

Yes all marxists love Hegel because they owe him

[@robtherub]

Zizek is rubbish as well

[@sopansharma]

Word salads die hard.

[@batbite_]

Hegel's view of natural science is expressed best in the second part of his encyclopedia and in the first part of the chapter on self-consciousness in his Phenomenology. His second book encyclopedia is generally disregarded and hardly read whereas the part on life in the Phenomenology is really well done and also well read.

[@batbite_]

Hegel is certainly not a charlatan btw, but his writing style is certainly the opposite of Kant. Where Kant will go on and on for 100 pages on the same point Hegel will only state it once or twice and will then keep going. It's kinda the same thing that Nietzsche does when he wants to make his aphorisms the depth of a whole book condensed into two or three sentences - the difference is that Hegel is more systematic. His systematism both allow for higher depth but also for a great difficulty in summarizing him. The phenomenology is like a tower: You cannot understand what is happening by looking at its stones, rather you need to see its total interrelation.

[@NickDaskalopoulos]

@@batbite_ Excellent

[@andrewpearson1903]

Even translated into English and to an unbeliever in his philosophy like me, Schopenhauer’s expressive power and ear for truth as a writer are amazing. His “black cloud hangs over the present” aphorism still makes me want to buy both volumes of “Parerga and Paralipomena”

[@LaloVox]

Hey, man. I truly love your content. But... Is there anyway you can normalize the sound volume of the videos so it gets a little louder? That'd be awesome. Cheers! PD: And yes, of course I would personally like to see more videos on the Hegel vs Schopenhauer matter.

[@animefurry3508]

Well I must say dispite being a Hegalian myself, I enjoyed the video and can defiantly see some of the incompleteness and weaknesses of hegel, Thank you! Yes, I believe a philosophers should study science as well a vice versa!

[@WeltgeistYT]

Glad you enjoyed it!

[@palasta]

Furry and Hegelian... fitting...

[@MegaLuros]

Honestly I had the same problem with many eminent philosophers (Derrida, Nieztche, Camus, Lacan, Foucault and others) that Schoppenhauer had with Hegel. I just don't understand their sentences. And when I go read commentary on it, I keep up wondering if it's just not people trying to make sens of non-sens, just as religious people try to derive meaning from the their scriptures via Barnum effect. But at the same time, the sheer amount of respect that philosophers have for those big names make me question my own competence to assess them. After all, they spent more time reading them than I did, and it's really hard to find discordant voices on those names amongst philosophers. So I just come to the conclusion that I am wrong and I must need to spend more time reading them.

[@catatafish22]

Before you doubt yourself, hold that thought, You might just be onto something. Trust your intuition. You're definitely not a dummy... People like Derrida, Foucault, Lacan etc. played pretty fast and loose with their theory. They had some good ideas, but in terms of basic principles - I'm yet to see how their ideas have made any effective change on culture or systems in the way they intented. From an individualistic spiritual point of view, I'd say people like Nietzche, Jung, Foucault, Lacan, Derrida etc. had briliant ideas concerning ethics, personal and collective sprititual/moral ideas. But when it comes to real cultural and systemic remedies - they were only theorists. They offered small pieces to a larger puzzle which we are yet to solve. Remember, these guys were just theorists and they dealt with very abstract ideas. When it comes to the pragmatic aspect of making effective change in society, theories go out the window as soon as you hit a roadblock. There is no grand world theory which has been able to save humanity to date... Fixing the world's problems can't be done through one or a handful of ideas (particularly those from modern day philosophers). A philosopher may be good at dealing with metaphysics, but when it comes to real world, pragmatic solutions... a lot of their theories burst into flames once implemented. In order to actually make real effective change, it takes a lot of planning, experimentation, trial and error - if you take a look at smaller scale corporate/government projects... like just a project to build one piece of crucial infractructure is a monumental task in itself, you'll see that none of these projects ever run smoothly - AKA, there are _always_ roadblocks. Someone might have an amazing idea, but when it comes to implementing it, its never as simple as 1,2,3. A theory is just a theory, and it we can't see proof of concept until it's trialed and implemented effectively. I see many examples of post structionalist, deconstructionist, social constructivist ideas being trialed today and failing miserably. All of these ideas came from the likes of Foucault, Derrida, Lacan, Gramsci, the people from the Frankfurt school etc... they all stem from ideas rooted in Nietzchean, Hegelian, Saussurean, Marxist etc. Principles. None of them are perfect by any means. - Nietzche has a special place in my heart, because he never really proposed some sort of grand world theory - he more inspired hope and showed us that we are _capable_ of achieving greatness... we just haven't figured it out yet... the free spirits will eventually lead us in the right direction. I guess you could call that a grand world theory... but it was never a specific prescribed doctrine, all he said was 'Here are some concepts, we have what it takes to find a better way of life. For now, at least you can achieve meaning in your own life'... and maybe that's the best we can do, y'know? Maybe the idea of a utopia really isn't even achievable. I often find myself going back to the idea of eternal recurrence... the only thing I know for certain based off human history, is that we will continue to repeat the same mistakes again and again... I'm yet to see any drastic change to that pattern. In the wods of Mike Tyson - "Everybody Has a Plan Until They Get Punched in the Mouth" Solving the world's problems is such a monumental task - it requires effective infrastructure, educational systems, governmental systems, strong cultural ethos. Just so many things need to happen all at once in concert. If you hear someone who claims to have all the answers, and a bunch of people follow said ideas like Religion - it's probably bullshit, or at the very least it has a lot of fundamental flaws. I've heard many grand theories, but I'm yet to see any of these fabled utopian societies people speak of... so it would be wise to suspend your belief imo. This is why being well versed in fundamental principles (particularly in the field of STEM) is so crucial. You can't just solve all the world's problems with a big stack of metaphysical theories. Schoppenhauer had a good point here despite his clear resentment for Hegel.

[@codymarkley8372]

Would you consider aquinas or lossky or many other religious philosophers as being subject to the barnum effect.

[@offensivearch]

​@@catatafish22 Once I acknowledge that the French philosphers were performance artists instead of philosophers, I can appreciate their "philosophy". Hegel can't do philosophy or performance art. Spinoza and Hegel just seem like poor renditions of eastern philosophy. It boggles my mind that anyone ever liked Hegel, but when you understand human ego and the need to appear smart/cultured it all starts to make sense. Hegelianism is a philosophy of delusion.

[@TheSandkastenverbot]

I've made several attempts over the years to find anything interesting in Hegel's philosophy. I did not succeed.

[@chrisgavin2794]

Imagine being at the university of Berlin in 1820 and being able to go to Schopenhauer and Hegel lectures

[@gilroyopinion]

I took a class on Hegel some time ago. I prefer his 'coherence' concept of truth, to the 'correspondence' theory that is still generally subscribed to and seems more intuitive...in fact I ended up writing about it in my paper on Hegel's treatment of science. Science (and I studied physics alongside philosophy) isn't about 'proof' or revealing indubitable truths about the world that we can neatly codify in mathematical or factual form, the way analytic philosophy presupposed and which ultimately fails. Existing scientific concepts are measured against new empirical data, that either undermines or allows for (but doesn't confirm) what we assume about the world, but we can never be sure our ideas match the world. Moreover new data can only be meaningful in an existing but not necessarily infallible framework. In the end, we can only end up with a worldview that is internally consistent, and I think Hegel understood this and tried to encompass that idea within his system. The thing is, we can never be sure we've arrived at a complete picture of the world - Godel arrived at this conclusion with regard to arithmetical systems in general a century later. Hegel definitely deserved more credit than Schopenhauer gave him, however, I have to agree with Schopenhauer that Hegel's writing is unnecessarily unclear. I did find him more readable than Heidegger, who I feel takes his convoluted stylistic approach to another level (even though I'd say Heidegger owes more to Kierkegaard's ideas). Also, I've noticed in the comments that people tend to evaluate Hegel according to the failed totalitarianism that communism amounted to...but of course the ideas of Marx, who was influenced by Hegel, were never properly reflected in what happens. Schopenhauer, in his cynicism is, so far, vindicated in this regard. Hegel, and Marx following him, might have been overly optimistic in holding that things will ultimately work themselves out according to dialectic process, but Hegel's system does allow for things to "take a step backwards" in history's progressive movement...so I think it's premature (maybe inherently so) to say his system ultimately fails. It's only an idea at the end of the day, and the verdict remains unresolved.

[@OneLine122]

Coherence was known by Aristotle, he even made it the first principle of language. So in order for communication to be moral, it has to be coherent and follow the law of non contradiction. They did not call it "truth", they called it "reason", thus the idea of the logos that is the right type of language. All he did is take the logos and call it true from what you say. The reason they did not call it true is because they knew about delusions and that you can be reasonable while at the same time completely wrong. So that's why the concept of truth specifically referred to correspondence with reality. There were some dispute of what it consisted of, but overall they agreed it's what should be called true. I don't think I would give him credit for justifying delusions. Dialectic he stole from the scholastics, it's a method of scripture interpretation, but it relies on the presupposition that the things that are in contradiction are true. Otherwise it won't work and is just gibberish. So yes, it's definitively a failed "system" (methodology). It's also why Marx's history failed to materialized. It's too binary and does not take into account other possibilities. Like the class categories he uses, they simply simplify reality too much so it's just in the end a ridiculous caricature of reality at best. It also assumes people see the reality like this, which they don't and assumes they think it's a problem which they don't, and that the solution to the imaginary problem is his solution (that nobody wants). But it was coherent if you can stomach the unintelligible. His bad influence does not stop there though, unfortunately, it infected all of philosophy, especially in France where it's accepted as the methodology. It's terrible. I like you pointed out those things though, they are important.

[@charliebridges3584]

I don't understand why people say that Hegel is difficult to understand. After all, he is simply saying that the destruction of an idea generates a new idea when that same destruction is itself destroyed, and that this movement governs the forms through which being appears either as speculation or experience. Furthermore, this process is total, since the appearance of any idea whatever depends on the reality of the Absolute Idea, or the idea of idea itself, which can only be the idea of Total Reality. Total Reality must include not only all possible and actual forms of experience, but all possible thought. People get into trouble with Hegel because of a failure to understand the obvious fact that Total Reality must include not only all experience but all speculation. What Hegel is saying is, of necessity, abstract, since the correctly observes that speculation is part of reality. But its really pretty obvious and simple if anyone thinks about it for a moment.

[@theadl3681]

Bro whenever I had to write an essay that had a page requirement or minimum number of words, I would write this way 😂

[@Pigeon-envelope]

What does "destruction of an idea" mean

[@charliebridges3584]

@@Pigeon-envelope The idea that the earth is flat has been destroyed by the idea that it is round.

[@Pigeon-envelope]

Has it?

[@charliebridges3584]

Yes. It has. @@Pigeon-envelope

[@akshaygovindaraj3563]

Amazing work. Breaking down the central parts of Philosophy as a subject.

[@WeltgeistYT]

Glad you liked it!

[@roundninja]

Interesting stuff, I always wanted to see more Schopenhauer content

[@josemanuelmartinezgarcia5764]

Please make a video of Nietzsche vs Wagner, it’s a very interesting controversy we would like to understand better.

[@MrProfessorHolt]

24:10 I can hardly think of any topic that deserves more exploration than this.

[@lisandroge]

Great video. I like your schopenhauer videos. Keep up the great work.

[@LuigiSimoncini]

Great channel, great content. I like these longer videos most

[@catatafish22]

Weltgeist is goated. I've learned more from him than almost any other philosophy channel. I love that he doesn't have any agenda or narrative which he tries to impose on his audience. This is the analysis I love to hear... So sick of analysts trying to use the philosophers they cite as a trojan horse for their own indoctrination tactics. Welgeist does none of this... much respect.

[@camoensdecervantes4029]

Bertrand Russell also hated Hegel, and this is a testament to his greatness.

[@kendrickjahn1261]

I like to think that I would have been one of the 5 students attending Schopenhauer's lectures.

[@iga279]

wishful thinking ...

[@kendrickjahn1261]

@Iga 27 Obviously. What else would it be? Lol.

[@catatafish22]

same haha, the contrarian in me would've done so purely because I don't like to buy into hype

[@Boback111]

So Hegel was like ‘can I begin with a question?’ and ur boy Schopenhauer was like ‘I don’t know, _can_ you?’

[@_PanchoVilla]

Schopenhauer held him with contempt like a child like making a pedantic argument to a toddler as can you vs. may you.

[@lorenzbroll101]

I am no fan of either of these characters but how Hegel bamboozled is a phenomenon in itself! Obviously, most of his ‘revolutionary’ material is from Christian Theology blended with Spinoza & Kant. For example, his' dialectic' is an adaption of Deuteronomic theology in the Old Testament; that history is a ‘process’ likewise is something in the OT; even his ‘geist’ is the ‘Logos’ in St. John Gospel. It just goes on - amazing how the midwit can be taken in so easily every-time

[@lorenzbroll101]

By the way, I am not talking from the perspective of a Christian Theologian!

[@asihablozaratustra4958]

Weltgeist, your videos are really appreciated. I like Schopenhauer for his take on philosophy, how he emphasizes suffering and desire, and the way he utilizes Plato's Theory of Forms and Kant's concept of representation. He created a great, and deep system that emphasized human psychology. As for Hegel, I also appreciate his take on philosophy; for he shows his brilliance on ontology. Being + Nothing = Becoming; Hegel's equation for being. The more I think and read Hegel's topic on Being, and how he seems to say that ideas of the mind flow without any visible manifestations. Reason and Ideas are embodied through the sole reality of Becoming. They are similar for how they handle holistic view. For Schopenhauer, he says it is simply Will that unites everything; for Hegel, it was the Absolute Spirit. Both are great philosophers in many ways. Thanks for your post, Weltgeist.

[@ReverendDr.Thomas]

🐟 02. A BRIEF SYNOPSIS OF “LIFE”: Everything, both perceptible and imperceptible - that is, any gross or subtle OBJECT within the material universe which can possibly be perceived with the cognitive faculties, plus the SUBJECT (the observer of all phenomena) - is to what most persons generally refer when they use the term “God”, since they usually conceive of the Primeval Creator as being the Perfect Person, and “God” (capitalized) is a personal epithet of the Unconditioned Absolute. However, this anthropomorphized conception of The Absolute is a fictional character of divers mythologies. According to most every enlightened sage in the history of this planet, the Ultimate Reality is, far more logically, Absolutely NOTHING, or conversely, Absolutely EVERYTHING - otherwise called “The Tao”, “The Great Spirit”, “Brahman”, “Pure Consciousness”, “Eternal Awareness”, “Independent Existence”, “The Ground of All Being”, “Uncaused Nature”, “The Undifferentiated Substratum of Reality”, “The Unified Field”, et cetera - yet, as alluded to above, inaccurately referred to as a personal deity by the masses (e.g. “God”, “Allah”, “Yahweh”, “Bhagavan”, etc.). In other words, rather than the Supreme Truth being a separate, Blissful, Supra-Conscious Being (The Godhead Himself or The Goddess), Ultimate Reality is Eternal-Existence Limitless-Awareness Unconditional-Peace ITSELF. That which can be perceived, can not be perceiving! Because the Unmanifested Absolute is infinite creative potentiality, “it” actualizes as EVERYTHING, in the form of ephemeral, cyclical universes. In the case of our particular universe, we reside in a cosmos consisting of space-time, matter and energy, without, of course, neglecting the most fundamental dimension of existence (i.e. conscious awareness - although, “it” is, being the subject, by literal definition, non-existent). Just as a knife cannot cut itself, nor the mind comprehend itself, nor the eyes see themselves, The Absolute cannot know Itself (or at least objectively EXPERIENCE Itself), and so, has manifested this phenomenal universe within Itself for the purpose of experiencing Itself, particularly through the lives of self-aware beings, such as we sophisticated humans. Therefore, this world of duality is really just a play of consciousness within Consciousness, in the same way that a dream is a person's sleeping narrative set within the life-story of an “awakened” individual. APPARENTLY, this universe, composed of “mind and matter”, was created with the primal act (the so-called “Big Bang”), which started, supposedly, as a minute, slightly uneven ball of light, which in turn, was instigated, ultimately, by Extra-Temporal Supra-Consciousness. From that first deed, every motion or action that has ever occurred has been a direct (though, almost exclusively, an indirect) result of it. Just as all the extant energy in the universe was once contained within the inchoate singularity, Infinite Consciousness was NECESSARILY present at the beginning of the universe, and is in no way an epiphenomenon of a neural network. Discrete consciousness, on the other hand, is entirely dependent on the neurological faculty of individual animals (the more highly-evolved the species, the greater its cognitive abilities). “Sarvam khalvidam brahma” (a Sanskrit maxim from the “Chandogya Upanishad”, meaning “all this is indeed Brahman” or “everything is the Universal Self alone”). There is NAUGHT but Eternal Being, Conscious Awareness, Causeless Peace - and you are, quintessentially, that! This “Theory of Everything” can be more succinctly expressed by the mathematical equation: E=A͚ (Everything is Infinite Awareness). HUMANS are essentially this Eternally-Aware-Peace, acting through an extraordinarily-complex biological organism, comprised of the eight rudimentary elements - pseudo-ego (the assumed sense of self), intellect, mind, solids, liquids, gases, heat (fire), and ether (three-dimensional space). When one peers into a mirror, one doesn't normally mistake the reflected image to be one's real self, yet that is how we humans conventionally view our ever-mutating form. We are, rather, in a fundamental sense, that which witnesses all transitory appearances. Everything which can be presently perceived, both tangible and immaterial, including we human beings, is a culmination of that primary manifestation. That is the most accurate and rational explanation for “karma” - everything was preordained from the initial spark, and every action since has unfolded as it was predestined in ETERNITY, via an ever-forward-moving trajectory. The notion of retributive (“tit-for-tat”) karma is just that - an unverified notion. Likewise, the idea of a distinct, reincarnating “soul” or “spirit” is largely a fallacious belief. Whatever state in which we currently find ourselves, is the result of two factors - our genetic make-up at conception and our present-life conditioning (which may include mutating genetic code). Every choice ever made by every human and non-human animal was determined by those two factors ALONE. Therefore, free-will is purely illusory, despite what most believe. Chapter 11 insightfully demonstrates this truism. As a consequence of residing within this dualistic universe, we experience a lifelong series of fluctuating, transient pleasures and pains, which can take the form of physical, emotional, and/or financial pleasure or pain. Surprisingly to most, suffering and pain are NOT synonymous. Suffering is due to a false sense of personal agency - the belief that one is a separate, independent author of one’s thoughts, emotions, and deeds, and that, likewise, other persons are autonomous agents, with complete volition to act, think, and feel as they wish. Another way of stating the same concept is as follows: suffering is due to the intellect being unwilling to accept life as it manifests moment by moment. There are five SYMPTOMS of suffering, all of which are psychological in nature: 1. Guilt 2. Blame 3. Pride 4. Anxiety 5. Regrets about the past and expectations for the future These types of suffering are the result of not properly understanding what was explained above - that life is a series of happenings and NOT caused by the individual living beings. No living creature, including Homo sapiens, has personal free-will. There is only the Universal, Divine Will at play, acting through every body, to which William Shakespeare famously alluded when he scribed “All the world's a stage, and all the men and women merely players.” The human organism is essentially a biopsychological machine, comprised of the five gross material elements (which can be perceived with the five senses) and the three subtle material elements (the three levels of cognition, which consist of abstract thought objects), listed above. Cont...

[@hollagonzalez7954]

Schopenhauer: “I hate the way that you walk, the way that you talk, I hate the way that you dress”

[@RockyLee-2023]

Hahaha 🤣. Someone should make a rap about Arthur schopenhauer and gwf Hegel's relationship.

[@FIDELOROZCO]

Well, I think that Hegel started that trend of writing in so obnoxious manner, that Heidegger continued using it, and many of the continental philosophers (Sartre, Lacan, Gillez Deleuze, etc.) that Alex Sokal will hit with his "Fashionable Nonsense" book and the article published by him in Social Studies journal, filled with jargon only to prove his point.

[@Frederer59]

In all our Becoming, greed, resentment, and pride remain constant. I guess I'm with Schopenhauer that we should concern ourselves most with Being rather than Becoming.

[@jdheryos4910]

Jesus Maestro, Spain's most famous contemporary literature critic, professor, lecturer and originator of a philosophy of Material Literature. Had this to say of Hagel, after reading the complete works of Hagel. " Metaphysical emotional hysteria."

[@louisnooope]

This is a compliment if you actually understand Hegel

[@tarhunta2111]

@@louisnooope How?

[@andrewryan4016]

El autor no es una función social hombre

[@nicolasgiaconia]

Yessss!!!! New video!!!!!! Thank you for your work!

[@StatelessLiberty]

I was very interested by the comment that Schopenhauer refrained from criticising Hegel’s philosophy because their philosophies were actually similar and he didn’t want to admit this. In what way we’re they similar?

[@imano8265]

Good question! I think they both started with Kant and his "Ding an sich" (don´t know the common english expression) For Hegel this was the spirit "Geist" and for Shoppenhauer it was the "Wille" the will. So for Hegel the progress of life was something concious whereas for Schopenhauer it comes out of the unconcious. Very different one may say, but both considered a princip behind reality and gave it a name.

[@andreab380]

To expand on what Imano said, both are intentionally post-Kantian and give similar, albeit opposite, answers to his problem of the "Thing in Itself" (Ding an sich). Kant basically said that we cannot really, directly know the world in itself because our knowledge is always mediated by our subjective senses and intellectual categories. He sharply divided the objective world and the subjective experience. Both Hegel and Schopenhauer tried to find a way to unify subject and object again, in order to find a new access to some "absolute" knowledge about how reality actually is in itself. For both, this reality was something objective that manifests itself in and through our living, human subjectivity: Spirit (in the sense of a living, developing mind) for Hegel and Will (in the sense of a living, ever-striving force) for Schopenhauer. Hegel's philosophy of subject-object unification in absolute Reason/Logos is also pretty similar to Jewish/Christian mysticism, while Schopenhauer's metaphysics of (also) subject-object unification in an all-encompassing Will/Desire is very similar to Buddhist mysticism. They can to radically opposite conclusions about how rational and good the world and history are, but they moved from the same problem and they gave formally similar answers by striving for a unification of subject and object in some absolute dynamic principle that originates and explaines both.

[@sosomadman]

Hegel was a naive optimistic, while schopenhauer was a ruthless critic in my opinion.

[@samirmatar8794]

Interesting synthesis on two great philosophers. 👍

[@conforzo]

Stop... Leave synthesis out of Hegel

[@whoaitstiger]

Schopenhauer would have been infuriated by the name of this channel, considering how much content focuses on him. 😆

[@adam2aces]

Schopenhauer hit the nail on the head! Bam!

[@ShareefusMaximus]

Hegel made the mistake of not being a Hindu atheist.

[@christiangraulau8107]

I think it’s strange how Hegel being a bad writer was conflated with him being a bad thinker. Using logic itself it is self-evidently clear that even if he was ignorant on scientific issues, Hegel wasn’t just a sophist. And ironically Schopenhauer’s hatred of him was part of a dialectic. The point of the dialectic is that it doesn’t even matter if Hegel was wrong on a bunch of stuff, because it is just part of the dialectical process

[@ericxb]

my favorite comment ^. thank you.

[@Pigeon-envelope]

I find it strange that you find it strange that being a bad writer might be conflated with being a bad thinker. My dog can't write and he's thick as shit

[@marknewkirk4322]

@@Pigeon-envelope That, sir, is an analogy that is worthy of Schopenhauer. You got straight to the point. Bravo.

[@brahimilyes681]

This is saying a lot, but not saying much at all

[@brahimilyes681]

"People disagreeing with me means I am right, because my theory of disagreement accounts for your attacks" is how it sounds to me, which feels cheap as far as phil arguments go.

[@petitnicollas]

05:08 "And I took that personally" Schopenhauer

[@geoycs]

I love both these great philosophers!! Like with Nietzsche vs Schopenhauer, I never feel the need to take sides, thank god.

[@TaxidermiedMessiah]

Thank god…who is dead 😂

[@edgregory1]

Pun intended?

[@dominicesteban3174]

Kierkegaard also considered Hegel to be a charlatan, describing the latter's philosophical system, because its author didn't preface it with 'thought experiment', as "just hilarious". That's an academic roundhouse to the face! Perhaps a topic for a follow-up video.

[@krystal7958]

Kierkegaard did not consider Hegel to be a charlatan, he thought Hegel was wrong. He takes Hegel and Hegelianism very seriously, but he thinks that the Hegelian view of philosophy as science, that is, as the categorization of what is according to rational and natural laws, or universal implications and entailments, loses sight of the individual. This is what Kierkegaard means when he says that Hegel doesn't preface his thought with concrete examples, or that Hegel doesn't have an ethics.

[@Mostafa.7600]

Karl Popper also hated Hegel and he agreed with Schopenhauer about Hegel. See his "The Open Society And Its Enemies, volume 2".

[@keithprice475]

Yes, but he just flat out got Hegel wrong. The Philosophy of Right has none of the totalitarian implications he alleges.

[@longcastle4863]

Vol 2 on Marx and Capitalism is brilliant philosophical writing, imo.

[@zhengyangwu8289]

Great explanation! Thanks. Seems that I must read Schopenhauer.

[@LucklessGun]

great video! gonna be rewatching the last several minutes on repeat for a bit.

[@jmiller1918]

Great introduction to a topic (S v. H) more often referenced than explored in detail. If you have more to say on the differences between the two men's systems, I should certainly be happy to listen. As another listener commented, a video detailing how Schopenhauer incorporated and expanded on Kant would also be most welcome. Another topic I would like to see addressed would look at if and how Schopenhauer's philosophy is compatible with current ideas about MUI theory and "conscious realism". Thanks for your video uploads!

[@sasabelle140]

A horse also lies down in the street because it feels safe and wants to see, in a chill way, what the heck is going on in it's street. I live in South America, there are many free running horses which lay down in a street, sometimes even more than one horse, only to watch what's going on in a comforting way... I don't like Hegel aswell. Being tired is a damn good reason to lay down, only a slavemaster of others or of himself finds no reason in laying down when tired... Most people on earth are not very clever, that's the reason why most students had prefered the lectures of Hegel...nothing new under the sun...

[@NickDaskalopoulos]

Ηegel impeccably explained the exact relational movements of parts and whole. This is awe inspiring. I would love to hear anyone write about this with concise, clear, simple language with beautiful metaphors and right analogies. Oh that's right. No-one could. Except perhaps Buddhist texts and still very much abstractly and not systematically and dialectically. Let's face it. Hegel didn't write hard, bad or obscurely. He just thought things that can't almost get written down. Yet he did. Try even approach it. He did write palpably and poetically sometimes though. Example: Love devises unifications ad infinitum.

[@angelfu14]

bro you're pissed chill the fuck out

[@FogelsChannel]

Nah, I disagree. Hegel could have used a Euclidean structure,clearly defining terms and propositions. If a professional thinker can't communicate with words , then he's minor league. Hegel knew the obscurantist method guaranteed him tenure. S was independently wealthy, he didn't need to depend on Jenna to renew his employment. Spinoza used Euclidian structure to communicate ideas more subtle than Hegel. Hegel's a charlatan.

[@NickDaskalopoulos]

@@angelfu14 Actually I am very calm. Besides I like this channel and I am a subscriber. I wouldn't randomly comment. You just assume things. You don't even do that. You just wanted to say to me 'chill bro', aiming at disregard me, disrespect me and put me in my chill place presenting a seemingly friendly language but actually merely a familiar language. Because we indeed address friends like that but not people we don't know in a discussion about German philosophers. Disrespect me with performatives like that all you want. My will to power doesn't seek it from strangers in a safe environment but in critical moments of real life conflicts of two opposing rights.

[@alexxx4434]

How about ancient Chinese philosophy's Yin and Yang? Try to beat that in terms of beauty and simplicity describing the dialectic concept of nature.

[@Tomviel]

How about Whitehead?

[@Loreweavver]

Hegel is what would today be a tick talk influencer. His early works were ignored so he started writing about emotions for stupid people. I take it back. His modern equivalent would be the pseudo psychologists like better help and the peer counseling system.

[@misscameroon8062]

Brava Schopenhauer for exposing the "giant" of German philosophy !

[@uncommonsensewithpastormar2913]

As unreadable as Hegel is, he certainly has not faded from the scene. If anything, today he is more important than Schopenhauer, given the popularity of disciples like Žižek and others. What this video did not address was the fact that both Schopenhauer and Hegel were post-Kantian philosophers. What I would like is a video on just how both mirrored Kant’s philosophy and how they differed from Kant as well as from each other. From what I understand about Hegel, he rejected Kant’s binary of appearance vs. the thing in itself or to use Kant’s terminology, phenomena vs. noumena. Instead, Hegel believed that noumena manifested itself through phenomena. I would be interested in if Schopenhauer would have agreed with this or not.

[@Manx123]

“given the popularity of disciples like Žižek and others.” Stopped reading there. If this is what makes a philosopher important, philosophy is dead. Zizek has zero influence on people being memed, and his legacy will not survive him.

[@uncommonsensewithpastormar2913]

@@Manx123 What do you mean by “people being memed”? Surely you are not suggesting that the mindless pop culture of “memes” is more important than serious philosophy?

[@Manx123]

@@uncommonsensewithpastormar2913 I wasn't, actually, but yes, it is actually.

[@uncommonsensewithpastormar2913]

@@Manx123 Indeed, it is for you. For me, not so much.

[@Manx123]

@@uncommonsensewithpastormar2913 I was speaking regarding aggregate importance.

[@Т1000-м1и]

As a person who should be allowed nowhere near philosohy, thiz video can give an understanding of this particular topic without me knowing or having any use for anything, which at the very least isn't common on this part of youtube that neither goes too deep nor is in Minecraft

[@NoahSpurrier]

Found a new favorite channel.

[@karsosuryoputro8034]

You my man, are probably much more inclined toward Schopenhauer than to Hegel. That concise and clear sentences you gave are the prove. Great work!

[@offensivearch]

Hegel is a genius: he created a philosophy of nonsense and became famous for it

[@stefanb6539]

Schopenhauer, Nietzsche, Deleuze.... hating Hegel is just how you get into the philosophers' circle of cool kids.

[@pat8437]

That’s just the bitch club tbh

[@koorotchkaryabos9993]

More like circle of soyjaks

[@honkhonk8009]

@@koorotchkaryabos9993 Ok communist. See where your baseless yapping takes you

[@drogen9987]

Yeah of the ones who dont give a damn to make sense

[@BurghezulDjentilom]

@@koorotchkaryabos9993 if by soyjaks you mean above room temperature IQ and not given to flights of mysticism, then sure.

[@esbjornakesson3412]

This is the second time I listen to this episode. 👍🏼

[@imperialcitizen4811]

All my homies hate Hegel.

[@catatafish22]

'They muddy the water, to make it seem deep'

[@NickDaskalopoulos]

It is important to note that Hegel was Heraclitean like Nietzsche.

[@Chapolin242]

Goethe also saw the charlatanism in Hegel and the destruction to come with his followers.

[@bath_neon_classical]

i think that someone with an obsession for truth could dislike hegel just on the basis of his philosophy.

[@stugrant01]

So Hagel tried to direct a Straw-Man attack on Schop- during the initial exam. He falsely implied that Schop- of had cited the horse's weak pulse as a voluntary decision of the horse, when in fact Schop- had said that the horse laid down because he was tired.

[@RockyLee-2023]

Ok that clarifies it somewhat. I'm not sure if it was an intentional strawman attack or an inadvertent misunderstanding of what schopenhauer was referring to.

[@dmr11235]

Damn, Hegelians in the comments mad

[@franknada8235]

Yes. so defensive, they write essay comments only other hegelians will bother to read all way through 😄

[@Zodiezzz]

Can someone explain why hegels question was so wrong and why Schopenhauer’s answer is correct? I understand the use of wrong terminology but I don’t understand how it is wrong. I watch these videos with passing interest so I don’t have a ton of philosophy under my belt

[@MikeWiest]

Yeah that wasn’t clear. I believe it’s that “reasons” apply to arguments, but he should refer the “causes” when talking about events in the physical world.

[@nevilleattkins586]

The usual defence of complex philosophy is that the concepts discussed are such that stretch everyday language - hence neologisms need inventing to accommodate concepts that previously didn't exist, and this feels fair. But in the case of Hegel, the sentence construction is SO tortured, is that really necessary too? Though it's not like Kant is a cakewalk or Heidegger a walk in the woods. Annoyingly it might just be the case that both charlatans and prophets may be somewhat incomprehensible.

[@LethalBubbles]

its not wonder Nietzschee liked Schopenhauer for a while. They're basically arguing natural science vs Lutheran theological intelligent design turned into science. Before realizing about the affirmation thing, Nietzsche must've noticed this.

[@SIRVER123456789]

While I know you're partial to Schopenhauer, I think your stuff about Hegel's understanding of science really attacks a caricature. Plus, I think it would have been responsible to say ~why~ Hegel thinks that his speculative a priori logic is a necessary approach to nature. It's because he's interested in explaining nature, and on principled grounds, he doesn't think that the empirical method can ever explain the workings of nature. All it can do is point to regularities, and to understand why those regularities are the case, you just appeal to other regularities, but you never get an ~explanation~ of why those regularities are the case. Whether Hegel's correct to think that his speculative logic is the way to offer an explanatory account of nature remains a question, and in my mind it seems implausible albeit interesting. However, I think that you should at least have mentioned this, and should have been more careful in how you presented Hegel's understanding of science and nature. By any stretch, he actually marshals his empirical science well (not to mention how involved he was in geology!). See, for example, Terry Pinkard's intellectual biography of Hegel. It really shows that the "haha Hegel stupid madman was wrong about science lolol" is in many ways an overblown caricature that's factually incorrect.

[@SIRVER123456789]

Nonetheless, I should say that I very much appreciate your videos and the time and effort you put into them! Just had this minor reservation, but otherwise thank you for the solid philosophy content. We need more people like you on KZbin.

[@Purwapada]

yes i think so too

[@andreab380]

I also thought that this video, while I enjoyed it, could have been a little less brutal on Hegel about the science bits. Especially since I know very little about Hegel's ideas about science, it would be nice to know more than superficial attacks. To go a bit more philosophical: the example of the iron bar's "weight" really stroke me as weird. I cannot imagine that Hegel was literally saying that movement due to magnetic attraction is the same as weight. But if one reflects about it for a minute, it's clear that the "appearence" or the "phenomenon" is the same: the iron bar moving downwards. What structure helps us discern what forces are acting on matter, and even what these forces are (e.g. what even is a "field"?) is really a profound epistemological question, even now (scientists are still wondering if and how the electromagnetic and gravitational forces can be unified, indeed). There must be something more there about how we unify what we extrapolate from sense data and make it into a coherent picture. So it would really be nice to know what Hegel was really trying to say there, or at least give him the benefit of the doubt.

[@mackijs1]

18:01 Hegel attributes philosophical elements to history that not only do not exist but are outside the objective scope and purpose of history. His ideas sound nice, but are probably BS. A counter argument to Hegel is that history, like time, does not exist. Instead, only the present exists. History and time are tools created by man to best organize his activities in the present, from immediate actions to planning for future actions . Hegel assumes history is some sort of living thing, but it is just a useful idea that is often embellished.

[@amAntidisestablishmentarianist]

If Hegel put his philosophy into geometrical mind maps, he could have made it more comprehensible.

[@grahamandrewsmith]

Excellent video! Please keep producing this stuff!

[@MrsNeedlemouse]

It honestly sounds like a critique you could make of Jordan Peterson, imagine Schopenhauer hearing JP say "holomodor"

[@gilroyopinion]

*holodomor

[@MrsNeedlemouse]

@@gilroyopinion holomodor was how JP said it.

[@liltick102]

I don’t read Hegel or Wittgenstein - what am I missing out on? They’re two of a few philosophers that have always struck me as too... (weird example format) enneagram type one-like. Contrived. Too sure of themselves. I love Schopenhauer, Montaigne, Nietzsche, the pre Platonic Greeks, Zen-Buddhist and Tao literature, Camus, Epictetus, Aurieiles, Seneca- etc down this path - but Hegal, Kant (to an extent), Wittgenstein, Spinoza kinda, Heidegger - Their words on paper to me look like skin that is too dry. ***I am no scholar, I write this from a homeless shelter and was confined through what years school would have been in large part, forgive my ignorant equivalences. Can someone recommend some more scientific reading? I want to take example of Schopenhauer’s affinity for science.

[@lonesomealeks4206]

Read Wittgenstein - he has only written one tractatus, it's very short and straight to the point. Hegel is everything Schoppenhauer said about him.

[@liltick102]

Reading about their adversarial relationship and all the contradiction’s etc Schopenhauer called Hegel out for, as well as knowing he is overly verbose turns me even more than before off from Hegel- Wittgenstein’s work more or less has not been introduced to me properly - i’ll check that out on openlibrary tonight, cheers

[@GuitarWithBrett]

Most philosophy is just wordplay and confusion. Hegel seems to be distilled to one word “dialectic” which is really not a hard concept to understand and don’t need Hegel to get. Such thinking came from Socratic method anyway. People just want to sound smart and talk in big words vs do real research or building things or just helping others.

[@awnaur0no919]

Hegel: "EVERY DAY IN EVERY WAY I'M GETTING BETTER & BETTER!! 😀😀😀" Schope: "I'll give you a winter prediction: It's gonna be cold, it's gonna be grey, and it's gonna last you for the rest of your life. 😭😭😭"

[@jamesbarlow6423]

Great stuff.

[@averykral9654]

The final word on this debate is Schopenhauer's influence on Einstein, Schrödinger, Pauli, even arguably Darwin. Have any of Hegel's ideas ever been vindicated by scientific application? Hell, by any application beyond philosophy whatsoever?

[@prometheusmodelow8322]

Hegel was a heavy influence on Marx, Marx adopted Hegel's dialectic system, except that he believed the focus should be materialistic instead of idealistic. It is fitting that while Schopenhauer influenced scientific fields, Hegel influenced history and politics.

[@averykral9654]

​@@prometheusmodelow8322 To my understanding, historians today generally look down on teleological approaches to history. That includes Hegel's dialectic. In any case, by your own account Hegel's influence has been indirect rather than direct.

[@prometheusmodelow8322]

​@@averykral9654 Well i would say his influence in Marxism is quite fundational, who has direct influence on what today is historic materialism, an entire school of thought in historic studies started in the 20th century who still has plenty of adherents, the whole approach of looking at history as class struggle is fundamentally hegelian Lord/Servant dialectics but reworked on more modern terms. Though it should be noted that i was refering more to the influence of Marx's ideas on history (the subject) rather than history (the science) as in, if it weren't for Hegel's dialectic a lot of the political ideologies that shaped our more recent history wouldn't exist, so Hegel's ideas directly influenced the very subject matter that he was interested in the most. Of course the spirituality of Hegel is rejected in Marxism, but that doesn't change his mechanisms, Marxism and it's political basis basically lack their core components without Hegel.

[@averykral9654]

@@prometheusmodelow8322 I never claimed that Hegel didn't have an influence on political philosophy. I raised the question of whether or not his ideas have been vindicated by any application outside of philosophy. Remember that in Hegel's time, political science and sociology were not yet distinct from philosophy, whereas natural philosophy had already developed its own distinct methodology and discursive norms by then. Schopenhauer recognized this and engaged closely enough with the sciences that subsequent biologists and physicists found him a worthy successor to Kant.

[@prometheusmodelow8322]

@@averykral9654 IWhat you say makes sense, sociology and history wouldn't become their own scientific fields until the mid 19th century so at the time he was alive his ideas concerned only philosophy, i would still consider his influence on those significant, regardless of if it was post-mortem or not.

[@georgepantzikis7988]

Not only are the first four fifths of this video irrelevant to Hegel (Hegel has never been praised for his contributions to the scientific field, and unless someone can come up with an argument as to why one must be a good scientist to be a good philosopher, this is a character attack of the kind Schopenhauer engaged in), but the philosophy section is equally flawed in its portrayal of Hegel. Hegel did not think that history had an end point. He talked about Absolute Knowing, but that should not be confused with Knowledge of the Absolute. Hegel adopts the Aristotelian notion of each entity's essence containing its logical end - the definition of itself to which the entity conforms to a greater or lesser extent - and simply historicised it. That doesn't mean that Hegel isn't talking about the same philosophical Truth that Schopenhauer is talking about, it just means that, for Hegel, Truth is historical. In his Introduction to the Philosophy of History Hegel even says that studying the facts of history, as an historian might, is useless for knowing the Truth underpinning those events, and so we must study Philosophical History, abstracting the principle behind the events. This is exactly what Schopenhauer believed, only he had a different conception of what that underlying principle was. The attack on Hegel's prose is equally asinine. In fact, Hegel's prose is not even that difficult if you consider a few factors regarding Hegel. He was not, like Schopenhauer, writing for the general public. He was an academic, writing for other academics. When I, a lay person, read a journal on quantum physics and have difficulty comprehending the concepts referenced, it is not because the writer is being opaque but because I am not familiar with the concepts and terminology of the science.

[@canyegane2406]

When you understand the language of physics quantum mechanics is straightforward. Contrast this with Hegel's ramblings which are nonsense even to some professors of philosophy. You will not find a single physics professor who says the same for quantum mechanics.

[@georgepantzikis7988]

@@canyegane2406 You will not find a single continental philosopher who thinks Hegel's writings are incoherent ramblings either. Those uneducated in philosophy may think it's incoherent, just like those uneducated in physics may think quantum mechanics is nonsensical. No serious scholars think Hegel is incomprehensible.

[@canyegane2406]

@@georgepantzikis7988 Schopenhauer was a professor of philosophy who thought Hegel spoke nonsense

[@georgepantzikis7988]

@@canyegane2406 He didn't think Hegel's philosophy was incomprehensible. He thought it was wrong. Also, Schopenhauer was one guy who lived when Hegel first started presenting his ideas. I'm sure you could find many physicists during the founding of QM who thought it was all nonsense.

[@longcastle4863]

So Daniel Dennett is carrying on in the tradition of Schopenhauer... Excellent presentation. Thank you.

[@keithprice475]

Now THAT is a truly damning observation! Dennett writes well and often charmingly, but his philosophy is a self-contradictory mess, especially around the mind, as I argued in my honours thesis and have been subsequently backed up by numerous others.

[@MikeWiest]

@@keithprice475right on

[@ChristianSt97]

please make a video on hegel's phenomenology of spirit

[@rogerbartlet5720]

So philosophy, defined as "lover of wisdom", changed to "lover of some wisdom" instead?

[@honkhonk8009]

Yes. It was infiltrated by midwits and turned into the study of acting smarter than you are.

[@rodnee2340]

Hagels legacy is still alive today schopenhauer is my kind of guy. Hegel talked absolute bull crap! And that legacy went through Marx and now has evolved into postmodernism. How a set of bad ideas can last so long is a blight of philosophy. I don't think that a philosopher needs to understand science. Unless they are using a scientific concept in their philosophy. So Hegel should have shut up about any scientific subject.

[@markholland7322]

Interesting choice of images: I wonder why the University of the Arts, until a few years ago the academy of arts, in Berlin is depicted when speaking about Schopenhauer being a "Berlin" university- its the wrong university in Berlin ( yes, there are more than one, or two).

[@vividist]

have been waiting for this video for a long time

[@Hugo-yp9dt]

Crazy how people still admire Hegel's thought process. I'm talking about Marxism...

[@ludomirsteinbruck9376]

In a necessary conclusion we have to admit that Hegels philosophy superceeded Schopenhauer in terms of power and influence. In German we would say "Wirkmacht" Schopenhauers lectures were empty whereas Hegels were full, hence the distaste.

[@bestehefueralle]

Of course Arthur surpassed Hegel in terms of literary skill, he learned from his mother Johanna Schopenhauer, a very important writer of the time. Truly a fascinating characteristic of his, an astounding contrast with his philosophical system, given than he basically founded philosophical pessimism by himself

[@ChristianSt97]

21:50 if philosophy studies the unchanging will does it mean that history studies the manifestation in time of the will?

[@MikeWiest]

Yes, but also science

[@liltick102]

Schoppenhauer had some rad paintings of himself

[@codex3048]

Great video.

[@WeltgeistYT]

Glad you enjoyed it

[@wilsonandhowell]

Simply read Hegel's work fully and you'll find yourself agreeing with Schopenhauer. Hegel was a sophist of the worst kind.

[@iggymoondust289]

Isnt Hegel the guy who pushed proto communism on Karl Marx ? How did that work out ?

[@anirbellahcen5551]

Schopenhauer is so underrated philosopher. This man is the greatest genius that has ever lived on the surface of earth.

[@Robobotic]

And a professional sophist

[@keithprice475]

As we say here in Australia, yeah, nah! A thinker who divorces being and becoming in such a fashion and puts out such uncompromising pessimism rather deserves his ongoing lack of great popularity, in my view. Hegel may have been rather wonky on the sciences, thought you could deduce rather too much from first principles and had a tortuous writing style but he knew that reality had to have a dynamic unity, mean something positive and must somehow embody rationality. He was not being obscure just for the heck of it or to hide his deficiencies, though I do think his general meaning can and has been expressed with much more clarity elsewhere. The clarity of a Hume was useful for pointing out the problems in other people's philosophies but did not a wit allow him to expound deep sense and the same applies to Schopenhauer. Besides, if rigorous logical clarity were so fecund, the Analytic tradition would have long since carried all before it, and it has not!

[@EyeLean5280]

Is there really such a thing as the one greatest genius?

[@keithprice475]

@@EyeLean5280 No

[@keithprice475]

@_Oshiri-222 Oshiri, the ‘causal law’ is as much an abstraction as anything Hegel employs, and its emptiness is demonstrated by the fact that it can give no remotely believable account of perception without being rescued in deus ex machina fashion by the Understanding! The whole picture is the root schema of realism, which leads on inexorably to some version of materialism, as it has historically during the 19th and 20th centuries. That involves in one way or another trying to give an external causal account of the Understanding, which cannot work for very deep reasons. All decent philosophers of mind now acknowledge this in some way or another, so the Schopenhauerian scheme simply cannot work. Hegel already knew all this.