Will History END? - 8-Bit Philosophy

[@jsaba3521]

for those who didn't recognize the guy at the end it was karl marx

[@satchelfrost6531]

No it wasn't, it was marxio

[@jsaba3521]

sure....

[@satchelfrost6531]

Apparently you haven't watched their video on Marxio.

[@jsaba3521]

i did i was just trying to sound mature:]

[@chegadesuade]

I don't want to sound pretentious, but that's an unnecessary clarification, everyone watching this is a fan of philosophy and understands that Marx was influenced by Hegel.

[@Lattentreffer]

I love to see Fire Emblem is making an appearance here. Kudos, to Thug Notes. 8-Bit Philosophy is the next best thing to sliced bred.

[@drummerboy085]

I'm taking Philosophy when school starts back up! These videos have really given Me a great head start. Thanks, Sparky, and all of the people who work on 8-bit philosophy!

[@BlueMorningStar]

How absurdly optimistic Hegel sounds to us on the other side of the 20th century from him.

[@JozefLewitzky]

Is it? Consider how much progress rationality has had in the last 200 odd years - Science, technology, space-faring, medical ability, democrat rule, just laws, less war (he just got out of the Napoleonic Wars).

[@TheMagicRat933]

Jozef Lewitzky I have a vague recollection of once reading a quote by some 19th century (IIRC) man, saying something like "[some fairly large fraction] of all infants die. That's just nature." Looking back, that comes off as very pessimistic outlook. Still, if things had turned out just a little different in the Cuban missile crisis or the 1983 Soviet nuclear false alarm incident, all that progress could easily have seemed a lot less impressive.

[@Masterof7s]

Jozef Lewitzky And yet for all that progress we still let people starve to death right under our noses, we still fill our lives with excess we can not use and do not need, and there are actually more wars happening now than in the last 100 years. Mankind's technology may have progressed but technology does not equal a civilized or humane society.

[@markozoric8063]

Jozef Lewitzky There has not been true piece since the beginning of WW II. Also there is no democracy in any so called democratic nations. There is just money. Capitalism is the world order. Laws are just on paper, and some are not even just. So, no, I don't think history is ever going to end by achieving perfect harmony. History, as I see it, is cyclic. And as Sherlock Holmes said "The wheel turns. Nothing is ever new".

[@timetochronicle]

To be fair, Francis Fukuyama once said, at the end of the Cold War, that "History was over." Fukuyama had factored in the possible rise of fundamentalism (as with 9/11), but such conflict only brought up the older lack of freedoms available in the countries that produced terrorism, thus the larger goal that Hegel believe, Fukuyama felt, ahd been reached. Fukuyama, however, recanted his view when he considered the possibility of transhumanism. If Humanity was to evolve to a higher level of existence, whether cybernetic, biologically superior, or even beyond more four dimensional constraints, new thoughts and dieas will come.

[@GT6SuzukaTimeTrials]

These 8 episodes taught me more than two entire semesters of philosophy.

[@zerok116]

I have the exact same thought

[@andreysyschikov1194]

So true. When they teach philosophy they pour so much water into it that it is hard to get the main point. Here it is stated and explained clearly with funny video.

[@magnus123DF]

Same here. Such a great show!

[@soccered888]

+GT6SuzukaTimeTrials This channel is hauntingly good.

[@R0DisG0D]

Then either your philosophy classes suck or you didn't pay attention. While these videos are great to give a general idea of certain philosophies, they are undercomplex

[@burtfergusonshackleford7616]

This channel is sheer genius. The ability to adapt difficult subjects to relevant media with jokes. Thanks to all who work on this project!

[@contextneeded]

I love everything about this channel. Thank you.

[@TheMagicRat933]

This reminds me of the Underground Man's rant in the first part of Dostoevsky's Notes From the Underground. The Underground Man ridicules the idea that humanity is always moving towards greater rationality, and quite contrary to Hegel, he argues that this development would not bring about a state of perfect freedom, but a state of no freedom at all. If there is always a clear, known best and most rational choice, people are not free unless they are irrational and knowingly act against their own best interests now and again. I find myself agreeing with the Underground Man here. If one only ever took the most rationally sound option, one would not be free, and even if the rationally "best" option is supposedly clear, people will not always take it, because humans are not fully rational.

[@JozefLewitzky]

You are spot on here: Existentialism, of which Dostoevsky's writings are considered a part, makes exact this criticism and is one of two major movements spawned in opposition to Hegel (the other is Marxism).

[@SolunaEP]

Damn. Nice point. I should read more Dostoevsky...

[@momentary_]

Many choices are not amenable to rationality. Should you get chocolate or vanilla? Should you become a banker or an artist? Should you love Jessica or Jennifer?

[@SasakiKojiro7]

TheMagicRat933 Mmmm your analysis of the underground man is kind of on point, however we are not meant to agree with the underground man. Dostoevsky's anti-hero does not tell us we must we must consider the irrational and unknowing to make rational decisions. Instead, the underground man cripples himself because he becomes unable to make any decision with all the perspectives and possibilities he considers. The paradox is, as Dostoevsky puts it, that the need to consider every possibility to make a rational decision becomes impossible because we will simply become inert and unable to decide. This is the underground man's true flaw. For all his knowledge he remains unable to make any sort of decision at all, locking himself in a room and simply ranting away.Hegel's theory doesn't quite fully combat this, but while Dostoevsky provides us with a seemingly unsolvable paradox, Hegel attempts to provide us with an answer. Guess that's the simple difference and why its hard to compare the two :/

[@therubixtesseract]

SasakiKojiro7 But I think Dostoevsky's whole oeuvre seems to hint at his thesis that human existence is in itself a seemingly unsolvable paradox (which is funny, as to a cynic it's your only safe bet: it's Socratic in it's claim not to know); as we become more technologically advanced and mentally subtle (a similar concept to Hegel's positivist faith in reason and our evolution) all that achieves is rootlessness (this relates to the question of turning our backs on the traditions of our family, of religion) and a resultant ennui, an essentially negative and existential question. He brings together positivism and existentialism as an inner conflict, in 'simple' terms (lol). The paradox is evident in the underground man, we agree and empathize with him even if we know he is a 'negative incarnation' of Dostoevsky's various characterizations. It raises an interesting question; antithesis (or turning ones back on an existing order) to Dostoevsky exemplified through such characters as Ivan and the underground man is in itself the act of 'becoming modern, worldly', in Hegel's eyes this was progress. But these characters to Dostoevsky are always tormented and in many ways the most paradoxical. They are the ones whose lives end in suicide and isolation. This happened through the rejection of the common man, the rejection of the pagan, earthy order of life. Maybe if we know we cannot solve the question in a total sense (which undoubtedly leads to totalitarianism and the building of the Tower of Babel) then we should engage in life with account for our small part in a wider stage.. But I've gone off topic from Hegel. He feels relevant here in a marginal sense..

[@TheMissmicki]

These are so creative and a joy to watch and learn from. Thank you for making these and please make more!

[@byakugan2173]

The logical and the supposedly desired end game would be world peace thus reaching a no-history period, were all people are truly enlightened beings capable of being civil in the true sense of the world. And yet it seems to me that the purpose of all life is struggle, to overcome the obstacles presented by the world and within us. What we should in fact consider is how meaningful/possible is life without struggle.

[@brad5696]

This problem is why Nietzsche did not wish for the end of suffering.

[@Aassymcass]

A white bearded man producing a red star in the 19th century... Sounds like Marx to me.

[@Lucols4]

now I get it

[@RangerJackWalker]

Ooh, Fire Emblem Gaiden. Nice.

[@Izanagi22]

Interesting theory! This channel always does great work, can't wait for the next episode.

[@LarsWSB]

I don't think you defined Hegel's definition of freedom at all haha. A lot of people wouldn't consider his "freedom" free at all haha.

[@apex2000]

Lars P That brings up the whole "freedom from choice" but there so many variables, as merely sitting stationary interacts with the atoms of the universe.

[@Niko0902]

"History never looks like history when you are living through it" -John W. Gardner

[@kyoko703]

This video might be 8-bit but the majority of the comments here are at least 16-bit or 32-bit. To inspire people to think and to have civil discourse is why I love thug notes. Can't wait to see the next episode professor!!!

[@RossOriginals]

History doesn't require conflict to continue, it is a record of events, be they conflicts, discoveries, art, anything worth recording will be recorded by someone and then it shall become history, and history shall continue so long as there are those who pass it on and people for it to be passed on to.

[@quidestveritas659]

Between Marxism and Neoconservatism, seems like Hegel has a lot to answer for. Or, in fairness to Hegel, "Lord, spare me from my disciples"

[@Finalhazrd]

I first learned about Hegelian dialectics from Fallout: New Vegas. Now 8-Bit Philosophy's expanding on it for me. Thanks, video games! You make me smarter.

[@trymetime]

And I'm here being the only one geeking out because they are using old (S)NES Fire Emblem Game Sprites xD

[@SmeddyTooBestChannel]

I just realized that the title screens all have the same composition in each episode, just done in the style of that game. I always thought it was meant to be a copyright avoidance, until I actually noticed they share the same notes.

[@ziqi92]

but if history repeats itself, then there is no end, for it is a circle.

[@aktaveras]

Doing Karl Marx next is a must to this series, given the fact that he basically lifts up and throws down Hegel with his historical materialism.

[@yankee2liljeter]

they should make an 8-bit philosophy compilation with all of them in one video.

[@nugs1951]

History has nothing to do with human freedom... History is everything that has happened up to this point, not just conflict sometimes leading to freedom

[@Sheepy007]

Something people seem to misunderstand when arguing about classic philosophy (and the relativity there of) is that humanity basically created the machine of infinite wisdom, some thing old philosophers never could have thought to be possible. Information and communication are some of the key principles of society, and with it philosophy.

[@caseymiller7424]

Thanks for the lecture doc. Keep them coming!!

[@PartimeLunatic]

This is so helpful for trying to understand Hegel!

[@jordanmoore7340]

Yes! New episode!

[@FrozenSpector]

The example at 0:49 was misleading because the "challenger" does not just take over the "establishment". The two clash and *Synthesize* into a *new* idea. Thesis^n + Antithesis = Synthesis (i.e., Thesis^n+1) Then, repeat until Hegel's "end" arrives at Thesis^x. The progression of the World Spirit is fulfilled when it recognizes itself in its entirety, thus coming to completion. History - as a sequence of events - follows a similar path to Hegel's World Spirit in that when nations expand, collide, and fall, what rises is (usually) a progressive state ready to be challenged by new conflict and (hopefully) advanced in the process.

[@andrevu3996]

Yes!!!! Episode!!! Request Bryce Courtney's book, the power of one

[@micpap253]

1:11 Wow, the Reason clan really has a lot of Reason!

[@tigerspirit1917]

History cannot end. The context that is raised is based only upon the human experience. But there was a lot of history before man came along, and quite probably there will be a lot after he's gone.

[@aiglv]

You define History differently from Hegel. History ends, according to Hegel, the day mankind achieves its freedom (for him it was his days). But humanity will continue to exist.

[@22maric]

tigerspirit1917 History is the written record of events, so by definition it ends when we stop writing about changing events.

[@hymnofashes]

History is driven by technology rather than conflict now.

[@ThatCommunistReject]

Was playing fallout new vegas when Caesar starts quoting Hegal. This clears up a lot about what he was saying.

[@phictograma]

Although a true 8bit philosophy fan, the example (in 1:39) should not refer to violence, once more conscient the man becomes, the less violent he will be.

[@chrisrosales6362]

Were the overall visuals based off of Mario, final fantasy, Punch out and Fire emblem?

[@MohamadAmerulZufar]

This series will be missed. RIP 8 bit philosophy.

[@VNDROID]

Society will never stop changing

[@theEternaleye-t5y]

Well this was less depressing than some of your videos.

[@TheGnerdyChannel]

It feels like that "end of history" would mean the end of free will.

[@Maharlikon]

I love the reference to Marx at the end!

[@sandrorass3823]

These Videos are great, thanks!

[@ZacheryQuinones]

Can't get enough of this channel. Shit is ill son!

[@deetercesler308]

Very interesting, though it presupposes that revolution/change = progresses, which history itself shows is not always the case.

[@TheRachaelLefler]

Yeah, he sounds like the was way too optimistic about conflict creating a more rational world order.

[@Alkerae]

The way Freedom is tossed around I'm compelled to bring up a trait of Good vs Evil. Without interference from the other, good will become tyrannical in it's protection, and evil will destroy itself. A lack of change creates boredom and stagnation, which will slowly erode the perfection of whatever society ends history. Additionally, any impenetrable defense is merely a puzzle that has not yet been solved by your enemies, and to suggest that history can be ended by removing the concept of enemy is to remove the concept of freedom, and thus, good turns into evil just that simply.

[@floydstinkyboy]

there is no way to answer this question; even if you lived until the end, the end is the end, including the end of you. thus you would never know whether there was a new beginning, after the end.

[@RheePeep]

Love these vids

[@yes7281]

No idea why fire emblem gaiden was used as the example but god damn am I happy about it

[@boma4045746584]

This video questions if self-awareness leads to rationality and to freedom which is the end goal that causes an environment to stop changing. no more change=no more history self-awareness- Plato`s symposium rationality- Kierkegaard`s views on rationality where truth lies in subjectivity freedom- Sartre on freedom and choice They stated that " as time progresses we become more self-conscious therefore more rational and therefore more free ", but from other theories we see that all of these are subjective or non-existent. Mind to elaborate?

[@noble8696]

Whoever animated this video must love fire emblem.

[@Dahalx]

Hegel's idea of a world without history sounds like the way Gene Roddenberry envisioned the future for the human race in Star Trek.

[@45BigRich]

This effectively describes a utopian society in which no change is necessary, as all is in peace and prosperity. However, a utopian society is perpetually unattainable, therefore denying the fact that history will end.

[@inkliizii]

+45BigRich What makes you think that a utopian society is unattainable?

[@RunningToNotBeSeen]

Another great video

[@Nagoragama]

Crystalis screenshot, 10/10, thumbs up, A++++

[@afrikasmith1049]

I agree with everything everything except for the free part. Its a bit more complicated because of things like adapting, natural selection, cultural influence, and conflict of ideals.

[@CloakingGalaxy]

Even if one society was perfect, wouldn't it still be at risk to a society who sees war as an aspect of their perfect society and thus destroying the perfect society, only to be rebuilt in more conflict? Is the end of history assumed permanent ?

[@justwannabehappy6735]

Hegel was an euro-centric thinker. Euro-centric thinkiers had this strange notion that the whole world was evolving in the same direction as them or would follow suit accordingly, simply because they would be amaze by the wonders their society had achieved. Kant had a similar idea about liberal democracies and an international society of liberal nations : eventually, each nation would become a liberal democracy to join the fray because they would see that liberalism was the superior way to go.

[@floppyearfriend]

I haven't read Hegel, so this is just speculation, but I assume "The end of History" isn't something that would happen society by society, it's something that would be worldwide. If there was ever a possibility of getting invaded by another society, then the World Spirit wouldn't have achieved perfection, and the ideology of the two societies would become the warring ideologies.

[@danharrington9164]

2.01 in, the scene looks like it is out of Battle of Olympus, one of the best games I played as a nipper!

[@superhumansight]

It's a good thing Hagel never heard of the Mouse Utopia experiment... Utopia or the end of history situation causes a ton of problems, and an eventual collapse in society.

[@shaheryarmozaffer2125]

Wow this is exactly what I've been thinking up on my own...so does that make me an influental figure too? If there were to truly be a rational society, history as we know it would indeed come to an end. Why use cigarettes if you get rotten organs? Why fight if you get hurt? Why oppose others when you can listen and share ideas to come to a compromise? Why wear clothes when they are permanently changing your body? Why shave your genitals and head when they are the most important hairs on your body? Why get tattoos when it will hurt and forever scar your natural body? Why get piercings and earrings when they get in your way and reduce your abilities? Why be against genetic engineering if it can one day be 100% safe in small doses? Why not use a treadmill while using laptops to stay in shape? Why not believe in the possibility of telekinesis through a superbrain while dogs already have a proven supernose? Why cut down trees when you can try to domesticate them and co-exist, similar to dogs? Why shun a man for crying at a funeral when it is the first cry he has in a decade? Why be against video games when some of them are proven to make you smarter? Why not play the guitar, the piano and juggle from a young age when they make you Einstein levels of smart? Why be against giving humans wings when they will allow us to be faster than any car and still work out? Why? Mostly because most are ignorant. Including me. What? There's always more to learn! - via YouPak(.com)

[@pairot01]

I hate how filosophists distort the meaning of words. History is not the advance of culture through conflict. The New Horizon's probe reaching pluto IS history, and there was no conflict there.

[@GolfBaller]

+Joaquin Pirotto Yeah, philosophy is pretty fucking dumb in my opinion. It stopped being relevant a long time ago.

[@kypasthug]

Well philosophers just think, there will always be a missing spot in every theory. I agree on your point. This does not even consider art, which makes big history.

[@StryderHeap]

This particular video is SUPER quiet

[@666greatmetal]

+Stryder Heap turn up the volume

[@GuitarRocker2008]

Damn Wisecrack why did you stop making these?!

[@theeNappy]

Hagel's definition of history is oh so very wrong. History is in fact the record of events, and conflict is only one of these many events contained in history. Conflict doesn't always lead to greater rationalism, or even the overthrow of the "old guard" (assuming that there are even opposing forces that can be cast as establishment and anti-establishment), just as often conflict leads absolutely nowhere, or even to a decrease of rationalist freedom in favor of security. Humanity will always have conflict (so long as there are two men on earth, one will want the other dead), but even if conflict ended one day, then that would be the end of *conflict*, not history.

[@gravyfan]

fire emblem is going to he so much better now

[@Dronetek]

Communism is on the march. But why? Why are people who have lived awesome lives thanks to freedom and capitalism, now suddenly want to subjugate themselves and their neighbors?

[@theproplady]

History is cyclical. Cultures rise, get fat and lazy, then decline, reacting to what came before. I'd recommend reading The Fourth Turning, by William Strauss for an examination of historical cycles that's America-centered.

[@pkingo1]

I agree but we start to see through the cycles.. and we stop playing along with them, we try new things. At some point we will see through the whole game which is what is called enlightenment.

[@theproplady]

pkingo1 Doubtful, unless you can find a way to control human nature (and by the time that's happened, we're no longer human and become something else.) Technology and cultural changes might delay a step in the cycle of history or make it take a convoluted path, but most people think and react on an instinctive level. Most people's brains today are trying to work with a 250,000 year old operating system--a system which causes them to make irrational decisions based on their emotions and evolutionary programming. (Most of said programming was written back when we lived in caves, when physical strength/provisioning ability determined which men would have the most reproductive access to women and which traits would get passed on.) Civilization and technology can change the way we live, but it can't change our hard-wired instincts, many of which, unfortunately, prompt us to destroy the very things that make us prosperous, once we've been prosperous for awhile.

[@pkingo1]

theproplady The problem isn't lack of control.. it's the opposite - lack of trust. We feel human instincts will run us crashing into the ground if we take our hands of the wheel. We fear others intentions (i.e. nature's intentions) and put up walls and become ignorant. And we don't see the cycle of ignorance, hate & greed this fear creates. If we instead acted out of a deep trust and love. You'd love the world and then there is love in the world and there is hope for humanity. You can break the cycle, but only in yourself.

[@kevincarroll5511]

pkingo1 Well spoken. Hears to the historians.

[@JWQweqOPDH]

theproplady Yes someone who sort of understands! Also, you say we would no longer be human, but what's wrong with that? If you look back far enough there were no humans.

[@madmanJSK]

(Thinking out loud) The ideas of The World Spirit and The Ultimate Freedom seem to me like the type of cultural unity and uniformaty that would be seen in all corners of the globe during a civilisation of Type 1 on the Kardashev Scale. Whether or not that will be 'the end of history' depends on how far we reach in to the cosmos, whether or not we encounter civilisations with differing structures to ours and whether or not that invites conflict...

[@MoonSpiritChannel]

What this rings is definitely true. True peace is practically impossible in the world we live in.

[@saeedbaig4249]

When Hegel said that the end of history would be a totally free society, did he mean that humanity would live in a sort of anarchist-like state without laws? Or is he using a different definition of freedom?

[@ericatanaka2728]

Hegel didn't believe that freedom could be said to exist outside the state (law and order) in a "state of nature." his ideal state was one of rational laws and a constitutional monarchy,

[@prometheus9096]

interesting i could ask Hegel but well i take you instead :D wouldn't the most ideal state have to be something like a Technocracy ? I mean if everything (like in the video) is based on rational decisions...

[@saeedbaig4249]

Prometheus Hegel, I'm assuming, would probably say that a constitutional monarchy is the most rational form of government. There are some pros of constitutional monarchy. The monarch is trained (usually from birth) on how to run a country properly, whereas a democratically-elected leader need not have any training; just a superficial popularity.

[@floppyearfriend]

I dunno about Hegel, but if we talk Marx (Who perfected Hegel's theories), then yes, it can only be achieved in a stateless society without classes or private property of the means of production.

[@Hecatonicosachoron]

The last guy is Marx, in case anyone didn't know. Can Hesiod's ages not be interpreted as an early historicist theory? Perhaps it can be even interpreted in terms of the Hegelian dialectic - although the central concept appears to be the moral problem (and moral dilemmata in general) and the underlying process being a gradual dissolution of 'virtue'.

[@talmonclayton3447]

I immediately agree with anything that uses Fire Emblem as a explanation.

[@devilish21885]

Perhaps history and freedom are mathematical slopes, never quite straight up, but trending more and more upward.

[@xhunter20]

Great video.

[@reezy619yt]

Everybody can only be free if everybody has enough personal resources to not desire additional resources. Since that will never happen, no, there will never be an end to history unless of course humanity ends.

[@jasonlee4830]

Hegel believes his life is occurring at the end of history (you can look it up). Given the sociopolitical environment he is living in, he thinks he is living at the end. It doesn't come up in this video, but he believes in the thesis - antithesis - synthesis process, and it has snowballed throughout certain high points in different cultures (he calls these high points in history/culture "zeitgeist"). The only problem is history doesn't end in Hegel's life. It just keeps going.

[@Pebkio_Nomare]

History is a progression of... what the fuck? What made *Hagel's* flawed description of history so acceptable? Whatever happened to the one without as many assumptions about the purpose and direction of human existence? Whatever "progression" Hagel thinks is intrinsic to "history" is only there to *us* because we *think* of it as "progression". "History is the subjectively recorded account of events." Therefore it ends when the subjects stop keeping records of events, due to whatever reason. Is that so fucking hard to accept? Why do philosophers have to get all convoluted and add a bunch of nonsense when describing a concept? I thought I could make it to the end of the playlist but the amount of time wasting word games is getting to me. I'm going to play some video games, that are decidedly *not* extensions of this reality, to calm myself down... on technology that took many, many, sessions of *pragmatic* prediction-making and testing to be developed... and then sleep on a bed that is defined as a "bed" because of a set of *simple* axioms.

[@divinuminfernum]

well i guess its more to do with the fact that not all events are recorded, so how is what determined here, as well as how facts are viewed, to what ends it is used etc - as you said yourself 'subjectively' recorded - also 'history' became more conscious of itself around the time of the enlightenment along with alot of other fields. despite this though i think hegel's question was perhaps more broader in to what end is human civilisation proceeding

[@Pebkio_Nomare]

divinuminfernum ."...also 'history' became more conscious of itself..." What? Are you trying to say that people started getting more thorough when recording history? Ugh, this is a good example of one of the problems I have with most kinds of philosophy. "History" is not a separate entity with it's own consciousness. ...and even if it's just a flowery metaphor for saying that the style of historical record keeping is representative of the people who were capable of keeping that record; that kind of inaccuracy is the reason why "dualism" is a thing that people still believe. And I don't really care about what he was arguing. At it's base, all he's arguing is that, without something to struggle against, we will stop progressing. Of course, even if we aren't progressing, "history" won't end until people stop recording what happens. But the point still stands that he tried to define history and that the definition he gave was just an inaccurate description meant only to support an argument that wouldn't be realistic without the self-serving definition. I ask myself: "Why didn't he just *say* that progression will cease and civilization will stagnate if we remove all obstacles to overcome? Why did he use confusing terminology that requires unproven assumptions about purpose and direction?" And all I can think is that he was inserting those assumptions as legitimate facts about reality into a hypothetical situation when it wasn't required... which suggest a bit of dishonesty. At the very least... it was a hypothetical situation with too many "if"s. *Fictional stories* present those better... not philosophies that shape belief..

[@divinuminfernum]

Jonathan Pebble i thought you may take issue with that, of course history as an abstract word doesnt become conscious, i meant that people were writing more on its function and use. i dont think his description of history is accurate or total either, its serving his system and indeed at the time that hegel was teaching it was important to be able to have a system and hegel is probably the last type of philosopher to do this. he would never just say what history is in a single sentence and be done with it, given that he wants to formulate out every step in the process In what sense are you meaning 'dualism' ultimately Hegel is presenting a belief that one can certainly argue against - the belief in an absolute idea, Reason itself, at the end of some rational development. he wouldnt be satisfied with just saying 'progression will cease...' because he is interested in what determines what progression is and also towards what such progression is moving

[@Pebkio_Nomare]

divinuminfernum Well then, the only thing I'd need to accept your interpretation of his words is for some clarification in his writings. I must admit that I don't know a lot of about Hagel. I certainly didn't know he tried to use an archaic, personal, definition of history to further his own ideas. I only learned about that from this video, which is why it's the topic of this thread. I am still wondering why anyone would take any conclusions seriously if they can only be supported by the definition that was only used *specifically* to support the conclusions.

[@divinuminfernum]

Jonathan Pebble philosophers after hegel and in hist time too were arguing against his views. i am not sure his view was archaic for its time, as it was a time of idealism and it is a very idealistic philosophy - it was i think expected that a philosopher would have their own developed system, though no one would come out a say their philosophy is their own personal idea - until Schelling. Schelling another philosopher of the period did just call his philosophy Schellings philosophy (to that effect) and it riled other philosophers quite. I am not an expert on the period, but i am reading some works from that time - I find it interesting and amusing even the stories of these competing philosophers, who sometimes only differ so slightly. i like your last paragraph - thats a paradox of thinking alot of people unwittingly fall into - possibly Hegel too, as he was trying to account for all human existence from the individual consciousness to the overall objective spirit that he perceived as the Absolute Idea, the World Soul, Reason

[@dasanjos]

Great video! Who was the poet mentioned on the end? #cliffhanger

[@dasanjos]

I suspected, but didn't know he was a poet :) Looking forward for a Super Marx World 8 bit philosophy video :D

[@Smittywerbermanjen]

***** I was really hoping for PokeMarx. Ah well. I hope they don't confuse his ideology with what the Bolsheviks practiced.

[@felixbabuf5726]

+Smitty werbanmanjensen Heavens forbid that.

[@AgentMurphy286]

If this is what Hegel thought then he didn't understand the idea of stagnation at all.

[@canmex9422]

its amusing how the video went from Greece to the French revolution without going to the monarchy. in my book going from Greece to monarchy would be a step back in freedom.

[@willferrous8677]

YES, HEGEL!

[@waynepang-jezek5881]

I love this series. Do one on Jiddu Krishnamurti. :-D

[@ShinjiHirako777]

Thank you very much for posting this, it is intriguing and seems similar to what I have believed. However, I find the belief that humans only move towards advancing the world spirit to be vain optimism, since many civilizations have collapsed and been replaced by many smaller, weaker ones. Like the Roman, Babylonian, and Egyptian civilizations.

[@hvitstork9846]

An end of history would be possible only with eugenics: the majority of the population can't became rational, they can only regurgitate propaganda. Mass Information has as an effect only a slight increase of the percentage of rational people, or perhaps, rational people become more informed. As someone pointed out earlier, history is cyclical; the whole population becomes more wealthy during a 1000 year cycle and as everyone can afford food and shelter, big projects from the glorious beginning of a civilization like colonialism or the space age are abandoned in order to secure the basics for everyone. This is a civilization who abandons glory and heroism for security and equality thus ending itself.

[@wenceslaolopez6752]

the red star killed me!

[@rodrigofernandez9957]

People leaving comments, thinking they know better than Hegel and shit..

[@SolunaEP]

Perhaps this idea goes for the development of a society and culture with unlimited, easy to access resources, but what happens in a real world where people get hungry and that "collective rationality" goes out the window?

[@Minjen2]

That was very simple and intresting

[@ethanhunt8430]

I notice the comments towards these videos are generally negative toward the philosopher. Everyone seems to want to prove them wrong. I don't think that attitude should be taken, but rather, accept that it's just an idea and use it to expand your own knowledge.

[@Thatwasnotme]

It's very possible that all civilizations ultimately end in the creation of a perfect AI or a hivemind.

[@Lroox]

marx episode woooo!

[@nmuhammad51]

music is so annoying... please get rid of it... i don't know why you put so loud music to make this video torturous for viewers., though it had great content!

[@Chamelionroses]

When is this show no longer new, and when do we get to hear thug talk?

[@ShaolinMonkster]

gr8 m8

[@benquinney2]

A new synthesis

[@poptac6977]

Question, can history regress then? I'm thinking that because we place so much importance on money nowadays, some are more free than others? (or am i confusing this?)

[@prisonbitch616]

This is a pretty incorrect interpretation of Hegel. To focus on *one* issue: Hegel's 'end of history', and entire philosophical system - is retroactive: that's what the famous 'Owl of Minerva' in the preface of the Phil of Right means. There is no god-given goal which history follows, just a recollection to our own perspective. It's the similar to the fact that the universe was "destined" to create mankind: we exist... so the universe must be able to have humans in it. It's a logical deduction. It is entirely possible an asteroid or something could put a contingent end to us. He does not believe, nor does his system imply, any inescapable fates or destinies in the future, or that no more real change will occur after him. History (or real) is 'rational' only in this retroactive way. What has been called the 'end of history' is simply Hegel applying this logic to history to place his own philosophical contributions in a historical context. That's all. He makes this absolutely clear in the preface of the Philosophy of Right.

[@odinmills314]

the people who will change have changed already.

[@kriticalhit5000]

Can't wait to see how post-modernist thought translates with 8-bit games.

[@Rabbitthateats]

all times are relative and exist simultaneously; nope Hegel, nope.