Chapter 3.3: Hegel, the logic of History
Vložit
- čas přidán 26. 09. 2017
- This video is part of the series: 'The Philosophy of the Humanities' which you can find here czcams.com/users/playlist?list...
For more videos on Philosophy by Victor Gijsbers go to:
czcams.com/channels/xdW.html...
Intromusic: "Styley" by Gorowski: (www.wmrecordings.com/tag/gorow...)
This guy is a great teacher.
He says "ant eye thee sus" though. Isn't it supposed to be "an tith uh sus"?
Agreed! His lectures at the university are also great
@@merelvandewetering5308 Does he wear those shirts there too? Tell me he does?!
Agreed. First-class explananation.
What's his name?
Nobody can escape from their historical moment
Understanding history is always retrospective
but who can define the historical moment
@@yogi2436 the people who are existing in the moment of the historical event (when you're born). you can't experience previous historical events because you weren't born, you are defining the present moment because you are part of the current 'flaw' which is the problem to be solved.
@@williamchacon1894 okay I can see that idea, but then, all of the people in that shared-lived time frame all over the world will have varying perceptions about our times, and so how can we know anything?. Consequently, are you saying that we are 'stuck' in a historically based situaion, but mired by endless subjectivism? Also, is not historical evidence still important? Otherwise, it seeems that anyone can change the facts to suit their cause. Is it all just a big mess?
0:17 Agreed with Romantics
0:48 As history progresses, we will toss out old ideas for new ones. (Or go through a cycle of ideas)
1:58 Law of Historical Development
2:28 Hempel’s Law (History repeats)
2:56 Hegel’s Law (History evolves)
3:53 Political Pattern
4:49 This pattern is not accidental
5:04 Development of Freedom
5:48 Might Makes Right
6:48 Lawlessness isn’t Freedom because people can enslave you.
7:17 Contradictions/Revolutions/Issues Push society forward/backward.
7:57 Strict Laws/Executor of Law (King/Monarch)
8:54 Monarch gives some freedom and takes some freedom away
10:15 Logical Development of concepts of Freedom pattern is everywhere
11:22 Continued Progress
12:28 We can learn from the past
Bless~
Best intro to Hegel..great job
As a villager interest in philosophy, I am interesting to listen philosophical concepts lectures from various university professors perspectives. In which, I am listening your lectures continuously. Your lectures by giving critical explanation and simple deliveries in simple English in each and every concepts is inspired. Thank you sir.
Same
Brilliant exposition! One passing thought: if the ways we think differ with historical context would mean even the way think about history will differ based on the historical context. that means what we know about history itself will differ from time to time.
appreciate your pacing and clarity. thank-you.
Possibly the best explanation of Hegel on youtube
Hey your videos are brilliantly designed! Please create more on continental philosophers, such as Heidegger, Gadamer, etc. Would really appreciate it! Thank you.
This man is a brilliant lecturer
A very good, clear and comprehensive lecture.
Victor Gijsbers' lectures are fantastic!
Very impressive! I spend my time reading about Hegel was quite confusing. Finally this video makes a lot of sense about Hegel's perspective.
Great overview of Hegel in less than 13 minutes. Thank you.
Thank you SO much for such a clear explanation of Hegals theory.
Please keep making more videos!
your videos are so interesting and awesome
I finally understood something about Hegel. =)
a similar saying in taoism "反者，道之动也“ which means contradictory is the power of development.
Thanks Dr Victor Giisher
such a great presentation of hegel
Brilliant tutorial. Keep it up.
wow thanks Dr. you're wonderful
I have Fallout: New Vegas to thank for introducing me to Georg William Fredrich Hegel. I’ve spent a year now studying Hegel, and all I can do is marvel at the wisdom from the past.
@@someone1059 He doesn't respond because he hates you. Sad.
@@Th3BigBoy it's not funny how blatant your insult is, but it is how irrelevant and unnecessary is. It's like a child throwing a tantrum has showed up in a philosophy class
@@okamisensei7270 Who was I insulting? You don't know the situation and yet you speak on it. Where I'm from we call that a fool.
Notice the person I was talking to, who was being vile, deleted his comments?
He's the one you should be directing your disappointment towards.
@@Th3BigBoy My bad. I don't know what they did but it must have been bad because your comment looks like it was meant to hurt them.
Lol, I am here in this spree of watching about Hegel coz I am trying to understand if Caesar's stance of dialectics do actually work as he romanticizes it
Tx prof Gijsber, I listen atentively and enjoy yr lecture.I imagine as if I am present at RUL 1925 like my grandfa did.But I forgot the name of Lecturer.The Leiden traditon for freedoms, bravo.
Thanks for this, brilliant explanation
Brilliant explanation.
I have an exam tomorrow and this video helped me so much!!!! Thank you
Amazing style. I like you
I’m intrigued now about other religious cultures and how they seem to be stuck in the past without moving forward.
Dr. Victor Gijsber - you are genius. By AMIT KUMAR - India.
I am wondering what happened to this guy. He is so good to explain philosophy. I wish he could continue with his great work
Ur delivery is so interesting
Good lecture and good points
Was Russell's _On the Notion of Cause_ a response to the Hempelian ideas about history? I thought it was a general summary of what causality was in philosophy, but if it was a reaction to history conceptualised as a causation governed process that makes more sense.
A superb lecture. My philosophical knowledge is rather poor. So, I struggle following writings which discuss history by drawing upon certain philosophical concepts. In this vid, the explanation is so clear...I could easily follow it and conclude "oh, okay, so that's what Hegel was saying."
He has special skill of communicating
great lesson
Amazing.....!!!
Hence progress is itself replaced by a concept 'change' or revolution or even of inversion (action-counter action). Compare to Popper or Soros, the dialectic is placed INSIDE history (on a smaller scale) - hence reflexivity is hegelianism writ small, thanks great job!
Thank you!
Amazing!
I will now use the word "unfreedom" thanks to you
Whilst events come and go and change is always upon us, one thing remains constant, the core nature of people and their selfish desires which repeatedly turn peace into chaos....to wit, Hegel's disciples among many....
No thought/ideology can last through the test of time, one cannot formulate a philosophical thought that can be successfully perfectly applied to other periods outside of the current period in which the thinker exists. Funnily enough, this particular thought will never become expired or obsolete. Quite paradoxical isn't it?
How do we even know when one "stage" ends and another begins, since all events are granular, and strictly speaking, non-repeating?
Good work
I was good with this introduction until the presentation of the Thesis-Antithesis-Synthesis because the lecturer 1) presented the formalism which often applied to Hegel belongs more to Fichte and Schelling, and 2) presented the formalism on the macro-level events instead of pointing out that in each stage you had the contradiction and development to the next. That is to say, the state of lawlessness is the positing of a system without something higher than power itself to order actions of individuals and in that posited stage we have the internal contradiction of those using their power for future gains and those using their power only in the immediacy of taking from others which creates the need for a stage in which those who have been stolen from then group together in some manner to create the next stage in which so-called too much law is established.
Like, the formalism can work but it can't do the work.
Sorry but that was such a long sentence
The thesis+antithesis=synthesis structure is Fichte. Not Hegel. Hegel incorporated it as part of his philosophy but if there’s one thing I realized about Hegel is that this reductive view of contradictions as “solved” is not what Hegel implies. Even with consideration of the option for a forever-solving progress of social conception.
Right, the theses-pattern is completly wrong and leads to big missunderstanding Hegel!
He's an amazing teacher, and l like his hippie style 😍 !!! Does he have his own website???
Excellent
wow, im thankful, sir, for recap
D&D Nerd here, I feel like his logic of history plays into D&D's 'Centre of all Principle' where in an infinite whirlwind of chaos, the only thing that matters is what is right in front of you, right now.
Very good !
Nope, he reproduce the feigned theses bullshit 🥵.
Friedrich Schiller [German poet & history professor], 1759-1805, stated that there are 2 kinds of freedom:
freedom to
freedom from
This seems to me to predict socialism & capitalism
My grandfa follower Hegel at RUL tradition of discourse
thanks a lot !
When you say, "We cannot reach any eternal truths," is that only true today and perhaps tomorrow maybe we can or is the statement "We cannot..." an eternal truth, which nulifies the claim?
Human action, boom, external truth.
You’re absolutely correct. The idea that we cannot have any universal truths that transcend time, id est that all our ideas are necessarily bound to our own age and are thus not universally applicable, is paradoxical, as, considering the fact that Hegel said this in “another age”, would mean that his beliefs are no longer applicable to modern-day life.
Man You are Great 😘
Hegel : a thing happens, and then another thing happens and then another thing happens.
I have never heard an accent that is so purely British, although hardly American. Fascinating
it's a Dutch accent
Nowhere is it more clear why Schopenhauer had his view then on this subject matter, the altar of which we can sacrifice the idea of Hegel
Wait till you read Heidegger!!
👍🏻 thank you
Brava!
Hegel agreed with Romantic idea that nobody can escape from their own time to take a position outside of history; cannot reach eternal truths; philosophy is its own time captured in thought; study history to know your own ways of thinking; but is there a pattern in history? Hegel says a pattern exists; describe and clarify that law of history; every stage of history is new and unique; stages develop from each other out of societies' underlying concepts; lawlessness without states, then strict hierarchical states, then democracy; not an accidental progression; logical development of freedom; contradictions push history forward; society tries to solve that contradiction; strict laws may hamper freedom too, just like the state of lawlessness; we have control over our own destiny and the laws themselves that help us be secure in making our own destiny; history, as story of progress; but will we ever arrive at that perfection?
Being and Time
Hegel on Hegel
I’ll take a Hegel bagel with extra Hegel
For all the comments saying that this is not what Hegel believed (i.e. that the Antithesis-Synthesis triad was created by Fichte and it's not Hegel's true philosophy).. For those commenters, can someone give an example of what Hegel's true philosophy is?
Preferably explained with an example of a farmer or something concrete.
When we learn a language, we don't understand how we learn it, because we innately understand language associations based off the gifts we are given. So it's not true that history is remembered in social constructs it's always being forgotten or never known at all, where's the most relevant is only remembered, it's that people have develop based of innate associations outside of history. So from very large part of knowledge is innately determined from small bits of data, or facts, and the rest is developed via creativity. Hegemony is always being broken by innate abilities and creativity.
Why did Hegel despise Newton?
Is it really true that we can only think in a way that fits our own time? I mean if I'm the first one to suggest a particular sort of theory, am I just fitting in with my time? Seems a bit strange to think of such as Fredrick Nietzsche as 'fitting in' too.
I don't know, I'm just learning but just expressing my current response.
If history is unique, then there is no law as to how it repeats.
Why I felt the third stage doesn’t solve the contradiction of the first and second stages?
True democracy doesn’t work because not possible for everyone to vote on everything; therefore, the people doesn’t have direct control over the laws. And the representative republic states...well, lol I bless myself
that's exactly why Hegel encountered the democracy and started to label it as a thesis.. I mean you might think it's not the right solve because the humanity has just developed new contradictions and discovered new flaws that might take us to run the pattern again "thesis/antithesis/synthesis"
@@mahmoudhefnawy1153 democracy is the synthesis of such strict laws that the aristocrats made, but it keeps developing antitheses and reformed synthesis that cover the 'bad' in laws
@@mahmoudhefnawy1153 *DON'T* reproduce the shitty *theses myth*-BS! 🥵
That's the reason, why this video has very bad, nonsensical consequences!
I think this his theory works only to abstract things like political ideology /religion /some thing similar... and yea culture ....... while very basic human activities like sleeping at night, going to wars remain remain constant...I love history only because our ancestors were very generous so much so that they fought wars so I can hold my interest in history... the only thing I am saying is that his philosophy doesn't apply to war...and war is not just killing...but much more of a complex socio-political phenomenon
The very notion and subversive hegemonic ideology that postulates and insinuates his philosophy doesn't apply to war because war is a complex sociopolitical phenomenon is a very reason we are where we are today as a species. In other words, its not that we never learned, just simply we have refused to do so lately.
Ecc 1:9-11 NET 9 What exists now is what will be, and what has been done is what will be done; there is nothing truly new on earth. 10 Is there anything about which someone can say, “Look at this! It is new!”? It was already done long ago, before our time. 11 No one remembers the former events, nor will anyone remember the events that are yet to happen; they will not be remembered by the future generations.
Didnt Fitche think of the thesis, anti thesis and synthesis triad?
i think he had, but hegel adopted this triad and applied it to universal counsciousness
Yes. What is more paradoxical is that we are attributing this model to Hegel when in fact Hegel never explicitly used it, although it is implied by his philosophy but at least not explicitly, whereas Fichte explicitly used it, but noone cares to attribute this model to him :p
Can anyone please tell me the 3 words that Hegel used?
@@radioactivedetective6876 Nobody responds here. Sad.
@@Th3BigBoy I know!!! I still don't know the 3 words used by Hegel!
What’s the name of this lecturer?
Victor Gijsbers
Hegel's dialetic doesn't have anything to do with the triad thesis, antithesis and synthesis. That part of the video mislead the audience. For Hegel, dialetic it is the process of contradiction where one tries to realize the concept and the result deny the previous concept and then returns to the initial concept making it more complex. But it all happens as if it all parts of the same unity. It's no 3 parts separeted from each other where you simple have a correction. Everything that exists contains within self it's own negation and seeds for it's own ineluctable destruction and transformation. The video is pretty good, please don't get me wrong, it's just that Hegel don't ever uses the triad mentioned in the video. Cheers!
So if I’m understanding this correctly. the pendulum has to swing to each extremes before issue is resolved.
No. This is a very extreme oversimplification of Hegel, so much so it's impossible to capture in words.
Jeremy Poncy thanks. I understand what you're saying, it's way more. I've read more since I posted this comment. I was just trying to get a grasp around it.
This is how the Hegelian Dialectic has been explained to me over the years:
Thesis - status quo
Antithesis - non-center/extreme idea emerges
Synthesis - new status quo
Is this an oversimplification?
@@jlupus8804 YES. An intentional one at that.
@@emmanueloluga9770 Is it worse than this?
Hegel©
ultra strong hair gel by Henkel
So hegel didn't believe in the end of history ?
History is an evolutionary process. It won't stop unless and until absolute freedom is arrived, which is impossible. So yes
also known as "90's Optimism"
So how does this relate to the End of History by Fokoyama? Fokoyama seems to have ended the history on liberal democracy as synthesis. But according to Hegel this synthesis could further act as a Thesis and consequently a new antithesis will be produced.
Even if we arrive at Utopia, Hegel would find a contradiction, and therefore rarionalize its destruction.
muhammad yaseen that was Fukuyama's error - he couldn't see that liberal democracy was itself contradictory and that capitalism, among other things, unleashed on the planet would generate opposition, as well as the crash of 2008 etc.
Brian 'utopia' means noplace ( literally) and thus isn't part of any real history.
@@justifiably_stupid4998 As it should be, because that is what needs to happen. "utopia" is an ideology of total evil in every sense of the word lol.
Fukuyama himself has come out and admitted that he was wrong
good
04:15
what is dialects? in Carl Marx and Lenin's case, doing the opposite. you say yes, but technically you mean "No". Lenin says socialism, but he was a materialist(capitalist).
PEOPLE may think differently thru time but 2+2 will ALWAYS equal 4!
But really, was there anything Hegel had more wrong notions about than history?
catch-22 is that they can do anything that you can’t stop them from doing. So what if Hegel is wrong about the synthesis being superior? DEVO would have contested that with him. ps: great videos !
"They can do anything that you can't stop them from doing" is true of every possible arrangement of human societies. While the rest of us are discussing the play, you are describing the stage.
@@BradyPostma the synthesis is INFERIOR after a certain point, yet they keep driving for what they call “progress” because that’s how they’re programmed.
@@SK-le1gm Inferior in what sense?
@@BradyPostma Well, the world they’re engineering sucks. And it’s getting worse. Hegel is the methodology of the nightmarish Agenda of the UN and its lizard master. Thesis-antithesis-worse, basically: DEVO was right, we are evolving DOWN, their Hegelian cycle is grinding our lives to bits. Now, Hegelian cycle tech is available for anyone good or evil. It’s just that evil has a head start. So, life is good, then antithesis is bioweapon released, and the synthesis they seek is forced vaccinations and a microchipped population. Which sucks. Thanks for asking. I’m glad to expound on this with someone else who knows more about this than I do probably. But yeah, the point is that Hegel points out how to engage in “social engineering”; it’s a technology. Marx applied this technology to class, and the super-upper-class is the eye in the pyramid 👁 and they seek to leave the rest of us behind to suffer their violence. So, having a newish appreciation for Hegel, we can take their little cycle and throw it right back at them. I hope that makes a bit more sense. Thanks.
@@SK-le1gm So... billions of people living better than the royalty ever lived prior to 1700 is... bad.
Because "lizard master" and microchip vaccinations.
Gotcha.
Don't listen to his lies, the future as virtuality is accessible now according to a mode of machinic adjacency.
💖💖💖💖👍👍
Wait so Georg is Gay-Org so George is actually Gay-Org-EE?
Good job.
This is the info that the Jordan Peterson "cult" needs to learn so they can stop being whiny conspiracy theorists.
he wouldnt disagree with this.
@@MacSmithVideo He would say that we "History is not the product of vast impersonal forces like the Marxists think"
@Praxis Of Logos Yes, but he will take a much more Personal view of history, shaped by "self-determined individuals" .
Look at his video on the NAZIS. He portrays them as purely evil, not because they are motivated by environmental factors, bu because of the "Mark of Cain"...
Its ill-informed and silly.
@@napoleonbonaparteempereurd4676 He utilizes the symbolic representation of the first murder as the root cause of war as a part of his biblical series, but the man won't shut up about reading Ordinary Men and the Banality of Evil and the innate problems within every individual so that perfectly well educated and decent people are capable of committing the worst forms of atrocity. If he's ill-informed, its a form of being ill-informed that requires being a devoted follower of Hannah Ardent and others like her.
@Praxis Of Logos Really... then he contradicts himself as usual.
Hegel got devel tong
Hegel never uses «thesis, antithesis and synthesis»
I think he used the word Negative in place of Antithesis. That is what I found out from the comments section of another video. But, for the life of me, I can not remember the other two words, i.e. the ones for thesis and synthesis. And I can not locate that video now (coz all the videos on hegel have similar titles). Could you please tell me what the others terms are? Would be a great help.
@@radioactivedetective6876 It is complicated, this may not be a clear explanation.
I think the “thesis, antithesis and synthesis” can be a bit misleading. Hegel fundamentally wrote about contradictions. In every concept or standpoint (like a stoic, a Kantian, a sceptical. etc.) there are inherent contradictions.
The concept of “apple”, for example, as a Being-for-itself, would be defined by gathering up individual “somethings” that are the same as one another (as apples). Each individual apple can be what it is (as an apple) only in relation to an “other” that is the same “something” that it is (i.e., an apple). That is the one-sidedness or restrictedness that leads each “something” to pass into its “other” or opposite. The “somethings” are thus both “something-others”. Moreover, their defining processes lead to an endless process of passing back and forth into one another. (Example from stanford dictionary of philosophy)
The progression of philosophy would happen by steps of sublation of these contradictions, but in a way you never fully escape them.
I don't know what you are referring to. But sentral terms for Hegel are Being-in-itself, being-for-itself, in-and-for-itself, negation, subation, self-sublation, absolute, abstract, universal/general.
That is NOT the hegelian dialectic. That is more like Fichte's dialectic
I vehemently disagree.
The greeks figured out everything 2000 years ago.
So much of what they wrote can be directly applied to our modern world.
Many things are just inherent to the human experience.
Eh, as if people only change political systems because of freedom alone
Hegel was a lunatic
The dialectic progress of history may not stop, but it seems to get stuck periodically, and it takes a lot of wrong turns. Dictatorships still exist and, at the moment, have overcome democracy in some places. Some parts of the world have reverted to religious law to organize their societies. More troublesome, is that the planet as a whole seems to be stuck in a pattern of nations based on land and language. Humans are in dire need of a new form of government. We need a system of rules that organizes the Earth's resources and people in a way that gives rights to all of the other species that inhabit the Earth, and to the planet itself. Without that worldwide cooperation, I'm afraid humans will not have dominion over this planet much longer.
The farmer could have some tools to protect himself. He must have thought about his security a long before somebody came to take away his crop. He could hire some guys for protection in exchange for a part of his crop... There are many options which he might have used in order to protect his freedom.
The FIRST of all things that come with freedom is RESPONSIBILITY for yourself and a RATIONAL approach towards you thrive among the different people - bad and good.
Laws are simply the tool that are invented in order he could feel free and not worry about that by using his own strength... Another words: Laws and government is only another step in division of labor.
If humans cannot, and by implication, should not even attempt to see or reach beyond their current historical and social situations, progress would remain a dream. Slavery, for example would never had ended in America under Hegel's philosophy. There would have been no reason or precedent for the majority slave-owning race (in this case, Caucasian, nor their religious and/or political representatives to take any actions against this "peculiar" institution, and that would make sense since it was not that citizenry who were harmed under this brutal institution, therefore, why should any direct activity on their part be considered necessary at all, so they would unsurprisingly gravitate to Hegel's philosophy of status-quo contentment. I can see a degree of fatalism in Hegel's philosophy and I don't agree with his belief that the only ingredient to making political and social progress towards a better system, is to accept our state of affairs and wait for the passage of time when societal problems will supposedly resolve themselves by synthesizing the "good" from both sides of, in this case, the slavery argument. But those who would benefit from trying to look beyond their current history and culture (the slaves, in this case) will necessarily see the urgency of the moment and respond to it in any and every way they can. and not wait until history may or may not resolve into a better and more just society. History tells us that It was the bravery of a few religious, social, and political visionaries who dared to see a vision beyond that present inhumane situation and to take the necessary political, social/religious and, in this case military steps to ensure slavery's demise, and therefore, progress was made in the form of a better society for all through direct action. What do you think?