Hegel’s Most Important Idea
Vložit
- čas přidán 26. 03. 2024
- In this video I try to explain Hegel’s concept of “Spirit” or “Geist” in simple terms, but without losing the complexity. You’ll also learn about Plato and Kant. Hopefully this will help you in your own reading of Hegel and perhaps prove a good starting point.
Thanks for watching,
Julian
#philosophy #hegel
A short summary/glossary that might be helpful:
-idealism = the metaphysical system of the appearance of the idea(l)
-noumenon = essence/truth/idea/Absolute/Substance)
-phenomenon = appearance/illusion/subject/objects
3 metaphysical models:
(1) Plato: Essence beyond Appearance
(2) Kant: Essence hidden in/by appearance (things-in-themselves)
(3) Hegel: Essence as (the form) of appearance in its own becoming
Or…
Plato: transcendental (naive) idealism
Kant: Critical (empirical) idealism
Hegel: speculative (post-metaphysical) idealism (no longer transcendental)
Or:
Plato: Binary metaphysics (Essence beyond appearance)
Kant: Antinomical metaphysics (Essence vs. appearance)
Hegel: dialectical metaphysics (essence AS appearance)
Or:
Plato: Philosophy is about the inquiry as to the content of the idea(l).
Kant: Philosophy is about the inquiry into the form that obscures the idea in its becoming.
Hegel: Philosophy is about the inquiry into the content of the form the idea takes in its becoming.
Or:
Plato’s Ontology = a hierarchy in which essence is the highest and appearance the lowest.
Kant’s Ontology = essence lies hidden behind a transcendental veil of appearances and cannot
Be known.
Hegel’s ontology = essence emerges retroactively through the fall into appearance itself.
-Verstand: (empirical knowing or “reason” about the content of things in the world.
-Vernunft = Understanding of the content hidden in the form of the idea(l)’s appearance.
Spirit = the process by which the Absolute “knows itself” through the subjective “understanding” (Vernunft)of the form of the appearance of the absolute in the phenomenal world.
After writing this I realized it might be worth doing a Hegel 101 video, because this is probably still a bit inaccessible. Hope it helps.
If you’d like to purchase my ebook on Hegel, it’s available here: www.patreon.com/julianphilosophy
Thank you for this discussion sir! am taking Masters degree now and we have a paper dealing with the advent of AI. And, ill be writing about hegel and language as part of the final requirement for the subject.
Sir, if it is not too much, probably you have any books to read dealing with hegel.
am also a fan of Zizek. and so, i have to admit, rhis is also my own bias with the thinker
Thank you!
Thank you for this sir Julian! am checking this now!
Thanks for the heuristic.
I would love to see a Hegel 101 video!
No one else could run us through not just Hegel but also German idealism so magnificently in this amount of time how do you do it I have no idea brilliant again Julian.
Kind of like when MJ closes his eyes to shoot a free throw
Spirit is a comb
I'm here for the unapologetically messy hair
Its not messy, its absolutely made intentionally so. He wants to look like his head fought a honey badger because he thinks hes an academic
Essence lies in the form of appearance or smthng.
so here i am, living my fucking life and going through my day to day somehow unaware that a FUCKING LEGEND is out here making videos on my favorite philosophical theorys !!!
i really appreciate that you have now given me more videos to penguin pebble my friends and loved ones with.
your doing amazing work!!
As I try to understand Hegel, his ideas sound more like religion than anything. Would that be too unfair?
@@DrinkWater713I would view Hegelian philosophy more scientifically. Yes I can see where you are coming from but you have to realize that Hegel was very systematic and progressive so a lot of his theories come off as some what a fantasm or a inside look on outside perspective of human knowledge but you have to see that all of that coincides with his dialects and overall belief that we must overcome previous ideas and give birth to new ideas through the dialectic process.
Thank you for posting this, truly
Very nice Julian. I will most definitely try to come back to this and chew on this some more :)
Bravo, the appearance is a low resolution version of the idea, not something distinctly different than the idea. We are tuned into the real reality, just not at a very high bandwidth. Cave radio isn't just the only station, it is the cave gradually appearing to us.
eveyrtime i manage to watch a video of yours i am so satisfied by the end of it. love your channel!
Thank you Julian
Hegel’s claim that noumena is phenomena reminds me of Nāgārjuna’s claim that emptiness is form and form is emptiness.
The hair is precisely what we would expect to find and perfectly appropriate if you read the title of the video
You summarized it very well!
Excellent explanation!
Your hair makes you look like a genius. You’re also a genius
Julian, thank you so much, truly. Such a great video. Hope you do a Hegel 101 video too!
Excellent summary. I even understand Kant better now. I recently discovered your channel. Have now subscribed and looking forward to watching your other vids.
The audio is getting better over the last 2 videos.
I studied sociology at uni, and i recall the scepticism academics harboured toward anything hegellian. At least thats the impression, perhaps mistaken on my part, that stayed with me. These last few years i kept a tab on slavoj zizek, because my instincts suggest he is definitely worth listening to. Thing is, he keeps talking about hegel...
So now i have plunged into todd mcgowan's "emancipation after hegel" (which im enjoying/no pun intended).
This is great!
I dig the Copernican analogy
Ding an sich:
achieved
[Love it!!! Very impressive]
Would love to see the sequel to this on Marx!
Really helpful tysm
Thanks, I'll be watching this again. I wonder about a 'Spirit is a Bone' video.
Brilliant
You explain things so well, Julian. A follow up on the inversion by Marx would be appreciated 😁
I agree with some of your points, but I would urge you to rethink your interpretation of Kant. The main idea of his that you seem not to take into account is the distinction between theoretical and practical reason, the unity of the two, and the primacy of the latter.
His stance on the status of metaphysics and our ability to know the ideal (as you call it), or the unconditioned, can only be properly understood in terms of the theoretical-practical distinction: we cannot theoretically know the unconditioned as a *thing* in itself existing independently of reason, but we can practically know the free activity of reason as an *end* in itself by participating in it, i.e. by autonomously governing ourselves for the sake of the highest good.
Philosophy must make the transition from mere scholastic philosophy, which abstracts from the activity of reason in its attempt to know the unconditioned merely for the sake of knowledge, to cosmopolitan philosophy, which aims to articulate the system of human reason as an architectonic unity, i.e. an systematic unity of rational activities, organized by the ultimate aims of reason. Once you see this side of Kant, you can see that he was much closer to Hegel than most people (including Hegel himself) realized.
I can back up my above points with plenty of textual support, so let me know if you are interested!
You're right, but Kants theoretical philosophy still doesn't work...
I would love to read the textual support for this but I think this is a great reading
I'm interested to hear more!
As the talk was about Hegel, it's fine. Unless you want to explain how this is relevant to the train of thought leading to Hegel.
@@djsjdh-hoahdi @MarcusRautahuopa
Here are two of the passages which I think most strongly support my reading:
"But it will be asked: What sort of treasure is it that we intend to leave to posterity, in the form of a metaphysics that has been purified through criticism but thereby also brought into a changeless state? On a cursory overview of this work, one might believe that one perceives it to be only of *negative* utility, teaching us never to venture with speculative reason beyond the boundaries of experience; and in fact that is its first usefulness. But this utility soon becomes *positive* when we become aware that the principles with which speculative reason ventures beyond its boundaries do not in fact result in *extending* our use of reason, but rather, if one considers them more closely, inevitably result in *narrowing* it by threatening to extend the boundaries of sensibility, to which these principles really belong, beyond everything, and so even to dislodge the use of pure (practical) reason. Hence, a critique that limits the speculative use or reason is, to be sure, to that extent *negative* , but because it simultaneously removes an obstacle that limits or even threatens to wipe out the practical use of reason, this critique is also in fact of *positive* and very important utility, as soon as we have convinced ourselves that there is an absolutely necessary practical use of pure reason (the moral use), in which reason unavoidably extends itself beyond the boundaries of sensibility, without needing any assistance from speculative reason, but in which it must also be made secure against any counteraction from the latter, in order not to fall into contradiction with itself." (Critique of Pure Reason, Bxxiv-xxv)
"among the three pure ideas of reason, *God* , *freedom* , and *immortality* , that of freedom is the only concept of the supersensible that proves its objective reality (by means of the causality that is thought through it) in nature, through its effect which is possible in the latter, and thereby makes possible the connection of the other two ideas to nature, as well as the connection of all three to each other in a religion; and that we thus have in ourselves the principle that is capable of determining the idea of the supersensible in us and by that means also the idea of the supersensible outside us into one cognition, although one that is only possible in a practical respect, of which merely speculative philosophy (which can also provide a merely negative concept of freedom) had to despair: hence the concept of freedom (as the foundational concept for all unconditional practical laws) can extend reason beyond those boundaries within which every (theoretical) concept of nature had to remain restricted" (Critique of Judgment, 5:474)
Enlightening. Smacks of the Heart Sutra (western heads may roll): Form is Void and Void is Form, etc. I'm interested in Hegel's concept of Negation. You covered it a bit in the dialectics video, but would love to hear your take on Negativity as a discreet concept, maybe in relation to the 11 categories (e.g.: Being, One, Essence, Cause, Universality, Life, etc...) Thanks for your work!
How much of Hegel's philosophy do you think is relevant/valid today? It seems like he's more often than not cast as a villain in philosophy since our academic culture became aggressively anti-mystic
Karl Popper's description of Hegel is no longer recognised by academics. It takes a while for society to catch up.
I just watched Enemy (2013) for the first time tonight. The film features direct references to Hegel, Fichte, Marx, and dialectics. The film centers on a dialectic struggle.
@@he1ar1 releveant because its hegel thats used to inject religious beleif back into philosophy and thinking. His philosophy is a crude gap science. And those who invoke him do it to invoke religion.
Super valid, judging ideas as being a certain point in a historical progression, his (psycho)analysis on recognition, self consciousness, and why people take what things to be authoritative from their perspective, the dialectic as a framework, hegel has many evergreen concepts
I absolutely love the practicality in Hegelian philosophy. Practicable = practice-able
I’ve often struggled with the feeling that my writing didn’t adequately convey what I meant to communicate. I’d make an attempt at a perfect paragraph and erase it in frustration.
I watched Julian’s video on absolute recoil and it exposed a very practical application of dialectics that changed my approach to writing entirely:
"If you want to be a writer, write. And if you are worried about writing the wrong thing, wanting to make sure that you write the right thing, then write the wrong thing, and the right thing will become clear to you. Then write the right thing that came clear to you. The error points to the correct."
In a very real way, my good writing can only be distinguished from my not good writing, and I’d need to have both to decide which is which. A sentence or a paragraph can only really be judged by how it contributes to the whole draft, so I’d need a whole draft.
What did that mean for me? It means I can’t build a perfect paragraph before I build a first draft, and I won’t even recognize the good writing until I make edits and cuts to everything I’ve written. The meaning and perfection in my words is extracted from the dialogue between the adequate and inadequate.
Great hair.
There is a book Hegel and the Transformation of Philosophical Critique by William Bristow.
What are your thoughts on Hegels Differenz essay?
So how is it possible to have an (however imperfect) idea of an ideal? It’s like I project the light into the darkness and claim the light source lies ahead of me. So again, how am I able to imagine an ideal (somehow, I must have a reference frame) and how am I able to recognize the light as a never touchable BUT nonetheless existing (ideal) entity which by being directed at things reveals their unobscured nature and the truth of the things in themselves.
i love u
My brain hurts
Isnt it that Reason in the Phenomenology refers to the unity of consciousness and self-consciousness and Spirit refers to that unity raised to an actual world? So there is that meaning of Geist as in the actual Spirit section, but at the same time he later statea that every momenet of consciousness starting with Sense Certainty was Geist as well?
Geist, or "Spirit." Got it.
I quickly get lost in strings of abstract concepts... isn't there anybody out there that can come up with some concrete analogies for dunces like me?
Idealism has nothing to do with pursuing the "ideal" as in best or most truthful version of something. Idealism means essentially that reality is in mind or spirit or consciousness. This is literally the first thing on the wikipedia page for idealism. This is such a blatant and ignorant error that it throws all your credentials into question.
From wikipedia: Idealism in philosophy, also known as philosophical idealism or metaphysical idealism, is the set of metaphysical perspectives asserting that, most fundamentally, reality is equivalent to mind, spirit, or consciousness; that reality is entirely a mental construct; or that there is some higher "ideal form" of reality. Because there are numerous forms of idealism, it is difficult to define the term.
From the Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy:
Within modern philosophy there are sometimes taken to be two fundamental conceptions of idealism:
1. something mental (the mind, spirit, reason, will) is the ultimate foundation of all reality, or even exhaustive of reality, and
2. although the existence of something independent of the mind is conceded, everything that we can know about this mind-independent “reality” is held to be so permeated by the creative, formative, or constructive activities of the mind (of some kind or other) that all claims to knowledge must be considered, in some sense, to be a form of self-knowledge.
I seriously don't understand this weird Hegelian or continental philosophy refusal to accept the distinction between ontology and epistemology. At least it seems to me that Hegel is just rejecting this distinction between epistemology and ontology, meaning the distinction between an object X and how it appears to a conscious observer. I mean, what would happen if all conscious creatures just disappeared right now, would all the stars and planets in the universe just disappear since there are no longer anyone who can observe them? I mean, what's the actual ontology of Hegel's philosophy, what is the world made of and how is it constituted according to him? Also, this definition of "idealism" is radically different from the normal definition. It seems to me that continental philosophers just have all these weird definitions of terms that are completely different from the normal definitions and thereby just mystifying everything and turning it into incomprehensible gibberish. But could someone just answer this question: what would happen to the Sun if all conscious observers just disappeared right now, according to the Hegelian philosophy? Would it just disappear? If The Thing In Itself doesn't exist, does that mean that the Sun didn't exist billions of years ago before there were any human beings to observe it?
Cute chocolate rabbit
Having finished the rest of the video, it's very clear that Julian has almost no idea what he's talking about. He is ignorant at best, or willingly fraudulent at worst, presenting himself as someone with an understanding of philosophy that he clearly does not possess. I lean towards the latter since he is trying to make money off talking about philosophy through his Patreon. His takes are about the equivalent of an undergraduate who thinks too highly of himself and smokes an excessive amount of marijuana. And people just lap it up because he has messy hair and wears a cardigan.
Why the hair? That is so distracting to what is otherwise an eloquent explanation.
Sounds like a you problem. Just pay attention to the audio?
So you can't concentrate bcs of his hair?? Come on, it's not very hard just pay attention for 13 minutes
It's not that bad for philosophy teacher standards
@@sodvar5047 I was going to say that 😂
@@sodvar5047 Idk man my professor keeps his locks in a ponytail
Well done! Excellent take and grateful for having found your channel! Synchronicity Central is warming up! 😎🥲😊
The best explanation of Hegel work on youtube is provided buy a french chanel : La chose en soi.