No one can reach The Truth unless they are truthful. Whatever truth we give is the truth we get. In keeping one's word Truth is kept in a journey of Vertical Reasoning that. "Above & Beyond is the object & WE=mc2 are The Universal Subjects of ONE=mc2 TRUE=mc2 INFINITE=mc2 ROYAL LOVE=mc2.
well they are both right if you view hegels metaphysics as a proposal for a kind of possible totality, in which it is true that any part contains the information necessary to reconstruct the whole, this is possible, like analytic extension in complex analysis and so on, or like a puzzle 🧩 with only one solution, you could imagine a puzzle where the edges are like a fractal, but where every piece has a unique edge, such that they only fit together in only one way even though the larger details of the edges look identical, to put together this puzzle correctly you need to observe details on every scale along the edges to see what pieces fit together. none of this necessarily has anything to do with nature, like any other proposal but for the sake of hegels argument or proposal we could have such a world where only observing all possible details would allow you to put together the entire totality, and so on. not obvious that 1 piece has enough information to reconstruct the entire picture, but you can imagine a puzzle like this where the edge details encodes all the other edges in the puzzle, because of the infinite amount of information you could encode on the edges. this isn’t metaphysically necessary tho, i think thats russels point but this is a kind of physical question about the totality being this that or the other, not really about necessary truths. even so i think hegek could easily be right, but if so more as a speculator about physics based on earlier ideas than a metaphysician.
Even being a first-rate philosopher yourself and reading his studies in tedium apparently doesn't qualify one to say anything derogatory about Herr Doktor Hegel? Then how does one prove to have "understood" Hegel? By agreeing unconditionally with him?
Suppose I am the absolute, which means there is nothing else but me. According to Hegal, I can think of nothing but myself. But I can think of things that are not part of me. For example, I can think of my nail parings.
I think we assess value of knowledge in different ways and our difference is likely to be ideological. To me, any knowledge is valuable on its own, hence not just if useful or potentially useful for some practical purpose. I think there's something as 'theoretical value'. Surely, overcoming naive realism is useful to understand modern physics, which in turn is useful in a practical sense. But imagine it weren't ultimately useful for any practical purpose. It would still be of huge value to me.
War is only greed when there is no need. Peace is the condition that we don't need another prophet or profit. Moral laws are subject to the One True Morality that is Above All is merciful & compassionate. State this principle to the $tate of Church Government & Their Philosophies.
I'd say one first has to get in tune with him in order to later be able to refute him and not some strawman. Most analytic philosophers seem unable of the former. But that of course doesn't prove Hegel right.
Evaluating Hegel's philosophy requires in fact more expertise than what I am willing to attribute to myself. This I know for sure. But what do you mean by 'are of any use at all'? Again, this may be ideologically loaded.
The natural sciences are obviously useful, and so is everything that strengthens man's understanding of them (such as abstract mathematics or the philosophy of science). I suppose all knowledge is potentially useful, but if it is too obscure to be understood directly and too abstract to have any falsifiable implications, then how is the public to assess its usefulness? Especially when the establishment we rely on for expert opinion routinely trashes continental philosophy?
You address continental philosophy from an ideological, not from a philosophical or scientific viewpoint, and this is why you do well in calling your view prejudiced. It's the same with most analytical philosophers, Russell among them. Ideology/philosophy ~ rap/Mozart. I'll give you two clues. The ideology you're assuming relies on one or another form of pre-Kantian naive realism. Also, it fails to distinguish the realm of validity from that of facticity. Husserl may be the cure.
Hegel most clearly and concisely exemplifies the fact that the overwhelming part of philosophy is utterly worthless at best and dangerous more often than not.
Life for philosophers was so much interesting before the age of Science. We can to some degree know now the complexity and the unifying themes that define human life. Tabula Rasa is no longer supported, hormones and neurotransmitters drive behaviour, the brain's development is stepped (four main periods¹), etc. IOW evolution cobbled together a prototype that was 'designed' for success in a 'nasty, brutish and short' tribal subsistence but maybe, perhaps, possibly can be adapted to a global awareness: and that is the turgid, plodding progression of history². When we can achieve and expand the conflict-free zone to encompass planet Earth we will be ready to begin to explore our potential³. However as only a branch of the carnivore model could ever reach dominant species status then every young mind will have its violence-ready period as their feebleness begins to worry them. This drives cultural permutations (Gen A.Z) some of whose 'truths' can be regressive. Science will eventually guide us into learning how to raise bright, confident, active, courageous, sociable and achievement-seeking replacements. Because our only Super Power is bright-mindedness. There is no other reason for human life in this universe. The fact that no god has taken the time to provide us with manuals (Science, Engineering, Medicine...) is enough evidence to dismiss the metaphysical argument; there are many more such arguments. Accepting our lot as a by-product of the laws that govern the creation and inter-reaction of matter is a step towards the light. Banal? Perhaps. But think of the possibilities. ¹ Baby (limbic), pre-frontal cortex (6+, rationality), myelinisation (14-25, speed), wisdom (40+, super-highway pathways). ² Culture is arguably the slowest moving thing on the planet. That is why revolutions don't work. Thanks only to the Gens scraping away at the Reactionary Front of Ignorance do we see any progress. ³ The political system predicated on a positive view of humanity. The first nation that can build up to the following will have created an irreproachable, workable democracy. The pinned post and its primary comments (II - VIII) for the gist of the idea. (10 minutes reading) facebook.com/Vision-Representation-A-Humanist-Government-262619170609120 OR demvision.wordpress.com
Thesis is dual to anti-thesis creates synthesis (non-duality) -- The generalized or time independent Hegelian dialectic. Hegel's cat:- Alive (being, thesis) is dual to not alive (non-being, anti-thesis) -- Schrodinger's cat. Generalization (the whole) is dual to localization (the parts). Gravitation is equivalent or dual to acceleration -- Einstein's happiest thought. God (thesis) is dual to Christ consciousness (anti-thesis) becoming the holy spirit. Absolute truth is dual to relative truth -- Hume's fork Absolute time (Galileo) is dual to relative time (Einstein) -- time is dual. My absolute time is your relative time and your absolute time is my relative time -- time duality. Energy is dual to mass -- Einstein. Dark energy is dual to dark matter. Potential energy is dual to kinetic energy -- energy is dual. North poles are dual to south poles -- magnets. Electro is dual to magnetic -- Electromagnetic energy is dual. Photons or pure energy conform to wave/particle or quantum duality. Energy is duality, duality is energy. Duality (energy) is being conserved -- the 5th law of thermodynamics! Certainty is dual to uncertainty -- the Heisenberg certainty/uncertainty principle. Duality creates reality.
It's hard not to see Hegel as a precursor to 20th century totalitarianism. According to Russell at 30:26, Hegel's doctrine "justifies every internal tyranny and every external aggression that can possibly be imagined," thereby leading directly to fascism and, indirectly through Marx, to Stalinism and Maoism.
It more like it's hard not to see every historic person as a precursor to all the atrocities ever perpetrated in history. If one uses such flawed rationalism, one can even see Jesus and any other peacemaker as a precursor to all the violence and atrocities committed by their 'followers'. Russel had a bone to pick, and just like Kierkegaard it wasn't with Hegel, but Hegel's followers, namely the British idealists.
Ideological? I think the question of whether someone's ponderings are of any use at all is a fair one to ask, especially if he's paid for them by government spending and college tuition. I wouldn't call it ideological. As a layman, I lack the expertise to judge whether Hegel et al. are logically correct. However, I am entitled at least to proof that his teachings have falsifiable implications. (As provided by science.) Else he is just a brain-gymnast, with no further importance to society.
Well, I'm lost. This whole "continental" branch of philosophy seems to be a bunch of reactionaries who won't accept the reality that science has superseded philosophy on many counts, and that philosophers, if they are still to be of any use, must engage in a symbiotic relationship with the empirical sciences. But any time I search for evidence that might refute this, admittedly prejudiced, view of mine, all I hear is that the continentals are so "hard", and I'm too stupid to get them.
You're not too stupid to get them. The Continental school is so engrossed in the inter-subjective nature of the human mind that their understanding of it becomes idiosyncratic to the extent that they are the only ones that can understand their own position.
What does science have to say about Mozart? Or ethics? Or feminism? The idea that science superseded philosophy is one of the most tiresome and ignorant ideas floating around today. Philosophy was never concerned with what science is trying to discover in the first place. And there are many tasks science either can’t do it is laughably awful at doing.
@@TheRandomBiscuit The real question is: is it obvious that turning a piece of Mozart into rap would make it lose something characteristic? For this is what Russell seems to me to do to Hegel's philosophy.
@@LaureanoLuna However, Russell's take is as arrogant as it is wrong. A rapper interpreting Mozart is a hypothetical which (to me) is neither obviously arrogant or wrong; it would simply be radically different. Would it lose something "characteristic"? Perhaps. But so would any other composer interpreting Mozart; it is Mozart after all.
Philosophy is just thinking about thinking. Only the Spirit of Truth released by the work of Jesus can lead one into deep truths and accurate connections.
This is when a mosquito like Russell envies a behemot like Hegel. Russell doesn't understand Hegel for a very simple reason: Russell is not intellectually abled to reach and encompass Hegel's ideas. In this one more than in others, Russel shows how pride is always related to stupidity, because he truly thinks he got Hegel, but he only got traces of his own smaller mind with dark reflections of his lack of originality and depth. Russel is just a snobish Englishman who is convinced he got because who he is. Russell is sensibly overated and this shows very clearly in this part of his "history of philosophy" which actually should be called "Russell's take on some philosophers in such a way to show he is the greatest mind".
This is absolutely amazing, thanks for uploading Russell's "The History Of Western Philosophy"!
The conclusion, after complex description of abstract indefinable ideas, is that Russell hates Hegel.
One thing is for sure, Hegel was right about Infinitesimals where Russel failed to see the light
Thought needs a ground of silence and a gap to be distinguished from other thoughts.
You’re the man (or woman) to have uploaded all these videos!
Great video, thank you very much , note to self(nts) watched all of it 40:03
Metaphysical without contradiction. Good.
No one can reach The Truth unless they are truthful. Whatever truth we give is the truth we get. In keeping one's word Truth is kept in a journey of Vertical Reasoning that. "Above & Beyond is the object & WE=mc2 are The Universal Subjects of ONE=mc2 TRUE=mc2 INFINITE=mc2 ROYAL LOVE=mc2.
19:25 “the press should not render the government or police contemptible”
From 15:20 - Reason is not the sovereign of the world; conditions and consequences are...
well they are both right if you view hegels metaphysics as a proposal for a kind of possible totality, in which it is true that any part contains the information necessary to reconstruct the whole, this is possible, like analytic extension in complex analysis and so on, or like a puzzle 🧩 with only one solution, you could imagine a puzzle where the edges are like a fractal, but where every piece has a unique edge, such that they only fit together in only one way even though the larger details of the edges look identical, to put together this puzzle correctly you need to observe details on every scale along the edges to see what pieces fit together. none of this necessarily has anything to do with nature, like any other proposal but for the sake of hegels argument or proposal we could have such a world where only observing all possible details would allow you to put together the entire totality, and so on. not obvious that 1 piece has enough information to reconstruct the entire picture, but you can imagine a puzzle like this where the edge details encodes all the other edges in the puzzle, because of the infinite amount of information you could encode on the edges. this isn’t metaphysically necessary tho, i think thats russels point but this is a kind of physical question about the totality being this that or the other, not really about necessary truths. even so i think hegek could easily be right, but if so more as a speculator about physics based on earlier ideas than a metaphysician.
For Friedrich Hegel, there is no freedom without a law.
Even being a first-rate philosopher yourself and reading his studies in tedium apparently doesn't qualify one to say anything derogatory about Herr Doktor Hegel? Then how does one prove to have "understood" Hegel? By agreeing unconditionally with him?
Yes
Suppose I am the absolute, which means there is nothing else but me.
According to Hegal, I can think of nothing but myself.
But I can think of things that are not part of me.
For example, I can think of my nail parings.
@Nicholas Brown
But the atoms from a lifetime of nail pairings have spread far and wide.
Some of them might even be in your body.
Are you part of me ?
I think we assess value of knowledge in different ways and our difference is likely to be ideological. To me, any knowledge is valuable on its own, hence not just if useful or potentially useful for some practical purpose. I think there's something as 'theoretical value'.
Surely, overcoming naive realism is useful to understand modern physics, which in turn is useful in a practical sense. But imagine it weren't ultimately useful for any practical purpose. It would still be of huge value to me.
War is only greed when there is no need. Peace is the condition that we don't need another prophet or profit. Moral laws are subject to the One True Morality that is Above All is merciful & compassionate. State this principle to the $tate of Church Government & Their Philosophies.
Could it be any other way?
Hegel's like a wolf in sheep's skin, a Spinoza coated in Kantian elegance
I'd say one first has to get in tune with him in order to later be able to refute him and not some strawman.
Most analytic philosophers seem unable of the former.
But that of course doesn't prove Hegel right.
so is Hegel's absolute/spirit a form of pantheism?
no
Definitely hints at pantheistic motifs by undermining the self-existence and identity of objects
Evaluating Hegel's philosophy requires in fact more expertise than what I am willing to attribute to myself. This I know for sure.
But what do you mean by 'are of any use at all'? Again, this may be ideologically loaded.
The natural sciences are obviously useful, and so is everything that strengthens man's understanding of them (such as abstract mathematics or the philosophy of science). I suppose all knowledge is potentially useful, but if it is too obscure to be understood directly and too abstract to have any falsifiable implications, then how is the public to assess its usefulness? Especially when the establishment we rely on for expert opinion routinely trashes continental philosophy?
Here it says that Hegel opposed institutions, and others say he was fundamentally for more institutions.
Hegel is too cute for the institute!
You address continental philosophy from an ideological, not from a philosophical or scientific viewpoint, and this is why you do well in calling your view prejudiced. It's the same with most analytical philosophers, Russell among them.
Ideology/philosophy ~ rap/Mozart.
I'll give you two clues.
The ideology you're assuming relies on one or another form of pre-Kantian naive realism. Also, it fails to distinguish the realm of validity from that of facticity.
Husserl may be the cure.
Hegel and Kafka walk into a bar ,the bartender says you'll have to leave . Please pull up a chair . Hegel, is there really a chair
Hegel most clearly and concisely exemplifies the fact that the overwhelming part of philosophy is utterly worthless at best and dangerous more often than not.
Liping Rahman Where did he say that?
King Nevermore Are you dense?
have you read hegel?
Life for philosophers was so much interesting before the age of Science. We can to some degree know now the complexity and the unifying themes that define human life.
Tabula Rasa is no longer supported, hormones and neurotransmitters drive behaviour, the brain's development is stepped (four main periods¹), etc. IOW evolution cobbled together a prototype that was 'designed' for success in a 'nasty, brutish and short' tribal subsistence but maybe, perhaps, possibly can be adapted to a global awareness: and that is the turgid, plodding progression of history². When we can achieve and expand the conflict-free zone to encompass planet Earth we will be ready to begin to explore our potential³.
However as only a branch of the carnivore model could ever reach dominant species status then every young mind will have its violence-ready period as their feebleness begins to worry them. This drives cultural permutations (Gen A.Z) some of whose 'truths' can be regressive. Science will eventually guide us into learning how to raise bright, confident, active, courageous, sociable and achievement-seeking replacements. Because our only Super Power is bright-mindedness. There is no other reason for human life in this universe. The fact that no god has taken the time to provide us with manuals (Science, Engineering, Medicine...) is enough evidence to dismiss the metaphysical argument; there are many more such arguments. Accepting our lot as a by-product of the laws that govern the creation and inter-reaction of matter is a step towards the light. Banal? Perhaps. But think of the possibilities.
¹ Baby (limbic), pre-frontal cortex (6+, rationality), myelinisation (14-25, speed), wisdom (40+, super-highway pathways).
² Culture is arguably the slowest moving thing on the planet. That is why revolutions don't work. Thanks only to the Gens scraping away at the Reactionary Front of Ignorance do we see any progress.
³ The political system predicated on a positive view of humanity.
The first nation that can build up to the following will have created an irreproachable, workable democracy. The pinned post and its primary comments (II - VIII) for the gist of the idea. (10 minutes reading)
facebook.com/Vision-Representation-A-Humanist-Government-262619170609120
OR demvision.wordpress.com
Thesis is dual to anti-thesis creates synthesis (non-duality) -- The generalized or time independent Hegelian dialectic.
Hegel's cat:- Alive (being, thesis) is dual to not alive (non-being, anti-thesis) -- Schrodinger's cat. Generalization (the whole) is dual to localization (the parts).
Gravitation is equivalent or dual to acceleration -- Einstein's happiest thought.
God (thesis) is dual to Christ consciousness (anti-thesis) becoming the holy spirit.
Absolute truth is dual to relative truth -- Hume's fork
Absolute time (Galileo) is dual to relative time (Einstein) -- time is dual.
My absolute time is your relative time and your absolute time is my relative time -- time duality.
Energy is dual to mass -- Einstein.
Dark energy is dual to dark matter.
Potential energy is dual to kinetic energy -- energy is dual.
North poles are dual to south poles -- magnets.
Electro is dual to magnetic -- Electromagnetic energy is dual.
Photons or pure energy conform to wave/particle or quantum duality.
Energy is duality, duality is energy.
Duality (energy) is being conserved -- the 5th law of thermodynamics!
Certainty is dual to uncertainty -- the Heisenberg certainty/uncertainty principle.
Duality creates reality.
It's hard not to see Hegel as a precursor to 20th century totalitarianism. According to Russell at 30:26, Hegel's doctrine "justifies every internal tyranny and every external aggression that can possibly be imagined," thereby leading directly to fascism and, indirectly through Marx, to Stalinism and Maoism.
It more like it's hard not to see every historic person as a precursor to all the atrocities ever perpetrated in history. If one uses such flawed rationalism, one can even see Jesus and any other peacemaker as a precursor to all the violence and atrocities committed by their 'followers'. Russel had a bone to pick, and just like Kierkegaard it wasn't with Hegel, but Hegel's followers, namely the British idealists.
france 24 english
I dont agree with the conclusion!
98% of philosophy is just opinion. in the case of hegel, opinion is raised to a religion.
russell's history, russell's hegel. not more, rather less...
Ideological? I think the question of whether someone's ponderings are of any use at all is a fair one to ask, especially if he's paid for them by government spending and college tuition. I wouldn't call it ideological.
As a layman, I lack the expertise to judge whether Hegel et al. are logically correct. However, I am entitled at least to proof that his teachings have falsifiable implications. (As provided by science.) Else he is just a brain-gymnast, with no further importance to society.
I think science confirms most of his doctrines. When things become more organized they become more real.
Bollocks
He speaks too quickly.
Well, I'm lost. This whole "continental" branch of philosophy seems to be a bunch of reactionaries who won't accept the reality that science has superseded philosophy on many counts, and that philosophers, if they are still to be of any use, must engage in a symbiotic relationship with the empirical sciences.
But any time I search for evidence that might refute this, admittedly prejudiced, view of mine, all I hear is that the continentals are so "hard", and I'm too stupid to get them.
This is positivist hocus pocus. Science is a branch of philosophy known as natural philosophy.
You're not too stupid to get them. The Continental school is so engrossed in the inter-subjective nature of the human mind that their understanding of it becomes idiosyncratic to the extent that they are the only ones that can understand their own position.
To put it more simply, the Continentals get lost within themselves.
What does science have to say about Mozart? Or ethics? Or feminism? The idea that science superseded philosophy is one of the most tiresome and ignorant ideas floating around today. Philosophy was never concerned with what science is trying to discover in the first place. And there are many tasks science either can’t do it is laughably awful at doing.
Reading rainbow philosophy
One in a series of monumental miscarriages which Russell called his “history”.
Russell interpreting Hegel sounds like a rapper interpreting Mozart.
this is an insult to rap music.
@@TheRandomBiscuit an insult to Mozart's music in any case ;)
@@LaureanoLuna is it supposed to be obvious that Mozart is better than this nebulous "rap music"?
@@TheRandomBiscuit The real question is: is it obvious that turning a piece of Mozart into rap would make it lose something characteristic? For this is what Russell seems to me to do to Hegel's philosophy.
@@LaureanoLuna However, Russell's take is as arrogant as it is wrong. A rapper interpreting Mozart is a hypothetical which (to me) is neither obviously arrogant or wrong; it would simply be radically different. Would it lose something "characteristic"? Perhaps. But so would any other composer interpreting Mozart; it is Mozart after all.
Philosophy is just thinking about thinking. Only the Spirit of Truth released by the work of Jesus can lead one into deep truths and accurate connections.
lol, great arguments man
alex dahn you're a slave to an imaginary cosmic North Korea lol
@@luciusveritas9870 I think the sarcastic form of your judicious reply is lost on him.
This is when a mosquito like Russell envies a behemot like Hegel. Russell doesn't understand Hegel for a very simple reason: Russell is not intellectually abled to reach and encompass Hegel's ideas. In this one more than in others, Russel shows how pride is always related to stupidity, because he truly thinks he got Hegel, but he only got traces of his own smaller mind with dark reflections of his lack of originality and depth. Russel is just a snobish Englishman who is convinced he got because who he is. Russell is sensibly overated and this shows very clearly in this part of his "history of philosophy" which actually should be called "Russell's take on some philosophers in such a way to show he is the greatest mind".
Maybe so but Schopenhauer already owned Hegel so hard there was no coming back really
At 0:48 Russell reminds us what an arrogant, pompous twit he was.....Russell, not Hegel.