From Hegel to Marx & Nietzsche
Vložit
- čas přidán 30. 06. 2024
- What are their connections?
#Hegel #Marx #Nietzsche
Hegel: The Emancipation of Appearance:
• Hegel: The Emancipatio...
Kant's Philosophy: • Kant's Philosophy | Wh...
The Curious Philosophy of Care:
• The Care Paradox -- Wh...
Recommended translation: Terry Pinkard (tr.) The Phenomenology of Spirit. Cambridge University Press, 2018.
Hans-Georg Moeller is a professor in the Philosophy and Religious Studies Department at the University of Macau.
Special thanks to Jim Lei Wanjun & Elizabeth, Li Xinyue for helping out with the video!
What are your thoughts on them?
I've always had the impression that Nietzsche's concepts of Übermensch, "will to power", and "herd instinct" had (at least) the smell of individualism (which, as a Marxist, I find more or less a little distasteful). However, after watching this video, I can honestly say I appreciate him a little more and am now interested in reading more about him. It would be great if you did a full video of Nietzsche sometime.
You’re helping me understand three of the most complex, misquoted, and influential philosophers free of charge, and without any gimmicks. And for that, thank you sir
I find Nietzsche's (and postmodernisms in general) reject of "grand narratives" as it were (turning necessity into contingency as it was put here) to be problematic. Tricksters are nice but not when in power
This is what I experienced a lot when talking to people claiming to be left or socialists.
Everyone who is seen as oppressed is a valuable victim to support regardlessly what those people do and what it is that makes them ”oppressed“. Just being seen as is the only mark they need for mostly disgusting support of them.
if hegel elevated marx, and both of them held productivity in such high regard, how come hegel can still be relevant nowadays considering how productive cognitive sciences for the last 20 or 30 years have been proving significance of relationship between us and our i!'s in building healthy future? doesn't ignoring this fact makes marxism more like some kind of spiritual experience for the cause, which of course can be trialed by nietzsche's - "the error of the spirit as cause was mistaken for reality (...)"?
I think it's terrible that we hear so much about Marx, but so little about hegel. This misunderstanding about Marx as a moralist is extremely commonplace among all political persuasions (including my former self) and I believe that it's seriously detrimental to public discussion of economic issues. Thanks for making this video!!
Treating Marx's historical materialism as a solely descriptive theory is moot, because it's predictions were quite of. "Marxism" doesn't work as a purely descriptive theory. So people, quite naturally, started viewing the theory more normatively and moralistically.
@@dinksmallwood5561 if is descriptive the predictions doesn't matter to measure the value of the theory, only the descriptions of what was being observed in society matter, is a social science not futurism
@@dinksmallwood5561 Except flaws in a descriptive theory aren't enough for people to discount them normally. Neither Smith, nor Keynes, nor Friedman have been discounted by wider society despite flaws in all three's descriptive program. What's going on with Marx, and actually Smith in a roundabout way, is different precisely because people have no idea if their descriptive program worked out. Why? They're judged a priori based on popular narratives of what they said. The vast majority of critics of Marx and Marxism, note not the Marxian program you're alluding to, have never read Marx and have absolutely no clue what he said, including the famous one that this video is somewhat directed towards. Just as the vast majority of people that hold up Smith as a hero have never read him, and would probably be appalled by quite a lot that he wrote outside of the first few pages of Book 1 of Wealth of Nations.
In popular discourse figures like Marx and Smith aren't intellectuals that said specific things, but symbols of epistemic authority for broader ideological programs that frequently involve little to no reference to their work. The moralist reading of both figures, as opposed to philosophical and social scientific ones, comes from the popularity of moralist readings in general at the current historical juncture and the normative weight the two carry as symbols.
As an aside both Marx and Smith offer normative opinions at various points, but it's clear that their written work is predominately not about their own views about the good, though sections of the WoN are overtly polemical, so much as positing systems that can explain the historical emergence of norms and values.
you are wrong. it is not a misunderstanding. modern "humanist progressives" are deliberately infusing Marx with moralism for propagation purposes. they know that Marx was no moralist but their foot soldiers dont and to them the language of moralism is effective when building scale.
The end of history isn't the end of the dialectic of rich and poor. Evolution ensured we're status seeking beings so society tests each person. Tragic as this is, this is endemic to humanity and a feature not a bug. Marx was wrong: history is fits and starts. It evolves because it accrues, but not towards any end (precisely like genetic evolution).
As a Dutchman interested in the evolution of Germanic languages, I really appreciate your attempts at clarifying German words via common etymology
Dutch is too similar to German, as a German learner myself
For Peterson to have a reading of Marx he would have to have read Marx.
Why bother when you can just listen to the things said by Marx's mosted devoted followers?
"Let your ideas be second-hand, and if possible tenth-hand, for then they will be far removed from that disturbing element - direct observation. Do not learn anything about this subject of mine - the French Revolution. Learn instead what I think that Enicharmon thought Urizen thought Gutch thought Ho-Yung thought Chi-Bo-Sing thought Lafcadio Hearn thought Carlyle thought Mirabeau said about the French Revolution."--E.M.Forster, The Machine Stops
@@cam2307 Holy shit. Great quote! And it's amazing that Lafcadio Hearn got a mention. I've been meaning to read his translations from the Japanese for a long time now.
I extremely appreciate your presentation style. People talking without hyped up gesturing and incessant cuts and other such circus bits may be fascinating for a while, but someone talking to "me" (aka the camera) like they would talk to another human being in front of them feels like such a relief after all the drama induced by fast-paced capitalism
I think Zizek’s point in the song comes from how Alain Badiou describes the ‘encounter’ (as the amorous form of an ‘event’), in his ‘In Praise of Love’.
hi eddie nice to see u here !!
Would you consider doing a video on Deleuze and Guattari? While it might not fit in the current trajectory of your recent videos -- I'd heard you briefly mention Deleuze in your Peterson video, and would be very interested in hearing your takes on his "pure metaphysics" and his relation to other topics you've covered recently.
seconding this!
@@bossbabyhyeju5774 thirding
I need more D&G!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
Just adding on that I agree with this. Heard a decent amount about these two but nothing delving into the substance and I think it could be very useful.
Ditto!
I love the videos Mr. Moeller, i hope you can continue making them!!
I would really like to see a video highlighting, discussing the differences between continental and analytic philosophy and your take on the relationship between math and philosophy.
Please more videos on Nietzsche! I really enjoy the way you explain
How can a man named Hans-Georg Moeller, speaking with a german accent, call football "soccer" ?
Truly baffling
I mean football and soccer both aren't Fußball, are they?
The contradictions of being born German and having to use American media to express ideas
Yeah, and he lectures in Ireland
Nice to see the philosophical questions are being addressed ;)
I subscribed half because of the content and half because of the initial warning. Thank you for the transparency, it’s rare these days. Glad to do my housework listening to your work.
Even though Dr. Moeller is explaining in the most clearest terms possible, I still have to rewind every other minute few times through the video, to get each idea.
I think this is very normal and is the same for myself, when I am listening to complex new ideas. Most brains need some time, continuous practice, rest and experience for contextualization to reach an intuitive understanding of such things, even though they might be rather simple analytically.
It makes me question the validity of in-person, real time lectures
@@elizavetavorobei5510
Have to say that's all I had at university many decades ago (and some very stuffy text books recommended by the lecturers). However we all ferociously scribbled notes and re-read them umpteen times to get through exams.
I do pause these videos in order to scribble away even now. The pause facility, as you imply is very helpful. But back then lecturers frequently paused themselves in order to chalk something up on a blackboard giving us all time to catch up with scribbling and/or copy what they were writing. And they frequently repeated things that were key. Don't lecturers do something similar these days?
@@myla6135 Of course I can only speak from my own experience but in the university I went to lectures in philosophy in particular would typically be either accompanied by a ppt presentation, which entirely takes away from the need to use chalk/blackboard, or include working directly with the textual material in question (which admittedly is a great way of making the students engage with philosophical ideas and consequently grasp them with relative ease).
However regardless of the frequency of pauses, it’s the feature of rewinding that matters the most, to me at least. Not to quote Lenin, but repetition is the key to effective learning because it best facilitates comprehension and memorization.
I have not yet gotten futher into Phenomenology than completing the preface, but I love the analogy of the analogy of the bud blossoming into a flower. I'm glad that this is a relevant passage.
Very interesting video!
Very interesting ideas!! I hope you go deeper into these 3
This was probably my favorite video/lecture so far. I was introduced to ideas about Marx and Nietzsche that I hadn't heard before. Fantastic.
Its amazing how you release such videos right when I was tryna understand more about Hegel and Nietzche. Subscribed. Double props for being somebody who is German, so we better understand these philosophers.
Yeah, keep watching him! I think Prof. Moeller's videos on identity are even more illuminating.
Thank you, Prof Moeller. Your videos are such a breath of fresh air.
Great video, very good explanation, thanks for sharing your knowledge.
There is a 2000's Taiwaness pop song that tells the same story as Falling In Love, It is called "The Flowers are In Fine Bloom", its lyrics translates into "If I did not have to take so many detour turns, how would I have ended up right next to you. Now that we look back every step of chaos has hidden directions." The song even vibes to Feuerbach's thoughts later as it sings "Will never have to look for faith from other people".
Wow. So insightful. It was critical for me to watch this right now.
subscribed solely based on the disclaimer. Thanks for being candid and straightforward
34:35 Luhmann has a chapter in his "Introduction to Systems" theory where he talks about "Double Contingency". It sounds very much like a double bind that keeps everything flowing.
These are so good. Thank you. I'm still reading Kant haha but also reading The Plague at the same time so I'm giving myself a break.
Read Aristotle
Thank you for incredibly great content as always!
Would you consider doing a series of videos on basic phisophical problems and different approaches to them?
I have yet to find someone of your knowledge and clarity in the presentation of what has too often been a hasle and ponderous attempt at learning about philosophy. I like the way you honestly go straight to the point without the usual theatricals and complexities that so many other philosophy professors like to play with. Though historical philosophers often had to be wordy and percise in order to assure the transmission of their ideas as precisely as they should be, those of us who read them may simplify their original thoughts, once we have understood them correctly. But we should not insert our own biases into the reading of their philosophies like alas some do. Please continue making more videos.
Thank you, professor. I really appreciate your videos. It would be nice to watch a video about the history of postmodernism from you.
I really appreciate the warning you have at the beginning of the video about CZcams being addicted. Totally real. Struggling with that now.
Same 😢
Thank you so much for these videos. You are a gift.
These are the best philosophy videos on CZcams.
I should say - no, that would be Mark Thorsby
I like Gregory B Sadler
@@Ba-pb8ul He does make good videos.
Great lecture. Please do as much Nietzsche in the future as possible.
These videos rock! Thanks for the content.
It's always so surprising to me how these philosophers speak to directly to the thoughts I've had growing up. All my worries and confusions, so many have been discussed before.
I love the passion that transpire from your discourse, as a young man it is really inspiring. Didn't saw at first that you were a reader of BLAME! tho ^^
Thanks so much for this video. I'd love to hear more of your views on German idealism leading to Hegel (Hamann, Herder, Fichte, Hölderlin, Novalis, Schopenhauer, Schelling, etc., and of course Kant).
I think we can forget Herder
@@Ba-pb8ul Why??
Thank you for putting Jordan Peterson's beliefs on Heigel and Marx into proper perspective. I can appreciate that you were trying to be professional in referencing Jordan Peterson, but since I'm not in academia I don't have to be so polite. He seems to be operating out of his own cognitive biases and his ego won't let him be objective. in any event he is a learned and intelligent man, but for all his broad knowledge he lacks depth and greater context. His lectures appear to be more off the cuff and riffing and relying on correlation meaning causation. To the uninitiated he seems brilliant, but it is clear to me that he is justifying his own beliefs and validating his own identity.
Spot on
Peterson: "Because in order to be able to think you have to risk being offensive."
But that isn't even true, is it? I'm very much able to think without risking offending anyone. How are possibly offensive thoughts a necessary precondition for thought itself? Answer: they're not.
If you listen carefully and examine what he says, you too will find the hundreds of LIES I have found.
I think that his most recent difficulties have more to do with alleged unprofessional behavior than it does criticism of the government per se, doesn't it? I mean, "Poor people eat too much food" or "climate doesn't exist" aren't direct critiques of any government, are they?
I lost interest in what he is saying when I checked out his assertion that "lack of serotonin is the cause of depression"¹; it turns out there is no scientific basis for that whatsoever. ²
Then I looked into him further only to discover his claims, "I am an evolutionary biologist," and "I am a neuroscientist" to both be false: he's always only had a doctorate in cognitive psychology.³
¹czcams.com/video/j5cT-2BLWk0/video.html
²www.google.com/search?q=dies+lack+of+seretonen+cause+depression%3F&oq=dies+lack+of+seretonen+cause+deoression%3F&aqs=chrome..69i57j0i22i30l2j0i390i650l4.22922j0j1&client=ms-android-samsung-gj-rev1&sourceid=chrome-mobile&ie=UTF-8
³czcams.com/video/hSNWkRw53Jo/video.html
See: 5:46--7:52
I've always intensely disliked and mistrusted paucity of intellectual integrity...
(..."There is a false saying: 'How can someone who cannot save himself save others?' Supposing I have the key to your chains, why should your lock and my lock be the same?"
~ Friedrich Nietzsche)
------------------
He just thinks being a good psychologist qualifies him or make him expert of everything without putting effort to learn them in depth. He is a wannabe philosopher without a temperament to study philosophy, naturally he lean on his ego jump on this area.
This level of assessment of Marx is what is needed to give a real balance and nuance to complicated ideas. Thank you so much
This video is so far the best thing on th internet in the whole history of the internet.
Never noticed the disclaimer at the end before! Thanks for the reminder! Now excuse me while I compulsively click another video the content of which will become hazy in my mind in a few hours, definitely not reflecting upon how this act is both detrimental and critical in the construction of my self.
Lol
Thanks very much. Please do a video on Nietzsche if you have time!!
Very beautiful explanation as always thank you.
It would be nice if you cover these topics (process philosophy and being vs becoming).
I'm sure it will be one of your most viewed videos like this one :)
Very informative and detailed. Thank you.
Great video. I would love to hear your thoughts on Kierkegaard in relation to these 3 other philosophers
12:22 got me like:
"There is no such thing as a coincidence. The fact that you're watching this video right now means you are energetically aligned to me and this message...."
I’m so excited!
Thank you! Maybe next a video about Marcuse?
Outstanding lecture.
I am very looking forward to hearing from you on Heidegger
So... what I got from that is that Hegel says that watching this video will be a critical moment in your life.
That sounds like a pretty good review!
More thing like this please. Would like to also have Schopenhauer's philosophy videos (especially that we're going to have more nietzsche and we have already talked about hegel, another fellow who was subscribed to uncle Kant) , and maybe a quintessential view on Kant? Like you can make it a serie and add the other two kant's video in it
Excellent video.
The continuity is actually from Hegel to Ludwig Feuerbach (historical materialism) to Marx. Feuerbach is the bridge between the two. He influenced Marx, Freud, Darwin, Nieitzsche, and others.
divine as always.
Thanks so much for your brilliant lectures. The clarity if your exposition is stunning. “Their fluid nature makes them into moments of an organic unity in which they are not only not in conflict with each other, rather one is equally as necessary as the other, and it is equal necessity which alone constitutes the life of the whole.” (Hegel, Phenomenology of Spirit, 2.) I'm wondering how this relates to the concept of non-duality developed in Buddhist/Hindu/Taoist philosophy? True and false, self and other are "moments of an organic unity"?
Future video on Nietzsche?! Please! YES!
Thank you 🙏 Carefree Wandering
Reminds me of that Kierkegaard quote how life is lived forward but can only be understood backwards.
Well explained!
Hoping for a follow-up on the method (?) of historical critique in the vein of Nietzsche & Foucault.
Thanks!
very interesting as you get across the sense that there is this extra component needed to actually make the proletariat the active in a class struggle - their own consciousness of this, and i think this element, the right has worked relentlessly to fracture and disintegrate
Another video on Nietzsche would be great, please consider reviewing Domenico Losurdo's take on him
Tremendous Lecture! My apology for being late! Would you consider a lecture on the Hegel’s “The Lord and Bondsman!?”
Please do a video on Nietzsche in the future.
“Main thought! The individual himself is a fallacy. Everything which happens in us is in itself something else which we do not know. ‘The individual’ is merely a sum of conscious feelings and judgments and misconceptions, a belief, a piece of the true life system or many pieces thought together and spun together, a ‘unity’, that doesn’t hold together. We are buds on a single tree-what do we know about what can become of us from the interests of the tree! But we have a consciousness as though we would and should be everything, a phantasy of ‘I’ and all ‘not I.’ Stop feeling oneself as this phantastic ego! Learn gradually to discard the supposed individual! Discover the fallacies of the ego! Recognize egoism as fallacy! The opposite is not to be understood as altruism! This would be love of other supposed individuals! No! Get beyond ‘myself’ and ‘yourself’! Experience cosmically!”
Friedrich Nietzsche
That quote is super deep and based, and also reads like a Dr. Bronner’s Soap bottle.
This is the kind of thinking that leads to nothing productive.
Bahahah! c’mon relax MAGA dude with no content on yr channel, I’m just having some fun.
With all the exclamation points and the overall message of the quote, he DOES kinda sound like “all one or none!” Dr. Bronner tho, right?
For the record, I really unironically do resonate deeply with the the big cosmic mankind/whale/tree thing Nietzsche was saying, and I enjoy reading the Moral ABCs when I’m on the toilet and there’s no magazine around.
@@5RRRtarRiver I was not talking to you, I was replying to the OP.
What's bad about having no content? I'm supposed to care?
where's the quote from?
Just watching as I was curious initially if Nietzsche was more like Marx or Hegel? I'm not an expert at all in any of them but I am more familiar with Marx and Hegel by virtue of how Marx basically turned Hegel on his head - though I have tried to take the journey from Descartes and Hume to Kant and then on Hegel, by thinking about Kant's filter on reality and then thinking about Hegel in terms of a coherence theory of truth versus and correspondence theory of truth (I may have all this wrong but in my mind that's the journey I went on anyway). The role of 'Oxytocin' is useful for me here in terms of someone like Hegel.
The overall jist of this video is something I had figured out already. But none-the-less I had neither comes across or properly thought about what the words 'contingent' and 'necessity' mean in the sense you are using them here. So that was nice to learn.
I had come across them in a different way on my engineering course at university through the application of 'F.A.S.T.' (functional analysis system technique) that has a '' approach which is applied to any product (say a light bulb) and you essentially go back in time to look at How the light bulb came about (which I guess would be materially how it was formed) and you also look forward in time to look at Why the light bulb was made in the first play - 'to create light' (which I guess would by the ideal)...
...So this very much ties into the 'Need' you discussed in this video as well.
But in that respect I had thought that you could perhaps take the same journey with Marx as you have shown with Nietzsche? - So it's interesting to me that you say this is not the case (though I understand why if by 'Material' we thinking of a classical approach to material science).
I'd looked into Existentialism quite a bit already. So Nietzsche's approach - even though I've barely looked at him - isn't a surprise to me.
A really simple analogy to me is the kids game 'Guess Who?' where you have 24 characters out of which one you have to guess, which is typically achieved after asking 4 or 5 questions about the person you are trying to guess - that require a 'yes' or 'no' answer. Actually it's -log2(1/24) = 4.585 questions (or bits) to guess each character. This 4.585 is the 'Shannon Entropy'. But of course the decision tree you put together in your mind is kind of random, despite the organised collection of traits the game's developers have put together (into groups of 5 - i.e. 5 women, 5 people with beards, 5 people with white hair etc...). There are effectively 24^24 permutations of how you can arrange all the characters. So it is not unreasonable to say that your own decision tree you use to categorize and guess the opponents character could be influenced by your own biases.
I would love to see a video on Heidegger in this style, to me the only logical conclusion of this trajectory!
So:
Hegel described a process by which consciousness develops towards a greater perception of truth.
Marx described a process by which human productive activity advances in step with consciousness in a process of co-production which results to a system of production optimised to meet human needs (from each according to his ability to each according to his needs). The relationship between capital and labour is unstable due to inherent conflicts but these conflicts have a predictable dynamic and hence predictable outcome.
I think both of these are really soteriological. They both describe how humanity is delivered to an improved state of being. Notwithstanding that this was formulated in both cases(I think) as a science of history, it is not possible to remove from these dynamics, the subjective motivations of individuals in their struggle both to improve their lot and for justice. Humans without these motivations do not have the same dynamics. They would act little different from the robots in a car factory.
I understand the rendering of Nietzsche here as saying that he found both Marx and Hegel to be both a bit too ambitious and a bit too serious (Nietzsche should have been Italian). What is really going on in philosophy is a sub-structure of self interest and you have to regard this kind of philosophy as a bit self deluding. It doesn’t get to the truth because, prefiguring Freud and Jung, human motivation is best explained in the messy and non- progressive psychological realm.
I think in fact it is possible to map quite a lot of psychology onto Marx and still retain some of his insights into the conflicts within the capitalist system. What is missing in Marx is a sufficient exploration of the complex relationship between a system of production, psychology and culture. But our current huge levels of inequality, ecological crisis and inability to do anything about it, do look a lot like some of Marx’s predictions including the alienation of control over the productive system.
I don’t think that lost-modernism (sorry post modernism) has much to offer us in the catastrophe that we are now facing.
Whereas a view of history that identifies critical points in how we got where we are, does help us to understand the seriousness of the error.
Leaving aside Jordan Peterson, pro-capitalist ideologists generally have sought to justify capitalism using psychological constructions of human motivation. It is fair to say that when they criticise “Marxists” they are criticising the subjective motivations of individuals who almost never think in terms you will find in Das Capital. To a point they have been very successful. But interestingly some of the economic dynamics that Marx identified have even so brought the system to an existential crisis.
Perhaps it is time to get serious again.
Marx of the Grundesse is not the Marx of Capital. Most of his life he wasn't the idealist you suggest he was. It's also quite easy to see purpose driven by ideology; subjectivity has little to do with it
Excellent, indeed. Anyone object or did not understand Marx should listen to this.
How far did Nietzsche give up on truth? Look forward to hearing and sharing more on this question that opens up at the end of Hans-Georg’s excellent video. Bravo on this presentation!
"Truth is the kind of error without which a certain kind of living being could not live. The value for life decides in the end."
Friedrich Nietzsche
@@alexanderleuchte5132 That's from The Will to Power, which is not a book by Nietzsche. It's a selection of notes spuriously put together by his sister. There are of course similar passages in Nietzsche's output, for instance in 1873 On Truth and Lies in an Extra Moral Sense, which incidentally Nietzsche chose not to publish. It has come to be a central text in literature departments in the West. The answer lies, as ever, not with selective quotation but with what Nietzsche has to say in his greatest works. Gay Science, Genealogy, BGE. I'm sure HGM will be saying more, and I shall too.
@@VladVexler It's »Aus dem Nachlaß der Achtzigerjahre«. Friedrich Nietzsche: Werke in drei Bänden. München 1954, Band 3"
@@alexanderleuchte5132 Yep, that's why I shared the explanation above. Much of the Nachlass material Nietzsche actually wanted destroyed. Many of the fragments his sister put into The Will to Power were literally found in Nietzsche's waste paper basket in Sils. It is work Nietzsche rejected.
@@VladVexler Kafka wanted Max Broch to burn all his work... So let's say it with "Zarathustra":
“And we should consider every day lost on which we have not danced at least once. And we should call every truth false which was not accompanied by at least one laugh.”
Friedrich Nietzsche
Thank you for your very informative lecture. It would be much better if I could see Japanese translation, though!
Good work, Professor Moeller (and team)! I continue my struggle to make sense of Hegel's dialectic. (A video of my own languishes as an unwatchable supplement to an informal discussion I once tried to lead on a chapter of the Phenomenology. If you should watch it, please take it with a grain of salt; also, I've more recently made some improvements than what may be seen there.)
I've a question about _notwendigkeit_: in which section of the Phenomenology does it come into your focus? I see 'necessity' given in §137, alongside Hegel's early explication of force. Is that where you find it? Or perhaps somewhere further along in that section? Or else somewhere still in the introduction?
I think would be nice to talk about the inversion feuerbach saw on his stydies of religion and Hegel. This is crucial to understand why Marx took Hegel's work as an invertion of reality.
@Phil Dodd (HistoriaAntiqua.ORG) Original. It's really kind of you to forgive Marx's revolutionary work, but I find it hard to see why you assume the current post-modern 'synthesis' to be a good thing that justifies anything that came before it.
Thank you
Everybody: “What came first: the chicken or the egg?”
Nietzsche: “Yes.”
A circle has no beginning.
Thank you so much for the video. It helps me a lot. I am now very curious what Nietzsche thinks of Spinoza as Spinoza proposes philosophy of necessity.
I had an impression that the section about Nietzsche explains his ethics, especially his positions on morality in his book "On the Genealogy of Morality". While morality in its progress is viewed by Hegel or Marx as a necessity because it has its roots in a contingency that then transforms into a necessity, Nietzsche views this as a product of many unconscious things that make our morality subjective (like Marx and Hegel thought of it) but also much weaker like Nietzsche spoke of less importance of spirit because of its roots in contingent unconscious things he views moral with the similar position. I want to point out that from these two views on morality (Marx's/Hegel's and Nietzsche's) Sam Harris with his advocating the binding of morality and its importance because of its causes that can be found in the outside world is closer to Marx and Hegel.
Beautifully said. According to legal spirit is reality but according to marx material is reality but according to Nietzsche unconsciousness is reality.
I recommend Karl Löwith book From Hegel to Nietzsche: The Revolution in Nineteenth Century Thought. ;)
The way that Nietzsche and Marx developed their own individual perspectives from the common source of Hegel remind me of the Protestant Reformation. From Carholicism to the many different types of Protestantism today. It seems that Nietzsche wanted to build further upon Hegel while Marx wanted to borrow from Hegel and build his own construction.
Nietzsche was more of a neo kantian tho
@@ornature5324 Would you say that nietzche leaned more towards idealism or is it deeper than that?
Excellent! The Hegel section Makes me think of the appearance of predestination in Astrology ( which is the source of knee jerk criticism.) or a complex piece of music by Mozart with seemingly random rambling of passages but in the end is part of an organic whole. .... a critique of the concept of predetermination is what we need. It presupposes an actor that does the determining. One we have really NO access to. And we simply call “God”.
Rousseau, Luther, Marx, Nietzsche, Hegel, the Frankfurt School - all the great continental philosophy and some of the ancients (Heraclitus and the whole of Eastern philosophy) were all fundamentally united in critique of social-historical ossification and accumulation of human forms - whether these forms be labour relations, economic structures and relationships, conceptual structures and relationships, behaviours (social manners, mores, customs, habits, practices etc). On the grounds of the relationship between life (negativity) and ossification (positivity), we can unite all real philosophy. Everything else is conceptual abstraction or egoistic self-assertion.
You just covered nietzsche, prepare yourself for the army of quotes
I think that Richard Moran is on to an exception or counterexample to this 'backward necessity' in Hegel in his (Moran's) discussion of self/other asymmetry in his Authority and Estrangement. He points out that in investigations into the attitudes of others, we must treat them as having a 'fixed nature', or as 'just some x such that Px or not Px'. That is, for instance, when considering whether or not they believe that pigs fly, we must attend to how they behave around pigs, what sort of pig literature they might be exposed to, what they utter about pigs, etc. In particular, while we may consider the actual facts about pigs and their potential capacity for flight, we can only do so in relation to them: have they been exposed to this evidence? do they tend to tend to accept sources of that kind, etc.? We need to look at them as a 'being fully determined by their history'.
On the other hand, while we can conduct this kind of investigation of our own attitudes--e.g. in therapy--there is something 'alienating' or 'unsettling' about doing so: what have I said in the past about pigs and their capacity for flight? How have I acted in the past around pigs? Have I tended to exhibit concern that they might fly away, etc.
Another, more 'natural' way for us to conduct such an investigation is to consider the original question itself. In the above example, instead of investigating oneself and one's pig related behavior, I can consider pigs and the evidence I have available that pigs do or don't fly. In this way, we treat our own attitudes as dynamic, subject to change, 'ours'.
Thanks for great food for thought 😀What if in turning Hegel on his head doesn't have to be such a dualistic split? In Zen the head and feet work in unity, when you meditate you meditate, when you work you work 💪👷Like one coin with two sides 😀😉keep your great work up!
I’ve never quite been able to fully understand Hegel nor do I believe I ever will.
All I take is that history is the process of the world spirit reaching actualisation?
I also have understood that ‘Bildung’ is the German word for education, with ‘ Gebäude’ as that meaning building.
This was a excellent breakdown fir us laymen ,I found Peterson’s lectures ( especially the classroom ones) very compelling but I felt that some of his lectures on “the left “and even postmodernism to be disingenuous.
This probably the best channel that explains Marxism. No moralizing or political BS when it comes to explaining what Marxism is. At least in this video.
I gotta right this shit down. Rags class..love it! So is Nietzsche’s exhaustive personality derived from this too?
Great channel -- let's see an episode on what we agree with Jordan to show we're true philosophers.
I've always found Jordan Peterson's reverence for Nietzsche alongside his distain for postmodernism very funny. Nietzsche was the grandfather of postmodernism.
Excellent video. Just one slight error. 'The necessity of progression and interrelation' is in POS 79 not 73.
Thanks! We'll try to correct this.
You say that marx isn’t that concerned with oppressed vs oppressor: why do you think that this misunderstanding came about?
Also thank you for offering the german translations and how you view them as being best translated from german. It’s refreshing to hear a more linguistic approach to interpreting german philosophers rather than a purely interpretive approach.
You always seem to mention existentialism in passing in almost all of your videos, but never any use of Sartre, Beauvoir, or Fanon ideas to help you explain your points. Could you do a full video on existentialism utilizing some of these figures? It’s a great jumping off point from Hegel
Is that a vol.1 of Blame!, the manga, in the right corner of the screen?
I was googling the relationship between Marx and Nietzsche yesterday. You must be a philosopher and a psychic.
Nietzsche never wrote anything about Marx, because Marx was relatively unknown, but I kinda doubt it. Maybe Nietzsche did know something about Marx. He was in contact with Bruno Bauer, who was friends with Marx back in 1840s (?).
@@lostintime519 I think it's reasonable to assume he just missed Marx. But it seems they both knew Hegel, which is close enough for me.
My first encounter with the phenomenology was with Kojève so obviously I’m biased here but I’ve read loads of other secondary stuff and I *always * read Arbeit in Hegel as literal physical labor… is this a viable reading?
Marx view on the "Lumpenproletariat" is interesting. Maybe philosophy in the western civilisation focus on deeper and deeper classstages throu the time. I think about Heideggers Philosophy, which was called by Adorno "Jargon", because of his obscure language. So it's like a pimp language. What's crucial is, i think, that the view on human societys and the human itself transforms from a hierarchical "ontology" to a flat "ontology".
It's all pseudophilosophy, marx is full of delusions as well as the postmodernists. Marx had a good writing though, not the postmodernists
Beautiful clear analysis. And with the German text. This would go way over Jordan Peterson' s head.
That is ridiculous. Peterson could understand this, but Peterson is committed to pragmatism and empiricism. He is a standard psychologist as far as americans go.
@@jonathonray6198 Peterson is a conservative pseudo-intellectual cliche. It's ridiculous to think he has a grasp of Marx.
Will you speak on Kropotkin, Bakunin and some of the early non-western libertarian thinkers as well? That would be welcome!
Where did you get that wallpaper?