วีดีโอ

come on board and find out. ~ A

Hi, thanks for the question. So, with regard to Wikipedia, I think the main differences has to do with the detail of the material. Wikipedia is a great source for getting started on your research journey, but it won't be the end-point of your research journey. Unlike Wikipedia, SPhil aims to provide expert and critical analysis of philosophical ideas and our aim is for this level of analysis to be on the same level as any journal article or book published on the matter. With regard to the Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy, whilst it does a great job of giving you a detailed summary of a particular philosopher's ideas or of the coordinates of a particular debate in philosophy, it does not critically analyse the texts themselves. The aim of our encyclopaedia is to provide paragraph-by paragraph, or section-by-section, analysis of a particular philosopher's system. For example, I have published a couple of articles on the opening development of the section on Mechanism from the Science of Logic. What I do in these articles is not to just give a summary of what Hegel is arguing. Rather, I give an exegesis of the text so that the intelligibility of the claim can be laid out for everyone to see and scrutinise. Perhaps I missed something, and that's when a helpful contributor will ask to edit the text and hopefully improve it. I hope this helps to clarify our particular goals ~ A

Yes, but the head chef is Gordon Ramsey ~ A

Wikipedia shows quite the contrary when it comes out to encyclopedic-type writing. The truism is more applicable to original content. Edit: typos.

We have not! Do please make an issue or a discussion thread about it, and we can look into it! ~F

Brainrot?

@@gwnbw -plato

Well, trolls and information manipulation would have to go through an editor, so we don't envision that to be a serious problem. As for Brainrot... can your brain really rot when it's thinking about the Idea? Food for thought. ~ A

Hi, thanks for your message. What exactly do you mean by support for the translations?

@@sphildotxyz like Hegel wrote in German. So it should be possible to switch from Being to Wesen and add a corresponding page in German. Same for the translations.

@@pauldruhg2992 Yeah, it's a great suggestion, It's something we have thought about doing, but it will have to be integrated further down the line. We just don't have the capacity to think about implementing that right now. But thanks for raising it! ~ A

@@sphildotxyz I'm interested in the technical side of the repo 😄

Hey, thanks for the positive feedback. That's an interesting suggestion, and it's definitely something that we could look into incorporating further down the line. But the impetus behind our approach is the desire to elucidate the thought of systematic philosophers. As fans of Hegel, we think systematic philosophy is the way to go, and the most important thing in any system of philosophy is internal coherence. But in such big systems, like Hegel's (though, of course Hegel is not the only one), getting agreement on the internal coherence of the whole system requires a lot of work on the minutiae of the system - and that's what we hope SPhil accomplishes ~ Ahilleas

Just a further follow-up, we made an issue about this here. You're very welcome to add further suggestions and ideas to this thread :) github.com/systemphil/sphil/issues/84 ~F

Yes, this is something we'll be setting up in due course. We have to figure out a way to do this that works both for readers and writers of the encyclopedia. But given our strong focus on exegesis, it makes sense to expand from individual philosophers first and then start building branches and networks between them (and then even develop that further). ~F

@@sphildotxyz Thanks for the response.

@@yoavco99 Actually, I've made an issue about it so that it's on our radar more explicitly but it'll probably take a while before we get the ball rolling on this. Feel free to contribute further suggestions here :) github.com/systemphil/sphil/issues/84 ~F

Yes it is :)

@@sphildotxyz can i hop on a call with someone? i'm just a solo leveler lookin to help

Sounds like a great idea, we would love to have a Wittgenstein and/or Parfit section in the encyclopaedia. Get in touch with us via email if you want to start to setup that page.

We aim not only to gather existing knowledge but to create new knowledge as well. In that respect we're closer to nLab. ~Filip

Welcome on board!

Phew, we were about to call it sysPhilosophilis. Dodged a bullet there!

@@sphildotxyz yea m8 you dodged a elephant there. 😂 Keep up the good work. Anything open source is God's work.

@@zeusolympus1664 Praise be OSS 🙏

Hi @juliocesarfs15 Awesome to hear you're excited! Yes! There's lots to do on the web and product front. We already have some responsiveness bugs to squash! Let's discuss this further over email contact@systemphil.com ~Filip

Thank you so much 🙏 looking forward to your contributions, Baris! ⚡~Filip

Hello. Unfortunately, we got sidetracked with the launch of our platform. But we'll get back to discussing the philosophy of world history soon! In the meantime, feel free to check out our website: sphil.xyz

He is close to Hinduism actually.

Thanks a lot for your comment. We definitely have plans to discuss much more of Hegel's philosophy. Check out our website for some introductory guides for how to start engaging with Hegel's philosophy. You might find our articles on the opening of the Science of Logic helpful: sphil.xyz

Thanks a lot for the positive feedback. We'll be releasing more discussions soon.

and great conversation, btw. enjoying the series!

Now that is interesting. I wonder why that it is, because it cannot be for a lack of sources. There must have been plenty of sources from European missionaries who visited Japan before 1614, and then accounts from Dutch traders thereafter. My best guess would be that Hegel doesn't think Japan was as influential on the world-historical stage as China, for example, because of their more isolationist mode of being. What would you think about that? Pre-Meiji Restoration Japan was quite isolationist, wasn't it?

@@sphildotxyz I agree. Historically (esp. during the Edo period 1600-1868), there was little desire to expand beyond the archipelago, either culturally or politically/militarily [with the exception of Hideyoshi's failed invasion of Korea/China of course]. To qualify as a moment in the Weltgeist there needs to be a universalizing impulse, which the Japanese seem to have lacked for various reasons. One could argue that Jpn culture/civilization became a moment in the Weltgeist in the modern period, when its aesthetic/literary/cultural ideas spread around the globe.

Yep, very possible. Hegel loved his Spinoza. Do you know which passage from Spinoza you're thinking about?

I'm afraid we don't know anything about Spengler. Do you care to explain your point a bit more? How exactly does Spengler conceptualise time/history?

@@sphildotxyz no time to explain, i'm afraid (must teach class now). see his decline of the west, in which he develops his theory of civilizational cyclesーa theory which is implicit in some of the passages from hegel's lectures.

Thank! Glad you liked it!

Interesting point! We'll keep it in the back of our minds as we progress. With regards to China, you're right, but with India it looks as if his concern is that there is too much subjectivity, that an overflowing of subjectivity renders objectivity null. It will be interesting to see how similar Hegel's arguments against Roman Catholicism, to take one of your examples, are to his criticisms of ancient China.

There's an important distinction to keep in mind: history as conceptually understood is progressive (i.e. human beings think of events taking place in a meaningful way). In other words, as we THINK about what's happened in the past, it takes on a certain order for us. That's Hegel's claim (I think). But this order or understanding is by itself no guarantee that events in reality will follow. Indeed, there is no guarantee that a well-functioning society may not devolve into a hell on earth - and so yes, things absolutely can go down. But even the notion of "going down" suggests that we have an idea of what is right and good... so where is this idea, this standard, coming from? Hegel's claim is also that this very standard also develops progressively, and in a nutshell all of history is the struggle to become conscious of this (and thus to develop the standard further). Notice that both the form and matter are fluid here, such that we don't uncover the truth once and for all but evolve it (and ourselves) gradually through time. Hope that helps!

@@sphildotxyz So, it all comes down to who determines what is good and what is bad, right and wrong. Having humans equal to each other would cancel out the ability to say example this technical advancement is progress because another equal valued human can say it is the opposite. Is then Hegel just hoping that the development of progress is going in the "right" direction? 😊

@@chioz Who let the dogs--I mean, skeptic out!? Hegel, like most other philosophers, attempts to figure what is good/bad etc through argument, demonstration and understanding. This answers both your questions: it is neither hoping nor mere opinions that can be deflected by another, but just a lot of work and struggle. In this series we see only one facet of this development, namely, the historical one, where societies and peoples develop culture, ideas, ethics, etc. whose power and logic they do not entirely comprehend (and which quite often erupts into conflict). The philosophy of history is the attempt to comprehend this. But, granted, most of what powers truth, ethics, the good, seems to work quite well without us understanding it - so it appears reason is quite capable of getting things going without someone's comprehension if it (e.g. your digestive system doesn't need you to understand what it's doing in order for it to do what it is doing). Great questions, by the way! :)

Thank you for the suggestion. The thumbnail has been amended and should be visible next time the cache refreshes. We're very sorry if we caused you or anyone any offence.

Glad to hear you found it interesting! Cheers!