I hope, I really I hope I might not sound too dogmatic or fallacious to say this, but honestly with the way I read Hegel and understood him as such, probably you are the most closest voice ever narrated what Hegel is talking about...truly Hegel would have been very proud of you if he hear your videos and particularly this one(the concept of the absolute in his philosophy)....I am totally in awe and admiration of your way reaching Hegel's heart and mind...please go on do your amazing works on Hegel, as the great German Philosopher needs more scholars like you and also for those people who cant understand Hegel properly...thank you so much Sir Antonio:)
Your preaching in a lot of circles though same as the galaxies forming.....whats your point. And why does it turn back to shapes that were made by humans
Was this pulbished on the 31st of January or the 1st of February (actually my birthday - god I'm old now)? The truth is that it exits. I'm a total novice really. Spent the last year just trying to understand philosophy in general. Just concentrating on Hegel and Marx at the moment. I think I understand what each of them are saying. But I can't help feeling like I have come full circle. I originally found sollace in something as abstract as the Reimann Hypothesis (concerning Prime Numbers) - something we think must be true but seems impossible to prove. I then find myself lately seeing Marx and Hegel through something like the quest to prove the Reimann Hypothesis - it does directly impact economic activity, as pretty much all encryption of financial transactions are done using prime numbers... and so the material means (computers) keep advancing for ever more sophisticaed means of both producing ever more complex and bigger primes, and the ability to crack those prime number codes through computer hacking... all the while the primes themselves - despite being infinite in their existence - become fewer and further between to be able to find and utilise. Perhaps Hegel would view such an advance compliments his philosophy? Whereas Marx would see it has just enslaving us more and ultimately futile - we should just trust each other. Maybe Karl Marx was more of an existentialist in the end?
Yes, the only definition for the Absolute is that it is Absolute. We cannot know the content of the Absolute, so we cannot define it through its characteristics like we do with other concepts, but we do know its necessary form, and are therefore able to say that it is itself. As far as the Absolute may be likened to God, "I am that I am" is a pretty good description. Also, since it is both the initial and final cause - it is the end, the start, and the way - the quote "I am the Alpha and the Omega" seems apt.
Is there a sufficient reason for the principle, and if so, does that explain the sufficiency of reasons itself so that this sufficient reason does not require a further reason?
@@AntonioWolfphilosophy I will attempt to reply later. But what do you mean by "reasons"? Do you mean the reason which would explain the truth of the PSR?
@@AntonioWolfphilosophy I think one reason, perhaps not for the principle itself so much as for us taking it as basic, would be that it's presupposed in the aim of accounting for things at all. You start the video by mentioning the absolute as (generally) being the principle in philosophy which is supposed to account for everything. But if someone were to reject the PSR (or some form of it), they wouldn't feel compelled to answer to this. They could, for every given phenomenon, just say "Well, it's inexplicable. There's literally no reason why it is the case." So, even if the reason for the PSR isn't clear. I think the above gives a reason for believing that there is a former kind of reason. Even though it may lay obscure. Otherwise, there's a preceding question about whether we should really be doing philosophy instead of a kind of inert skepticism.
@@2tehnik That still does not make the PSR an account of itself, for it cannot give a final sufficient reason for itself as a principle. The strategy you mention is the same kind of strategy which Aristotle used to justify the basic laws of logic like identity, i.e. by appealing to its seeming indispensability to our rational operation. This is just a regression to ground which is grounded in the appearance, but which does nit make the ground the origin of itself as ground.
@@AntonioWolfphilosophy True. But I think we're still left with the same question I had: how do we know the search for an Absolute is sensible in the first place? Ie. that it isn't just brute facts everywhere.
I did with the example of the orange tree species as such. The species splits into existent particularities, trees, then as differentiated individualities (specific trees and sexes parts), then as the individual life cycle and conditions, finally the return to the unity of the genus species in the offspring which unifies the individuals in a new individuality. The entire cycle closes on itself and is the life and individuality of the species.
The most elegant use of simple english i've ever seen! Thx you for everything)
I hope, I really I hope I might not sound too dogmatic or fallacious to say this, but honestly with the way I read Hegel and understood him as such, probably you are the most closest voice ever narrated what Hegel is talking about...truly Hegel would have been very proud of you if he hear your videos and particularly this one(the concept of the absolute in his philosophy)....I am totally in awe and admiration of your way reaching Hegel's heart and mind...please go on do your amazing works on Hegel, as the great German Philosopher needs more scholars like you and also for those people who cant understand Hegel properly...thank you so much Sir Antonio:)
Your preaching in a lot of circles though same as the galaxies forming.....whats your point. And why does it turn back to shapes that were made by humans
Being Absolute, the Absolute subsumes rationality, subsumes entirely each of our being, immanent and transcendent.
literally 'we live in a society': the video, desu
Was this pulbished on the 31st of January or the 1st of February (actually my birthday - god I'm old now)? The truth is that it exits. I'm a total novice really. Spent the last year just trying to understand philosophy in general. Just concentrating on Hegel and Marx at the moment. I think I understand what each of them are saying. But I can't help feeling like I have come full circle. I originally found sollace in something as abstract as the Reimann Hypothesis (concerning Prime Numbers) - something we think must be true but seems impossible to prove. I then find myself lately seeing Marx and Hegel through something like the quest to prove the Reimann Hypothesis - it does directly impact economic activity, as pretty much all encryption of financial transactions are done using prime numbers... and so the material means (computers) keep advancing for ever more sophisticaed means of both producing ever more complex and bigger primes, and the ability to crack those prime number codes through computer hacking... all the while the primes themselves - despite being infinite in their existence - become fewer and further between to be able to find and utilise. Perhaps Hegel would view such an advance compliments his philosophy? Whereas Marx would see it has just enslaving us more and ultimately futile - we should just trust each other. Maybe Karl Marx was more of an existentialist in the end?
Toughest introduction I've ever come across.
So, you're saying that Absolute is absolute?
Yes, the only definition for the Absolute is that it is Absolute. We cannot know the content of the Absolute, so we cannot define it through its characteristics like we do with other concepts, but we do know its necessary form, and are therefore able to say that it is itself. As far as the Absolute may be likened to God, "I am that I am" is a pretty good description. Also, since it is both the initial and final cause - it is the end, the start, and the way - the quote "I am the Alpha and the Omega" seems apt.
Why can’t the PSR account for itself? I’m not sure I see why it couldn’t.
Is there a sufficient reason for the principle, and if so, does that explain the sufficiency of reasons itself so that this sufficient reason does not require a further reason?
@@AntonioWolfphilosophy I will attempt to reply later. But what do you mean by "reasons"? Do you mean the reason which would explain the truth of the PSR?
@@AntonioWolfphilosophy I think one reason, perhaps not for the principle itself so much as for us taking it as basic, would be that it's presupposed in the aim of accounting for things at all.
You start the video by mentioning the absolute as (generally) being the principle in philosophy which is supposed to account for everything.
But if someone were to reject the PSR (or some form of it), they wouldn't feel compelled to answer to this. They could, for every given phenomenon, just say "Well, it's inexplicable. There's literally no reason why it is the case."
So, even if the reason for the PSR isn't clear. I think the above gives a reason for believing that there is a former kind of reason. Even though it may lay obscure.
Otherwise, there's a preceding question about whether we should really be doing philosophy instead of a kind of inert skepticism.
@@2tehnik That still does not make the PSR an account of itself, for it cannot give a final sufficient reason for itself as a principle. The strategy you mention is the same kind of strategy which Aristotle used to justify the basic laws of logic like identity, i.e. by appealing to its seeming indispensability to our rational operation. This is just a regression to ground which is grounded in the appearance, but which does nit make the ground the origin of itself as ground.
@@AntonioWolfphilosophy True. But I think we're still left with the same question I had: how do we know the search for an Absolute is sensible in the first place? Ie. that it isn't just brute facts everywhere.
You never showed it being ripped apart to come back nor why it would come back
I did with the example of the orange tree species as such.
The species splits into existent particularities, trees, then as differentiated individualities (specific trees and sexes parts), then as the individual life cycle and conditions, finally the return to the unity of the genus species in the offspring which unifies the individuals in a new individuality. The entire cycle closes on itself and is the life and individuality of the species.
Don't say poop in a philosophy video
Sorry, next time I'll use the more vulgar 'shit'. My bad. Excrement is just a no go, too clean for the intended concept.
Antonio Wolf “the seeds are taken by animals, eaten, buried, shitted.”
saying "n shit" makes you cool. lol "I study german philosophy n scheisse".
Shit is a better technical term