cyclical cyclical. the word "cyclical" keeps coming up in your conversations. when i read these lectures i kept underlying passages that sounded almost proto-spenglerian. hegel's conception of time/history and spengler's conception of time/history are often regarded as antithetical; but spengler's system comes straight out of hegel's lectures on 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.
So if history progressing like stairway steps. What is progress? Why is one step higher than the next? Could it go down? Say what would babylon as world power developing into medo persia as world power be considered...?
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! :)
cyclical cyclical. the word "cyclical" keeps coming up in your conversations. when i read these lectures i kept underlying passages that sounded almost proto-spenglerian. hegel's conception of time/history and spengler's conception of time/history are often regarded as antithetical; but spengler's system comes straight out of hegel's lectures on history.
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.
So if history progressing like stairway steps. What is progress? Why is one step higher than the next?
Could it go down? Say what would babylon as world power developing into medo persia as world power be considered...?
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! :)