I’m about ten and a half minutes into your introduction and I just wanted to commend you for the way you’ve made such a massive amount of history so easily digestible and understandable for the context of Hegel. Thanks for taking the time to do this man
Congratulations!!! All Hegelians should be solidary in our effort to bring this wonderful philosophy to life and let it revolutionize the thought in the World. To be Hegelian include being humble in his magnificent work. to be bold enough to dare to give our own interpretation and, what is worse, incarnate Hegel thought to update his philosophy. You have all that's needed.
As a result of your work, I started reading Walter Kaufman's "Hegel" and am currently going through his commentary on the Phenomenology; so the timing is impeccable. Thanks for all your efforts!
Thomas Simmons Bit late, but would you recommend Kaufman’s commentary? If you have any others you think are good then please send me on the names, too. Thanks
i think for many people, this text is so repelling simply for all the reasons you stated: the preface is its own whole other thing to get through, and then you're bombarded with so many frameworks which hegel then deconstructs and it's all in the effort (like you said) to train phenomenologists (like an exercise in "dialectical" thinking) -- and then to top it off, he reminds you that this is all preliminary and that rather than it being absolute knowledge, one must learn-to-unlearn it -- i've come to see the importance of hegel simply through the imperative to unlearn and become better able to perceive the movement and collapsing of these ever-formulating frameworks he builds up only to then deconstruct to better-portray the movement of consciousness (and self-consciousness) -- thank you for this resource, i myself am trying to get everything i can from the text and it's slow progress --
Thank you so much for your personal commentary. And you are very welcome, I hope that this can be a great resource. I have had similar feelings about this text simply for the fact that it is so dense and complex and requires so much attention from the observer. At the same time I feel it is worth it because Hegel works through a process of self-consciousness becoming in history which I have been trying to articulate in my own academic scholarship independently of a complete grasp of this work. I think I suffer as a result. In that sense I hope that once I am capable of fully internalizing this content and putting in the hard work I'll be able to make theoretical progress in my own work that is more enlightened and from a higher level of notional understanding. What helps for me is the idea of "patience". I am not trying to rush and understand everything all at once because it is just too much to process. I will just be slow and take my time and try to put in the hard work, always trying to analyze myself critically in the process. I have a feeling it will pay off in my professional and personal life!
i feel similarly, i mean, i think the importance of hegel speaks for itself considering how he's still one of the most contested (and misunderstood) thinkers of today -- part of what i think makes this channel so much more helpful for learning and critical-thinking is that it doesn't try to radically-reduce the thought of "all the greats" (so-to-speak) into easily-commodifiable content snippets -- most of the learning materials for hegel that i've found on youtube don't ever really arrive at what i think makes his thought important and/or relevent (some don't even seem to have read him at all) -- to me, i think, this means that the importance of his ideas hasn't been fully-realized as of yet (historically), and that we keep re-arriving at his thought simply because it's consequences for history haven't been fully-realized -- i bet if hegel were alive he'd have something to say about the movement of a society whose full grasping of the phenomenological method leads into a new era of self-consciousness with its own developing inconsistencies which furthermore necessitate its movement-as-such -- anyway, i look forward to your undertaking of this text:)
understanding hegel for me also means better-understanding other important thinkers whose thought has had to reckon with the consequences of his thought: Marx, Derrida, Lacan, Zizek (obviously), Gillian Rose, Adorno, Althusser, Fanon, etc... -- for so many revolutionaries on the left, revisiting what Marx may have neglected to find in hegel has been central to a lot of revelations in leftist-thinking --
"part of what i think makes this channel so much more helpful for learning and critical-thinking is that it doesn't try to radically-reduce the thought of "all the greats" (so-to-speak) into easily-commodifiable content snippets" Thank you so much. I have battled with this reality while making videos. I know that by taking 30min-1hour to go through a detailed analysis of book chapters may have less "popular" and "commodifiable" appeal then if I was doing a 5-10 minute popular overview but there is just so much that gets missed in these treatments of great thinkers. For example, I know "The School of Life" does a great service for popular philosophy but if I watch the video on Hegel it just does such an inadequate job of explaining his philosophy that it is almost meaningless. Well, I suppose there is a place for popular work and a place for scholarly work. "to me, i think, this means that the importance of [Hegel's] ideas hasn't been fully-realized as of yet (historically), and that we keep re-arriving at his thought simply because it's consequences for history haven't been fully-realized" I have a similar view. I think that when I read most scientific work it is still either "pre-Kantian", "proto-Kantian" or "Kantian". I don't think that the move from "being in-itself" as a "mind independent objective externality" to an emergent "in-itself for knowledge" related to the mind-dependent idea is something that contemporary or first order science cannot think. I think that subjects like second-order cybernetics, or autopoiesis (biology of cognition), some forms of constructivism, are examples of some researchers "re-arriving" at Hegel's thought (in a lower form). But it seems that the actual consequences of a properly second-order science have not yet been actualized. We cannot seem to develop structures of transindividuation where the subject is capable of fully objectifying itself in an indefinite process of becoming between something and nothing. We cannot transcend the background dependence of the first order. "understanding hegel for me also means better-understanding other important thinkers whose thought has had to reckon with the consequences of his thought: Marx, Derrida, Lacan, Zizek (obviously), Gillian Rose, Adorno, Althusser, Fanon, etc... -- for so many revolutionaries on the left, revisiting what Marx may have neglected to find in hegel has been central to a lot of revelations in leftist-thinking --" I totally agree here. Re-interpreting the Left through the lens of Hegel (re: Hegel as a reader of Marx) is one of the dimensions of Less Than Nothing that I appreciate the most. I think that the Left needs to be totally re-thought today and going back to Hegel is in fact a great starting point for this re-thinking (Interlude that discusses the Rabble and Sex is a good example). If you're interested I found a pretty obscure interview with Zizek when he was doing an initial press run for Less Than Nothing which captures the importance of your observation: th-cam.com/video/t1cb58-eTs4/w-d-xo.html Here is a quote from this link: "Main concern: deadlock of the Left in mainstream global politics. We all feel that there is some potential crisis looming, that something has to be changed. But there seems to be no capacity of the Left to formulate again a global project, the way the Left did it 100 years ago, with Communist Revolution. We have to return to the very origins. Was it already something in Marx that was not developed enough, and not that Marx was responsible for it, but which opened up the space for later Stalinism. We have to ask radical questions. Why Hegel? For two reasons: in academia generally there are two orientations fighting for power in philosophy or pure theory, on the one hand there are cognitivists who want to get rid of philosophy in the old sense, and replace it with brain studies and quantum cosmology, science can answer what were once metaphysical questions; and on the other hand there are cultural studies, post-structuralist, deconstructionist, historicism, which is a kind of historical relativism, everything is historically conditioned, so we should not ask what is true, but what discourse is predominating, how do we change our discourse. I think that especially this second orientation is coming to an end. Philosophy in terms of asking the big metaphysical questions is returning, and here I think Hegel matters. I think there is a clear parallel between Hegel’s time and our time. Hegel’s time was the time of the end of traditional society, the modern world was emerging, but it wasn’t yet clear what this new world will be. It was a moment of tradition with great confusions. Our times are similar, it is clear that capitalist modernity is coming to an end, but it is not so clear what is the next thing, the situation is much more open. The point is not to return to Hegel the way he was, but to repeat Hegel, to repeat the same gesture as it were."
A few years ago I started watching and listening to Dr. Sadler's Hegel series. As a result I started re reading the book again. He's very clear and specific in his treatment of the Phenomenology. I think.
In the late 70s my first attempt at thinking came as a result of trying to digest this crazy book by Hegel. In the past few years I came back to it. Is there such a thing as "dialectical" knowledge? Does negation drive this "freedom train"? I don't think one can separate this progressive meta movement ( dialectic) from Hegel's ontology or metaphysics. I also hope you touch on the way Hegel sets up this grand meta - level narrative ( of the Phenomenology ) by juxtaposing the reader, the author, and budding self consciousness as a literary device to achieve his aims in the book. I hope you get more time to do these Phenomenology videos. Thanx. I hope to become more involved in this channel if I can
I think from my studies of Less Than Nothing post-Hegelian philosophy attempts to articulate a "non-dialectical" element internal to Hegel's own philosophy (absolute negativity as "non-dialectical"). In terms of "negation" as "driving" the "freedom train" I think that "negation of negation" is ultimately what reaches the level of the drive. I understand this in its simplest form as "positivizing negativity", and also why I think Zizek says "love" is the highest form of freedom. I think that the problem of love is really the central focus for Hegel's metaphysics. I'm definitely going to finish this book!
Hey Cadell Last, your effort is really appreciated! I am looking forward to your take on the master-slave dialectic. The work of Alexandre Kojeve serves me as a starting point into Hegels PoS - i guess you are familiar with his introduction?
I am just about to upload the part on master-slave dialectic. I am definitely familiar/aware of Kojeve's Introduction. I spent a lot of time struggling through that great master work on Hegel.
![โอ้เธอช่าง... - บี้เดอะสกา ft. ต๋อง เทวัญ (Prod. by ป๋าเพชร) [Official MV]](http://i.ytimg.com/vi/zbWhiLFmVL0/mqdefault.jpg)
Phenomenology of Spirit playlist:
th-cam.com/play/PLZpRs2zXm-VdeiLxeNmMZudwy2BCfGIIY.html
I’m about ten and a half minutes into your introduction and I just wanted to commend you for the way you’ve made such a massive amount of history so easily digestible and understandable for the context of Hegel. Thanks for taking the time to do this man
Congratulations!!! All Hegelians should be solidary in our effort to bring this wonderful philosophy to life and let it revolutionize the thought in the World. To be Hegelian include being humble in his magnificent work. to be bold enough to dare to give our own interpretation and, what is worse, incarnate Hegel thought to update his philosophy. You have all that's needed.
it is was an easy and good lecture, thanks.
I've been searching youtube and waiting for this for years! Keep'em coming! THX
Exactly the same for me. It was a long time until find it.
Making Hegel comprehensible. Bravo!
this is gold
Awesome choice of text to examine. Very Excited.
Thanks Cadell for your work and contribution once again ***
One provocative thought came to mind.
A unity ( drive for transcendence) = B counter unity ( Instinctual drive)
I look at this as Jung = Freud
As a result of your work, I started reading Walter Kaufman's "Hegel" and am currently going through his commentary on the Phenomenology; so the timing is impeccable. Thanks for all your efforts!
Thomas Simmons Bit late, but would you recommend Kaufman’s commentary? If you have any others you think are good then please send me on the names, too. Thanks
really glad to see this :)
i think for many people, this text is so repelling simply for all the reasons you stated: the preface is its own whole other thing to get through, and then you're bombarded with so many frameworks which hegel then deconstructs and it's all in the effort (like you said) to train phenomenologists (like an exercise in "dialectical" thinking) -- and then to top it off, he reminds you that this is all preliminary and that rather than it being absolute knowledge, one must learn-to-unlearn it -- i've come to see the importance of hegel simply through the imperative to unlearn and become better able to perceive the movement and collapsing of these ever-formulating frameworks he builds up only to then deconstruct to better-portray the movement of consciousness (and self-consciousness) -- thank you for this resource, i myself am trying to get everything i can from the text and it's slow progress --
Thank you so much for your personal commentary. And you are very welcome, I hope that this can be a great resource. I have had similar feelings about this text simply for the fact that it is so dense and complex and requires so much attention from the observer. At the same time I feel it is worth it because Hegel works through a process of self-consciousness becoming in history which I have been trying to articulate in my own academic scholarship independently of a complete grasp of this work. I think I suffer as a result. In that sense I hope that once I am capable of fully internalizing this content and putting in the hard work I'll be able to make theoretical progress in my own work that is more enlightened and from a higher level of notional understanding. What helps for me is the idea of "patience". I am not trying to rush and understand everything all at once because it is just too much to process. I will just be slow and take my time and try to put in the hard work, always trying to analyze myself critically in the process. I have a feeling it will pay off in my professional and personal life!
i feel similarly, i mean, i think the importance of hegel speaks for itself considering how he's still one of the most contested (and misunderstood) thinkers of today -- part of what i think makes this channel so much more helpful for learning and critical-thinking is that it doesn't try to radically-reduce the thought of "all the greats" (so-to-speak) into easily-commodifiable content snippets -- most of the learning materials for hegel that i've found on youtube don't ever really arrive at what i think makes his thought important and/or relevent (some don't even seem to have read him at all) -- to me, i think, this means that the importance of his ideas hasn't been fully-realized as of yet (historically), and that we keep re-arriving at his thought simply because it's consequences for history haven't been fully-realized -- i bet if hegel were alive he'd have something to say about the movement of a society whose full grasping of the phenomenological method leads into a new era of self-consciousness with its own developing inconsistencies which furthermore necessitate its movement-as-such -- anyway, i look forward to your undertaking of this text:)
understanding hegel for me also means better-understanding other important thinkers whose thought has had to reckon with the consequences of his thought: Marx, Derrida, Lacan, Zizek (obviously), Gillian Rose, Adorno, Althusser, Fanon, etc... -- for so many revolutionaries on the left, revisiting what Marx may have neglected to find in hegel has been central to a lot of revelations in leftist-thinking --
"part of what i think makes this channel so much more helpful for learning and critical-thinking is that it doesn't try to radically-reduce the thought of "all the greats" (so-to-speak) into easily-commodifiable content snippets"
Thank you so much. I have battled with this reality while making videos. I know that by taking 30min-1hour to go through a detailed analysis of book chapters may have less "popular" and "commodifiable" appeal then if I was doing a 5-10 minute popular overview but there is just so much that gets missed in these treatments of great thinkers. For example, I know "The School of Life" does a great service for popular philosophy but if I watch the video on Hegel it just does such an inadequate job of explaining his philosophy that it is almost meaningless. Well, I suppose there is a place for popular work and a place for scholarly work.
"to me, i think, this means that the importance of [Hegel's] ideas hasn't been fully-realized as of yet (historically), and that we keep re-arriving at his thought simply because it's consequences for history haven't been fully-realized"
I have a similar view. I think that when I read most scientific work it is still either "pre-Kantian", "proto-Kantian" or "Kantian". I don't think that the move from "being in-itself" as a "mind independent objective externality" to an emergent "in-itself for knowledge" related to the mind-dependent idea is something that contemporary or first order science cannot think. I think that subjects like second-order cybernetics, or autopoiesis (biology of cognition), some forms of constructivism, are examples of some researchers "re-arriving" at Hegel's thought (in a lower form). But it seems that the actual consequences of a properly second-order science have not yet been actualized. We cannot seem to develop structures of transindividuation where the subject is capable of fully objectifying itself in an indefinite process of becoming between something and nothing. We cannot transcend the background dependence of the first order.
"understanding hegel for me also means better-understanding other important thinkers whose thought has had to reckon with the consequences of his thought: Marx, Derrida, Lacan, Zizek (obviously), Gillian Rose, Adorno, Althusser, Fanon, etc... -- for so many revolutionaries on the left, revisiting what Marx may have neglected to find in hegel has been central to a lot of revelations in leftist-thinking --"
I totally agree here. Re-interpreting the Left through the lens of Hegel (re: Hegel as a reader of Marx) is one of the dimensions of Less Than Nothing that I appreciate the most. I think that the Left needs to be totally re-thought today and going back to Hegel is in fact a great starting point for this re-thinking (Interlude that discusses the Rabble and Sex is a good example). If you're interested I found a pretty obscure interview with Zizek when he was doing an initial press run for Less Than Nothing which captures the importance of your observation: th-cam.com/video/t1cb58-eTs4/w-d-xo.html
Here is a quote from this link:
"Main concern: deadlock of the Left in mainstream global politics. We all feel that there is some potential crisis looming, that something has to be changed. But there seems to be no capacity of the Left to formulate again a global project, the way the Left did it 100 years ago, with Communist Revolution. We have to return to the very origins. Was it already something in Marx that was not developed enough, and not that Marx was responsible for it, but which opened up the space for later Stalinism. We have to ask radical questions.
Why Hegel? For two reasons: in academia generally there are two orientations fighting for power in philosophy or pure theory, on the one hand there are cognitivists who want to get rid of philosophy in the old sense, and replace it with brain studies and quantum cosmology, science can answer what were once metaphysical questions; and on the other hand there are cultural studies, post-structuralist, deconstructionist, historicism, which is a kind of historical relativism, everything is historically conditioned, so we should not ask what is true, but what discourse is predominating, how do we change our discourse. I think that especially this second orientation is coming to an end. Philosophy in terms of asking the big metaphysical questions is returning, and here I think Hegel matters. I think there is a clear parallel between Hegel’s time and our time. Hegel’s time was the time of the end of traditional society, the modern world was emerging, but it wasn’t yet clear what this new world will be. It was a moment of tradition with great confusions. Our times are similar, it is clear that capitalist modernity is coming to an end, but it is not so clear what is the next thing, the situation is much more open. The point is not to return to Hegel the way he was, but to repeat Hegel, to repeat the same gesture as it were."
Thanks for the excellent introduction!
Another cogent, concise citique of a complex concept by CDL. BRAVO!
Thanks for making this. You really helped me out.
Cheers from Brazil
Joining Gregory Sadler to explain this monster. :)
I do feel it is a monster. In order to make sure I am able to internalize it my understanding I have to go on many long walks to clear my mind.
A few years ago I started watching and listening to Dr. Sadler's Hegel series. As a result I started re reading the book again. He's very clear and specific in his treatment of the Phenomenology. I think.
amazing
In the late 70s my first attempt at thinking came as a result of trying to digest this crazy book by Hegel. In the past few years I came back to it. Is there such a thing as "dialectical" knowledge? Does negation drive this "freedom train"? I don't think one can separate this progressive meta movement ( dialectic) from Hegel's ontology or metaphysics. I also hope you touch on the way Hegel sets up this grand meta - level narrative ( of the Phenomenology ) by juxtaposing the reader, the author, and budding self consciousness as a literary device to achieve his aims in the book. I hope you get more time to do these Phenomenology videos. Thanx. I hope to become more involved in this channel if I can
I think from my studies of Less Than Nothing post-Hegelian philosophy attempts to articulate a "non-dialectical" element internal to Hegel's own philosophy (absolute negativity as "non-dialectical").
In terms of "negation" as "driving" the "freedom train" I think that "negation of negation" is ultimately what reaches the level of the drive. I understand this in its simplest form as "positivizing negativity", and also why I think Zizek says "love" is the highest form of freedom. I think that the problem of love is really the central focus for Hegel's metaphysics.
I'm definitely going to finish this book!
Hey Cadell Last, your effort is really appreciated!
I am looking forward to your take on the master-slave dialectic.
The work of Alexandre Kojeve serves me as a starting point into Hegels PoS - i guess you are familiar with his introduction?
I am just about to upload the part on master-slave dialectic.
I am definitely familiar/aware of Kojeve's Introduction. I spent a lot of time struggling through that great master work on Hegel.
Is that The Dean Blunt qua electronic musician in the patreon list? !
After listening to this I realized that the real Hegelian reversal is in simplex segillum veri reading from right to left.
"World Spirt" is one hell of a Freudian slip....
Is there some irony in using Einstein to understand some Hegelian concept when Einstein praised Spinoza so much?
what is spirit isacc newtons spirit this does not explain anything to me.
Theres no perfect hegel lectu..