I hinted at this only as an offhand, but *technically* speaking, Hegel is in fact not the only absolute Idealist insofar as it is grasped as the unity of subject and object. Schelling clearly had the same view of philosophy as early as his own identity philosophy, which united subject and object. Fichte's philosophy also bridged the subject object gap, and claimed to be an absolute Idealist in his later iterations of his philosophy. Given my reading of Bryant's interpretation of Deleuze, I can say that Deleuze clearly stands in this lineage as well, and can be considered an absolute Idealist. The extent and depth as to what Idealism means, however, is not an issue equally explained among these thinkers.
Hi Antonio! I come in peace! Thank you for putting this together, and all of your other excellent videos and interviews. Sincerely. One of the questions I have is: What is the benefit of considering Deleuze an absolute idealist? Would you agree that that (Bryant’s) strategy amounts to reading Deleuze in terms of Hegel, despite Deleuze’s explicit statements to the contrary? Personally, I see Deleuze as doing something different (pun intended) from Hegel. Though, I’d be happy to understand your point of view. Thank you.
@philosophemes The benefit is seeing that the project he engages in is part of a broader strategy not unique to him. It broadens the horizon of Deleuzeans. Bryant doesn't compare Deleuze to Hegel - I do. It is I who see a similarity with Deleuze the metaphysician and metapholosopher, and Hegel. I take what Bryant describes and explains,-quite a bit of it is Deleuze block quotes-to be very much in line with Hegel's own take on the same concepts. Is Deleuze Hegelian? No, he's Deleuze. I don't want to mix them, I don't see the point. I do like to point out the similarities which only a Hegel enthusiast would see.l, and which the Deleuzian may appreciate as Hegel's own approaching to the same issue Deleuze takes on, and even in strikingly similar conceptions.
@@AntonioWolfphilosophy Excellent! Okay, thank you. I've encountered some thinkers who tend to think nothing (no thing) can escape Hegel's grasp. I personally don't believe that, but I'm keeping an open mind about it. (It would be interesting to see a video on how your reading of Hegel's absolute idealism is different from Bryant's speculative realism.) Thank you again for your reply.
@kevintewey1157 Clean out your ears perhaps? If not, I cannot do a thing for your addiction to loud music ruining your finer hearing. This sounds fine to me, but I don't listen to music at blaring decibels.
Stunning, clear, and beautiful-that was a fantastic presentation of deep scholarship. I enjoyed that very much and am grateful for that time you took to make this video possible.
Love these commentaries on Hegel! A suggestion: although I enjoy the background music it makes it challenging to follow what you are saying with it playing in the background. Perhaps consider toning down the volume if not eliminating it 🙏
Most like it, so it's staying. These are just verbal forms of written works by and large, so just check out the original or later published pieces. I usually link them in the description.
I apologize beforehand for this comment, but I don't know any other way of asking you this question: What happened to your RateYourMusic account? "The owner of this account has requested that this account be deleted", but why?
Yeah, Idealism in the Hegelian or Socratic/Platonic sense, for example, is just any intelligible thing--be it physical, material, practical, psychological, mental, formal, informal, subjective, objective, 'real', 'ideal' in the lower sense, and so on. So we're all Idealists, but just some work better with the relationships of reality than others insofar as the meaning goes for what is a complete relationship. After all, if what is True is not intelligible, that is to say sensible or detectable, the same way a rock in space must detect another rock in order for the event of contact to occur, then it simply cannot be. Idealism is True simply for the mere fact that it covers all relationships of meaning no matter who may attempt to obscure or redefine things.
Not really. The pantheism and panentheism distinction is really spurious, especially from the Hegelian position. To say that there is only God, and that all is in God, does not of its own make any distinction, because all that is in God is God themself. All 'isms' are worthless and useless in philosophy. Take Hegel on his own terms and words, and forget the pseudo-concepts of abstract meta categorization in isms.
@@AntonioWolfphilosophy In Panentheism, God is a Self Aware Being out of which all other self aware beings emerged and emerge, but IT remains distinct, as my dying and renewing cells are not me, though they are part of me. That is distinct from Pantheism in which All and God are the same.
Hey man that was pretty dog when you banned me from your server, you invited me into a discussion and you ganged up on me with 20 people who all did ad hominins from 30 different angles and also refused to deal with anything i said by taking it off the table. It was like a bandit assault on a trading road.
I never invite anyone for anything. Cry to whoever lied to you about what you would find. Second, cry more, loser. No one that has even a quarter brain enters the server with dumb positions and is bullied for it. No one cares what you believe, so no one bullies for what you believe. If reason offends you, that's your problem.
More than likely I invited you, or posted the link publicly somewhere as part of an advertising campaign, but I am very upfront about what the space is. You probably said some dumb shit though. Either way you won't get anywhere like this. Sucks to be you, right?
![What is Hegel's dialectical method? [Part 1]](http://i.ytimg.com/vi/eE8pjlpkiD4/mqdefault.jpg)
![What is Hegel's dialectical method? [Part 1]](/img/tr.png)
I hinted at this only as an offhand, but *technically* speaking, Hegel is in fact not the only absolute Idealist insofar as it is grasped as the unity of subject and object. Schelling clearly had the same view of philosophy as early as his own identity philosophy, which united subject and object. Fichte's philosophy also bridged the subject object gap, and claimed to be an absolute Idealist in his later iterations of his philosophy. Given my reading of Bryant's interpretation of Deleuze, I can say that Deleuze clearly stands in this lineage as well, and can be considered an absolute Idealist.
The extent and depth as to what Idealism means, however, is not an issue equally explained among these thinkers.
Hi Antonio! I come in peace! Thank you for putting this together, and all of your other excellent videos and interviews. Sincerely. One of the questions I have is: What is the benefit of considering Deleuze an absolute idealist? Would you agree that that (Bryant’s) strategy amounts to reading Deleuze in terms of Hegel, despite Deleuze’s explicit statements to the contrary? Personally, I see Deleuze as doing something different (pun intended) from Hegel. Though, I’d be happy to understand your point of view. Thank you.
@philosophemes The benefit is seeing that the project he engages in is part of a broader strategy not unique to him. It broadens the horizon of Deleuzeans.
Bryant doesn't compare Deleuze to Hegel - I do. It is I who see a similarity with Deleuze the metaphysician and metapholosopher, and Hegel. I take what Bryant describes and explains,-quite a bit of it is Deleuze block quotes-to be very much in line with Hegel's own take on the same concepts. Is Deleuze Hegelian? No, he's Deleuze. I don't want to mix them, I don't see the point. I do like to point out the similarities which only a Hegel enthusiast would see.l, and which the Deleuzian may appreciate as Hegel's own approaching to the same issue Deleuze takes on, and even in strikingly similar conceptions.
@@AntonioWolfphilosophy Excellent! Okay, thank you. I've encountered some thinkers who tend to think nothing (no thing) can escape Hegel's grasp. I personally don't believe that, but I'm keeping an open mind about it. (It would be interesting to see a video on how your reading of Hegel's absolute idealism is different from Bryant's speculative realism.) Thank you again for your reply.
Literally cannot understand it with the music too loud
@kevintewey1157 Clean out your ears perhaps? If not, I cannot do a thing for your addiction to loud music ruining your finer hearing. This sounds fine to me, but I don't listen to music at blaring decibels.
Stunning, clear, and beautiful-that was a fantastic presentation of deep scholarship. I enjoyed that very much and am grateful for that time you took to make this video possible.
All your comments are really nice. Make me a bit sus or envious. hmmmmmm
This is a wonderfully well made video Antonio! Thank you! I’m looking forward to viewing others on your channel!😊👍
I believe I will be returning to these videos for a long time, thanks AW
Thanks for the vid, gonna throw this in my playlist
Thanks Antonio
Time for the True last major video this year, but congratulations man!
Beautiful, man.
Love these commentaries on Hegel! A suggestion: although I enjoy the background music it makes it challenging to follow what you are saying with it playing in the background. Perhaps consider toning down the volume if not eliminating it 🙏
Most like it, so it's staying. These are just verbal forms of written works by and large, so just check out the original or later published pieces. I usually link them in the description.
i feel like i understand, in the Ideal sense, but i dont fully understand every ideale
Very good video! I hope to write soon on how an updated Absolute Idealism could function for the 21st century
It is very needed.
Godspeed.
@@thenowchurch6419 Gregory S. Moss is probably the closest to arguing this in the current phil landscape.
@@dissatisfiedphilosophy Thank you. I will check him out.
What are your feelings on Bernardo Kastrup's work and on Zizek's?
@@thenowchurch6419 never read Kastrup. I like zizek.
Not really sure it needs updating so much as updated communication to suit our modern use of language.
the music is distracting.
Tried looking up at the poem at the end and Google took me to obscure passages of thomas aquinas. did you write it?
It's mine, yes.
I apologize beforehand for this comment, but I don't know any other way of asking you this question:
What happened to your RateYourMusic account? "The owner of this account has requested that this account be deleted", but why?
I never had an account on that site. I'm not a big enough music person to bother keeping track and rating.
@@AntonioWolfphilosophy Thanks for your reply. Aren't you Hyperion? There's also a Criticker account with that name.
@@misaeldavid7 Hyperion is my friend.
Yeah, Idealism in the Hegelian or Socratic/Platonic sense, for example, is just any intelligible thing--be it physical, material, practical, psychological, mental, formal, informal, subjective, objective, 'real', 'ideal' in the lower sense, and so on. So we're all Idealists, but just some work better with the relationships of reality than others insofar as the meaning goes for what is a complete relationship. After all, if what is True is not intelligible, that is to say sensible or detectable, the same way a rock in space must detect another rock in order for the event of contact to occur, then it simply cannot be. Idealism is True simply for the mere fact that it covers all relationships of meaning no matter who may attempt to obscure or redefine things.
It's definitely related, but in this video I favor the metaphysical angle rather than the angle of intelligibility, hence I did not mention it.
Yeah, that makes sense because you were describing what it is as opposed to how it is grasped.
This is similar to panentheism, right?
Not really. The pantheism and panentheism distinction is really spurious, especially from the Hegelian position. To say that there is only God, and that all is in God, does not of its own make any distinction, because all that is in God is God themself.
All 'isms' are worthless and useless in philosophy. Take Hegel on his own terms and words, and forget the pseudo-concepts of abstract meta categorization in isms.
@@AntonioWolfphilosophy I see. Thanks for your work, man.
That is what I'm saying.
@@AntonioWolfphilosophy In Panentheism, God is a Self Aware Being out of which all other self aware beings emerged and emerge, but IT remains distinct, as my dying and renewing cells are not me, though they are part of me.
That is distinct from Pantheism in which All and God are the same.
❤❤
I understood something profound from this video.
Schopenhauer was right.
How so? Although I do side with Mr schopenhauer against hegel.
Contrary to most comments under this video, I - for one - did not understand jack shit.
Sucks to be you, eh?
As I see it, Hegel's Idealism is a form of Panentheism.
No, it's theism--Antonio Wolf has a good article on why.
Hey man that was pretty dog when you banned me from your server, you invited me into a discussion and you ganged up on me with 20 people who all did ad hominins from 30 different angles and also refused to deal with anything i said by taking it off the table. It was like a bandit assault on a trading road.
I never invite anyone for anything. Cry to whoever lied to you about what you would find.
Second, cry more, loser. No one that has even a quarter brain enters the server with dumb positions and is bullied for it. No one cares what you believe, so no one bullies for what you believe. If reason offends you, that's your problem.
More than likely I invited you, or posted the link publicly somewhere as part of an advertising campaign, but I am very upfront about what the space is. You probably said some dumb shit though. Either way you won't get anywhere like this. Sucks to be you, right?