I needed a refresher on Hegel and this was fantastic. I remember getting insulted when reading the phenomenology by discussions of the Hegelian "philosophy formula": thesis-antithesis-synthesis - it so clearly summarises the result rather than revealing anything about how Hegel actually set about doing his philosophy (like Hegel simply spots neat little contradictions and then "resolves" them in a synthesis to gain better insight into being or whatever he is considering). This is great to see a video clearly pointing this all out - especially as I look at every other video on Hegel to my right which have various "thesis-antithesis-synthesis" graphics while proclaiming to "explain" Hegelian dialectic! Thanks mate. Great content.
My good friends in gradschool were hegelians. I had to leave the room on many occasions when it came time to try to decipher the phenomenology or science of logic. I always respected what they were doing, but always hesitated to buy what they were selling, even when it was most basically offered to me.
Most Hegelians are terrible explainers. Part of it is that they get used to Hegelian jargon and never bothered to even try translating it into more basic terms, but also because while most come to get a hang of what Hegel is doing, they don't learn how to genuinely do it themselves in Hegel's positive manner.
Very interesting, I always wanted to get into Hegel but there never seemed to be a good place to get into that I could understand. Some advice I will give is that a static background might cause people to loose interest and not pay attention to the content as much, perhaps some visual aids might help? great video though, keep up the good work!
So it's basically just the concept of isolating something to see it's inherrent qualities? Did people not do this before Hegel? I hadn't realized this concept ever had to be invented. To me, doing this felt intuitive, but I guess that's just because of my post-hegelian education. Thanks for the explanation. Edit: Or didn't I get it?
It is a very specific form of abstraction/isolation: absolute operation and self-reference. This does not ask what inherent qualities things have, but what qualities as such inherently are. When isolating money, for example, Marx is not seeking to find what qualities money has, he is asking what the quality of money *as money is* and what it *does.* Money *qualifies* itself and is a quality itself. To know what this is requires the isolation of the pure operative concept of the thing when the thing is itself an operative being.
@@AntonioWolfphilosophy I see. But what exaxtly are you hoping to find by using this Hegelian thinking? You can't get towards the essence of things this way, because in pure isolation, all things are essentially useless, pointless, meaningless, no matter what their qualities are. Their meaning and worth is defined by their existence in the world, their function within in, their effect upon it, etc.
@@WDeeGee1 Well, there is the question of what a moment as such is in abstraction, which concerns how it is the generator of its elements, and there is the question of what a moment is a moment, an existent, in that which generates it as an element. The second subordinates the first, but does not change what it is as the thing it is just as your body does not change atomic properties while it orders the process of chemical determinations. The two moments of inquiry follow one line of inquiry on the meaning of absoluteness.
I'd like to know if this relates to trouble shooting a system or does it relates to gathering data about a system and observing the result to then began troubleshooting?
Hey!! Can you explain it in terms of the validity, developement, relation and final result of his dialectic in maybe another video...this is good but too short.Thank You
@@AntonioWolfphilosophy i did check some parts of it...but idk i need some more help with this... Its not easy to grab, and my attention span ends just like that. Do reach me if you can help any further. Tysm
But it's simple. Now, it may be difficult for you and your teacher, but it's not complicated. Simplicity does not mean ease, it's the opposite. The simplest things are necessarily the hardest.
Antonio Wolf it reminds me of what Slavoj says about freedom and language. How being truly free is not what people want because they wouldn’t know what to believe or how to act and so they conform to various “unwritten rules” and exist freely within them. It’s all very strange and I don’t know if this idea is in the right ball park but I think about my English professor giving out a writing assignment and not providing a desired topic, length, format etc. we are free to write about whatever and however we want and yet people struggle with this idea (not all of them). Some people are really creative but then again even that creativity is bound by some Foucaultian episteme. But yeah my point is that a lot of people find it easier to get their assignment clearly and explicitly laid out for them, instead of being free to write about what they’d like. Let me know if I’m in the right ball park?
It means you think things as they are and do, not according to some external reason. Being is immediate, therefore there is no thing within it, no content, no difference, no form, hence it is actually Nothing, etc.
it’s maybe true to say that that’s also called “immanent criticism”? with a focus, for a second moment, in the particular form of everywhat content, passing by an historical lecture. Thanks
I had 2 upper level philosophy classes in university where Hegel's works were discussed, and I don't think it's simply a matter of his writings being difficult to pierce or that they require knowledge of a certain tradition, I think it really is the case that ultimately it's gibberish. I've heard so many excuses trying to defend the contrary, that it *sounds* gibberish because it's translated from German, but really, that's just crap. I took 2 years of ancient Greek and 1 year of ancient Hebrew to be able to begin reading and studying the bible and understand how Christianity emerged as a sect of second temple Judaism. The fact that I could better explain the thoughts and beliefs of early Christians, a community which is A) more ancient B) more removed geographically C) more removed linguistically than you can explain Hegel should tell you something. Heck even if you read Aristotle's Nicomachean ethics in English, it's easier to understand than Hegel. Not a single student at the end of either of the philosophy classes had a grip on Hegel, or if they thought they did others disagreed. Again, that should tell you something. More importantly, Hegel doesn't use his words consistently or meaningful, they are never operationally defined, and are so vague as to make a psychology major want to cry. "Concept, essence, being" etc. And it's not just psychology or other sciences: if you read John Locke, he means something crystal clear and specific, for example, when he uses the term "civil society". So no, it's not hard to understand because it's complex, because you need background knowledge, because it's German, blah blah blah. It really is nonsense ultimately, safe for some banal truism such as a formula doesn't give you the whole picture of phenomenon.
Actually it sounds like gibberish because Hegel was drunk when he wrote it. If you've ever tried to explain philosophical theory to someone when you are drunk, you might notice that everything you say will make sense to you, but nobody else will have any clue.
You had bad teachers. Source is that I've done it without teachers and without commentaries to guide me, and it's more than doable once you think it as its written. The Science of Logic is the key for coming to grips with the method, and he it's the same everywhere. You still have to work through it all. Contrary to what you say, it's ot gibberish, and it's not sloppy word use at all, quite the opposite. The problem is that the vast majority don't know how to read him properly. He does define his terms, I realized this on my second attempt of the Phenom. The taught reading order is very wrong, and the attitude towards it is wrong. Hegel writes as you should think him.
"You had bad teachers." Wow, what a start. "Source is that I've done it without teachers and without commentaries to guide me," You're clearly missing the point. *You* think you've gotten it down. I knew students who did too. You sound like a younger person, there were profs who knew about this more than you do, and could actually read the German (which I'm guessing you can't) As for just straight up dissing these teachers and students, your explanation as an explanation is pretty bad. I don't mean you're wrong (I don't understand hegel) but the *way* you explain it is bad. This isn't meant to be a personal insult, so I'll try to specify constructively: 1) You say you can start by understanding a core feature, "immanent critique". 2) You proceed to explain ^ this core feature by appeal to a bunch of other jargon terms "there is no external content or form.. if you're going to think being, you're not going to think being according to essence"
Oh please. I >know< what I'm talking about, I'm not putting up anything out of mere belief. I have the work to prove it too. I can explain >everything< I have followed the derivation of myself. You may be be incredulous, but I've done it and I know it. If what I said counts as jargon, what can I say? You overthink things and do exactly as you shouldn't. Also, part 1 implies further parts and videos. I won't be leaving it here.
1) Physics isn't plural. There is no "physic" 2) Dialectics are plural, there is a "dialectic" 3) You don't say "Apples is" unless you're a stereotypical hillbilly Your 30 seconds of fame and ya blew it.
They're from Ancient Greek for "natural" and "discursive", respectively, that had an -s ending in the singular, namely, physikós (φυσικός) and dialektikós (διαλεκτικός). Many Greek and Latin words end in an 's' or s-sound but aren't plural, for instance phalanx (Gk. φάλαγξ), plural phalanxes (φάλαγγες) and ibex (L. ibex), plural ibexes/ibices (ibices). The final -s of 'apples' is a genuine plural s-ending. It helps to learn Greek if you want to study philosophy.
Nope. Have you EVER said "physic" as one lone single word in anything? Root word here is of no interest. If you have you're one special snowflake or a moron. I'm leaning towards the second here.
The "root word" (etymon) is of crucial interest for knowing why those words are singular even though they end in -s. As it turns out, there is an English word 'physic'; "physic 1. (countable and uncountable, plural physics) A medicine or drug, especially a cathartic or purgative, 2. (archaic, countable) The art or profession of healing disease; medicine." en.wiktionary.org/wiki/physic Medical doctors were first called 'physicians' because they studied the physical (i.e. natural) processes of human anatomy at a time when physical science was known as "natural philosophy".
I appreciate the detective style approach, but if this was classroom pedagogy.... not gonna work, lol. It really isn't this much of a mystery. Phenomenology of Spirit. And first start with Socrates. It's about thesis and antithesis as the form of the Socractic dialogues. This is not dark matter. If I have a 15 minute aside to explain dialectics, I get down to brass tacks. If students want something short, I give them the 10 brilliant pages on the "master/slave" dialectic. There are plenty of places to demonstrate Hegel's dialectics, from his work on world history, to the dialectic of spirit-of self-consciousness through self and other. Hell, Fanon could explain it in a few sentences, and so could Du Bois... and show its weaknesses.
Well, good of you to know. No search engine has ever given me any result of such, at the time of having worked on these videos there was hardly anything one could find online readily. Yes, there are people who focus on the method extensively, BUT I've yet to find anyone explaining this as I do. Note that, 'as I do'. I take what I'm saying to be quite in line with those who touch on the method which I have encountered in later secondary texts. What does Hicks say btw, and where? I did ask in case anyone had something to recommend.
@@AntonioWolfphilosophy Are you sure? Your later videos certainly don't dissuade me from my impression. Your demonstration didn't seem like any sort of argument or 'analysis', in any real or useful sense - more like simply stringing words together, and then forcing a sort of 'meta' conclusion that was little more than a non-sequitor.
0:08 "how is it that 200 years after a guy is dead-" [-people still are angry at him for being both a genius and a POS that couldn't write a clear paragraph of instruction to extinguish a fire, if his behind was ablaze and turning into bacon]
Nah. If you cannot understand the first chapter of the SoL, the problem is with you. Simplicity and clarity are not familiarity, and are grasped by the engagement of the power to abstract and take a thought at its straight meaning. Hegel is the clearest writer of all the philosophy I've read. The biggest problem people have is that they cannot stop injecting external thoughts into what they read, and that leads to confusing themselves with problems not in the text.
@@AntonioWolfphilosophy I was just refering to the joke that people dont like hegel. I am not even close to ready to touch Hegel other than quick recaps and explanations. This isnt my actual opinion of hegel.
@@Mr.Redinkyou may be surprised to find out that Hegel is easier to comprehend and get into than expected. Hegel has a lot of thought exercises and so you just do the thought exercises and that gives you the meaning.
Umm excuse me... Marxists here have written plenty about Hegelian Dialectics. Plekanov and Engles wrote entire treatises on Dialectical Materialism and Fuerbach
This was just a lot of talking in circles. I quit. So tired of the commentary from academics only impressing themselves. F*g just tell us what it is straight up. This long winded bs ain’t it.
smishize I could not possibly disagree more. Honestly, just listen again. Think. This is one of the clearest introductions to Hegel in recent memory. With that said, I disagree a bit with the introductory statement;I think Slavoj Zizek is someone who understands Hegel’s Logic inside and out.
This is the worst and most misleading explanation of Hegel I have ever seen. To understand Dialectic or what Hegel intended is to understand, "Every Statement Implies his Contradiction." That is a direct line for the Elements of the Philosophy of Right. What does that mean? It means to call a Woman Beautiful is as much an insult as compliment. Why? Because it suggests she can be perceived by anyone else another way or the opposite, ugly. Statements without the possibility of contraries are absurd for example, no one would ever write, "Oxygen is great," in sincerity because there is no alternative, it can only be great because we would die without it. Therefore, dialectic would not apply to it and the only reason anyone would say that is because they are absurd. Now, this is neither here nor there but I am a Latin American Right Wolf, and this man Antonio Wolf is not he is, if anything Left. I'm insulted he would compare himself to our precious powers because he does not have any. What a shame to the Latin American Race.
It certainly wasn't to Karl Marx, Frantz Fanon, W.E.B. Du Bois, or most of the anticolonial revolutionaries (Amilcar Cabral, Nkrumeh), and of course the militant Left, V.I. Lenin, Mao Tse-Tsung, but also theorists and historians of science like Foucault, Karl Popper, Adorno, Zizek, Marcuse, Althusser, Derrida, shit... list goes on. I guess they all took three classes. With better teachers. But hey, who cares, really. I barely understand my house insurance policy. Or TH-cam's privacy EULA. I think it's gibberish too.
Thank you Steve buscemi, I love your work!
😂
Does sound like Steve Buscemi.
I needed a refresher on Hegel and this was fantastic. I remember getting insulted when reading the phenomenology by discussions of the Hegelian "philosophy formula": thesis-antithesis-synthesis - it so clearly summarises the result rather than revealing anything about how Hegel actually set about doing his philosophy (like Hegel simply spots neat little contradictions and then "resolves" them in a synthesis to gain better insight into being or whatever he is considering).
This is great to see a video clearly pointing this all out - especially as I look at every other video on Hegel to my right which have various "thesis-antithesis-synthesis" graphics while proclaiming to "explain" Hegelian dialectic!
Thanks mate. Great content.
Thesis-Antithesis-Synthesis was not hegel.
My good friends in gradschool were hegelians. I had to leave the room on many occasions when it came time to try to decipher the phenomenology or science of logic. I always respected what they were doing, but always hesitated to buy what they were selling, even when it was most basically offered to me.
Most Hegelians are terrible explainers. Part of it is that they get used to Hegelian jargon and never bothered to even try translating it into more basic terms, but also because while most come to get a hang of what Hegel is doing, they don't learn how to genuinely do it themselves in Hegel's positive manner.
Hegel meant when you know you know
1)coherency. 2)Stability. 3)Material or logical independance.
what are the bibliographic references for this?
Good work AW - interesting video.
Very interesting, I always wanted to get into Hegel but there never seemed to be a good place to get into that I could understand. Some advice I will give is that a static background might cause people to loose interest and not pay attention to the content as much, perhaps some visual aids might help? great video though, keep up the good work!
I have stuff for visuals, but don't have the necessary space or time for it right now. Or the access to my good pc for rendering stuff.
So it's basically just the concept of isolating something to see it's inherrent qualities? Did people not do this before Hegel? I hadn't realized this concept ever had to be invented. To me, doing this felt intuitive, but I guess that's just because of my post-hegelian education. Thanks for the explanation.
Edit: Or didn't I get it?
It is a very specific form of abstraction/isolation: absolute operation and self-reference.
This does not ask what inherent qualities things have, but what qualities as such inherently are. When isolating money, for example, Marx is not seeking to find what qualities money has, he is asking what the quality of money *as money is* and what it *does.* Money *qualifies* itself and is a quality itself. To know what this is requires the isolation of the pure operative concept of the thing when the thing is itself an operative being.
@@AntonioWolfphilosophy I see. But what exaxtly are you hoping to find by using this Hegelian thinking? You can't get towards the essence of things this way, because in pure isolation, all things are essentially useless, pointless, meaningless, no matter what their qualities are. Their meaning and worth is defined by their existence in the world, their function within in, their effect upon it, etc.
@@WDeeGee1 Well, there is the question of what a moment as such is in abstraction, which concerns how it is the generator of its elements, and there is the question of what a moment is a moment, an existent, in that which generates it as an element. The second subordinates the first, but does not change what it is as the thing it is just as your body does not change atomic properties while it orders the process of chemical determinations.
The two moments of inquiry follow one line of inquiry on the meaning of absoluteness.
I'd like to know if this relates to trouble shooting a system or does it relates to gathering data about a system and observing the result to then began troubleshooting?
His name was Seth Rich.
And your name is Cactus.
Thanks!
Hadn't seen anything from you in a while, but then again I also haven't talked to tree much in a while either.
Janis, please settle down. You are being very rude.
F
*robert paulson
A very enjoyable presentation, thank you 👍☺🎸
Hey!! Can you explain it in terms of the validity, developement, relation and final result of his dialectic in maybe another video...this is good but too short.Thank You
The rest of my videos on my Hegel playlist go over much of this. Dialectics part 3 and on the Absolute.
@@AntonioWolfphilosophy i did check some parts of it...but idk i need some more help with this... Its not easy to grab, and my attention span ends just like that.
Do reach me if you can help any further.
Tysm
Interesting video thanks
Thanks man.
Dialectics is 'difficult' because the dominant, totalizing bourgeois reductionist form of thinking demands total compliance. Or else.
You are making this more complicated, my teacher is asking for Hegel's method, answer "NO".
But it's simple. Now, it may be difficult for you and your teacher, but it's not complicated. Simplicity does not mean ease, it's the opposite. The simplest things are necessarily the hardest.
Antonio Wolf it reminds me of what Slavoj says about freedom and language. How being truly free is not what people want because they wouldn’t know what to believe or how to act and so they conform to various “unwritten rules” and exist freely within them. It’s all very strange and I don’t know if this idea is in the right ball park but I think about my English professor giving out a writing assignment and not providing a desired topic, length, format etc. we are free to write about whatever and however we want and yet people struggle with this idea (not all of them). Some people are really creative but then again even that creativity is bound by some Foucaultian episteme. But yeah my point is that a lot of people find it easier to get their assignment clearly and explicitly laid out for them, instead of being free to write about what they’d like. Let me know if I’m in the right ball park?
please what does thinking "through content" means?
It means you think things as they are and do, not according to some external reason. Being is immediate, therefore there is no thing within it, no content, no difference, no form, hence it is actually Nothing, etc.
@@AntonioWolfphilosophy understanding a thing as it is and not as it seems to us?
@@lostintime519 yeah, but it's most clear with concepts
@@AntonioWolfphilosophy hi would you consider making a video on Hegel's concept of alienation?
it’s maybe true to say that that’s also called “immanent criticism”? with a focus, for a second moment, in the particular form of everywhat content, passing by an historical lecture. Thanks
Q&A
It's not really the question and answer Socratic method. Much simpler.
So, dialectics is design thinking for philosophers?
It's just looking at ideas and seeing what they do like a detective.
Stoked for part 2!
Sounds like public private key cryptography
I had 2 upper level philosophy classes in university where Hegel's works were discussed, and I don't think it's simply a matter of his writings being difficult to pierce or that they require knowledge of a certain tradition, I think it really is the case that ultimately it's gibberish. I've heard so many excuses trying to defend the contrary, that it *sounds* gibberish because it's translated from German, but really, that's just crap.
I took 2 years of ancient Greek and 1 year of ancient Hebrew to be able to begin reading and studying the bible and understand how Christianity emerged as a sect of second temple Judaism. The fact that I could better explain the thoughts and beliefs of early Christians, a community which is A) more ancient B) more removed geographically C) more removed linguistically than you can explain Hegel should tell you something.
Heck even if you read Aristotle's Nicomachean ethics in English, it's easier to understand than Hegel.
Not a single student at the end of either of the philosophy classes had a grip on Hegel, or if they thought they did others disagreed. Again, that should tell you something.
More importantly, Hegel doesn't use his words consistently or meaningful, they are never operationally defined, and are so vague as to make a psychology major want to cry. "Concept, essence, being" etc. And it's not just psychology or other sciences: if you read John Locke, he means something crystal clear and specific, for example, when he uses the term "civil society".
So no, it's not hard to understand because it's complex, because you need background knowledge, because it's German, blah blah blah. It really is nonsense ultimately, safe for some banal truism such as a formula doesn't give you the whole picture of phenomenon.
Actually it sounds like gibberish because Hegel was drunk when he wrote it. If you've ever tried to explain philosophical theory to someone when you are drunk, you might notice that everything you say will make sense to you, but nobody else will have any clue.
You had bad teachers. Source is that I've done it without teachers and without commentaries to guide me, and it's more than doable once you think it as its written. The Science of Logic is the key for coming to grips with the method, and he it's the same everywhere. You still have to work through it all.
Contrary to what you say, it's ot gibberish, and it's not sloppy word use at all, quite the opposite. The problem is that the vast majority don't know how to read him properly. He does define his terms, I realized this on my second attempt of the Phenom. The taught reading order is very wrong, and the attitude towards it is wrong. Hegel writes as you should think him.
"You had bad teachers."
Wow, what a start.
"Source is that I've done it without teachers and without commentaries to guide me,"
You're clearly missing the point. *You* think you've gotten it down. I knew students who did too. You sound like a younger person, there were profs who knew about this more than you do, and could actually read the German (which I'm guessing you can't)
As for just straight up dissing these teachers and students, your explanation as an explanation is pretty bad. I don't mean you're wrong (I don't understand hegel) but the *way* you explain it is bad. This isn't meant to be a personal insult, so I'll try to specify constructively:
1) You say you can start by understanding a core feature, "immanent critique".
2) You proceed to explain ^ this core feature by appeal to a bunch of other jargon terms "there is no external content or form.. if you're going to think being, you're not going to think being according to essence"
Oh please. I >know< what I'm talking about, I'm not putting up anything out of mere belief. I have the work to prove it too. I can explain >everything< I have followed the derivation of myself. You may be be incredulous, but I've done it and I know it.
If what I said counts as jargon, what can I say? You overthink things and do exactly as you shouldn't. Also, part 1 implies further parts and videos. I won't be leaving it here.
" You overthink things and do exactly as you shouldn't."
Ha. I'm done. Best of luck.
your voice sound just like steve buscemi.
...Your speakers/headphones are strange because I don't hear it lol.
Holy fuck that's what I thought!
What IS dialectics? The term 'dialectics' is plural, like 'physics'. You don't say "physics are", do you?
1) Physics isn't plural. There is no "physic"
2) Dialectics are plural, there is a "dialectic"
3) You don't say "Apples is" unless you're a stereotypical hillbilly
Your 30 seconds of fame and ya blew it.
They're from Ancient Greek for "natural" and "discursive", respectively, that had an -s ending in the singular, namely, physikós (φυσικός) and dialektikós (διαλεκτικός). Many Greek and Latin words end in an 's' or s-sound but aren't plural, for instance phalanx (Gk. φάλαγξ), plural phalanxes (φάλαγγες) and ibex (L. ibex), plural ibexes/ibices (ibices). The final -s of 'apples' is a genuine plural s-ending. It helps to learn Greek if you want to study philosophy.
Nope. Have you EVER said "physic" as one lone single word in anything? Root word here is of no interest. If you have you're one special snowflake or a moron. I'm leaning towards the second here.
The "root word" (etymon) is of crucial interest for knowing why those words are singular even though they end in -s.
As it turns out, there is an English word 'physic'; "physic 1. (countable and uncountable, plural physics) A medicine or drug, especially a cathartic or purgative, 2. (archaic, countable) The art or profession of healing disease; medicine." en.wiktionary.org/wiki/physic Medical doctors were first called 'physicians' because they studied the physical (i.e. natural) processes of human anatomy at a time when physical science was known as "natural philosophy".
>here is an archaic word to cover my ass
Yep, you're a moron alright.
(when) is the second part coming out?
It should be uploaded soon.
I appreciate the detective style approach, but if this was classroom pedagogy.... not gonna work, lol. It really isn't this much of a mystery. Phenomenology of Spirit. And first start with Socrates. It's about thesis and antithesis as the form of the Socractic dialogues. This is not dark matter. If I have a 15 minute aside to explain dialectics, I get down to brass tacks. If students want something short, I give them the 10 brilliant pages on the "master/slave" dialectic. There are plenty of places to demonstrate Hegel's dialectics, from his work on world history, to the dialectic of spirit-of self-consciousness through self and other. Hell, Fanon could explain it in a few sentences, and so could Du Bois... and show its weaknesses.
Considering your examples I feel sorry for your students and they rightly think Hegel is a waste of time.
Stephen Hicks wrote about it and I'm sure plenty more. Weird assumption at the top of this video
Well, good of you to know. No search engine has ever given me any result of such, at the time of having worked on these videos there was hardly anything one could find online readily. Yes, there are people who focus on the method extensively, BUT I've yet to find anyone explaining this as I do. Note that, 'as I do'. I take what I'm saying to be quite in line with those who touch on the method which I have encountered in later secondary texts.
What does Hicks say btw, and where? I did ask in case anyone had something to recommend.
Stephen Hicks is a dumbass
Wait a minute, doesn't this mean that Hegel's method is, effectively, just making shit up as you go along thinking about something?
@@thealmightyaku-4153 No.
@@AntonioWolfphilosophy Are you sure? Your later videos certainly don't dissuade me from my impression. Your demonstration didn't seem like any sort of argument or 'analysis', in any real or useful sense - more like simply stringing words together, and then forcing a sort of 'meta' conclusion that was little more than a non-sequitor.
0:08 "how is it that 200 years after a guy is dead-" [-people still are angry at him for being both a genius and a POS that couldn't write a clear paragraph of instruction to extinguish a fire, if his behind was ablaze and turning into bacon]
Nah. If you cannot understand the first chapter of the SoL, the problem is with you. Simplicity and clarity are not familiarity, and are grasped by the engagement of the power to abstract and take a thought at its straight meaning.
Hegel is the clearest writer of all the philosophy I've read. The biggest problem people have is that they cannot stop injecting external thoughts into what they read, and that leads to confusing themselves with problems not in the text.
@@AntonioWolfphilosophy I was just refering to the joke that people dont like hegel.
I am not even close to ready to touch Hegel other than quick recaps and explanations. This isnt my actual opinion of hegel.
@@Mr.Redinkyou may be surprised to find out that Hegel is easier to comprehend and get into than expected. Hegel has a lot of thought exercises and so you just do the thought exercises and that gives you the meaning.
Umm excuse me... Marxists here have written plenty about Hegelian Dialectics. Plekanov and Engles wrote entire treatises on Dialectical Materialism and Fuerbach
lmfao
????
YES #idaHEGEL #idaRUSSELL #WORDSINLINESPACEANDTIME #idaKANT
"Being as being" is as meaningless as "gnieb sa gnieB".
Nice
Bro you could have just come to the point..
This was just a lot of talking in circles. I quit. So tired of the commentary from academics only impressing themselves. F*g just tell us what it is straight up. This long winded bs ain’t it.
Hegel is the philosophers philosopher, he isn't to be understood in a day. Start with the basics first.
My man, Your'e a terrible communicator.
My man, you're a terrible reader.
Haha, okay.
If your blog is so great, why didn't you just read it in the video? Tryna get some page views?
Because this is an audio not meant to be my blog, duh.
smishize I could not possibly disagree more. Honestly, just listen again. Think. This is one of the clearest introductions to Hegel in recent memory. With that said, I disagree a bit with the introductory statement;I think Slavoj Zizek is someone who understands Hegel’s Logic inside and out.
This is the worst and most misleading explanation of Hegel I have ever seen. To understand Dialectic or what Hegel intended is to understand, "Every Statement Implies his Contradiction." That is a direct line for the Elements of the Philosophy of Right. What does that mean?
It means to call a Woman Beautiful is as much an insult as compliment. Why? Because it suggests she can be perceived by anyone else another way or the opposite, ugly. Statements without the possibility of contraries are absurd for example, no one would ever write, "Oxygen is great," in sincerity because there is no alternative, it can only be great because we would die without it. Therefore, dialectic would not apply to it and the only reason anyone would say that is because they are absurd.
Now, this is neither here nor there but I am a Latin American Right Wolf, and this man Antonio Wolf is not he is, if anything Left. I'm insulted he would compare himself to our precious powers because he does not have any. What a shame to the Latin American Race.
Typical tripe. Read the linked blog post, I've already dealt with your nonsense "explanations" and examples.
In other words, his philosophy is practically useless to the layman
It certainly wasn't to Karl Marx, Frantz Fanon, W.E.B. Du Bois, or most of the anticolonial revolutionaries (Amilcar Cabral, Nkrumeh), and of course the militant Left, V.I. Lenin, Mao Tse-Tsung, but also theorists and historians of science like Foucault, Karl Popper, Adorno, Zizek, Marcuse, Althusser, Derrida, shit... list goes on. I guess they all took three classes. With better teachers. But hey, who cares, really. I barely understand my house insurance policy. Or TH-cam's privacy EULA. I think it's gibberish too.