It's not impossible. Pippin wrote a review of Zizek's book 'Less than nothing ' which was, in my opinion, quite balanced. So, we cannot say no. I am also looking forward to it.
Fantastic! We need more philosophers like Pippin in the world today -- philosophers who aren't squeamish in the face of big and difficult questions, and who aren't afraid to cut against the grain of modern academia, which, in many respects, has become so narrow and shallow. Philosophy has been steadily surrendering its ambition and grandeur, trading it for the security of a kind of caution, and general skepticism which can't be falsified. That's exactly the sort of thing which philosophers like Hegel and Heidegger fought against. Great philosophers (or scientists, for that matter) should never shy away from the ambition to make progress in thinking, even at risk of making mistakes! Thanks Professor Pippin for keeping real philosophy alive!
I don't see how doing history of philosophy can be better than doing philosophy in order to resolve philosophical problems. I take Pippin to fall mostly under the first category, not the second. The following question rises: to what extent is Pippin contributing to philosophical questions by doing an interpretation of Hegel?
@@Philover Doing history of philosophy == doing philosophy. Choosing to see and be strict with a clear distinction of the two is a form of separation of method and content, which lends itself to fallible understanding of the whole.
@@emmanueloluga9770 I think such equation downplays both history of philosophy and philosophy. Choosing to conflate those two leads to anachronisms and lack of clarity. If I ask you what do you think freedom is and you respond with what Hegel takes freedom to be, then you are presupposing that I was wondering what Hegel takes freedom to be or some other historical figure, which needn't be the case (which by the way I feel most of the papers in continental philosophy end up being about, the paper tackles a seemingly historically neutral topic and somehow ends up having as its most important point an interpretation of what a historical figure has said about this topic). But this brings unnecessary assumptions to the discussion that deviate it from its initial goal.
@@Philover well, a strict separation of philosophy and its history is actually misleading, for any good philosophy is always relevant and any decent attempt to philosophize will necessarily consider some or another predecessor in this or another form. So e.g. to talk about freedom is also to consider what Hegel thought about it, or, say, Nozik and so on. If you just went on talking about freedom without any connection, negative or positive, to a tradition, that would most probably not be interesting. When Wittgestein didn't quote almost anyone, he nevertheless made it implicitly and Tractatus is to be conceived against the background of previous logic and what Frege and Russel (Mautner etc.) had achieved. almost any attempt in theory today takes on an idea expressed by someone previously (Brandom's work is a good example). There is a profound continuity in philosphy, that's why Plato is still philosophically relevant. this doesn't mean, however, that philosophy and its history are just the same. The point was, as it seems, that philosphy nowadays just tends to be concentrated on itself and loosing itself in details of lesser interest and relevance.
@@Philover Again, thinking holistically, any separation for the activities of history of philosophy and Philosophy proper is flawed and superficial at best, unless one was born in a vacuum and lives in that isolation all their lives. There is not necessarily a case of one being significantly better than the other which is why the 90s was so riddled with fluff and they sought to try and 'do "philosophy proper" with barely any connections or context to the history of the practice itself. Don't conflate descriptions and actions. Philosophizing is acting upon the history of the practice an vice versa. Again, the very fact you grew up in an environment that is not a vacuum or Isolated from other ideas and musings means you have a and already actively participating in the history of philosophy thereof, no matter how ground breaking or b'rand new' one thinks one's philosophy and ideas are. Pippin's contributions are many depending on the context. With regards to your inquiry on how it is relevant to what you deem "philosophy proper", its easy to extrapolate value in the activities associated with explication of the history of said practice, so future engagement will be more accessible.
A fortuitous treatment of both Heidegger and Hegel that does not resort to the game of "outbidding" (Derrida), which is the temptation in both. Very helpful. Thank you!
3:338:359:25 Dasein (Erschlossenheit des Sein, Bedeutung) als exponierter Begriff im vgl. zu anderen Begriffen bei Hegel, da es unbestimmt ist, uns aber gleichzeitig erschlossen ist 13:47 Heideggers Kritik an Hegel 15:18 ab16:53
![[Live สด] การออกรางวัลสลากกินแบ่งรัฐบาล งวดวันที่ 16 ธันวาคม 2567](http://i.ytimg.com/vi/dNTiBBthKgQ/mqdefault.jpg)
The only debate I really want to see in my lifetime is Pippin vs Zizek
is there a possibility you think?
@@loudlestvoice it should happen
It's not impossible. Pippin wrote a review of Zizek's book 'Less than nothing ' which was, in my opinion, quite balanced. So, we cannot say no. I am also looking forward to it.
Fantastic! We need more philosophers like Pippin in the world today -- philosophers who aren't squeamish in the face of big and difficult questions, and who aren't afraid to cut against the grain of modern academia, which, in many respects, has become so narrow and shallow. Philosophy has been steadily surrendering its ambition and grandeur, trading it for the security of a kind of caution, and general skepticism which can't be falsified. That's exactly the sort of thing which philosophers like Hegel and Heidegger fought against. Great philosophers (or scientists, for that matter) should never shy away from the ambition to make progress in thinking, even at risk of making mistakes! Thanks Professor Pippin for keeping real philosophy alive!
I don't see how doing history of philosophy can be better than doing philosophy in order to resolve philosophical problems. I take Pippin to fall mostly under the first category, not the second. The following question rises: to what extent is Pippin contributing to philosophical questions by doing an interpretation of Hegel?
@@Philover Doing history of philosophy == doing philosophy. Choosing to see and be strict with a clear distinction of the two is a form of separation of method and content, which lends itself to fallible understanding of the whole.
@@emmanueloluga9770 I think such equation downplays both history of philosophy and philosophy. Choosing to conflate those two leads to anachronisms and lack of clarity. If I ask you what do you think freedom is and you respond with what Hegel takes freedom to be, then you are presupposing that I was wondering what Hegel takes freedom to be or some other historical figure, which needn't be the case (which by the way I feel most of the papers in continental philosophy end up being about, the paper tackles a seemingly historically neutral topic and somehow ends up having as its most important point an interpretation of what a historical figure has said about this topic). But this brings unnecessary assumptions to the discussion that deviate it from its initial goal.
@@Philover well, a strict separation of philosophy and its history is actually misleading, for any good philosophy is always relevant and any decent attempt to philosophize will necessarily consider some or another predecessor in this or another form. So e.g. to talk about freedom is also to consider what Hegel thought about it, or, say, Nozik and so on. If you just went on talking about freedom without any connection, negative or positive, to a tradition, that would most probably not be interesting. When Wittgestein didn't quote almost anyone, he nevertheless made it implicitly and Tractatus is to be conceived against the background of previous logic and what Frege and Russel (Mautner etc.) had achieved. almost any attempt in theory today takes on an idea expressed by someone previously (Brandom's work is a good example). There is a profound continuity in philosphy, that's why Plato is still philosophically relevant.
this doesn't mean, however, that philosophy and its history are just the same. The point was, as it seems, that philosphy nowadays just tends to be concentrated on itself and loosing itself in details of lesser interest and relevance.
@@Philover Again, thinking holistically, any separation for the activities of history of philosophy and Philosophy proper is flawed and superficial at best, unless one was born in a vacuum and lives in that isolation all their lives. There is not necessarily a case of one being significantly better than the other which is why the 90s was so riddled with fluff and they sought to try and 'do "philosophy proper" with barely any connections or context to the history of the practice itself.
Don't conflate descriptions and actions. Philosophizing is acting upon the history of the practice an vice versa. Again, the very fact you grew up in an environment that is not a vacuum or Isolated from other ideas and musings means you have a and already actively participating in the history of philosophy thereof, no matter how ground breaking or b'rand new' one thinks one's philosophy and ideas are.
Pippin's contributions are many depending on the context. With regards to your inquiry on how it is relevant to what you deem "philosophy proper", its easy to extrapolate value in the activities associated with explication of the history of said practice, so future engagement will be more accessible.
A fortuitous treatment of both Heidegger and Hegel that does not resort to the game of "outbidding" (Derrida), which is the temptation in both. Very helpful. Thank you!
Love pippin. Also looking forward to houlgates new book
3:33 8:35 9:25 Dasein (Erschlossenheit des Sein, Bedeutung) als exponierter Begriff im vgl. zu anderen Begriffen bei Hegel, da es unbestimmt ist, uns aber gleichzeitig erschlossen ist
13:47 Heideggers Kritik an Hegel 15:18 ab16:53
Anyone else notice the owl of Minerva on his bookshelf?
Dude the bookshelf is greenscreened in for some reason
Great lecture. If not for the restrictions of capitalism, I'd spend my existence studying Hegel (and do a little mountain biking).
Excellent!! Thanks a lot!
Why is ur channel with advertisements, as it affects focus
Is it possible to find the recorded discussions that came when Dr. Pippin finished his talk? Thank you.
Unfortunately, these were not recorded.
Truly a Hegelian move for Pippin to greenscreen his own office behind himself.
Mediation all the way down. 🙌🏻😀
where can I find the Transcript of this Conference?
Hegel (X)
Heidegger (V）
Pls include, email me as a member of Hegel Society. Great debate and exposition