I watched Hail Caesar! But have absolutely no recollection of it. The Coen Brothers are remarkable and extremely smart. Guess I have to rewatch it now with my new ecstatic interest in hegel and dialectics
This is a beautifully concise explanation of Hegel's abstruse theory. Johann Fichte's summation: thesis, antithesis, synthesis is not a bad access point. It seems structuralism has its place since humans are subjective by nature.
Little of topic, I have read some Copleston's Philosophy, Tom 1 and 2. And reading about pre Socratic and even about Awerroes, Awicenna I get the impression that every "modern" philosophy was already there at the core of the first philosophers. In a similar vein to calculus being in Eudoksos :)
very underrated movie Hail Caesar... such funny and poignant banter from the Marxist writers/kidnappers, disagreeing about how to agree and vice versa... those scenes were always a favorite of mine, and though it's played for laughs, a lot of the writers' dialogue in that film is relatively coherent: leave it to the Coen Bros to mock dense leftist rhetoric while simultaneously explaining it. best of all the old post-war anti-commie ideological censorship of the 50's becomes the setting for movie in the post-ideological world, in which you can now successfully explain Marxism to a Hollywood audience in a mainstream film, but only as a joke, of course.
I would add to your part on capitalism and dialectics that capitalism is the spirious, negative, bad infinite that which says that the finite must be sublated without subliming it. "Something becomes an other, but the other is itself a something, so it likewise becomes an other, and so on ad infinitum," as Hegel says. This is capitalism and its monetary crisis, the failed dialectic which shows the necessity for the new world.
And does Hegel say that The (Real) Absolute (i. e. true infinite) is the aufhebung and/or mediation of the absolute/essence (immediate) and it's negation the subject & the world of appearances (immediate)???
Im just a high schooler soo my coming is likely mostly flawed although isn't there a unary undertone in the structure of dialogue instead of a binary clash? Alright, we've broadened the subject matter with our rhetoric and now getting closer, taking a limit if you will to the original stand and its negations' synthesis but doesn't the negation and the original synthesis both come from a graft formal lingual structure? It feels like we're determining whether its a negation or not entirely on feels. Which seems wrong given that both negation and subjectivity come from the same rhizome that we call objectivity
Do you have any opinions on the way modern mathematicians have attempted to translate Hegel's logic into the language of higher category? It appears that all concepts that can be spoken of can be formalized
While I very much appreciate what you’re trying to do here I believe you interpretation is far too teleological to be faithful to Hegel’s thought. The absolute doesn’t stand as a kind of objective, end-goal version of the Geist but is instead basically Hegel’s philosophy itself: the absolute is the recognition of the power of sublation. In fact, the greater and lesser Logics essentially take the reader having reached the absolute as a presupposition. For Hegel there is no world without our interpreting it and as such any kind of measure of consciousness which we cannot ourselves comprehend is meaningless. Also, the Hegelian critique of the Kantian Noumena/Phenomena divide is accurately summarized in your video but you miss the essential logic of it. For Hegel, the setting of the barrier between phenomena/Noumena means that Kant has already passed beyond it because he’s able to recognize a difference between the two. Even though that difference barely amounts to anything in Kant (Noumena is a-temporal, a-spatial, a-causal, etc) it still means that Kant was able to pass beyond phenomenality by way of pure reason.
There are easier ways to explain the dialectic. Without the forced rambling throug cave metaphors and other scenes from the metaphysical ruins of the West. How about a one liner: The Dialectic is the Path from Ignorance to Knowledge. Because that is how to describe it at the beginning and its complete exposition at the end : The Dialectic is the Path from Avidya to Vidya. This is actually the Vedic Dialectic Hegel is teaching. Vedic Logic does not abstract from all Content. That is really the Formalist Trap of Kant and Western Science and Logic, which are badly mal-divided. Vedic Logic derives all Knowledge from a seed, three fundamental qualities of nature. This is the Hegelian Dialectic, deriving all Knowledge from three fundamental qualities: what are called Sattva Rajas Tamas in Vedic Science. At heart this is the Trans. Deduction really from cogito-ergo-sum interpreted transcendentally, ie , those are the three fundamental qualities of nature. Kant says there is Complete Knowledge but only of Principles. This is called Samyag Jnana in Samkhya. This deduction results in the Encyclopedia of Phil. Sciences. I dont know why this isnt discussed more. It is huge business still. more relevant than the tedious monstrosity of Description Logic. But taken transcendentally cogito-ergo-sum are the three axes of the Pure Concept. the very structure of a Science. so it is the Seed of a Science which combines inner,outer,and intellectual intuitions into a syllogistic unity which is what Ergo represents really
![[UNCUT] The Loyal Pin ปิ่นภักดิ์ EP.6 (2/4)](http://i.ytimg.com/vi/GgeGQOP10RQ/mqdefault.jpg)
'All things come into being through a conflict of opposites, the sum of those things , the whole, flows like a river' - diogenes
Grand work Julian 👍
As a fan of dialectics I support this motion!
YOU are slaying it. *PLEASE* don't stop.
Wonderfully simple summary of a complex concept!
I like to say that Kant went spelunking in Plato's cave.
Splish Splash!
I watched Hail Caesar! But have absolutely no recollection of it. The Coen Brothers are remarkable and extremely smart. Guess I have to rewatch it now with my new ecstatic interest in hegel and dialectics
I LOVED Hail Caesar when I saw it in the megaplex in Iowa City. Looking forward to another look. Have you seen A Serious Man?
@@mcnallyaar Yes! I truly appreciate the representation of a physicist not understanding reality and how the various rabbis offered relevant insight.
Hey really nice, I know it is VERY freskin hard to do to, thanks for sharing this knowledge.
Very nice. Enjoyed this video immensely.
your passion for teaching is inspiring thank you for the effort 🙏🏻
Absolutely great.
This is a beautifully concise explanation of Hegel's abstruse theory. Johann Fichte's summation: thesis, antithesis, synthesis is not a bad access point. It seems structuralism has its place since humans are subjective by nature.
Little of topic, I have read some Copleston's Philosophy, Tom 1 and 2. And reading about pre Socratic and even about Awerroes, Awicenna I get the impression that every "modern" philosophy was already there at the core of the first philosophers. In a similar vein to calculus being in Eudoksos :)
Xellent, thank u!
very underrated movie Hail Caesar... such funny and poignant banter from the Marxist writers/kidnappers, disagreeing about how to agree and vice versa... those scenes were always a favorite of mine, and though it's played for laughs, a lot of the writers' dialogue in that film is relatively coherent: leave it to the Coen Bros to mock dense leftist rhetoric while simultaneously explaining it. best of all the old post-war anti-commie ideological censorship of the 50's becomes the setting for movie in the post-ideological world, in which you can now successfully explain Marxism to a Hollywood audience in a mainstream film, but only as a joke, of course.
Dia-logos doesn't mean "double reason" or anything like that. Dia means through, so it's through logos, through binding and linkage
You can find my ebook and lectures here: www.patreon.com/julianphilosophy
I would add to your part on capitalism and dialectics that capitalism is the spirious, negative, bad infinite that which says that the finite must be sublated without subliming it. "Something becomes an other, but the other is itself a something, so it likewise becomes an other, and so on ad infinitum," as Hegel says. This is capitalism and its monetary crisis, the failed dialectic which shows the necessity for the new world.
This sounds like text chatgpt would generate. 😂
incredibly well put
theres people who love dialectics and people who hate them.. i think both might have a point
Doesn't prefix -dia mean 'across' or 'through' instead of 'two' or 'double'? Dialogos instead of dilogos
And does Hegel say that The (Real) Absolute (i. e. true infinite) is the aufhebung and/or mediation of the absolute/essence (immediate) and it's negation the subject & the world of appearances (immediate)???
Im just a high schooler soo my coming is likely mostly flawed although isn't there a unary undertone in the structure of dialogue instead of a binary clash? Alright, we've broadened the subject matter with our rhetoric and now getting closer, taking a limit if you will to the original stand and its negations' synthesis but doesn't the negation and the original synthesis both come from a graft formal lingual structure? It feels like we're determining whether its a negation or not entirely on feels. Which seems wrong given that both negation and subjectivity come from the same rhizome that we call objectivity
Sorry for those who had to read all this :P
Do you have any opinions on the way modern mathematicians have attempted to translate Hegel's logic into the language of higher category? It appears that all concepts that can be spoken of can be formalized
What did the Kantian critique of pure reason result in? What were the two responses? How do you spell those!
Thank you to anyone who guides me in advance
think he said Schelling and Fichte
thanks for confusing. you have to characterize what essense is first. you missed the mark on this one. confused it even more than the phtiophers
While I very much appreciate what you’re trying to do here I believe you interpretation is far too teleological to be faithful to Hegel’s thought. The absolute doesn’t stand as a kind of objective, end-goal version of the Geist but is instead basically Hegel’s philosophy itself: the absolute is the recognition of the power of sublation. In fact, the greater and lesser Logics essentially take the reader having reached the absolute as a presupposition. For Hegel there is no world without our interpreting it and as such any kind of measure of consciousness which we cannot ourselves comprehend is meaningless. Also, the Hegelian critique of the Kantian Noumena/Phenomena divide is accurately summarized in your video but you miss the essential logic of it. For Hegel, the setting of the barrier between phenomena/Noumena means that Kant has already passed beyond it because he’s able to recognize a difference between the two. Even though that difference barely amounts to anything in Kant (Noumena is a-temporal, a-spatial, a-causal, etc) it still means that Kant was able to pass beyond phenomenality by way of pure reason.
There are easier ways to explain the dialectic.
Without the forced rambling throug cave metaphors
and other scenes from the metaphysical ruins of the West.
How about a one liner: The Dialectic is the Path from Ignorance to Knowledge.
Because that is how to describe it at the beginning and its complete exposition at the end :
The Dialectic is the Path from Avidya to Vidya.
This is actually the Vedic Dialectic Hegel is teaching.
Vedic Logic does not abstract from all Content.
That is really the Formalist Trap of Kant and Western Science and Logic, which are badly mal-divided.
Vedic Logic derives all Knowledge from a seed, three fundamental qualities of nature.
This is the Hegelian Dialectic, deriving all Knowledge from three fundamental qualities:
what are called Sattva Rajas Tamas in Vedic Science.
At heart this is the Trans. Deduction really
from cogito-ergo-sum interpreted transcendentally,
ie , those are the three fundamental qualities of nature.
Kant says there is Complete Knowledge but only of Principles.
This is called Samyag Jnana in Samkhya.
This deduction results in the Encyclopedia of Phil. Sciences.
I dont know why this isnt discussed more. It is huge business still.
more relevant than the tedious monstrosity of Description Logic.
But taken transcendentally cogito-ergo-sum are the three axes of the Pure Concept.
the very structure of a Science. so it is the Seed of a Science which combines
inner,outer,and intellectual intuitions into a syllogistic unity
which is what Ergo represents really