There are places in heaven waiting for people like you thank you for explaining it with cartoons the rest of the videos i found on this topic put me to sleep and i have a paper due in a day god bless
Marx came AFTER Hegel moron. He's next to irrelevant to the discussion of hegelian dialectics as such. Hegel was an idealist, not a materialist, and he believed the Prussian constitutional monarchy of his time to be the end of the historical dialectic.
@@sethapex9670 My god, what a terrible reading of Hegel. As Hegel himself as said, what matters is the words said, not the meaning behind the use of word. As illustrated most easily in the first section of the Phenomenology of Spirit: sense-certainty. Hegel was a crazy man to say the least, when he first released his work he was heavily criticized for using/bringing in so many different topics and ideas to what they considered a big-jumbled mess. I say with the utmost certainty, that Hegel would've loved how Marx incorporated his ideas. And if Hegel didn't? Well as Hegel's last words go, "only one man ever understood me, and even he didn't understand me". Hegel himself did not understand the magnitude of his work. Marx is not irrelevant to the discussion in the slightest.
@@amarmujezinovic Wittgenstein demonstrated that there is no private meanings to language. Language is a shared social creation and changes according to how the speakers collectively decide it will change. In this sense yes, words can have meanings beyond the intention of the speaker, but if we suspect that the speaker is imprecise, we ask him to clarify because what we as the listener actually care about is accurately copying his ideas into our own minds. It is an act of malicious pride to use one's personal interpretation of a vague phrase to mean the opposite of what the speaker more likely intended to put forth, as I assert Marx did with Hegel.
There are places in heaven waiting for people like you thank you for explaining it with cartoons the rest of the videos i found on this topic put me to sleep and i have a paper due in a day god bless
Excellent summary. I hope you got a good grade.
Thank you very much! A fantastic and clear explanation :)
easy and entertaining way to listen to a such a complex topic. :-)
that's an other way of seeing the movie. great job!
Great job. Well done 🙌🙌🙌
this amazing,
best video on this confusing ass shit
This is great
Superb!
Yaaaaayyy
👍👍👍best
Hi from ED
You’re amazing. Thanks.
Just like any state with taxes
Word. Taxation = theft, government = slavery
you forgot about this guy called Marx
Marx came AFTER Hegel moron. He's next to irrelevant to the discussion of hegelian dialectics as such. Hegel was an idealist, not a materialist, and he believed the Prussian constitutional monarchy of his time to be the end of the historical dialectic.
@@sethapex9670 My god, what a terrible reading of Hegel. As Hegel himself as said, what matters is the words said, not the meaning behind the use of word. As illustrated most easily in the first section of the Phenomenology of Spirit: sense-certainty. Hegel was a crazy man to say the least, when he first released his work he was heavily criticized for using/bringing in so many different topics and ideas to what they considered a big-jumbled mess. I say with the utmost certainty, that Hegel would've loved how Marx incorporated his ideas. And if Hegel didn't? Well as Hegel's last words go, "only one man ever understood me, and even he didn't understand me". Hegel himself did not understand the magnitude of his work. Marx is not irrelevant to the discussion in the slightest.
@@amarmujezinovic how can the word be important if the meaning behind it is not?
@@sethapex9670 What. No. To Hegel, the point is that the word itself has meaning and is what matters. Not the intention behind the word.
@@amarmujezinovic Wittgenstein demonstrated that there is no private meanings to language. Language is a shared social creation and changes according to how the speakers collectively decide it will change. In this sense yes, words can have meanings beyond the intention of the speaker, but if we suspect that the speaker is imprecise, we ask him to clarify because what we as the listener actually care about is accurately copying his ideas into our own minds. It is an act of malicious pride to use one's personal interpretation of a vague phrase to mean the opposite of what the speaker more likely intended to put forth, as I assert Marx did with Hegel.
Pretty good, but I think this video over-simplifies the dialectic and doesn't capture the implications of it.
+Garrett Lappe agree
Pretty good, but I think you have nothing to add but a sense of superiority.