Exclusive Episodes on Patreon: www.patreon.com/OneDime Many have asked me for tips on how to read a lot. Here is a hack that I use all the time to consume 10x more books when I don’t have time to read (I typically only read physical books in the morning): I use this app called Speechify, which is by far the best text-speech reader on the internet (trust me I have tried em all). You can plug in PDFs or links of books or articles, and it will read them to you. It’s scary how many of the AI voices feel exactly like real humans. If I had used this app earlier in my life, I would have saved SO much money on not buying audiobooks. You can sign up using my link here (I will get a little affiliate commission): speechify.com/?source=fb-for-mobile&via=1Dime
Great talk, guys! Cadell, you really clarified a lot of difficult concepts here. I especially liked how you explained the difference between the subject of the statement and the subject of enunciation.
This episode was fucking amazing, and I can't wait to read this stuff myself. Currently, I'm reading Aristotle and Plato as an introduction to Kant as an introduction to Hegel as an introduction to Deleuze and Zizek. So my journey is still long. But I do have a remark to make as a physicist and mathematician about the small digression about determinism. Strictly speaking, determinism is about the metaphysical notion that things are predetermined; i.e.: what happens was bound to happen. What climate catastrophes are gonna happen is predetermined, and can be determined theoretically, but infinitely difficult to do so practically, because the system is chaotic. Chaos does not imply the inability to determine something. Quantum mechanics is a field where indeterminism is implied. That's not to say that quantum mechanical systems are provably indeterministic, but rather that a discussion about determinism makes sense in this realm (for as far as a discussion about determinism is fruitful at all). Determinism can also be discussed in fields where our knowledge lacks, like the brain, or cosmology. Climate physics is not such a field however; the physical models we have for it are pretty complete, and we also know that the contributions of quantum mechanics can be neglected. The only way in which the climate is not determined is because we don't know what humans are gonna do. This might sound like nitpicking, but as we're having this extremely rigorous conversation about philosophy, I don't think it suffices to simply conflate indeterminism with chaos.
Fantastic conversation! I still need to dive into some of these texts, but the examples were vivid and thoughtful, helping me to grasp what I'm about to get into. Cheers, friends!
I forget the category Cadell used for art, science, politics and love. I recall him saying love is the weird one and I feel it is different to the other three. It reminded me of the four fundamental forces in science: Weak & strong nuclear, electromagnetic and gravitational. Where gravitational is the weird one, very weak at any distance compared to the other three and yet shapes the universe. I've heard it said that gravity is weird because it came here from another dimension when the big bang, singularity punched it through into our reality. It doesn't belong and we're unable to reconcile it. If it doesn't belong, if it were absent then we wouldn't be here to interrogate it. Or less anthropologically, the universe would have a different nature with which to inquire of itself. Our reality wouldn't exist, the different one would still be real and able to wonder about itself. I like the beating heart concept of neverending big bangs, however I understand science has gone off that idea. Constant rebirth from the death of before 🤠💜
@@theory_underground Apologies for the delay in responding, I don't often check for replies. I'm pretty sure that I heard this idea in a TV program about big bang theory. I pretty much stopped watching TV 20-odd years ago and it would've been on BBC 2, or Channel 4. Sorry that I can't be more specific. Subbed to you 😁
@@theory_underground PS: I've an idea it may have been related to the idea of M-Branes, that they undulate and when different ones touch that produces big bangs. Again this is either from the same program, or one around that time.
I used to get notified about new uploads from Cadell on a very regular basis then, it just kinda stopped and I sort of forgot about him - util now. I wonder if there are some shadow-ban-y shenanigans going on?
1:23:02 *truth seeking* “I see idealism and psychoanalysis as a way to personalize the universal. And what that means is just.. investigating your life history, not just simply navel gazing-that the becoming of your own signifier, the becoming of your own concept is itself a philosophical project.”
1:16:21 *Failing better* “Hegel’s progress is the deepening of contradiction-meaning you don’t resolve all contradictions, you experience contradictions which you didn’t experience before. So communism will be a deepening of contradictions in the sense that we will be experience contradictions that we don’t currently experience.”
Cadell brought to mind oppositional forces, the law of action and reaction, cause and effect in physics, but as it's a smooth whole isn't the result of Hegel, it saves the idea from ending there... Like if equilibrium was there from the start, there'd no more motion, progress, stuff left to know. It also brought to mind yin yang which is dynamic and in my head is always moving, the four part's volumes and boundaries in constant flux. However that seems to be a unified, circular/ spherical whole. A closed system. Cadell mentioned fractals and I also thought of holograms, each part contains the whole. However not being bound by a circle/ sphere, they have more freedom and can still be glimpsed, but never in entirety. We can't improve the resolution to see the 'end' of the fractal, never know absolutely. A fractal and the turtle stack are always going down... A couple of days ago I had a brief discussion in a Live chat about free will vs determinism. The other person maintained that free will is an illusion, that quantum mechanics doesn't save us. I'd mentioned a Newtonian vs quantum conception of things. That quantum mechanics at least gives us a range of possibilities, rather than specific points of possibility. They said that Schrödinger's cat was laughing at me when I tried to talk about an interplay between macro reality and quantum reality. I love cats and I get the joke. However surely to know better, we have to reconcile the two? They're not closed systems from each other, surely? I did also mention infinite multiverses and they pointed out that an infinite number doesn't mean infinite possibilities. Like there are infinite numbers between 0.0 and 0.1. 25 is not one of them. They maintained that quantum effects are so negligible that they can be dismissed and there's no free will. I love thinking about physics in words, but maths horrifies me. Is it possible to follow these ideas deeply without maths? 🤠💜
1:16:50 *Timenergy* “We’ll actually have time to think because we live so much through the division of labor. Pretty much a lot of our human faculties are just blocked off, limited, stultified-and really that’s sort of part of the project because we say, _oh why is communism even good?”_
The Phenomenology is an easy read; I really wish critics would stop referring to pieces of literature as being so difficult. It only scares and discourages people from reading these wonderful texts. This is not to say that there aren't any difficult books, but those are books that constantly refer to other thinkers without further explanation.
It's only true relative to his other books. Philosophy of Right and the Encyclopedia were University-approved textbooks for students and deliberately made easy to read (at the cost of censorship), while the Phenomenology was independently published but much more structurally unintuitive (at the benefit of getting to see Hegel's real views without oversight).
37:07 *Hegel’s universal becomes embodied thru singularity* “A universal political movement is embodied in this singular concrete being-Napoleon, who I see on horseback in front of me. It’s like the universal’s through the particular. I always use scientific examples to describe it, like Einstein coming up with the general theory of relativity or Darwin coming up with the theory of natural selection. General relativity and natural selection are universal but they’re embodied in a singularity-Darwin or Einstein.”
Exclusive Episodes on Patreon: www.patreon.com/OneDime
Many have asked me for tips on how to read a lot. Here is a hack that I use all the time to consume 10x more books when I don’t have time to read (I typically only read physical books in the morning): I use this app called Speechify, which is by far the best text-speech reader on the internet (trust me I have tried em all). You can plug in PDFs or links of books or articles, and it will read them to you. It’s scary how many of the AI voices feel exactly like real humans. If I had used this app earlier in my life, I would have saved SO much money on not buying audiobooks.
You can sign up using my link here (I will get a little affiliate commission): speechify.com/?source=fb-for-mobile&via=1Dime
Thanks for being such a great host! I hope this helps those starting to dip their toes in Hegelian waters 🌊
Great talk, guys! Cadell, you really clarified a lot of difficult concepts here. I especially liked how you explained the difference between the subject of the statement and the subject of enunciation.
This episode was fucking amazing, and I can't wait to read this stuff myself. Currently, I'm reading Aristotle and Plato as an introduction to Kant as an introduction to Hegel as an introduction to Deleuze and Zizek. So my journey is still long.
But I do have a remark to make as a physicist and mathematician about the small digression about determinism. Strictly speaking, determinism is about the metaphysical notion that things are predetermined; i.e.: what happens was bound to happen. What climate catastrophes are gonna happen is predetermined, and can be determined theoretically, but infinitely difficult to do so practically, because the system is chaotic. Chaos does not imply the inability to determine something. Quantum mechanics is a field where indeterminism is implied. That's not to say that quantum mechanical systems are provably indeterministic, but rather that a discussion about determinism makes sense in this realm (for as far as a discussion about determinism is fruitful at all). Determinism can also be discussed in fields where our knowledge lacks, like the brain, or cosmology. Climate physics is not such a field however; the physical models we have for it are pretty complete, and we also know that the contributions of quantum mechanics can be neglected. The only way in which the climate is not determined is because we don't know what humans are gonna do.
This might sound like nitpicking, but as we're having this extremely rigorous conversation about philosophy, I don't think it suffices to simply conflate indeterminism with chaos.
Cadell is doing transformative work in teaching and philosophical space. and lead me to the water of 1dime nice
this is such a good vid because i just finished " phenomenology of spirt" and I don' understand it
Nice to see people covering the more obscure parts of Hegelian epistemology rather than just his politics.
Fantastic conversation! I still need to dive into some of these texts, but the examples were vivid and thoughtful, helping me to grasp what I'm about to get into.
Cheers, friends!
I had to watch this over twice to understand the concepts, good interview.
Actually 3 times xD
im glad this exists I didnt understand hegel at all when I read phenomenology of spirit
You should talk with Antonio Wolf about Hegel
My new favorite podcast
Great guest great hosting
Two brilliant men
55:05 *ground of the philosopher* “Absolute knowing has no positive content-absolute knowing is just the recognition that you don’t know everything.”
I forget the category Cadell used for art, science, politics and love.
I recall him saying love is the weird one and I feel it is different to the other three.
It reminded me of the four fundamental forces in science: Weak & strong nuclear, electromagnetic and gravitational.
Where gravitational is the weird one, very weak at any distance compared to the other three and yet shapes the universe.
I've heard it said that gravity is weird because it came here from another dimension when the big bang, singularity punched it through into our reality. It doesn't belong and we're unable to reconcile it.
If it doesn't belong, if it were absent then we wouldn't be here to interrogate it.
Or less anthropologically, the universe would have a different nature with which to inquire of itself.
Our reality wouldn't exist, the different one would still be real and able to wonder about itself.
I like the beating heart concept of neverending big bangs, however I understand science has gone off that idea.
Constant rebirth from the death of before 🤠💜
Hello! Fascinating. Just wondering where you heard this about gravitation not belonging!?
@@theory_underground Apologies for the delay in responding, I don't often check for replies.
I'm pretty sure that I heard this idea in a TV program about big bang theory. I pretty much stopped watching TV 20-odd years ago and it would've been on BBC 2, or Channel 4. Sorry that I can't be more specific.
Subbed to you 😁
@@theory_underground PS: I've an idea it may have been related to the idea of M-Branes, that they undulate and when different ones touch that produces big bangs.
Again this is either from the same program, or one around that time.
🔥🔥🔥🔥🔥
Antonio Wolf is another philosopher who also has a youtube channel that talks a lot with Hegel. I highly recomend him.
I used to get notified about new uploads from Cadell on a very regular basis then, it just kinda stopped and I sort of forgot about him - util now. I wonder if there are some shadow-ban-y shenanigans going on?
1:23:02 *truth seeking* “I see idealism and psychoanalysis as a way to personalize the universal. And what that means is just.. investigating your life history, not just simply navel gazing-that the becoming of your own signifier, the becoming of your own concept is itself a philosophical project.”
1:16:21 *Failing better* “Hegel’s progress is the deepening of contradiction-meaning you don’t resolve all contradictions, you experience contradictions which you didn’t experience before. So communism will be a deepening of contradictions in the sense that we will be experience contradictions that we don’t currently experience.”
Cadell brought to mind oppositional forces, the law of action and reaction, cause and effect in physics, but as it's a smooth whole isn't the result of Hegel, it saves the idea from ending there...
Like if equilibrium was there from the start, there'd no more motion, progress, stuff left to know.
It also brought to mind yin yang which is dynamic and in my head is always moving, the four part's volumes and boundaries in constant flux.
However that seems to be a unified, circular/ spherical whole. A closed system.
Cadell mentioned fractals and I also thought of holograms, each part contains the whole.
However not being bound by a circle/ sphere, they have more freedom and can still be glimpsed, but never in entirety. We can't improve the resolution to see the 'end' of the fractal, never know absolutely.
A fractal and the turtle stack are always going down...
A couple of days ago I had a brief discussion in a Live chat about free will vs determinism.
The other person maintained that free will is an illusion, that quantum mechanics doesn't save us.
I'd mentioned a Newtonian vs quantum conception of things.
That quantum mechanics at least gives us a range of possibilities, rather than specific points of possibility.
They said that Schrödinger's cat was laughing at me when I tried to talk about an interplay between macro reality and quantum reality.
I love cats and I get the joke. However surely to know better, we have to reconcile the two? They're not closed systems from each other, surely?
I did also mention infinite multiverses and they pointed out that an infinite number doesn't mean infinite possibilities.
Like there are infinite numbers between 0.0 and 0.1.
25 is not one of them.
They maintained that quantum effects are so negligible that they can be dismissed and there's no free will.
I love thinking about physics in words, but maths horrifies me.
Is it possible to follow these ideas deeply without maths?
🤠💜
1:16:50 *Timenergy* “We’ll actually have time to think because we live so much through the division of labor. Pretty much a lot of our human faculties are just blocked off, limited, stultified-and really that’s sort of part of the project because we say, _oh why is communism even good?”_
12:15 aka immediate/ mediate/ concrete
Hegelians arise!
The Phenomenology is an easy read; I really wish critics would stop referring to pieces of literature as being so difficult. It only scares and discourages people from reading these wonderful texts. This is not to say that there aren't any difficult books, but those are books that constantly refer to other thinkers without further explanation.
It's only true relative to his other books.
Philosophy of Right and the Encyclopedia were University-approved textbooks for students and deliberately made easy to read (at the cost of censorship), while the Phenomenology was independently published but much more structurally unintuitive (at the benefit of getting to see Hegel's real views without oversight).
Easy to read... Extremely difficult to comprehend. Denying this does nobody any favors.
37:07 *Hegel’s universal becomes embodied thru singularity* “A universal political movement is embodied in this singular concrete being-Napoleon, who I see on horseback in front of me. It’s like the universal’s through the particular. I always use scientific examples to describe it, like Einstein coming up with the general theory of relativity or Darwin coming up with the theory of natural selection. General relativity and natural selection are universal but they’re embodied in a singularity-Darwin or Einstein.”