Will never understand Hegel. 3 years of philosophy. Will never understand. Very awesome explanation. Thank you for this. From a derrida/foucault stan in FR.
flabbergasted (barely have an excuse to use that word but certainly can use it here!) the chiasmatic sequencing explanation is truly brilliant. thanks Julian
Hi Julian, thanks for this class. Are you familiar with the later works of Merleau-Ponty? He is very close to Zizek and proposes the same chiasmic relationship of subjectivity and Being that you introduce here (as well as a chiasmic intertwining of all of the other conceptual oppositions--e.g. absence and presence, Being and nothingness, nature and culture, past and present, self and other, identity and difference, etc.). His late thought combines Hegel (and not Kojeve's Hegel of synthesis, but the Hegel of contradiction and constitutive negativity), Schelling, Lukacs, and psychoanalysis, and therefore reaches many of the same conclusions as Zizek
You're great at clarifying these ideas. I wish these philosophers were better communicators/writers because even though you're summarizing these concepts very well, their philosophy is so grossly overlycomplicated that it unfortunately has doomed recent generations into a position of having to misunderstand their ideas because it's obvious these thinkers didn't understand their own work in the first place. I hope future philosophers value clarity and feed more off of biology and physics and less so from psychology and the social sciences. Great video, I'm subscribing and recommending to friends.
I think that's the part of the charm of philosophy that you need to have 2 types of people - one capable of thinking extraordinary ideas, and other ones that are great at explaining and clarifying them to the public. And I doubt in the entire history of philosophy, there is a person that was both of them simultaneously.
@@bartuomyej there have been so many, i think most philosophers are able to do so but they are just adressing other people than you think, one need to read to their books, in most case way easiert to follow than a speech since a speech is often to dense
Powerful lecture! I wonder if there's a way of extending agency towards other nonhuman animals in a way that doesn't bake in the conclusion that man is unnatural in nature. Aristotle's account seems like a retroactive justification for a civilisation which has excluded consideration (moral or otherwise) to nonhuman animals
17:00 Präsenz ist die Vermittlung von Absenz 26:30 bei der Nostalgie geht es nicht um das Objekt, das nicht mehr da ist, sondern um den Fakt, dass es verloren ist: Das ist ein Beispiel für die vlt. ursprünglichste Form eines Mangels, der unser Begehren aufrecht erhält und darauf einwirkt 51:25 the real is the gap, weder Absenz noch Präsenz + chiastische Sequenzierung (hier sollte noch mehr Wert auf die Sequenzierung gelegt werden, d.h. welche ontologische Position als erstes da ist bestimmt auf eigentümliche Weise die Erscheinungsweise von Präsenz und Absenz, Sein und Nicht-Sein etc.)
I love it when you use examples, even if they are a fruitful failure to express oneself. I'm understanding the chiasmic structure by contrasting a coin with a modified book. A coin has two sides, face up represents essence, face down is the void and the middle represents subjective being). Instead, we can imagine a book splayed open, with 'Nothing emerging into Something' on one page, and 'from Something into Nothing' on the other. Two metaphysical models. Yet, these are only on the page because in the middle of the spine stands a projector or mirror. The mirror reflects both models back into themselves. The mirror shows the wider dialectic of presence and absence. It reflects the order of being. My confusion lies in understanding how this mirror is also subjectivity and the Real
Question. Been thinking of the of the CHAISM structure, can't quite understand but the idea of Lacanian quilting or retroactivity seems to play in here were the x stands in between the A-B B-A structure. Thinking seems to be here at the X is were all the show seems to be taking place. Not sure if question is clelar there but would Love to here if I'm crazy or something there? Much Love
Absolutely! This is essentially why Zizek uses Lacan to read Hegel and in my reading the CHIASM achieves the same without needing Lacan (alrhough it took me Lacan to see the CHIASM)
@@julianphilosophy Thanks for helping getting a grasp of these concepts. Thanks for you and Jenaline BRILLIANT work, what a team. Every week the journey along with yall and the class have been joy to participate in and expand and explore my world and mind.
Hi deep purple, greetings from us to you in India. We’ve uploaded 35 short masterclass videos to our patreon, each of them covers the key concepts for the classes. And some of the older ones might still be on RU-vid as well. Thanks for asking!
From my comment it should be obvious that I've heard of those two plus Diogenes. Alain de Botton not obvious but lieder ist er nicht eine echte Philosoph and doesn't count.
