Guide to Hegel: The Dialectic 

Jesus christ, that passion mixed with sharp knowledge is admirable, makes me wonder what that coffee had, really appreciate the classes Julian, greetings from Uruguay!

Thank you for making this content available.

I find the third meaning of the word "Aufhebung" best expresses the Hegelian three-step. it also means "Aufhebung" in the sense of; eliminate, to erase something completely

I am from China, and i love your explanation about hegel and his dialectic

Aufhebung can also mean something like lifting something off of something, in the same way you lift a ban or a spell off of something or someone - a removal of sorts, or a "vanishing". The three meanings almost seem like reflections of thesis, anthysesis, synthesis

Thank you Julian, I clicked on your video on RU-vid, because you have a Spitzweg (Scenes), painting on the intro, I have a set of his paintings in my office. My excavation business of 34 years is my day job, I’m a self imposed Philosopher, I Spiritually I like Spinoza, but Hegal’s philosophy is how I conduct my day to day interactions with people. Puns and word play are the tools to I use to establish friendships. My circle of friends and associates do not share my lifelong enthusiasm for philosophy, so I am glad I clicked on your channel!

Thank you, Julian. Hello from Las Vegas, NV. 🇲🇽

“The Complete Guide to Žižek” is now available here: www.patreon.com/julianphilosophy

Happy b-day Hegel! A summer child😼

Thank you. This is the best explanation of Hegel and Dialectics

THANK YOU PROFESSOR ❤

Passing the torch of knowledge, much appreciated ❤

Wow! Thank you! You explain incredibly well 😮

Thank you for this, I've been searching for a proper lecture on hegel for a long time

Illuminating and exuberant. Thank you.

Thank you from Vancouver Canada.

"Success is going from failure to failure without losing enthusiasm" - Winston Churchill

'That was fun' at the end 😂❤🎉

Thank you from Kenya! Discovered you on TikTok as I was looking for*sniff* Zizek.

Very helpful

43:24 "The seed is the immortal element of the mortal living thing." I can't remember which Greek said that quote I once read. Anyway, it reminds me of the old idea of the complete notion of the oak tree already contained in the acorn, and the whole forest contained in the oak tree. Moreover, I know CG Jung allegedly held philosophy in low regard. However, everytime I read Hegel, I get the feeling that he had already developed so much of what I find in CG Jung. I am an avid student of Jung and I know he would probably want to smack me for my claim, but I truly believe that he may have been a closet Hegelian. I just see too many deep and uncanny correspondences between them. Perhaps it's due to the fact that they were both reacting primarily to Kant, and so by a natural reaction, a similar synthesis came about in both. But I still wanted to throw that out there in case you might have something insightful to say. I can't get anyone to answer me on some of my ideas. I'm not an intellectual by trade. I'm actually a carpenter who's just fascinated by this stuff. I've even had one well known RU-vid professor (Dr. Sadler) block me on RU-vid for asking "silly questions." Apparently a mind open to new ideas is not something held in high esteem these days, so I've faced dismissive condescension from some, contemptuous disregard from others. Hopefully, maybe you can help me develop some of my thoughts further because I am considering writing a book soon, and it would help me a lot to have someone like yourself who can help me draw out and clarify some of my own ideas. Thank you in any case...

New to your channel from New Bedford, Massachusetts, home of Moby Dick and Fredrick Douglas.

Julian on uppers

From South Sudan

Hello from Canada

Thanks....South Africa.

Hi from Somerset, England :)

I loved you 100% more when I saw tha damnation album behind you❤

Hello from Sri Lanka

So the point of the clothing brand example is that both the preppy upper-class clothing and the sportswear both reveal that the idea was always just about sales-numbers, and the two particulars refer back to this universal, which always already was? The brand didn't "transform" into something new, but just revealed what it always was?

Thanks! Dave NYC

I don't know why anybody would accept that Friendship just is the process of determining what friendship is if what we mean is a process of trying to _define_ what friendship is. That is, I don't see how it could be understood as a process of determining what are the necessary and sufficient conditions of friendship. It _can_ be such an activity, I suppose, but it need not be. I can see it as a process of determination through friend-like/friendship 'resembling' actions. That is, as something 'defined' by it's doing: helping your friend move; listening to their problems; giving advice, reciprocity, etc.

14:28 ha! It's like a development by undevelopment!!

Hello from Pakistan

Jeddah, Saudi Arabia ❤

I feel like Hegel and his contemporaries were struggling to give birth to the idea of fractals, as if in their thoughts we witness the idea of fractals in a prenatal or embrionic state. And I think the idea of thesis-atnithesis-synthysis is still so bounded within two dimensionality that it doesn't quite capture the conplexity of what Hegel had in mind. Instead, I tend to think of Hegel as more pyramidal and 3D and thus something more like those fractals that are pyramids made of smaller and smaller self-same pyramids. Regarding the idea of "friendship," it would be as though that entire concept were comprised of such a fractal pyramid, like was as unique as a snowflake (I realize there's some debate over whether snowflakes are truly unique, bit you get my point, I hope). I must also bring to your attention something that has been on my mind lately about the so-called Hegelian Dialectic. I have often heard declarations that, in one way or another, Hegel held Logos responsible for the development of reality. While I still believe this to be partially true, I also realize that it is an oversimplification. Having studied Hegel relatively intently lately-as well as many other doctrines from other philosophers-my conceptions and conclusions have undergone a few peculiar and definite refinements. So please tell me what you think about the following idea: Everytime I sense Hegel talking about this idea of selfsame opposites maintaining a unity, my mind always drifts into its analogous concept in the computing world of sequential versus parallel processing. And from there I find my thoughts associating to other analogues like space versus time and masculinity versus femininity. Although Hegel managed to generate an entirely unique conception of what is meant by the notion of logic, He did not deny the merits of traditional Aristotelian logic, i.e., the formal elimination of contradictions. On the other hand, Hegel obviously also revived the significance of contradiction, elevating it to a prominent and vital role: the driving force behind the development of all human history. Meanwhile, Hegel-following on the heels of Kant-endorsed the claim that our entire experience as conscious beings is organized around space and time. Now space and time each carry certain connotations or associations: space has a certain sense of stability and fixity, more or less sturdy and static, whereas time is all about change and mutability. (I should note in passing that the zeitgeist of Kant and Hegel's day strictly compartmentalized space and time, in contrast to our modern space-time continuum whereby these two are basically the inverse of each other). Now, coming back to Hegel's acceptance of formal logic, the word 'logic' itself derives etymologically, as I'm sure you know, from the word Logos; which, since ancient times, has also been associated with masculinity. Interestingly enough, does not masculinity also connote a sense of stoic, immutable and geometric permanence, much in the way of, say, space? Thus we might arguably tie our notion of masculinity to spatial conceptions, and, by further extension, to our fixation on the elimination of contradictions. But where, then, does that leave femininity? Let's consider an old metaphor I've always used for helping friends to understand their opposite sex relationships. I always explain it simply by relating men to a large rock up against which the constant churning of ocean waves crash, again and again. I always tell my male friends that they should think of themselves as a Rock-strong and immutable-and their women as the Ocean-deep, mysterious, constantly and internally in motion, given to occasional upheavals of fierce and explosive power, always crashing against their Rock, always seeking to dislodge their Rock at his weakest points. Moreover, I also frequently quip (in a less than facetious mood) that women possess an entirely different "logic" than men; it would not be a stretch to say that very embodiment of femininity-i.e., women-sometimes seem the very embodiment of contradiction itself, since I've had numerous experiences in which women have stared me dead in the face, perfectly serious, and asked me to do--simultaneously--two things that were completely contradictory and illogical. (I have developed a rather cynical view of this behavior, since I believe women have been designed by God to weaken men by confusing our desire to eliminate contradiction). It's as though what seems like a clear contradiction to a man is perfectly sensible and rational to a woman. Anyway, my point is that if we can thus associate Logos with our fixed sensibilities pertaining to spatial conceptions, then, by comparison, (as an antinomy, I suppose) we might similarly associate feminine Eros to our common sense of change-the key feature in our concept of time. For if by Logos we mean the eradication of contradictions, then plainly by Eros we mean the retention and deployment of contradictions for the purpose of change and development. Indeed, could it be that Hegel was trying through philosophy to demote Logos to a place of at least equal significance to that of Eros by demonstrating how the latter is the prime mover behind spatial reconfiguration and thus the source of History? Could this be why so many after him, including Freud-perhaps via unconscious osmosis of a zeitgeist generated by Hegel-saw sexual potencies as the structure of history, i.e., of space (being) and time? Indeed, is space the Logos, and time, Eros? At any rate, were this so, then it leaves me struggling to designate which would be the analogue to sequential processing and which to parallel processing. I suppose sequential processing would be akin to time and the feminine, whereas parallel processing is thus akin to space and masculinity. 🤷🏻‍♂️🤷🏻‍♂️🤷🏻‍♂️ please help me unpack this some more...

When you look at the contents of the _Science of Logic_ by Hegel a triadic structure is almost omnipresent on all levels: there are three volumes (Being, Essence, Concept), at the beginning Being, Nothing, Becoming a.s.o. Also in §§ 79 - 83 of his _Encyclopedia of the Philosophical Sciences_ where he talks about three aspects of the logic: abstract, dialectical & speculative or when he refers to the Christian Trinity (what he does quite often). In fact at least at first sight Hegel's philosophy looks pretty triadic overall. So to apply the formula of *'thesis - antithesis - synthesis'* doesn't seem to be absurd.

Mexico City ,good morning

Hegel in Dutch :o I want that alternate universe

So sublation is basically "Gaining what you already had, by loosing it."

❤❤❤

Granada, Spain.

Hi Julian

Downtown Abbey. Best Freudian slip ever 😂

46:41 one more, lol (sorry): how about characterizing Hegel's idea of philosophy as a form of knowledge that has its own own living vitality and that grows and expands by the dialectic of multiplication by division, a.k.a. (ratio)nality)? In a word, growth by the haphazard multiplication of ratios?

Hi! I'm new to your channel, do you have a playlist related to Hegel's philosophy?

Lao Tse was all over this a couple Millenia before Hegel… Western thought basically took a wrong turn with Socrates and took until Hegel to untangle it’s obsession with logocentric normativity.

Does anyone know any yt channel that creates similar content (in the form of lectures) however on literature?? 🙏

From saudi

I heard Hegel never said "thesis plus antithesis equal synthesis"

Calgary Alberta Canada

Thank u Julian. One little correction though. I think Adorno was talking about capitalist society, of it's undefinability, and I don't think the fact that it's undefinability defines it(the dialectical movement), makes it a well functioning society.😂Adorno never thought society well functioning. What do u think ?

Maroc

Did I fully appreciate and understand this? No. Did I thoroughly enjoy it? Is my lack of understanding and complete enjoyment dialectical ? IDKKKK

I have constantly been listening to the guide of hegel on repeat while playing league of legends, i want to become a hegel expert, got bored of Nietzsche...

I have studied many philosophers but always struggle with Hegel. I can reach the level of rote memorization of the descriptions of the concepts, but it doesn't "click" in my mind. Naming things as thesis/antithesis/synthesis to me comes across as superfluous additional descriptions and labels that don't provide further explanatory value. What questions would remain unanswerable if not for the existence of the dialectic? In other words, what is the point of it? Maybe I just don't get it...

Ive notice the uptick in ppl reviwing or posting content regarding hegel. Messagw to the keks.. Trust me, this isnt the gap you are looking for.

you must know that nowhere in his complete works the term thesis/antithesis/synthesis is to find not once...

Julian generously provides 3 minutes of hot air before the video even starts, which ironically mirrors how philosophy has always had a high quotient of hot air to pith. But I do respect the depth of his grasp of Hegel. I have to challenge that thesis, antithesis, synthesis is formal at all. I can't think of anything less formal, less structured. I don't know how to say less about reality than this. To say any more is to say nothing more and Julian takes an hour to do so. He could have put 50 years of words together to say the same amount of nothing. Hegel is so simple, 3 words are sufficient.

How do you conclude a “failure” as a “success?” The problem sometimes with philosophy, is that everyone is trying to overthink and overlook the often sometimes simple dialogue! And most of all? They’re all NARCISSISTS!!

Wonderful! Btw, will you comment on the recently discovered Hegel lectures on aesthetics? Or maybe you have but I haven't found it.

_A thesis which is always already the thesis of its own antithesis in its synthesis which is identical to itself_

When approaching the end. As Hegel says Nothing and Being are in-themselves and only by Becoming can they be posited, and I guess that is what you meant at the end? Every Thesis is a pre-mediated Synthesis. In other words, Thesis and Antithesis are retroactively posited after Synthesis is. Right?

If dialectics is anti-formalism why does Hegel in SoL start with the "simplest"/most foundational dialectic of the Nichts vs Sein? It would suggest a sort of Fichtean linearity. I have of course misunderstood something here, so I'm happy to get clarification.