I encourage more German philosophers currently studying or teaching to share their views like you do on RU-vid. This single video is equivalent to a lecture with an audience of 1000 people. Back in the day that would have been considered a rock concert by philosophy standards. Thanks for sharing your views and insights with us.
You have passion for the subject and for achieving clarity where it is nigh impossible to achieve. Thank you for this. I must say that I really don't understand what "inceptual thinking" is beyond, well, "thinking." To think at all is to reject foregone conclusions and presuppositions. I'm with you against representationalism, of course, and I like the idea of erasing "the history of philosophy," replacing it with thinking itself. After all, philosophy doesn't evolve like empirical science. It is always beginning anew. (Is that what is meant by "inceptual" thinking?) But I despair at ever understanding what "nothing" has to do with anything. I'm with Parmenides on this. There ain't no nothing. Nothing is, itself, something.
I appreciate the painstaking effort you give in translating and contextualizing. One does not encounter this with other youtube vids, or in my case many of my past phil professors. There may be some background information but it is not used to distinguish ideas or elaborate modes of thought/knowing. I realize the limits of my understanding of Hegel, this video helps.
Magnificent work, Johannes. Just this morning, my close friend asked me about Hegelian Dialectics (the widespread delusion associated with Hegel) to which I told him all such associations with the thesis/antithesis/synthesis were FALSE! One could make it a career, just demystifying all false notions surrounding the work of Hegel. Also, I recommend reading Bolzano (as he has many potent critiques about Kant and Hegel.) I have recently started reading the “Theory of Science,” by Bolzano.
Something I have found myself emphasising as regard Dialectic is breaking it down into the etymology of the word. I.e. dia-legomai. I think once we reemphasise the Greek roots of the word we can more clearly see why Hegel and others revive dialectic. Dia - Through, and Legomai - the medio passive of I speak, so I speak and am spoken to. Dialegomai thus is a speaking through where the grammatical subject is also intimately involved in the process. The word itself thus applied to philosophy implies a method where the subject and object are not held apart, nor are they unchanging.
And here we have again folks another philosopher of today claiming that anybody who disagrees with Hegel, even Heidegger, misunderstood Hegel. Hegel is the goose that laid the golden egg. Why even Hegel himself will tell you that. He's a philosophical legend in his own mind.
i think its a mistake to say Marx was wrong in his interpretation of Hegel. Marx was schooled in Hegelian philosophy, and was influenced by it, but he came up with his own school of thought which revolved around materialism. He wasn't thinking that he was just interpreting Hegel, he was coming up with his own theories as a former student of Hegel.
@@JohannesNiederhauser it seems to me that he was a student who ended up developing his own ideas. Obviously Hegel is more mystical in his interest in spirit. Marx is a materialist. Obviously Marx was influenced in his dialectical approach, but potentially his philosophy could be seen as a rejection of Hegel’s mysticism. I also think Marx was more interested in investigating history through his theory and critiquing capitalism than he was on giving specifics about the future, as he writes way more about those subjects. It seems to me that someone like Plato is far more specific in guessing what the perfect state will exactly be like. Correct me if I'm wrong, but besides writing generally of a transitional period in which the intelligentsia creates a socialist state that cedes power to the workers, followed by a anarchic utopia, he doesnt really go into specifics of how it should or could or will be. Thank you for responding by the way. I really like your channel.
I loved the frustrated sigh after you mentioned this particular philosopher's understanding that he could now see in the future 😂😂 thank you so much for this video, greetings from New York
Aren't "recovering the source, the origin" and beginning "pre-suppositionally" the same as doing the "foundational philosophy" Heidegger said Hegel did?
Once one frees oneself from the shakles of Formal Logic as a so called »purely formal« presupposition of philosophical discourse, one is confronted with Language itself. The question of the Sprachumgang arises. How does one cope with the speculative nature of language as Hegel terms it? It becomes evident, that language can neither be a merely sensible shell for intelligibel thought, nor is it simply a means of communication »between two subjects«. Formal Logic wants to differentiate (and only differentiate without mediation) between what is said and how it is said. The »how« it then says, is rhetorics, purely external to thought, etc. The Phenomenology of Spirit by contrast starts exactly with the resolution to take serious the göttliche Natur der Sprache, the fact that by simply proclaiming that what I want to say (Diese, the most concrete, fullest being) and how I say it (i use a very abstrakt term which actually doesn't differentiate at all. Everything is Dieses as Hegel says) is different, I only exhibit my own ignorance. I have already been refuted by language itself, if I know it or not. Ich verfüge nicht einfach über die Bedeutung des Gesagten. (Just as - to chose a somewhat mundane example - when I proclaim my humbleness, thereby with this very statement contradicting myself.) So der Sprachumgang der Philosophie is curcial. I guess my question is: How would you describe the difference in Sprachumgang between Hegel and Heidegger? Because as I understand it (vgl. also Liebrucks) Hegel forces us to radically rethink the relationship between language and thought.
@@davidschmezer5712 meinen deutschen Kanal kennen Sie? Zudem wollte ich Sie darauf hinweisen, dass ich ab 18.6. einen Kurs zum Deutschen Idealismus unterrichte.
Yes, Hegel did not use the terms « thesis, » antithesis « , and « synthesis », but I respectfully submit that students of Hegel should not run from the concept. After all the triad helps people to understand his general view of the development of Geist in the universe. It is a very useful and beautiful part of Hegel’s philosophy: states of reality are made up of opposing tendencies that make stasis impossible. The opposing parts of any given concept must sublate themselves and give way to a new reality, which itself contains contradictions. Without the opposing concepts inherent in the larger concept, there would be no need for forward motion, no need for change. But as it is, we have change for the reasons outlined above. It’s a beautiful concept, and one which many of us find very helpful in explaining progress, especially since it is purely rational and logical.
Go ahead and confuse people if you wish, but what I have said is most definitely within the spirit of Hegelian philosophy. But if you wish to act as if you are the only one who knows Hegel, please go ahead.
Rest of the World, progress for Hegel means forward motion in overcoming contradictions inherent in any given state of affairs, and in the direction toward perfection. That’s the direction, but neither you nor I can predict what that will actually lead to. Political states, physical states, and metaphysical states are presumably all subject to this law. Fascinating concept!
"Then also understand that, by the other subsection of the intelligible, I mean that which reason itself grasps by the power of dialectic. It does not consider these hypotheses as first principles but truly as hypotheses-but as stepping stones to take off from, enabling it to reach the unhypothetical first principle of everything. Having grasped this principle, it reverses itself and, keeping hold of what follows from it, comes down to a conclusion without making use of anything visible at all, but only of forms themselves, moving on from forms to forms, and ending in forms." Plato, Republic
So is it possible to say that Marx's materialistic interpretation of history is fallacious according to Hegelian dialectic? because in Hegelian dialectic, we do not arbitrarily change premise and preserve the origin, but in Marx's view, the origin (the concept of value for example) needs a particular external presupposition (meaning class, or prolotariants) to be defined. In other words "value" is not being for itself, but needs a class (prolotariants) to be defined and realized.
I don't wish to disrespect the speaker, who I understand possesses a wealth of knowledge that I do not. Yet, I do believe it's an overstatement to say that Hegel rejected the "thesis .. synthesis" formulation. Isn't it instead more accuarate to say that he took it as a given, and worked to give it detailed and concrete explanation. He ridiculed those who used the phrase as a mantra without anything but the most superficial understanding.
“Hegel alone apparently succeeded in jumping over his shadow, but only in such a way that he eliminated the shadow, i.e., the finiteness of man, and jumped into the sun itself. Hegel skipped over (überspringen) the shadow, but he did not, because of that, surpass the shadow (über den Schatten).” - Heidegger
Could you elaborate on your interpretation of Marx as understanding dialectic as something that can be used to predict the future? That's not how I interpret Marx at all, so I would like to know how you get to that conclusion.
Bro, that’s literally the accepted interpretation of Marx. Ie that the internal contradictions in capitalism will inevitably lead to socialism and communism.
@@KamKamKamKam I mean dialectic as a method to understand how the immediate indeterminacy of tautology has implied within it contradictions which are conceptually interrelated and which gives determinations to the notion.
