HEGEL IN 17 MINUTES

In this video I explain the Philosophy of Georg Wilhelm Friedrich Hegel in 17 minutes. I outline who Hegel was, his philosophical influences, where to begin both with his works and reader's guides and his key Ideas.

▬ Contents of this video ▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬

0:00 - Intro
0:28 - Who was Hegel?
1:41 - Brilliant
2:45 - Where to begin with Hegel
6:12 - Spirit
9:09 - Logic
11:15 - Right
16:14 - The Absolute

📚PHILOSOPHY COURSE📚

Patreon:

This video was sponsored by Brilliant.

[dylanhunter]

Holy shit, this is the fastest and most crystal explanation i have heard

[ArthurAgamenon_]

you're the first person to ever explain hegel in a simple and not unorganized way. thank you a lot!

[jdzentrist]

We got a taste of Hegel in the Rousseau-Nietzsche undergrad class. Ever since, I've tried to learn more about him. This seventeen minutes is EXCELLENT. The notion that "consciousness" is EVERYTHING has been my access to all meaning, including my faith. I've heard that Schelling also came to the conclusion that Consciousness is EVERYTHING. The Cambridge Companion to Hegel has a fascinating article about Hegel's intellectual-spiritual roots in the German mystics he grew up reading: Eckhart and Boehme. Overarching concepts like this will be helpful to me as I coninue my Hegel studies. In the meantime, the world Hegel describes is still helpful to anyone trying to come to terms with current events, current ideological battles, current wars, current hopes and actions towards preventing or stopping war. Hegel understood everything, including and especially the value of war (with all its horror) as a necessary part of the historical process. Nietzsche of course rejected all this, and advises instead a sober acceptance of "reality, " with his notion of "amor fati." Come to think of it, "amor fati" shows the influence of Hegel upon Nietzsche. Hegel taught Nietzche a great deal. Among other things, he teaches Nietzche the virtue of ACCEPTANCE.

[alison]

This might sound strange, but when you repeated Hagel's last words at the end of the video... I got goosebumps

[christiangennari]

I've seen some comments agreeing with you on that Singer's book on Hegel is the best start. While in general I found it okay as my first introduction to Hegel's philosophy, it led me to more misinterpretations than needed when finally reading The Phenomenology of Spirit/Mind. It did however help me navigate Hegel's lectures on the philosophy of history.

If one is really keen on understanding his Phenomenology, I'd argue a better way is to read Terry Pinkard's interpretation "The sociality of reason" from the start. It is an interpretation, but gives you the much needed context for understanding his project, in a way that Peter Singer simply does not. Singer actually tries to avoid the Phenomenology as much as possible, focusing on the easier themes of Hegel's philosophy.

But as I said, I found it lacking specifically in terms of preparation for reading the Phenomenology of Spirit, which the video mentions is probably not your best way in to Hegel. The issue is probably that I expected it to give me something which was beyond the aim of books in the "A Very Short Introduction" series.

One last thing, I really dislike Peter Singer's interpretation of Geist in that introduction. I find it too detached from Hegelian thought, thus losing its coherence as a concept.

[mudzee.]

Great video! As someone curious about philosophy but not yet started, I found this particularly helpful in directing me on where to start with Hegel. I think similar videos on other influential Philosophers would be great future video ideas!

[skyjackmorgan]

I had to read a little Hegel in college and found him a mind-eff but in the way that trips you out and opens your mind. Great job on this video making sense of his work from a mile up, or so.

[SacClass]

I look forward to this. Singer's Oxford Short Introduction on Hegel is good. Great series of books, Scruton's one on Spinoza is a highlight, and I'm enjoying Adamson's Philosophy in the Islamic World.

[spiritpeacefulrevolution]

Great take! Your video is one of the closest summaries to the true Hegel.

It is very often left out, but one of the sources not often recommended is Hegel's History of Philosophy. If a student wishes to know how Hegel arrived at his system before it formally existed (prior to the Science Of Logic) then the true beginning is not only the Philosophy Of History but the History of Philosophy. Minor point but it shows the true progression.

5:40: "Consciousness is the only thing that truly exists". Are you able to point where Hegel stated this? In the technical use of the term, consciousness as consciousness occurs far after the true beginning and existence of things. Hegel states we must negate our consciousness absolutely to arrive at truth which predates even the concept of existence itself. It seems the true root of everything is not yet consciousness but pure being. Although consciousness is a form of pure being and when being circles back unto itself confirms that all its forms are absolutely true, in the beginning the first certain truth comes far before consciousness formally forms.

"The dialectic or Lord and Bondsman relationship" at 14:22 might be better clarified beyond its association with Lord and Bondsman as when talking of dialectic qua dialectic it is the precise mixing of the abstract with the concrete that causes the issues and what Hegel is trying to break us out of as genuine philosophers.

When you begin the last section with its own slide of "Dialectic" it appeared like you were going to finish the presentation with dialectic as dialectic in its pure sense and not only as associated with Philosophy of Spirit, ethics and state. However technically Lord and Bondsman is not the immediate principle of Objective spirit but is the principle of phenomenology in Subjective Spirit. The principle of Objective Spirit is Abstract Right which is already higher and sublative of Lord and Bondsman conceptually: the way in which you present Lord and Bondsman is how we become objective to ourselves first and later repeat this dialectic in higher stages but now under a different form and principle (Objective Spirit where the rest of the video fits well). In this sense the "epistemological engine" you mention at around 16:00 would not yet be ethics but pure metaphysics of the Good of which ethics and politics come far later as only the most recent stages of contingent human history. It might be better to qualify this last part of the video this way as the true universality of dialectic might risk being lost. The dialectic section proper might better to have occurred at the beginning of your video prior to Spirit as spirit is a form of Being as well (formally mainly as you are speaking about the evolution of Hegel's true thought which means it would be more accurate to speak of it this way). The true tremendous metaphysical universality of dialectic is potentially not grasped in this final section where dialectic as dialectic is the negative moment of reason which drives all other stages (total history of the sensuous and supersensuous) through the infinite power of the inner contradiction of things. It risks repeating the ordinary understanding of Hegel in which World Spirit has not yet emerged. The power between being and non-being for instance is far greater than the sum total of all stars and supernova, or of all black holes combined, or of all dark matter/energy in not just our universe but of all universes. This one stage in the most abstract of abstracts seen properly beyond the sensuous minimalization of our backwards consciousness is mind-blowingly enormous and dialectic in its true universality is greater than them all. The sense of proportion is what starts to get us back into the intuitive gravity and feeling of the logic and not only the dead bones of its shrivelled reproduction or its uncertain and unjustified beginning. Hopefully this helps World Spirit come through you and your fantastic channel even more powerfully!

[whymindNmatter]

1.Hegel basically is talking about Mind’s relation to reality
2.Categories help us to understand reality, according to kant
3. Hegel argued that these categories are not dependent on our mind but they exists in reality itself eg: Space and Time exist within the objective world
4.Matter doesn't exist in itself, no such thing as prime matter, matter is something with hold the concepts/form/ideas, and these ideas exits and we experience them as concrete reality, so we don't need to think of this as Material but as an idea( HERE he is not denying the matter, he is just giving more weightage to idea and seeing matter in the context of idea-social, historical, cultural idea) - objective idealism
5. basis of reality : consciousness coming to know each other
6. Unified reality that we exist in is, thing thinking of itself, all if its eternity = GOD
7. LOGIC which gives the material object their meaning

[get]

Great mini-lecture and introduction to Hegel.

[braveintofuture]

This video triggered my Google assistant multiple times!
It misunderstood "Hegel" as "hey Google".

[RichardGoldwaterMD]

Consciousness is immeasurable because unlike data, consciousness is something to itself.

[LVArturs]

I have some off-topicky philosophy questions: what is dependent on complex modern philosophy in the society? Where does one see its impact? What are recent breakthroughs in philosophy and what are the current big questions that are being worked on towards answering?

[victoriousvegan]

Love your videos! Thank you for all the work you have done & continue to do.

[marillionth]

I enjoyed very much your work o Hegel. I would like very much to hear your take on the Eneads of Plotinus.
Thank you!

[pink_lemoade]

just some minutes into the video and i hope and i pray that my search has ended to make some good quality notes

[bogdanandone]

Awesome bro. You’ve saved my life would you think it’s better to read Science of Logic after the Encyclopaedias especially since I’ve Alta read the Phenomenology once. Ty !

[sulamy]

Very nice video my friend, congratulations!

[jordanv]

What does “itself” at 6:26 and 6:30 refer to?