Half Hour Hegel: The Complete Phenomenology of Spirit (Preface, sec 46-47)

In this twentieth video in the new series on G.W.F. Hegel's great early work, the Phenomenology of Spirit, I read and comment on the forty-sixth and forty-seventh paragraphs of the text, from the Preface. In these sections, Hegel continues his critique of mathematical cognition, and of philosophical approaches which base themselves on this model of cognition. Mathematics, which deals in magnitude, treats time under that aspect -- failing to grasp that time is the locus for the development of the existent Notion.

He also discusses the nature of the dialectical process, using a metaphor of the Bacchanalian revel, in which all members are drunk, but which remains in its dynamics a perfect repose.

In this video series, I will be working through the entire Phenomenology, paragraph by paragraph -- for each one, first reading the paragraph, and then commenting on what Hegel is doing, referencing, discussing, etc. in that paragraph.

The introductory music for the video is: Solo Violin - BWV 1004 - Partita for Violin No. 2 - Recorded in Brooklyn June 26, 2011 specifically to be dedicated to the Public Domain

#Hegel #Phenomenology #Philosophy #Idealism #German #Dialectic #Spirit #Absolute #Knowledge #History

[dantheman]

When reading Hegel, I stumble through these passages and almost feel like I am in the dark. Then Hegel paints these pictures, and it starts to make some sense. It's very moving. It's like looking down, slowly stumbling up a mountain, and then getting to the peak and looking out. This is fun stuff, Dr. Sadler!

[megadeathryan]

Thank you for the video! I was having trouble understanding how the bacchanalian revel figures into his train of thought. Much clearer now.

[goldboolean]

This one was sparky for me I had to rewind in several parts. Definitely a tarry worthy portion.
When I was a child I came to the realization that the term "now" was a kind of misnomer. That it was in fact, illusory. Now as an adult listening to quantum and astro physicist, it occurs to me that time travel should be impossible. In a dynamic universe and in terms of the physical how could this be true without an absolute point of reference. Time really doent have an absolute point of reference even spatially. Now like Hegel I find myself connecting ecclectic elements to logic leading to thinking that the term "continuity" is as illusory as any moment called "now". When I was learning about the Godhead and the trinity ( I prefer Unity per Deut. 6) I created this graphic depiction of a set of Russian nesting dolls in which the dolls did not nest but metaphically and perpetually united. If I apply that concept to time I see that the doll is there but not there just everchanging. Its a simple minded notion but it works for me. I know events are cyclical and linear simultaneously and my concept begins to break down. But not really. When I watch Dr. Sadler in the video(thanks to the magic of computers) I have to remind myself that there is that recursive element in that; that intelligent fellow sorting out what in would be, potentially word salad, is actually the even more wiser older fellow posting in replies.
Also, if the eternal mixes with the physicality of time and mind it no longer is eternal. Like oil and water. How can this be reconciled? As Paul says in rabbinic interpretation as "Sod"; this is the mystery of God. Timothy 3:16. Once again, ramblings of another "idle babbler" . Please forgive my caffeine-induced proselytic off tangent comments. Please don't ostracize me! I tried to use brevity.

[asgilb]

You can see something of what Marx gets out of Hegel here in reference to time. Time understood as a calculable magnitude is really quite fundamental to industrial capitalism. And work becomes a real drag if the only meaning it has is exchanging the hours of your life for wages.

[dwroberts]

Hey Greg another great Video.  While I was watching this it struck me as having a lot of relevance to a book I read "The Self Illusion - Why there is no 'You' inside your Head" by Brian Hood.  I might not be doing the book justice but it seemed to suggest in current neuroscience circle the accepted view point is that what we perceive as our individual freewill and consciousness is actually an illusion our mind or brain creates after the fact.  It struck me as relevant as although it is a view supported by experiment and "scientific evidence" it does seem like a bridge to in abstracting our reality.  I am not quite sure how to digest this although big picture-wise one might posit that there is a paradox in that the abstraction of the external world does mediate (determine) itself but through our actual inner world just as our inner world determines itself but mediated through the abstraction of the external.  I am not sure if that untangles things or simply opens a can of worms using terms a little too loosely.  But curious to know if you are familiar this movement in neuroscience or this book.

[TTFMjock]

There is much in the history of mathematics that seems to belie Hegel's remarks here.  I speak most specifically of Galois theory, the development of which seems to exhibit and even to exemplify Hegelian processes in action.  Mathematics, in particular Algebra, was conceived radically differently after Galois, Abel, et. al. proved that the quintic could not be solved in general and demonstrated why.  

What came out of that was a much more fundamental notion of what algebraic solvability *is*, i.e. a subject (Algebra) emerging from its predicates in a manner simultaneously comprehensive and complex, containing within it earlier forms of its Notion, which were inadequate to the Reality in themselves, which were therein clarified and given context and place.  It is amongst the most vivid examples of the Hegelian dialectic that I have encountered.

[brentwejrowski]

Thanks for these videos! So great. I can't wait to catch up.

[SequinBrain]

I'm glad you did these. I thought it was my lack of training that was getting me stuck on a preface of all things. Maybe it's the nature of the subject, maybe on review I won't feel like I'm swimming in a vast sea of unknowns where no matter how many smaller ideas I am able to attach together, I feel that I'm still not comprehending the larger picture. I know it's not even a goal to comprehend everything, since that is impossible, or maybe later in the book more of these initial hints will become more visible. But I can agree with Hegel regarding math, which sometimes makes far too many assumptions that no one other than Euclid has gone to any great length to try to prove. The academicians, in their race to either accumulate math skills, appear to hurriedly know something or trick the student they've lost sight of much, thankfully not all, of the process.

[thefinnishbolshevik]

In your opinion when Hegel talks about self-motion does he mean that in terms of the spirit (all of man's knowledge/god/historical process) or does he mean that in terms of subjects (e.g. people) or both?

[MrMarktrumble]

would not a sports team be a better metaphor? A team implies a division of roles, activity, and a central organizing principle. Each player is an organ, as they do not do exactly the same thing( a goalie is not a forward), but each depends on each of the others and in a sense, none is first. Plays are trained as interactive processes. But the roles are replaced with new players, and even the rules of the game may change so that plays may have to adapt, and thus, the interaction between the organs changes.

[felipedim]

I would love a course like this for Heidegger's Being and Time. Is anyone aware of something along these lines?

[pongskills]

Dr. Sadler, do you think the differences in how we can view essential, eternal or existing, can be understood somewhat in terms of the distinction between Aristotle's and Plato's metaphysics?

[dwroberts]

Hey Greg one more post this time regards personal identity following on from the other two.

If as an ordinary person I might identify with one of the a Bacchanalian evanescent that moves into, flows through and moves out of the play of life.  Being cast of balance through mediation and re-righted by the same.  All this happening in a play that takes place eternally in the NOW.

And I realize I might be trying to jump forward in the text before all the ground work is in place.  So you can leave the question for later if it unfolds through the work.  But how does Hegel see the Self?  Does he identify primarily with the eternal process, a fleeting personality or the processes meaningful development (in gestalt)?  Or in deed does he identify with all these senses, modes and movements of the Self?  Does he consider all these Spirit?  Is it spirit that he identifies with?

[dwroberts]

Another thought that occurred to me was that in an abstract external or physical science you really have 3 qualities that are always present concurrently; time, space and energy.  This is conveyed in a simple classical understanding of physics that puts aside quantum probabilistic weirdness, and establishes itself through simple equations such as;  W=Fx, F=ma and E=mc^2. 
In modern scientific thought space-time is considered a continuum.  But also in terms of the literal creation of space in the sense of the big bang.  The notion is that space-time emerges out of a singularity of no space, no energy and no time.  Hence there is no substantial causality possible or necessary in a physical sense (which is itself an abstraction) in relation to the big bang.

This is because nothing can come before a singularity in which there is no time (to come before).  This is counter-intuitive to our everyday experience yet is consistent with the physical laws.  Energy essentially can appear spontaneously as negative space-time at least in the sense that it preserves the equality of physical relations when space, time and energy emerge.

Anyway the point I am trying to clarify within myself is not that Hegel seems to be wrong when he suggests there is an inequality between pure mathematics or mechanics (physics) vs substantial notions of meaning for living beings.  That seems right on.  But in light of where physics is at now, I don't know if making a split between space and time or indeed energy makes any sense, as we might even consider them space-time-energy more properly.

Further while I think I agree an inspection of pure maths or physics leads one to infer a need for a metaphysics.  Along similar lines to the discussion above as a conscious being while we have a perception of time there is the reality that the past and the future as perceived must always be an abstraction from the present NOW (or the current moment).  The past and the future are in a sense only elements of the moment or if you like "moments" within the moment.  In this sense the present NOW is eternal.

Not even the notion of a physical singularity prior to the big bang can impinge on this as within the singularity there is the notion of no time or if you like no time in which NOW can not be.  The NOW then is eternal yet it is inhabited apparently by the evanescent (including the physical and the metaphysical).  So again there is a coming together.  Yet if I understand where Hegel is going it is the unfolding of the evanescent within the metaphysical within the NOW which is where meaningful development [transformation (gestalt)] is going to take place - though one moment I might be contemplating Hegel and the next I might be thinking whether I should get a sandwich, hopefully somewhere along the line positive GESTALTAN may happen too.
What I have just written does seem to be a cognitive error of some sort.  How can anything such as gestalt be going to happen when I have asserted the only thing I can ever perceive is NOW.  Here I would have to speculate but if NOW is eternal.  Then all moments even moments within moments are fixed and unchanging.  Yet through an unceasing passage of consciousness I take on my body's passage through energy-space-time and experience time as a Self movement even though the moments are fixed.  And even though all the moments are always NOW occurring.  This Self movement is fixed yet reflects the effect of the individual free will and the will of otherness both being continuously drawn into the divine - The Self movement.  Free will then does determine where you wind up but at the same time where you wind up is fixed - fixed indeed in every moment.
Well here is to a happy beginning, middle and end.  What then consolation though for an unhappy past?  Is it doomed to be NOW always occurring?  What guarantee is there for the future?  Are these eternal miseries just a necessity for the GESTALT NOW occurring eternally?  

Now I have written all this, about why may be it's better to see things as coming together or combined.  I have realized this is possibly just part of the Hegelian process.  Subjectivity getting mediated by ideas then the ideas come back together. 
That said I am still not 100% about that NOW always occurring thing.   DOH!

And I am not sure where "quantum probabilistic weirdness" comes in either....DOH!

PS.  Sorry if I have introduced some not well defined "New Age" terms or concepts but I do move in those circles also I confess.  At any rate I look forward to getting to the point where more of Hegel's perspectives can unfold for me and I can express myself with somewhat more rigour and clarity.

[pucktheblackswordsman]

30:36 - 30:42 That sandwich must've been tempting now wasn't it?

[lucaswilkins]

Hmmm, you keep mentioning this archetype of the theorist who can't see that their model has implicit assumptions, or has left something out. It's a fair criticism sometimes, but as Hegel pointed out earlier on, it's also very easy to point out exceptions to a general principle. There is a tendency from the other side to use the inevitability of an exception as a reason not to engage at all.

[patricksachs]

Geez- I used to think I was a pretty smart guy, until I found this series..