Half Hour Hegel: The Complete Phenomenology of Spirit (Preface, sec 35-37)

In this sixteenth video in the new series on G.W.F. Hegel's great early work, the Phenomenology of Spirit, I read and comment on the thirty-fifth, thirty-sixth, and thirty-seventh paragraphs of the text, from the Preface. In these paragraphs, Hegel addresses some "fixed ideas" which stand in the way of grasping his project and method

He examines the antithesis contained within Spirit, of knowing and objectivity, and notes that this takes determinate forms in the shapes of consciousness, whose progression is the dialectic. This is a process in which Spirit becomes other to itself, and then reintegrates itself into a more developed unity.

This entire process, as noted earlier (see the video on 31-32), involves the negative, which is what permits freedom and movement to be available within the process. As the progression of shapes of consciousness comes to a close, Spirit has made itself -- its existence -- identical with its essence, so that being becomes entire mediated, known and understood as it really is, which brings us to the Logic (Hegel's further work, just referenced here)

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.

This series is designed to provide an innovative digital resource that will assist students, lifelong learners, professionals, and even other philosophers in studying this classic work by Hegel for generations to come.

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

My videos are used by students, lifelong learners, other professors, and professionals to learn more about topics, texts, and thinkers in philosophy, religious studies, literature, social-political theory, critical thinking, and communications. These include college and university classes, British A-levels preparation, and Indian civil service (IAS) examination preparation

(Amazon links are associate links. As an Amazon Associate I earn from qualifying purchases)

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

[GregoryBSadler]

The sixteenth video in the series on Hegel's Phenomenology -- we're now passing the halfway point of the Preface.

[munawarcheema]

“You are not a drop in the ocean. You are the entire ocean in a drop.”

― Rumi

[ryanweddell]

Thank you for not skipping any paragraphs, good sir.

[dasfabelwesen]

He uses the word "Gegenstand". It is really nice how that word fits into what he tries to say.

[goldboolean]

The point of the self-fulfilment in you enriching my experience through these videos hasn't eluded me. Thanks again for that! I will "work" on it. I see that you, me, Hegel, or Einstein in regards to an existential angst or crisis really really really(zoolander) desire the grasp of some Unified Theory (that Hegel's science). You should be close to my age as of now; and now as I read something I wrote some years ago, the one thought that stands out is "did I really know that??". My confession now is, that I haven't read little to no Philosophical text, other than some Maimonedes. I'll go back and read this.

[MaoRuiqi]

Heisenberg: "[In modern physics[ one has now divided the world not into different groups of objects but into different groups of connections...What can be distinguished is the kind of connection which is primarily important in a certain phenomenon."  

[mandys]

i'm so interested in understanding or seeing further into what he meant by the negative!

[goldboolean]

I see the interchange and overlap of the terminology but yet see the antithesis of their distinction as well. It's so strange how a native or learned language influences thought and reality. This is expanding my view of recursion already🙂

[Sandro]

I'm still far away from completing this book, but what further readings would you recommend on Phenomenology of Spirit?

[helmutglavar]

I am getting quite confused by the terminology here. Before proceeding, some clarifications are necessary. The terms in question are the following:

I - substance - essence - being - subject - the self - object - notion

Hegel in this paragraph seems to imply the following:

There is a distinction, the negative, in consciousness between the ‘I’ and substance.
Substance is the object of the ‘I’, in other words: substance = object.
Therefore negativity, initially, is the disparity between the ‘I’ and the object as well as substance with itself or what seems to be the same the object with itself.
Substance which is object shows itself to be essentially subject. Substance=object=subject and therefore =’I’
The spirit made his existence into parity with its essence. Existence = essence
Spirit (you also used being?) has made its existence (Dasein) identical with its essence, it is object to itself. He seems to say that essence and object in this case are the same?
Being is the property of the ‘I’ it is the concept. Being=Concept
The negative is the self (which is the ‘I’). The spirit’s object is spirit itself

I am looking for a simplification of what is said but the complexity of the matter is just absolutely overwhelming. It seems that terms start out in a certain way but then become something else and in the end everything seems to become one. I=substance=object=subject=self=negativity, Spirit=essence=existence, Being belongs to the I and is equal with concept. I am probably somewhat wrong here, but my confusion cannot only be mine since we are all together in this adventure or struggle of the spirit.


I consulted Michael Inwood’s Hegel Dictionary, but unfortunately that did not help much. What mainly concerned me was the definition of:
 I - substance – essence - being.


I = I, both because self-identity is all that can be ascribed to it, and because it is essentially self-reflexive: it exists only in virtue of, and produces itself by, its awareness of itself. I-awareness is both necessary and sufficient for one to be (or have) an I. Thus the I is not a THING or SUBSTANCE. The I is at bottom identical to the universal thoughts or concepts that it deploys: I cannot coherently distance myself from my thoughts. The ‘I’ or subject requires an object distinct from itself.


Substance - Matter, a persisting independent thing, the persisting essence of a thing, property. It contrasts with the subject, the concept and Spirit. The absolute is both subject and substance, substance becomes subject. Substance appears in its accidents they are its appearance.


Essence – A being, entity, the essential nature of a thing in contrast to its appearance. it is correlative to the understanding. It contrasts with appearance but then moves to parity with it. Being becomes essence. In short Hegel has a whole range of uses of essence. The difference between essence and substance is not entirely clear to me.


Being – Refers to the being or existence of things in general. It is in contrast to essence and the concept. It denotes the immediate surface features of things, both qualitative and quantitative, in contrast to their inner essence and their conceptual structure. It is the antithesis of thinking and the concept. To apply being to anything is simply to say that it is, without ascribing to it any qualitative determinacy. Being amounts to nothing, being and nothing each become the other and constitute the concept of becoming. Becoming collapses into Dasein.


What I am trying to reach here, if possible, is:

A simple definition of the terms.
How this terms relate to each other and to me
How they evolve or change during the movement of the self (the negative and/or Logic, speculative philosophy?) of the phenomenology.
Any help would be appreciated.
Thanks.

[MrMarktrumble]

if I analyze the completed loaf of bread with a knife I will never find the process by which bread is made. I will only have sliced bread. to know the bread you must bake a loaf. buying bread will not make you understand bread. stapling the slices together, even if one gets the series correct still will not teach one how to bake. to know oneself as a baker comes in understanding the steps in baking bread, and having real loaves.
Preface, sec 35-36 thank you

[theamici]

Gregory B. Sadler When I hear you talk about the second paragraph here, I can't help but sense a bit of an origin to Postmodernism here, talking about different "shapes of consciousness". Now I don't really "know" postmodernism per se, and explanations are often not very good, but isn't a central point of Postmodernism that you retain multiple frameworks of ideas or multiple perspectives all at once in order to generate some kind of integrated "whole" of many wholes that works better than having fragmented "wholes" trying to compete for domination?

Could Hegel be a source for an origin of Postmodernity? What do you think, what pops into your head when you read me?

[irisethea]

maybe a tangential q, but is 'knowledge-production' a defensible translation of 'wissenschaft', or a helpful way to think of it outside our connotations of 'science'?

[Antiposmoderno]

As in psychosis. the subject hears a voice as something external, but it is part of himself. but, the psychotic does not reconcile

[TheRowanmoses]

Jurgen Moltmann is one Christian theologian who appropriated the dialectical process in his theology effectively. I think that Christianity has not overcome its Platonic shell.

[gda]

Hi, it is v difficult to commit to this series in the full knowledge that one does not agree with its premise, viz. Geist  [and   most other abstract nouns in the book]  Nevertheless duty, in the interests  of a knowledge of the  " history of ideas", calls. Thnx for these v. helpful vids and the text  [which, were, b.t.y. going to be my way of reading the book but this has turned out to be impractical as regards the computer, necessitating, finally, a modest outlay  for the aforementioned book.] Thnx again.

[lyndonbailey]

I'm not sure I am completely clear on objectivity vs knowing, if I understand it right, he means knowing= subjective appropriation, objectivity= something like kants noumena except that it CAN be known eventually.

p.s. I just bought the miller translation (randomly sandwiched between Badiou, Foucault, Baudrillard and Sartre in the store)..finally.

[MrMarktrumble]

we love god with the love he left behind. When we love god, the love we have for god is really gods love for us. our eros is gods agape. whle I am not god, and god is not I, my eros for god is the continuity between between I and god. this limit between myself  and god is the demarcation that marks the continuity and distinction between us. this limit that divides and unites (like how one fence makes two yards) makes three elements in the continuity . me, the fence that marks my terminus and the terminus of the other, and the other. the totality of the three in one is the reality of mans relation ot god, and gods relation to  man.  Am I Hegelian? Am I a heretic?
Preface, sec 37 thank you

[lyndonbailey]

This gets weird when you look at it from Marxist point of view, like, the working class had its best interests alienated from it, via capitalism, then from this position, the currrent ideology needs to be made alien, so that the working class can re-incorporate its best interests to itself by mediating it through marxism. I know I am mixing together Hegel and Marx here sloppily.