Deleuze on Hegel 1980 | Intellectual Lecture

Intellectualpedia is a platform where you can hear lectures of different intellectuals and philosphers. Please subscribe the channel as we upload one video everyday.

=================================================================== FAIR-USE COPYRIGHT DISCLAIMER * Copyright Disclaimer Under Section 107 of the Copyright Act 1976, allowance is made for "fair use" for purposes such as criticism, commenting, news reporting, teaching, scholarship, and research. Fair use is a use permitted by copyright statute that might otherwise be infringing. Non-profit, educational or personal use tips the balance in favor of fair use. 1)This video has no negative impact on the original works (It would actually be positive for them) 2)This video is also for teaching purposes. 3)It is not trans formative in nature. 4)I only used bits and pieces of videos to get the point across where necessary. ------------------------------- ► Thanks for watching!

[s.lazarus]

Deleuze no critica el modo de argumentar de Hegel. Lo que critica es que Hegel haya arribado a una contradicción para proseguir con su argumentación.

Sucede que no hay contradicción, porque, de acuerdo a Deleuze, cuando un empirista toma el "aquí" y "ahora" como instancias de lo concreto o que demuestran lo real y concreto, está usando términos alternadores o conmutativos (shifters), que inhiben cualquier intento de tomarlos por universales como Hegel desea. Sucede entonces que Hegel se equivoca en que haya contradicción en "la certeza sensible", por lo menos a ese nivel del argumento. Y está infundada la demostración de contradicción, entonces no puede continuar, o por lo menos tendría un severo obstáculo para saltar a las demás figuras de la conciencia.

En lingüística, los shifters son términos que sólo tienen sentido en el contexto que se emplean. Hegel comete el error de tomarlos por nombres comunes o sustantivos, cuyo sentido no se obtiene del mismo modo que el de los shifters.

En pocas palabras, el empirista (la certeza sensible) no comete ninguna contradicción performativa, y Hegel no obtiene la contradicción que necesita para avanzar justificadamente en su fenomenología.

[myles_lynn]

Deleuze later on says in the lecture, "One can trace the same passage for what an I designates as here. Here is a purely distributive concept. If I say here, also my neighbour can say here. But between these two heres there is nothing strictly in common."

Hegel says that the "the Universal Here is a simple plurality of Heres, just as the day is a simple plurality of Nows". It seems to me he can think the distributive and linguistic shifters.

[nicolasruiz]

Es interesante como Deleuze critica Hegel repitiendo las propias contradicciones de la dialéctica. Deleuze dice "Hegel evidentemente llega a una contradicción" y Hegel dice "eso es exactamente lo que quiero decir..."

[georgiosfaraklas]

Hegel parle de la maison et de l'arbre, qui sont des concepts communs. Il parle aussi de l'ici et du maintenant, mais plus tard, dans l'Encyclopédie, il se corrigera lui-même, et dira que l'ici et le maintenant n'étaient pas encore là à ce stade. Et, en effet, la dialectique fonctionne très bien avec les concepts communs, comme maison et arbre, et les philosophes empiristes seraient bien avisés de ne pas fermer le bouquin aussi vite que Deleuze le dit.

[eapooda]

While at first Deleuze was explaining Hegel adequately enough in the beginning, I take his criticisms of Hegels’ first stage of the dialectic to be mistaken on what he actually takes Hegels’ “this, here, now” to mean

[chunkyPa]

4:14 Deleuze says Hegel presupposes the a priori concepts of space and time, but to me that just seems like a complaint that Hegel presupposes a priori intuitions for time and space. Have I got that right? A naive attack, if that’s the gist of it.

[joaoboechat]

Well although they might be distributive concepts or whatever, these distributive concepts nevertheless have to be more than sense certainty to be concepts

[KrisTheKrisMan]

This comment section highlights that Hegel, if grinning about anything in particular, is grinning about how his work is so difficult to engage with that most discourse on his philosophy must be prefaced with a rigorous defence for its interpretation of Hegel before continuing to elaborate on that interpretation, otherwise it will immediately be faced with the ‘you misunderstood Hegel’ retort with no room for further elaboration beyond both sides of the discussion insisting that they are the one with the true understanding of Hegel

[FS_Codex]

Does anyone know what lecture this is from and if I can find a English transcript?

[eccotom]

Typical misunderstanding of the Phenomenology. Sad that it has received so much attention contra the Science of Logic