I liked the part when Schopenhauer said “it’s Schopen time”.

@Akuryoutaisan21

Жыл бұрын

He's schopenhauer, he hau's schops.

@Bojoschannel

Жыл бұрын

I preferred when he said "it's Schopen hour"

@MMfish_

Жыл бұрын

Schopenhauer is the first philosopher to become a trillionaire

@bigman9854

Жыл бұрын

I loved the Nietzsche end credit scene really excited for the future of the expanded universe

@conker690

Жыл бұрын

I’m starting to Schop

In absolutely love how Ol' Arthur couldn't help himself, he had no chill. "I won't name any names, but some people are shit and they're ruining philosophy"² 2) Hegel

@studywithmir1994

Жыл бұрын

The best part is I think he didn´t do it as a joke. Who knows, but he ain´t look like a joker type.

@pinkroses2522

Жыл бұрын

@@studywithmir1994 “he seemed to be actively looking for any opportunity to publicly insult Hegel” lmao and the icing on the cake “I know PERFECTLY WELLhow. You are, and you irritate me to know end and you are EXTREMELY DIFFICULT TO DEAL WITh” lmaoooo I imagine Hegel not rwallr caring and being a tad more humble and also having the benefit of being kind of a hot shot and in a power position didn’t rlly take it personally or care and probably felt kinda bad abs figured he wouldn’t be so defensive and agro if the department just cut him some slack snd let him do his thing. I imagine schopium like reallr wanting Hegel to square up and specifically thought if he could corner him by calling out his waxing poetic type of style, but Hegel either was clueless that he cared so much or just had more to do and didn’t really feel the need to prove himself or debate something that wasn’t really a public threat to his ideas being heard. Also Hegel strikes me from what I’ve read as being pretty eccentric and laid back and more of a lighthearted, humble, and friendly person, like the cool teacher who knows you’re doing way too much but green lights your 10 page essay about how Edmund Dantès was morally justified and the count is based and Redpilled” and still gives you a B while passively implying you might be an incel abs giving a “general announcement” in favor of counseling services for students the next day. Additional take Arthur def thiught the count was based snd REDPILLED and orobsbkt would have written this essay and titled it “the ends justify the means” lmao

@Erl0sung

Жыл бұрын

and 1) Hegelism

@codawithteeth

6 ай бұрын

@@pinkroses2522The storyteller!!! so coolll

Schopenhauer is just post-nut clarity as a person

@ApuwiAubrey

Жыл бұрын

he did call it "the devil's laughter" after all

@SomeGuy-qd2sb

Жыл бұрын

more like incel clarity person

@hmmmhmmm6917

Жыл бұрын

@@ApuwiAubrey didn't he said some like "the devils laughter can be heard after copulation" 🤣🤣🤣🤣

@francisdec1615

Жыл бұрын

@@hmmmhmmm6917 Yes, he did.

@jcdenton2907

Жыл бұрын

You mean the drop in dopamine from being a coomer? Sounds about right

I think Hegel and Schopenhauer would both love Berserk but for entirely different reasons

@dionysianapollomarx

Жыл бұрын

I can imagine it. Add Nietzsche and it would be an interesting three-way conversation. All three would likely mutually admire and hate each other.

@MMfish_

Жыл бұрын

I’d want some outsider perspective. Like St. Thomas, Kierkegaard, Diogenes

@ludlowaloysius

Жыл бұрын

It brings to mind the three Chinese Sages tasting Vinegar.

@JMoore-vo7ii

Жыл бұрын

@@ludlowaloysius yes! that's a great analogy

@davidegaruti2582

Жыл бұрын

@@ludlowaloysius or a matematician phisicist engineer joke

"this was a Chad move by Hegel" is not a sentence I thought I would ever hear but I stan

@chriswest8389

8 ай бұрын

You think Schowy was an Incel? He needed to chill perhaps but couldn't get any.

You should have mentioned how abusive Johanna Schopenhauer was to Schopenhauer after the suicide of Schopenhauer's father. She left 17 years old Schopenhauer with his sister to live bohemian/freelove/writer lifestyle in another city. Later, when Schopenhauer reached out to her and moved in with her, she fking kicked him out after sometime. She was jealous of his own son's genius because Goethe(quiet accurately) said in her salon that one day Schopenhauer will reach greater heights than all of us. She told Schopenhauer that there could be only one writer in the family. The people who knew her, described her as cold and neurotic. Despite all of this Schopenhauer financially helped her several times later in life. And she made all of those nasty remarks in the letter when Schopenhauer was only 18 years old. Johanna Schopenhauer was a vile woman.

@greysnake2903

Жыл бұрын

Based and redpilled

@markosadamopoulos4553

Жыл бұрын

Lmao what an incel thing to say

@Shamino1

Жыл бұрын

You can tell Goethe's comments absolutely devastated her. As Will Durant noted in his summary of Schopenhauer's relationship with his mother, she was jealous of all the gifts that she had given him and he grew to resent her resentment.

@jasonlynn1017

Жыл бұрын

O Dear who would EVER want to live a free love, Bohemian, art-writer "lifestyle," or what is more tellingly named Modus Vivendi. My God, this country sucks: it is full of life- hating moralists who think 9 to 5 slavery and ballgames and Doritos are life itself, never mind the suicide rates----one topic Schopey rhetorically flub flubbed for guilt's sake, ie, as motivator against the constrictors.

@low3242

Жыл бұрын

​@@jasonlynn1017 I am not against it, all I am saying is that if you want to pursue that sort of thing then don't marry or have kids. Imo marriage, kids, family are just extra bondage, chains, recipes of tons of disappointments and with bohemian lifestyle you will ruin your kids and family life. She judged Schopenhauer and moralized the thinking and actions of his own teenage son. So I am judging her in response to what she said. Also I am not an American and I hate 9-5, I think it is modern day slavery.

"Why did Schopenhauer HATE Hegel?" Well, who doesn't? Even the most important hegelians kinda hate Hegel.

@piaget3021

Жыл бұрын

Why?

@vintheguy

Жыл бұрын

@@piaget3021 the man could not write clearly to save his life

@jacobloving6765

Жыл бұрын

@@piaget3021 racist

@piaget3021

Жыл бұрын

@@jacobloving6765 How is he a racist, when his work revolves arpund *universal* spirit or being experiencing itself through living beings?

@adaptercrash

Жыл бұрын

The sons of hegel they all look similar

People side with Hegel automatically because he birthed Marx and Schopenhauer was a fucked up little mutant but his criticism of Hegel's obscure writing style becoming the standard in philosophy was spot-on.

@gwfhegel5045

Жыл бұрын

Dickeat schopenhauer more, if you had actually read any hegel (or schopenhauer) you’d know that you’re making shit up

@93003ayo

Жыл бұрын

True

@nowhereman6019

Жыл бұрын

Also, I personally connect to Schopenhauer more, as a fucked up little mutant myself.

@funkrobert99

Жыл бұрын

Fucked up little mutant😭😂

@edpavez

Жыл бұрын

As a Marxist-Hegelian, I find it strange to read that “Hegel birthed Marx”, when Marx himself barely ever read anything by Hegel and we have no textual proof that he did, in fact, understood any of it. We can safely say Marx developed the same basic ideas Hegel did, but for different reasons and in a completely different area (economy in Marx, metaphysics in Hegel)

Schopenhaeuer and Hegel are literally the "I feel sorry for you/I don't think about you at all" meme

Jesus, I took a sleeping pill while watching this and began to hallucinate. Schoppenhauer was merging with Hegel and they both stared directly into my soul.

@nowhereman6019

Жыл бұрын

That sounds awesome

@arialblack3279

Жыл бұрын

ambien?

@ethansadberry6069

Жыл бұрын

That didn’t happen. And it’s a little sad you’re so desperate for attention on the internet

@arialblack3279

Жыл бұрын

@@ethansadberry6069 your mom didn't happen

@factjuniorroll

Жыл бұрын

@@ethansadberry6069 might you be projecting a bit? Really jumped the gun on his motives.

There is a deep irony in a Plato nerd hating academia.

@georgesriid4399

Жыл бұрын

Underrated comment

No matter how you feel about this situation, you have to admit that Schopenhauer could write an incredible disstrack [1] [1] On the hegelian dialectic

Babe wake up, kuk philosophy just dropped a new video

I cannot emphasize enough how well you tell those history of philosophy events. Thank you. You are doing a brilliant job.

schopenhauer: "i hate you" hegel: "i dont even think about you"

Shoutouts to Tendies123 for sticking out for so long

He was just mad Hegel the Throat GOAT 🤷‍♂️

@Preserbius

Жыл бұрын

HE ISNT THE THROAT GOAT!!! Schopenhauer could throat more than him any day!!

@theiveyed8677

Жыл бұрын

@@Preserbius nah, Hegel is the glizzy gobbler

@MMfish_

Жыл бұрын

Hegel was straight up THE meat muncher. Dude would have your toes curled and the abyss looking away in fear. If you think Shopenhauer could do it better you are in denial

Schopenhauer angrily shaking fist in the air* "HEEEEGAAAL"

"In every page of David Hume, there is more to be learned than from Hegel's, Herbart's, and Schleiermacher's complete philosophical works" - Schopenhauer (World as Will & Representation)

@klovis6796

Жыл бұрын

ok

@wanshitong5101

Жыл бұрын

@@klovis6796 I do kinda like that quote, to be honest. I don’t think it’s true, but it is quite epic… and we do like epic things, don’t we?

@ArmanddesEsseintes-ry7vv

8 ай бұрын

It is true.

@williamray329

8 ай бұрын

Bro’s got beef with Schleiermacher too?!?!

@MFDOOOOM

8 ай бұрын

Basedenhauer

Kinda bold to call Schopenhauer philosophy's biggest hater when Wittgenstein exists

@AlexGoldhill

Жыл бұрын

Popper had it coming. Just saying.

@dharmadefender3932

Жыл бұрын

Richard Rorty?

@mikebott6940

Жыл бұрын

AJ Ayer is in this competition

@dharmadefender3932

Жыл бұрын

@@mikebott6940 Also Hume arguably.

I loved this video. It would be nice to see an extended video on Hegel's historicity. I am having a hard time understanding those concepts.

@brahimilyes681

Жыл бұрын

Read Kojeve's commentary on Hegel. It'll familiarize his ideas to you

@edpavez

Жыл бұрын

@@brahimilyes681 please never ever read Kojeve if you want to understand Hegel. Kojeve is making a completely false argument, using Hegel’s text to voice his own ideas. If you want to get Hegel’s philosophy, you can read essays or texts by Jean Hyppolite. :)

@brahimilyes681

Жыл бұрын

@@edpavez I don't mean to be dismissive, but what I prioritize is gaining a familiarity with Hegel. At the moment, I don't feel the need to look for accuracy over clarity. When I am done with Kojéve, I will read Hyppolite if they are accessible enough. By the way, thanks for the answer and recommendation

@edpavez

Жыл бұрын

@@brahimilyes681 no worries. The big problem is that Kojeve will not make you familiar with Hegel. He will only make you familiar with Kojeve. If you want, there’s a video on Hegel in my channel and I give a general introduction. All the best!

@brahimilyes681

Жыл бұрын

@@edpavez Thanks man! I watched and liked the video, good stuff

I have needed to know a legitimate answer to this for the longest time.

I love the philosophic beef in this video. I think as long as the personal details don't get in the way of the actual ideas of the philosophers, then it's a good move for future videos. It's always nice to see a philosopher contrasted with another. It gives a better understanding and point of reference

@mullac1992

Жыл бұрын

One has to balance Death of the Author with Auteur theory, even in philosophy. It is good for ideas to stand alone, but in context you can see how a certain idea creates gremlins.

This reminds me of a phrase I keep close at heart. "The optimist always has the future, but the pessimist is always right." Kind of surprised you didn't mention, offhandedly, Philipp Mainlander as between the two.

@Windsofchange99

Жыл бұрын

This phrase is true in the sense that people who think they are pessimists are relying on a kind of optimism of the continuation of whatever hopelessness we might be dealing with as it keeps you going and comfortable. Of course to be blindly optimistic is to be delusional but I think genuine real pessimism only happens in suicide which is kind of what schope here leads to from my understanding. Most people aren't pessimists, they are cynics, a sort of pessimism light if you will which I understand we humans seek comfort and that might never go away but, questioning the very frame of this comfort is what we should be doing.

@noheroespublishing1907

Жыл бұрын

@@Windsofchange99 I think you're more aptly describing Philipp Mainlander's form of Pessimism; who deliberated between two forms of pessimistic egoism, one was a form of suffering mitigation, basically radical compassion, and the other was an enlightened egoism in the form of suicide.

@Windsofchange99

Жыл бұрын

@@noheroespublishing1907 Yes I am aware that Mainlander basically took Schopenhauer and ran with his ideas but I will say that although I think the idea of the will as the essence kind of makes sense I do feel lile Schope does kind of hint us at a kind of "life is meaningless and you can only escape it rather than worth within it". Unless I am midunderstanding him.

@Windsofchange99

Жыл бұрын

@@noheroespublishing1907 Which I understand where he is coming from but I do still think its a destructive and ultimately unhelpful worldview. The idea of self denial or resignation, however much I sympathise with it as someone is basically always prone to a pessimistic "life is shit we can't do anything deal with it" reaction I none the less don't think schope is helpfull on a literal level of actual resignation but rather can show us a side we are afraid of confroting and doing away with rsther than succumbing to. I say this also because I see a lot of schope fanboys who think they are better than everyone else because they act as resigned cynics and are smarter than anyone else but they really aren't, its just violent self masturbation to make you feel good about yourself.

@noheroespublishing1907

Жыл бұрын

@@Windsofchange99 I don't think he quit took it entirely that far, yes, it is true that one can infer such a thing, which is why Mainlander is what he is. But I'm not entirely sure Schopenhauer was quite as radical on the subject. He was an Anti-Natalist, if memory serves, so technically he did believe in voluntary species suicide through not having children; I'm an Anti-Natalist, and think it basically ethical, as I cannot get behind the idea of imposing life on anyone. Mainlander was upfront about his thoughts on life, that it was completely and utterly worthless, but he, like most pessimists, simply saw it as a mostly boring, punctuated by misery, existence that had no certainty of pleasure, and being that both suffering and death are inevitable, to be a parent is to be an accomplice in the misery and death of the child, as they wouldn't have experienced such things if it weren't for their birth.

I just came across your book earlier this week. Didn't know that you were a published author, congrats. Thanks for another excellent upload.

Their portraits frame them both as so garish, sickly, odd and quirky that it cracks me up seeing their dialogues with their funky portraits

The idea that 'someone writing in an obscure or impenetrable style has nothing worthwhile to say' is a popular one to this day, at least among some students. The idea is that they are deliberately writing in an impenetrable way to hide that their ideas are either complete nonsense or don't contribute anything meaningful behind vaguely intelligent sounding language.

@mouwersor

Жыл бұрын

It is a fairly good rule of thumb tbh. If one wishes to be understood they tend to write clearly, and if one doesn't they write like Hegel.

@AkshatSharma1505

Жыл бұрын

@@mouwersor Present day Jordan Peterson is a good example.

@mouwersor

Жыл бұрын

@@AkshatSharma1505 Depends on the subject. When explaining his shaky epistemology he certainly does this (his psychology is a lot more solid): I saw him evading whether he actually believed in god or not for hours on hours with his debate with Sam Harris.

@AkshatSharma1505

Жыл бұрын

@@mouwersor Right on. I've seen him be very clear when explaining women versus men psychosexual differences and self-help tips but in epistemology, he starts to speak without saying anything.

@crazymulgogi

Жыл бұрын

If you can't express your ideas in a clear way, you might not understand them yourself.

This was excellent. Thank you for explaining this interesting piece of philosophical history!

I just recently finished your book. It was beyond unbelievably great, and I thank you for putting in the work for all of us to get to read it!

I get whatever veneer of being an interesting person people attribute to me from you and the massive amount of film critique essays I consume. Please keep giving me material to shout "GOOD INTENTIONS ARE JUST A MASK OF THE WILL!" in restaurants, at lunch. Much appreciated.

His parents must have believed in him so much to say to the world, “yeah it’s Schopen hour”.

Bro I bought your book. Been reading it during my break times at work. Keep up the good work.

I was really waiting for a video like that! Thank you so much❤️

Glad to hear your videos again, welcome back

Everybody ask Schopen-how-er. Nobody ask Schopen-why-er.

"Cope Harder" - Hegel

Loved this. THanks for creating it

Thank you for the video! A video on the German Revolution would be very interesting.

"And an unparalleled scribbler of nonsense" that one hits hard

One of your best works, I really appreciate how you went in depth into both the merits and the faults both philosophers had.

Schopenhauer's pessimism was an awareness of suffering that lent its anxiety to the creation of art. His influence on Freud is often overlooked. You display Hegel on your wall, but visit Schopenhauer when no one else understands you.

In a broader sense, it was perfectly logical for Schopenhauer to be angry and bitter. Think about the times he was writing, where he was pretty much standing alone and fighting against the current in so many areas that now turned out to be true. The extreme carelessness and brutality against animals, the treatment of "lower classes", children being beaten and brutalised in school, the extreme, life long influence of iron age middle eastern cults on pretty much everyone except a small minority of independent thinkers. Of course he was angry and bitter, rightfully so. Hegel got the brunt of it because it is very difficult to lash out at a faceless mass of millions, and when Hegel caught his eye, he let loose all the aggression previously contained because he now had a target to actually aim at.

@skepticmonkey6923

5 ай бұрын

And yet Hegel was right, we are more free then we have ever been

You have produced an excellent video essay. I am very thankful to you for sharing this. About the notion of being "untimely" (unzeitgemässe). This notion appears in the Schopenhauer's The Wisdom of Life, in the section on fame. This notion stands in opposition to the Hegelian idea that philosophy must be "zeitgemässe". Here are two quotes: "As a general rule, the longer a man’s fame is likely to last, the later it will be in coming; for all excellent products require time for their development. The fame which lasts to posterity is like an oak, of very slow growth;" "the more a man belongs to posterity, in other words, to humanity in general, the more of an alien he is to his contemporaries; since his work is not meant for them as such, but only for them in so far as they form part of mankind at large; there is none of that familiar local color about his productions which would appeal to them; and so what he does, fails of recognition because it is strange." Schopenhauer is not the only person who thought about themselves in this way. One author that comes to my mind is Stendhal.

I really enjoyed this video, and the biographical details help me connect the ideas to people within a historical context. Btw I really enjoyed your book. Thanks for making great content

you forgot to mention that Schopenhauer snubbed Wagner even though he admired him and eventually became the celebrity of its era (with the same level of popularity as Hegel), Schoppy´s an influential figure for sure, not only in philosophy

@NoName-qi7vx

Жыл бұрын

Wait a second...Wagner was alive back then? So nietzsche and schopenhauer are really not far apart? Was schopenhauer a contemporary of nietzsche? No way

@GaariyeJ

Жыл бұрын

@@NoName-qi7vx Schopnehauer died in 1860. Nietzsche was born in 1844. Marx went to school just a few years sfter Hegels death. All these peoples lives overlapped. Schopenhauer influenced wagner and nietzsche. Hegel; Marx, Feuerbach, and so on. What sad for me is nietzsche and Marx seem not to have known about each other. THAT would have been a showdown for the ages I think.

@jaihunbek

Жыл бұрын

@@GaariyeJ for real. It is interesting to think of what that would have been like, . It definitely captures the imagination, as is clear given the vast amount of literature concerning Marx and Nietzsche and their relation to one another.

The timing of this video is incredible. Just yesterday I started reading Schopenhauer's "The Two Fundamental Problems of Ethics," where he spends most of the 30 page preface roasting Hegel and all those who hold him in high regard.

I enjoyed it. Thank you for uploading.

Very enlightening. Thanks. How about doing a video on Max Stirner?

these days schopenhauer would quit academia, make youtube and patreon accounts, join the intelectual darkweb and drop some hard blackpills

@allwecanseeisaboveusnow

Жыл бұрын

Dude would be on 4chan racebaiting

@studywithmir1994

Жыл бұрын

Innit?

@low3242

Жыл бұрын

>join the intelectual darkweb Careful, have some respect for the greatest western philosopher.

Hey Jonas, great video as alway. Given the fact you are interested in the relationship between Nietzsche, Marx, Schopenhauer and Hegel, I wonder if you will one day or another speak about Lukacs and the "destruction of reason".

Learning about these great works gives me a feeling of chaos and uncertainty. Is philosophy really just a spectator sport with no final score? How do students of this kind of inquiry persist when questions like "how can we know anything?" invoke (excuse the crudeness) "we can't / it's subjective / the sentence has no sense."

@chazzbranigaan9354

8 ай бұрын

Closer to seeing a great performance in my mind, man stumbling at his limits looking for meaning and scoring specifically in real time seems futile

A small criticism, but one that I think is extremely important: I find it critical how Jonas calls the will "unchanging" in contrast to the Hegelian dialectic. Yes, the will, in view of the world as representation, is precisely the object of truth, the thing-in-itself, the unchanging. But in the world as will, this categorisation is false. In the world as will, the will is a paradoxical "thing". That is, a Paradoxical Thing of the form that it is unchanging in its very striving. It is the unchanging change. It is toto genere different from what is considered under the Kantian thing-in-itself, as the unchangeable, as the Platonic idea of the good, as the Plotinian One, as the Spinozian substance, and so on. Because all those philosophers commit the "mistake" of trying to describe the world as will, with the terms of the world as representation. Will is immediate being-in-motion and always the One.

@gokhanturgut3784

Жыл бұрын

I was bothered by that too, thanks for clarifying it!

@SpiderMan-gf1lc

Жыл бұрын

yeah, Schop's concept of Will is quite close to Schelling's views on the Absolute, and neither of those philosophers are that apart from Hegel as they'd like to be

@JebeckyGranjola

Жыл бұрын

Maybe i'm confused as to an idiosyncratic definition of "representation"? I'm little familiar with Schopenhaur, but I've studied Spinoza, whom you say presented such a representation of Will? Your last sentence sounds to me as exactly how Spinoza would describe Substance, In particular as Extended-Substance. Except he explicitly denies the existence of "will" as an attribute of substance, but holds insofar as you're meaning a concept such as Will, Substance, Thing, etc. to be analagous to a prime ontological being.

@SpiderMan-gf1lc

Жыл бұрын

@@JebeckyGranjola I think the difference lies not in the presupposition of an ontological prime being, as this can be traced to way more ancient roots then either Schopenhauer or Spinoza, but how that being actually exists. For one, the Good, in Plato, is a transcendental being that is immovable, unchanging, immutable. It never ceases to be what it is, it is ever "frozen", never gaining anything nor giving away anything. With more modern philosophers, this starts to change as the substance that governs our world is moving - or perhaps movement in itself. Schelling, for example, argues that the Ancient way of seeing the Absolute is merely a relative unit in which the "Absolute" is merely a state that is in comparison to difference (so unity, here, doesn't absolutely abolish difference, as it produces difference by itself when compared to non-unity). To actually have a proper understanding of the Absolute, one must comprehend it as an infinite being that is timeless and holds an infinite within itself, so everything is Absolute; the matter is only apparent when considering it from a relative point of view, otherwise even the object of the senses are the Absolute in themselves (the relative perspective can, however, measure which js closer to the Absolute and which is farther down the world of relations). It is true tho that Spinoza's Substance ain't immovable like the original commenter apparently implied, it is pretty much a being that is in everything and, when in a state of Absolute (Schelling would probably disagree with that "state" beforehand, but we'll pay no attention to him), mixes subject and object. Every individual is the Substance in its ever moving existence

@JebeckyGranjola

Жыл бұрын

@Spider Man Yeah, I agree with all that. I wasn't meaning to suggest that all concepts of an Absolute are the same, only that we can say they might have analogous ideas for it while using thier associated terms to mean something else entirely, Eg. The Will. So like Spinoza saying the will doesn't exist because he equates it to desire (which isn't a quality of infinite), hes not talking about the same thing as Schopenhauer's idea of Will, which he might agree does exist. In fact what he calls Conatus- persistence of being, some argue means the same thing as Will-to-live. Another example would be Hegels Recognition. That's why I figured Representation here might have different meaning. I figured it meant something like Kant or Hegels notion that our idea of a thing was different than the thing-in-itself. Wheras Spinoza thinks ideas are part of the essence of a thing-in-itself, and if they were different they would constitute two different substances, of which he only believes in a single substance.

Another awesome video of yours!

I can't help but feel like Hegel intentionally picked a hairy question (distinguishing motives from causal factors) since it can explode into philosophy of mind vs hard determinism (although most of it did not exist at the time).

@gwfhegel5045

Жыл бұрын

Hegel didn’t pick it, Kant ended the philosophical era that Schopenhauer belonged to.

@johnramsko4535

Жыл бұрын

What a wild speculative move, to suggest for Hegel to anticipate a debate that was not part of his times or history, as the scientific world view with its emphasis on physicalism was not even remotely sparked yet, just as speculative as the bulk of Hegel's philosophy :3

@iMJBNi

Жыл бұрын

@@johnramsko4535 Physicalism may not have been a real philosophical position back then, but the question of freedom of the will and determinism was definitely very important. Kant, for example, was acutely aware of this schism and the question of the limits of mechanistic explanation was highly pertinent to him. Kant precisely attempted to demarcate a domain of freedom by assigning autonomy to human beings as rational agents and legislators of their actions. The central threat to freedom of the will was perceived to be Spinozism: a philosophical position that submerges everything, human will included, within an infinite deterministic substance. Hegel was definitely also acutely aware of the question of determination vs. absolute freedom and in important ways Hegel's own position is a mediation between these extremes.

@johnramsko4535

Жыл бұрын

@@iMJBNi Seems like an equivocation to claim that this relates directly to modern debates in philosophy of mind, a mechanistic worldview of Descartes can be seen as deterministic but very different from the determinism espoused by logical positivism etc., just because concepts share some sense of determinism doesn't mean they are comparable and it doesn't shine any light on the concepts and intuitions most of us use and rely on to attempt to make some sense of and eventually producing a judgement-call on things like "the hard problem of consciousness" today. Especially tho, I think to suggest that Hegel made direct comments to our current developments in science or philosophy seems like a betrayal of his own adherence to historicism. Surely you can attempt to distill a set of hegelian moves for which to then make judgements on contemporary intellectual matters, just as he did during his times and that's something that seems to enjoy an increase in success again and then apply that set of moves yourself on today's understanding of the world. But, no, Hegel's commentary on the thought of his days stemmed from closely following and commenting on the science of his days, which used concepts and explanations that are literally unparseable to us today if you are not trained explicitly in almost 200 year old scientific epistemes, which AFAIK Hegel scholars tend to be required to be knowledgeable of, precisely in order to make sense of his comments in the sciences, which are very influential today when it comes to philosophy of the mind. Consider phenomenological developments, logical positivism developments, behaviorism, the cognitive revolution, and so on, to think that these have not been heavily affecting our judgements on question in philosophy of mind seems to propose some ahistoric pure-philosophy approach towards philosophy of the mind and that seems highly uninteresting. I'm not saying hegelian motives can't reconcile these developments, but that's something someone today must do, Hegel did not peek 200 years into the future and did it for you.

@iMJBNi

Жыл бұрын

@@johnramsko4535 I agree, assuming that the sense of determinism within contemporary philosophical contexts is precisely the same as 200 years ago in Germany would be ludicrous. However, our contemporary concepts and problems are in historical relations with concepts and problems that have been formed 200 years ago and earlier. Claiming that our concepts and ways of framing questions would be completely alien to, for example, Kant and Hegel would be almost equally as ludicrous as claiming that the concepts haven't undergone significant transformations and shifts. The Hegelian dialectic is a mediation between conceptual change and permanence: historically developing concepts are overcome while retaining elements of the formulations that have been overcome. My point was that you don't really need to think that Hegel anticipated a 20th or 21st century debate since a form of the debate between hard determinism and freedom of the will was so important to the German Idealists (who positioned themselves in relation to Kant and Spinoza). Only a somewhat uncharitable reading of OP's comment would view them as committed to saying that Hegel anticipated contemporary debates in philosophy of mind and freedom of the will. Anyway, I believe that we don't really have any substantial disagreements here.

Great video! I love it.

hervorragende Zusammenfassung,Danke sehr !

Signed up for Patreon support halfway through watching this video. Been watching for years. Finally decided I can't eat all this bread alone...

this is great! i would love some quick videos about philosopher biographies, so there's a better alternative to school of life....

I did my graduating essay on Hegel. Here's a toast to Schopenhauer.

Hegel thought it beneath him to respond< I suppose. I do hate the influence he had on subsequent Philosophy (including Marx). But Schopenhauer's willingness to incorporate Eastern philosophy was revolutionary. His influence on Nietzsche and many others is immense, including Wagner, whose Tristan and Isolde wouldn't exist without him.

DO MARX VS STIRNER

wow. this video is so good it’s unbelievable.

So this is where the virgin/chad meme originally stemmed from.

@SpiderMan-gf1lc

Жыл бұрын

it stemmed from Plato and Diogenes discussions

@SpiderMan-gf1lc

Жыл бұрын

or "discussions", to put it better

Well presented and interesting video.

Halfway through the video after outlining all of Schopenhauer's vitriolic academic and personal attacks on Hegel: "Schopenhauer meets Hegel" Me: ".....oh no"

Schopenhauer is the real savior we needed.

2:22 mind-destroying ia 100% correct bc once you start to understand hegels dialectic you see if everywhere

Honestly, i love both of the thinkers.

I didn't hate the video BUT: I) Schopenhauer inserted the references to Hegel after Hegels death - so there's no way for Hegel to respond to them. II) Schopenhauer would stay in Berlin for 10 years, living within a radius of less than a kilometer away from Hegel all this time. He left for some time because he pushed some woman down the stairs and not so much because of the lectures which he offered every semester he was in Berlin. III) Another problem that has to be mentioned is Schopenhauers critique of idealism in general, and especially absolute idealism which he identifies with Hegel: he says in Hegel its as if "the concepts and ideas are moving by themselves and as if everything that happens within the dull skull of humans by virtue of being thought is also true". materialism and idealism Schopenhauer deemed both to be one-sided and in need of each others relative truths. absolute idealism, in Schopenhauers conviction, leads to solipsism and theoretical egoism. IV) concerning history: for Schopenhauer the purpose of history is to be "the collective self-consciousness of humanity" - he hated the idea of trying to make a big difference between I and other people, which he thought hegels philosophy would lead to. also he claimed that Hegelian historical philosophers don't question the striving as such but rather like to construct states in their minds, where every indulgence is met. I would like to suggest that we live in an historical epoch where the goal of meeting every indulgence and an inability to care for the natural and necessary needs is our path and our problem. I'll add some quotes at the bottom from Book 2, chapter 38.* V) to suggest Hegel being gracious and unproblematic in that habilitation lecture is laughable, considering that the lecture was interrupted after only half of it had been given and had not been resumed, which leads me to believe that Hegel interrupted with his question concerning animal functions and things escalated from there. to call this a technical question is also absurd, given Hegels complete separation of Nature and Spirit in his system and therefore of humans and the natural world, contrasted with Schopenhauers integration of humans into nature. Schopenhauers point here is that animals *understand* the world and are not to be thought of as automata, even though they can't think linguistically. Hegel wants to claim that animals are unconscious, while for Schopenhauer thats the attribute of vegetative life, which still continues in animals and humans in the form of their mere sensibility and especially their reproductive functions, but is added to by animalistic intellect and, finally, human reason. ---- How is this a trivial matter??? it is exactly one of the important steps Schopenhauer makes beyond Kant in giving natural phenomena their own agency and not having agency be reserved for humans. this is because Kant clang to his idea of freedom of the will being required for moral philosophy, while Schopenhauers moral philosophy is constructed descriptively and his system in its lead-up to ethics and enlightenment has to be though of as a determinative negation of freedom. it is one of the supreme ideological conceptions of our time, that human beings are "born free". if that were the case, then history would be at its end. but it isn't. so fuck you! *"these stories of construction always lead, guided by dull optimism, towards a comfortable, nutritious and fat state, with a well organized constitution, good justice and police, technology and industry and, at best, towards intellectual perfection; which is indeed the only hope for it indeed is the only possible one, since, in moral terms, essentially all remains unchanged. But the moral aspect is what truly matters ...". And: "this is why they construct history towards the good and when it finally will come all is going to be swell and dandy. They erect the goal of humanity on pathetic earthly-happiness which, if it were indeed cared for and organized around by humans and favored by the state, will remain and empty, deceptive, and dire thing which neither constitutions, not laws, nor steam engines and telegraphs will ever make any better. said philosophers and glorifiers of history therefore are realistic simpletons, moreover optimists and eudaemonists, dull companions too and the incarnation of philistinism, in addition to being bad christians; because the true spirit and core of christianity, just like in buddhism and brahmanism, is the understanding of the meaninglessness of earthly-happiness, the complete contempt for it and the search for a different, I say opposing way of being in the world"

@jackvancekirkland

Жыл бұрын

Team Schopenhauer

great Video on Schopenhauer! One of my favourite philosophers. I like Hegel too. But Schopenhauer is my favourite.

quote on napoleon really conveyed schopenhauer's cynicism. there was something good about schopenhauer's fidelity, steadfastness in the face of public opinion. I think that the manner in which he failed to locate the problem space results in what appears as a too reactive ascetic resolve. also, it is unlikely that nietzsche has been handled by anyone better than deleuze.

Arthur's mother was narcissist, who thought of herself as genius, they hated each other, and obviously Arthur was smarter than her, so she could not stand him. It's a known historical fact, enough is written about it.

youare a great teacher of philosophy

You can only be grumpy and nihilistic for so long before saying "why not end my life right now if it's so meaningless?" or "why doing philosophy, or anything really, if it's so meaningless?". It's kinda ironic that his optimism at the end kinda reflected Hegel's historicism, that his historically audacious ideas push the world to evolve in a better, more inclusive academic world that now repeatedly show his and Nietzche works as a must-have in philosophy classes.

Because it was so much easier for him to autograph merch ? 🤔🧐

Well done. Cogently explained. Schopenhauer was spot on. Hegel was great but reading his work was not always understandable. I suggest everyone to read Chesterton.

An interesting beef would be Gilles Deleuze vs Alain Badiou.

@apolloforabetterfuture4814

Жыл бұрын

Philosopher beef history

@smbusinessowner

Жыл бұрын

Beef Philosophy

Awesome video!

Great video

Bro, I always like your callback jokes before mentioning your patrons xD

For people that found this video interesting I would suggest Weltgeist's channel because he paints a VERY DIFFERENT and I MEAN a VERY DIFFERENT slant on this issue. It also seems to me that after reading a few comments('low','SaminoWarhen','Stevo williams') the op might have forgot to mention the part why Schopenhaurs mother hated him. Yes, his mother hated him and it's because she was jealous of him it seems. (Source: Will Durants The Story of Philosophy) If you guys want a different picture of the issue I suggest Weltgeist's videos(yes there is multiple ones), Will Durants The Story of Philosophy and even other channels.

"[...] my patrons-those whose song I sing because I eat their bread." This was just **chef's kiss**

I loved this, thanks Jonas. It's great to have such complex philosophies presented in an easily understandable and entertaining way. I would love to hear about the German Revolution, especially it's impact on Marx. Always looking forward to the work you do. I'm a Marxist myself, similar to your positions (anti-stalin, pro-russian rev). I particularly love the hidden environmental side of marxist philosophy that is overlooked, such as the metabolic rift. I think marxism and ecology is a great bourgening field of study, which is much needed especially as many people think Marxism is economist, so they look to things like anarchism which supposedly has deeper ecological understanding.

@pinkroses2522

Жыл бұрын

I think you can be an anarchist with Marxist beliefs! I would consider musekr both. First an anarchist but also a Marxist and his contributions and insight cannot be ignored snd it’s indeed sad how along 5bw way of many amazing revolutions and victories, things turned into 1984. But Marx yes very much as much as one could at the time really highlighted nature, the material world, how CF makes us forget the process of an item that hurt people, animals the environment. Much of his writing about alienation highlighted how our spirit is oppressed and twisted into what we know rk be this laconian void of endless desire- but seeing our connection to nature and finding bliss jn creatinf and simple hobbies that do not require overproduction were important to Marx. Many anarchist theorists from all backgrounds make similar points or even exclusively highlight the eco side, but I think it’s best to explore them all snd pick them best parts of all theories to create new ones

@drtg101we7

Жыл бұрын

Even though Marxism combats exploitation, it still was a productivist ideology until the beginning of this current century

@pinkroses2522

Жыл бұрын

@@drtg101we7 wait how exactly is the framework of Marxism no longer productive in theory ?

@kkounal974

Жыл бұрын

@@pinkroses2522 Bookchin?

@pinkroses2522

Жыл бұрын

@@kkounal974 wut

That moment when he cheered soldiers fighting revolutionaries sounded hypocritical of him - shouldn’t he boo both sides? So much for integrity I guess...

Eduard von Hartmann: I'm gonna combine these two

Thanks Jonas, very enjoyable. These academics really know how to insult each other in a 'sophisticated' way.

Fire as always

"Ratio" - Hegel

have a vice day too. I think I share Hegel's optimism but also Schopenhauer's pessimism regarding figures like Napoleon. Anyway, it's food for thought...

Schopenhauer was right about a lot of things, including hegel.

@foolishwatcher

Жыл бұрын

I love his short treatise "On noise". He is a kindred soul. :-D

@jhonnatanwalyston6645

Жыл бұрын

Hegel is indeed obscure

@angeline743

Жыл бұрын

@@nealdee1755 even his essay on women 😭

@Windsofchange99

Жыл бұрын

@@nealdee1755 I'm not a philosophy major and I have limited experience at least imo with the field but I have some general knowledge on both of these thinkers and I just wanna ask, am I wrong in thinking people go to Schopenhauer as a kind of pessimistic and cynical self-masturbation to make them feel good about hopelesness thus making them faint hearted rather than the opposite? This is not a comment on Schopenhauer btw but rather the angsty "I say it like it is and I'm tougher mentally than everyone else and life is meaningless" nihilistic fanboys.

@_oshiri-2224

Жыл бұрын

@@angeline743 Yep

Schopenhauer, the sigma male VS Hegel, the chad

@davidmb1595

Жыл бұрын

@GM 99 maybe Nietzsche

@miralupa8841

Жыл бұрын

@@davidmb1595 yeah Nietzsche is probably the sigma here -- Schopenhauer is almost certainly a beta

i am with schopenhauer on hegel's unintegability

I do love a story about two fucked up guys who were both a little bit right and a little bit wrong, with some weird beef between them. Would've loved this even more during college, when I had to understand all this on sleep deprivation, under threat of a bad grade.

Another great vid. Always a pleasure :)

I've always found the kind of the hatred of Hegel as humorous and thought it was a pride/ego thing mostly. However I do have to say that Schopenhauer is one of my favorite philosophers of all time.

@neilmacdonald6637

Жыл бұрын

Hegel was clearly a great philosopher and a profound thinker. But, I can't help but find his legacy occasionally irritating. From a stylistic standpoint within the broader context of the humanities, there are a lot of people using dialectical reasoning more informally, and I find it difficult at times to discern false equivalences from more useful dialectical turns. There never seems to be a shortage of rhetoricians trying a dialectical sleight-of-hand to avoid analyzing (or perhaps to obscure) fairly important differences.

I'm a simple man. I see Jonas Čeika upload a new video and I click

2:06 made me laugh harder than it probably should have

Holy crap, that mother's letter!... 🤣

What a shame for schopenhauer. at the time the power of the will simply wasn't as an exciting revelation as learning we learn at all.

Schopenhauer: "I'm only going to lecture AT THE SAME TIME AS YOU! We'll see who's the greater philosopher now!" Hegel: *sipping tea* "Yeah sure sounds fine." *Hegel's got a line out the door while Schop is talking to an empty room* Schopenhauer: "FUCK ACADEMIA!" Hegel: "Yeah whatevs."

@michaelmcclure3383

Жыл бұрын

Of course, Hegel had a big following among naive young utipian idiots, also known as Young Hegelians. Nothing has really changed on that front.