Keep exploring at brilliant.org/Weltgeist/. Get started for free, and hurry-the first 200 people get 20% off an annual premium subscription.

@ReverendDr.Thomas

Жыл бұрын

Great work!!

@horustrismegistus1017

Жыл бұрын

You really need to UP regulate your volume. Your videos are good, but quiet.

@ReverendDr.Thomas

Жыл бұрын

@@horustrismegistus1017 Good and bad are RELATIVE. 😉

@TrggrWarning

Жыл бұрын

Two of my favorites lol

@DzogChen2

Жыл бұрын

What an utterly bizarre video! Not only did hardly anybody turn up to hear Schopenhauer (at the famed lecture-time clash) but the legacy of Hegel has been huge in comparison to Schopenhauer’s. Like Jordan Peterson today, Schopenhauer was just simply a lightweight in comparison to Hegel!

To be honest, Schopenhauer is not the kind of a man who would "disagree" with someone just because he dislikes him/her. There are some examples where he praises people who he dislikes.

@Big-guy1981

Жыл бұрын

Schopenhauer didn't "dislike" Hegel. He hated his guts. Besides, while Hegel was in line with the zeitgeist, Schopenhauer was too much ahead of his time and clearly resented it.

@ReverendDr.Thomas

Жыл бұрын

@@Big-guy1981 even though Arthur's concepts were strongly in alignment with ANCIENT Indian philosophy. 🙃

@nicolaswhitehouse3894

Жыл бұрын

@@ReverendDr.ThomasThere was on orientalist mouvement in Germany and Europe in general where artists, scientists and philosophers were interested in Asian philosophy and art

@theinternet1424

Жыл бұрын

No, but Schopenhauer would absolutely hate and constantly attack *anyone* who did *any* kind of supposedly Kantian philosophy after Kant. He somehow convinced himself that his philosophy which bore little resemblance to the way Kant argued things and was in no way more similar to Kant in conclusions than his peers, was the sole proper inheritor to Kant. Schopenhauer's approach to philosophy was more personal and akin to religious thinking than Kant, not just other competitors for Kant's legacy. Yet he somehow came to a point where those who emulated Kant more closely and didn't reach the same preacher-like conclusions as Schopenhauer somehow had no clue what Kant really is.

@NickDaskalopoulos

Жыл бұрын

@@theinternet1424 Thaaaaank you.

All geese have 2 legs, you have 2 legs, therefore you are a goose. Schopie was a comic genius, and I’m a goose. 😂

@nevilleattkins586

Жыл бұрын

Did he choose geese, because it sounds like Geist spirit, a key Hegelian concept, admittedly geese is Gänse in German, but still?

@afrosamourai400

Жыл бұрын

He was funny as hell...

@thequeenofswords7230

6 ай бұрын

Too bad he was wrong. Weight is a function of acceleration acting upon a mass.

@motherisape

3 ай бұрын

​@@thequeenofswords7230yes exactly that's what I wanted to say . Hegel was right

@rodnee2340

3 ай бұрын

More like Police: can you describe this person? Hegel: yes they had two legs with feet on the end. They also had two arms, a head with a face, two eyes a nose and a mouth... Police:😒

Hegel was important because he made us realize that there were real geniuses out there, schopenhauer was one of them.

@aisthpaoitht

Жыл бұрын

LOL Hegel is still getting burned today

Well to be fair, it was Hegel who ruined Schopenhauer’s academic career, be it that all students abandoned his classes to go attend Hegel’s. So there is definitely an element of personal resentment hidden in his critique. Ironically enough, Hegel ultimately died of a pandemic that Schopenhauer foresaw and abandoned the city.

@wlrlel

Жыл бұрын

Well Schopenhauer purposely set his classes at the exact same time as Hegels...

@bradsmith1887

Жыл бұрын

If Hegel had so desired, he could have vetoed Schopenhauer's appointment at his school - yet he didn't.

@keithprice475

Жыл бұрын

Hegel did forsee it and left with his family but his sense of duty to his academic work brought him fatally back, and it was hardly Hegel's fault either that people did not want to go to Schopenhauer's lectures! The latter also sounds like a rather unpleasant person, and was also a notorious woman-hater, btw...

@wlrlel

Жыл бұрын

@@keithprice475 exactly

@rizanz2108

Жыл бұрын

Deliberate collective ignorance results in collective perishing.

A few years ago I decided to read some 19th century philosophy for the first time. I've always been interested in philosophy, and I don't mind reading through chapters of tough material, but when I got to Hegel I had to put it down after just a few pages. It was just too incomprehensible. This would have curbed my entire faith and interest in philosophy, if it wasn't that there was a text by Schopenhauer right afterwards. What a breath of fresh air. His thoughts are actually clear, and when I searched some background info on the guy and read about his beef with Hegel, I was laughing out loud.

@luxio7916

Жыл бұрын

filtered

@monke8478

Жыл бұрын

Legend

@lm2668

Жыл бұрын

Well to understand Hegel you should read idealists first and before that Kant and before that a realists and empirists. But thats’s tough so I would suggest to get a manual from a well established philosopher.

@701delbronx8

Жыл бұрын

@@lm2668if you need to read 5 other philosophers before then that philosophy is trash

@lorenzomizushal3980

Жыл бұрын

@@701delbronx8 this so much! I hate most higher level science because you need to know so many foundational subjects. Like theoretical physics requires you to know algebra, trigonometry, some geometry, calculus, classical physics, modern physics, and many other supplementary shit, theoretical physics and the higher sciences are TRASH!!!

As Wittgenstein says: "Anything that can be said can be said clearly." Schopenhauer's critique of Hegel is spot-on.

@raminagrobis6112

Жыл бұрын

Err... Wittgenstein was merely citing 2 verses by Boileau, a 17th century French writer: "Ce qui se conçoit bien s'énonce clairement Et les mots pour le dire viennent aisément"

@michaelpastorkovich9341

Жыл бұрын

@@raminagrobis6112 well, of course, everybody knows that. But Wittgenstein was citing them approvingly and including them as fundamental tenets in his master work.

@lorenzomizushal3980

Жыл бұрын

Lol, and then Wittgenstein wrote two books that were the opposite of clear.

@krystal7958

Жыл бұрын

"One could call Schopenhauer an altogether crude mind... Where real depth starts, his finishes." - late Wittgenstein. Yeah, I don't think that Wittgenstein would be on your side here. In fact there's far more in common with the Wittgenstein of the Philosophical Investigations and Hegel insofar as both are fundamentally concerned with how concepts and norms are discursively expressed in a language community. Both have very different methodologies and correspondingly pictures of such communities, but their project is far more closely aligned than I think Schopenhauer and Hegel would be.

@krystal7958

Жыл бұрын

​@@michaelpastorkovich9341It is *very, very, very,* controversial to characterize the Tractatus as his master work.

I can sense Slavoj Zizek coming to Hegel's defense right now. XD

@nupraptorthementalist3306

16 күн бұрын

Gross.

@JohnE2B

6 күн бұрын

@@nupraptorthementalist3306 Very gross indeed.

I can't help but actually laugh whenever I hear Schopenhauer on Hegel. I don't know why I find it so hilarious. A vivid and searing roasting.

@acardinalconsideration824

Жыл бұрын

Talkin mad shit fam

@wlrlel

Жыл бұрын

And also dumb

@rickyspanish4792

Жыл бұрын

Same, and tbh I can totally relate to him lol

@Selderij

Жыл бұрын

Schopenhauer serves some brilliant burns! :D

@nonserviam751

Жыл бұрын

@@Selderij That he does.

I think it’s strange how Hegel being a bad writer was conflated with him being a bad thinker. Using logic itself it is self-evidently clear that even if he was ignorant on scientific issues, Hegel wasn’t just a sophist. And ironically Schopenhauer’s hatred of him was part of a dialectic. The point of the dialectic is that it doesn’t even matter if Hegel was wrong on a bunch of stuff, because it is just part of the dialectical process

@ericxb

7 ай бұрын

my favorite comment ^. thank you.

@HonkletonDonkleton

3 ай бұрын

I find it strange that you find it strange that being a bad writer might be conflated with being a bad thinker. My dog can't write and he's thick as shit

After trying to understand Hegel's philosophy, I acquired a deep sympathy for Schopenhauer.. If the hegelian philosophers are unable to reach a minimum concensus on what their master's writings really meant, it is completely fair to ask if they actually meant something. Moreover, if the purpose of the Geist is the realization of the human potential, our potential seems to be to become piles of ashes on black smoking ball nowdays known as Earth. Hegelianism seems the philosophy of wishful thinking. And if I had misunderstood it all, that's Ifault of his terrible writing.

@existenceispain2074

8 ай бұрын

hegel was a terrible writer, but I do think his idea are very useful even if he employs some "wishful thinking" and not as he claims that his philosophy has no presuppositions. I am mainly from a mathematical background, I do find his ideas actually mirror some ideas in morden math and he actually "predicted" at least conceptually but obviously not technically which I find very interesting. ok I have read science of logic but haven't read the Phenomenology of spirit.

@mariocampos1969

8 ай бұрын

@existenceispain2074 Well, I only tried (and abandoned) The Phenomenology of the Spirot. I am under the impression that Hegel was just adhering to the principle later formulated by Niels Bohr: "You should never express yourself more clearly than you are able to think.". But I am curious about what you found on Hegel and will gladly swap an old wrong belief of mine for a fresh discovery.

@derpfaddesweisen

6 ай бұрын

​@@mariocampos1969The phenomenology is the most difficult work of Hegel. I would never start with that.

@ahuman5150

4 ай бұрын

As opposed to Schopenhauer whose writings still apply to today's state of society 😂

Superb analysis! Thank you for explaining the reasonings behind Schopenhauer’s well-known acrimonious attacks on Hegel as a philosopher.

@WeltgeistYT

Жыл бұрын

Glad you enjoyed it!

I've found Hegel very tough to read unlike Schopenhauer or Nietzsche. Perhaps, it has something to do with Schopenhauer and Nietzsche who were inspired to write in the classical french way, which is to write an idea as concise as possible.

@TwoFace0711

Жыл бұрын

I'd agree with your analysis regarding Hegel and Schopenhauer but Nietzsche and his Aphorisms are in my opinon utterly complex. I guess that's why also still the majority of people don't really understand Nietzsche

@j.langer5949

Жыл бұрын

@@TwoFace0711 The reason would probably be that Nietzsche wasn't writing for the majority, right?

@nicolaswhitehouse3894

Жыл бұрын

@@TwoFace0711 Nietzsche is easier to read once you've read past philosophers and the bible before him. There is such things as the Nietzschean humour and irony that not many people can't grasp if they hadn't read other past philosophers. But indeed Nietzsche is a philologist and a thinker of long time periods, and so he invites us to read slowly his works over a long periods of time.

@Confuzius

Жыл бұрын

@@nicolaswhitehouse3894 My view is that Hegel did write in an unnecessarily complicated way. I feel like his ideas are not that difficult to grasp, at least after having engaged with similar material enough. I seem to understand his ideas quite easily through secondary literature. His own writing to me seems to be unnecessarily complicated and i don't subscribe to the perspective that it's just him outsmarting the rest. Writing is a skill, not entirely coupled together with the skill of thinking. And i think Hegel's writing skill isn't that great.

@nicolaswhitehouse3894

Жыл бұрын

@@ConfuziusIndeed, I appreciate Hegel’s down to earth thinking, and his ideas are very ingenious and profound but boy is his writing ugly. Similarly to Kant I should say.

Liked video. Also, he/Schopenhauer indirectly prophesized in his writings he wouldn't make it until late in life. He mentions Locke and Hume (icons of his) as examples of philosophers whose writings weren't truly acknowledged until they were over 50.

Great channel, great content. I like these longer videos most

@catatafish22

Жыл бұрын

Weltgeist is goated. I've learned more from him than almost any other philosophy channel. I love that he doesn't have any agenda or narrative which he tries to impose on his audience. This is the analysis I love to hear... So sick of analysts trying to use the philosophers they cite as a trojan horse for their own indoctrination tactics. Welgeist does none of this... much respect.

Hegel's view of natural science is expressed best in the second part of his encyclopedia and in the first part of the chapter on self-consciousness in his Phenomenology. His second book encyclopedia is generally disregarded and hardly read whereas the part on life in the Phenomenology is really well done and also well read.

@batbite_

Жыл бұрын

Hegel is certainly not a charlatan btw, but his writing style is certainly the opposite of Kant. Where Kant will go on and on for 100 pages on the same point Hegel will only state it once or twice and will then keep going. It's kinda the same thing that Nietzsche does when he wants to make his aphorisms the depth of a whole book condensed into two or three sentences - the difference is that Hegel is more systematic. His systematism both allow for higher depth but also for a great difficulty in summarizing him. The phenomenology is like a tower: You cannot understand what is happening by looking at its stones, rather you need to see its total interrelation.

@NickDaskalopoulos

Жыл бұрын

@@batbite_ Excellent

Amazing work. Breaking down the central parts of Philosophy as a subject.

@WeltgeistYT

Жыл бұрын

Glad you liked it!

Hey, man. I truly love your content. But... Is there anyway you can normalize the sound volume of the videos so it gets a little louder? That'd be awesome. Cheers! PD: And yes, of course I would personally like to see more videos on the Hegel vs Schopenhauer matter.

great video! gonna be rewatching the last several minutes on repeat for a bit.

Interesting stuff, I always wanted to see more Schopenhauer content

Yessss!!!! New video!!!!!! Thank you for your work!

Great video. I like your schopenhauer videos. Keep up the great work.

Well I must say dispite being a Hegalian myself, I enjoyed the video and can defiantly see some of the incompleteness and weaknesses of hegel, Thank you! Yes, I believe a philosophers should study science as well a vice versa!

@WeltgeistYT

10 ай бұрын

Glad you enjoyed it!

@palasta

7 күн бұрын

Furry and Hegelian... fitting...

A horse also lies down in the street because it feels safe and wants to see, in a chill way, what the heck is going on in it's street. I live in South America, there are many free running horses which lay down in a street, sometimes even more than one horse, only to watch what's going on in a comforting way... I don't like Hegel aswell. Being tired is a damn good reason to lay down, only a slavemaster of others or of himself finds no reason in laying down when tired... Most people on earth are not very clever, that's the reason why most students had prefered the lectures of Hegel...nothing new under the sun...

Schopenhauer, Nietzsche, Deleuze.... hating Hegel is just how you get into the philosophers' circle of cool kids.

@pat8437

Жыл бұрын

That’s just the bitch club tbh

@koorotchkaryabos9993

Жыл бұрын

More like circle of soyjaks

@honkhonk8009

2 ай бұрын

@@koorotchkaryabos9993 Ok communist. See where your baseless yapping takes you

Great explanation! Thanks. Seems that I must read Schopenhauer.

Honestly I had the same problem with many eminent philosophers (Derrida, Nieztche, Camus, Lacan, Foucault and others) that Schoppenhauer had with Hegel. I just don't understand their sentences. And when I go read commentary on it, I keep up wondering if it's just not people trying to make sens of non-sens, just as religious people try to derive meaning from the their scriptures via Barnum effect. But at the same time, the sheer amount of respect that philosophers have for those big names make me question my own competence to assess them. After all, they spent more time reading them than I did, and it's really hard to find discordant voices on those names amongst philosophers. So I just come to the conclusion that I am wrong and I must need to spend more time reading them.

@catatafish22

Жыл бұрын

Before you doubt yourself, hold that thought, You might just be onto something. Trust your intuition. You're definitely not a dummy... People like Derrida, Foucault, Lacan etc. played pretty fast and loose with their theory. They had some good ideas, but in terms of basic principles - I'm yet to see how their ideas have made any effective change on culture or systems in the way they intented. From an individualistic spiritual point of view, I'd say people like Nietzche, Jung, Foucault, Lacan, Derrida etc. had briliant ideas concerning ethics, personal and collective sprititual/moral ideas. But when it comes to real cultural and systemic remedies - they were only theorists. They offered small pieces to a larger puzzle which we are yet to solve. Remember, these guys were just theorists and they dealt with very abstract ideas. When it comes to the pragmatic aspect of making effective change in society, theories go out the window as soon as you hit a roadblock. There is no grand world theory which has been able to save humanity to date... Fixing the world's problems can't be done through one or a handful of ideas (particularly those from modern day philosophers). A philosopher may be good at dealing with metaphysics, but when it comes to real world, pragmatic solutions... a lot of their theories burst into flames once implemented. In order to actually make real effective change, it takes a lot of planning, experimentation, trial and error - if you take a look at smaller scale corporate/government projects... like just a project to build one piece of crucial infractructure is a monumental task in itself, you'll see that none of these projects ever run smoothly - AKA, there are _always_ roadblocks. Someone might have an amazing idea, but when it comes to implementing it, its never as simple as 1,2,3. A theory is just a theory, and it we can't see proof of concept until it's trialed and implemented effectively. I see many examples of post structionalist, deconstructionist, social constructivist ideas being trialed today and failing miserably. All of these ideas came from the likes of Foucault, Derrida, Lacan, Gramsci, the people from the Frankfurt school etc... they all stem from ideas rooted in Nietzchean, Hegelian, Saussurean, Marxist etc. Principles. None of them are perfect by any means. - Nietzche has a special place in my heart, because he never really proposed some sort of grand world theory - he more inspired hope and showed us that we are _capable_ of achieving greatness... we just haven't figured it out yet... the free spirits will eventually lead us in the right direction. I guess you could call that a grand world theory... but it was never a specific prescribed doctrine, all he said was 'Here are some concepts, we have what it takes to find a better way of life. For now, at least you can achieve meaning in your own life'... and maybe that's the best we can do, y'know? Maybe the idea of a utopia really isn't even achievable. I often find myself going back to the idea of eternal recurrence... the only thing I know for certain based off human history, is that we will continue to repeat the same mistakes again and again... I'm yet to see any drastic change to that pattern. In the wods of Mike Tyson - "Everybody Has a Plan Until They Get Punched in the Mouth" Solving the world's problems is such a monumental task - it requires effective infrastructure, educational systems, governmental systems, strong cultural ethos. Just so many things need to happen all at once in concert. If you hear someone who claims to have all the answers, and a bunch of people follow said ideas like Religion - it's probably bullshit, or at the very least it has a lot of fundamental flaws. I've heard many grand theories, but I'm yet to see any of these fabled utopian societies people speak of... so it would be wise to suspend your belief imo. This is why being well versed in fundamental principles (particularly in the field of STEM) is so crucial. You can't just solve all the world's problems with a big stack of metaphysical theories. Schoppenhauer had a good point here despite his clear resentment for Hegel.

@codymarkley8372

11 ай бұрын

Would you consider aquinas or lossky or many other religious philosophers as being subject to the barnum effect.

@offensivearch

6 ай бұрын

​@@catatafish22 Once I acknowledge that the French philosphers were performance artists instead of philosophers, I can appreciate their "philosophy". Hegel can't do philosophy or performance art. Spinoza and Hegel just seem like poor renditions of eastern philosophy. It boggles my mind that anyone ever liked Hegel, but when you understand human ego and the need to appear smart/cultured it all starts to make sense. Hegelianism is a philosophy of delusion.

Found a new favorite channel.

I don't understand why people say that Hegel is difficult to understand. After all, he is simply saying that the destruction of an idea generates a new idea when that same destruction is itself destroyed, and that this movement governs the forms through which being appears either as speculation or experience. Furthermore, this process is total, since the appearance of any idea whatever depends on the reality of the Absolute Idea, or the idea of idea itself, which can only be the idea of Total Reality. Total Reality must include not only all possible and actual forms of experience, but all possible thought. People get into trouble with Hegel because of a failure to understand the obvious fact that Total Reality must include not only all experience but all speculation. What Hegel is saying is, of necessity, abstract, since the correctly observes that speculation is part of reality. But its really pretty obvious and simple if anyone thinks about it for a moment.

@theadl3681

4 ай бұрын

Bro whenever I had to write an essay that had a page requirement or minimum number of words, I would write this way 😂

@HonkletonDonkleton

3 ай бұрын

What does "destruction of an idea" mean

@charliebridges3584

3 ай бұрын

@@HonkletonDonkleton The idea that the earth is flat has been destroyed by the idea that it is round.

@HonkletonDonkleton

3 ай бұрын

Has it?

@charliebridges3584

3 ай бұрын

Yes. It has. @@HonkletonDonkleton

Schopenhauer's hatred of Hegel was mainly because he confused the being-in-itself of things with concepts, concepts only have a mediate relationship to the essence of the world, as concepts are derived from intuitive perception. He was also far more accurate in his scientific anticipations, for example equating matter with causality, and principium individuations which both Schrodinger and Einstein took note of. Furthermore he first and foremost and saw the brain as a mechanism of survival rather then thinking as most german idealist dogmatists thought.

Great introduction to a topic (S v. H) more often referenced than explored in detail. If you have more to say on the differences between the two men's systems, I should certainly be happy to listen. As another listener commented, a video detailing how Schopenhauer incorporated and expanded on Kant would also be most welcome. Another topic I would like to see addressed would look at if and how Schopenhauer's philosophy is compatible with current ideas about MUI theory and "conscious realism". Thanks for your video uploads!

Hegel didn't write badly, or Kant for that matter, rather it is the Anglo-Saxon and Ashkenazi aversion to reading anything more than a dumbed down and short essay. The anglosphere has been thoroughly weakened intellectually by being trapped in this hyper literalist, hyper reductionist mentality. The problem became a problem after WW2.

@andreab380

Жыл бұрын

I'm glad someone said it. I mean, Schopenhauer and Nietzsche did have a better writing style as they were really versed in rhetoric, and there is something to be said for the ability to convey complex ideas clearly and succintly. And yeah, Hegel and Kant are really hard to read. But the obsession with simplicity in the English speaking academic world is so frustrating. Sometimes people have actually new and/or complex ideas that cannot just be reduced to pre-existing words or structures. And if one takes the time to get into them, many of Kant's and Hegel's ideas are actually very lucid and profound, whether one agrees with them or not. I like that you are making a historical point as well. Why do you think this started becoming a major problem after the second world war? My vague impression is that, in the Anglo-Saxon world, there is some intellectual imperialism, reductionist materialism, and love for the hard, technological sciences working together against the complexities of the humanities, but I would like to hear your view if you know more.

@jillybe1873

Жыл бұрын

Oh could be true, I read them in German original, much easier to follow the logic

Interesting synthesis on two great philosophers. 👍

@conforzo

Жыл бұрын

Stop... Leave synthesis out of Hegel

I like to think that I would have been one of the 5 students attending Schopenhauer's lectures.

@iga279

Жыл бұрын

wishful thinking ...

@kendrickjahn1261

Жыл бұрын

@Iga 27 Obviously. What else would it be? Lol.

@catatafish22

Жыл бұрын

same haha, the contrarian in me would've done so purely because I don't like to buy into hype

Great stuff.

In Kant’s Critique of Pure Reason, he proves that the prerequisites for experience are the pure intuitions of space and time. But he makes particular errors in regard to causal law and how perception comes to be. We must start with examining sensuous knowledge. - A tree standing before me casts the light rays hitting it back linearly. A few of them fall on my eye and make an impression on the retina, which is transmitted to the brain by the stimulated optic nerve. When touching a stone, the sensory Nerves direct the received sensations to the brain. A bird sings and thereby brings forth a wave motion in the air. A few waves reach my ear, the eardrum vibrates, and the auditory nerve transmits the impression to the brain. While eating some fruit it affects my taste buds, and they lead the impression to the brain. Thus, there are visual representations, in contrast to those representations that are not visible such as those based off touch, taste, smell, and hearing. The visualizable representation starts with an impression which is made on the eye, for example when I have looked at the tree. There has been a certain alteration on the retina of my eye, and this has notified my brain, if nothing else happens then the process would end here, for how could the weak change in my nerves be processed into a tree, and by what miraculous manner could I see it? But in actuality, the brain reacts to the impression, and the faculty which we called the understanding, becomes active. The understanding searches the cause of the change in the sense organ, and the transition of effect in the sense organ to the cause is its sole function, it is the causal law. If the brain did not react to changes in the sense organ with the function of the understanding, there would be no representation of the world; thus the causal law is a priori, it is possibility for representation and lies a priori within us. Sensation that is not based of objective intuition is nothing but a local, specific feeling, capable in it’s own way some variation, but is always subjective and so is different to an intuition. Sensations are a process within the organism itself and is therefore wholly subjective, touch, sight and smell present themselves as external causes but do not determine any spatial relationships. Thus, we cannot determine any objective intuitions based on the aforementioned sensations, we can never construct a rose based of it’s smell nor can a blind person whom listens to music his entire life construct the image of a human being. If that same blind person were to feel a cubical body, the sensation of hardness, softness, dryness, moisture and temperature are not enough to determine the perceptual image of a construction; thus if said blind person were to feel the uniform and dimensions that are the same length, and that the edges press parts of his hands, the sensation of mere hardness does not construct anything similar to a cube. For hardness can refer to various types of objects, but the understanding which detects a change in the sense organ, immediately constructs a firm body and a cubical shape due to the pure intuitions of space and time. The inborn a priori function of causality finds it’s proof in the achievements of blind people such as Nicholas Saunderson who was blind from childhood but excelled in mathematics, optics and astronomy. The sensation of the retina can be reduced to light and dark, without the understanding we would have no ability to discern the proximity of objects and their spatial determinations thus only a meaningless array of sense data would be present to the consciousness. It is well known that light entering the eye is refracted as it passes through the cornea until both the cornea and lens act together as compound lens to project an inverted image, if vision was merely sensation the image would be reversed, however the understanding immediately at once detects a change in the retina from the direction that a light ray arrives it thus follows backwards in the position backwards on both lines to the cause. Thus the understanding is intuitive in contrast to discursive and abstract and causality creates from the heterogenous a priori intuitions of space and time the cerebral phenomena of the objective world, cognition of the understanding is completely different to introspective discursive thought, as can be seen in optical illusions where the understanding may have double vision, but reason cannot come to the aid of the understanding as it is merely abstract and diverged from it. Kant did not recognize that for them to be perception causality must be a priori in order for a change in the sense organ to be registered in the brain. Thus the 12 categories are wholly superfluous and discursive abstract thinking is not needed in immediate perception, this is seen above in the presence of optical illusions wherein reason may think that what is being presented is illusory but is the understanding does not budge. Because the law of causality is a priori we are not allowed to use causality to things-in-themselves. Thus matter is the causal law objectified, and the law of causality brings two important corollaries namely the law of inertia and that matter can never be destroyed or created. With this rigorous proof of the law of causality that is a priori, I will now showcase the incredible stupidity of Hegel. “The babble-philosophers, Jacobi at their head, to that reason that apprehends the ‘supersensible’ immediately, and to the absurd assertion that reason was a faculty essentially aimed at things beyond all experience, and so at metaphysics, and that it immediately and intuitively cognized the ultimate grounds of all things and all existence, the supersensible, the absolute, the deity and such like. - If people had been willing to use their reason instead of deifying it, such assertions would have had to be countered long ago by the simple observation that, if a human being, enabled by a special organ for solving the riddle of the world, which constituted his reason, carried within himself an innate metaphysics that merely stood in need of development, then as complete a unanimity concerning the objects of metaphysics would have to prevail among human beings as concerning the truths of arithmetic and geometry.” - Schopenhauer, The two fundamental problems of ethics. “An example of the existent specification of gravity is furnished by the following phenomenon: when a bar of iron, evenly balanced on its fulcrum, is magnetized, it loses its equilibrium and shows itself to be heavier at one pole than at the other. Here the one part is so affected that without changing its volume it becomes heavier; the matter, without increase in its mass, has thus become specifically heavier.” - §293 Encyclopaedia of the Philosophical Sciences Hegel makes the following inference: “If a bar supported at its centre of gravity subsequently becomes heavier on one side, then it falls to that side; but an iron bar falls to one side once it has been magnetized: therefore it has become heavier in that place.” It is comparable to this: “All geese have two legs, you have two legs, therefore you are a goose.’ The Hegelian syllogism reads: ‘Everything that becomes heavier on one side falls to that side; this magnetized bar falls to one side: therefore it has become heavier in that place.’ ‘Gravitation directly contradicts the law of inertia; for, by virtue of the former, matter strives to get away out of itself to an Other.’ - §269 Encyclopaedia of the Philosophical Sciences Well not only was this a stupid claim to make at the time, Einstein would show the identity of inert and gravitating mass. If you still doubt that Hegel was anything but an absolute idiot who was nothing more then a prostitute for the Prussian government consider the following example: ‘True, it is admitted in the abstract that matter is perishable, not absolute, yet in practice this admission is resisted, . . . ; so that in point of fact, matter is regarded as absolutely self-subsistent, eternal. This error springs from the general error of the understanding, that etc.’ -§298 Encyclopaedia of the Philosophical Sciences The Law of the Conservation of Matter is well understood by mere schoolchildren, even imagining the sudden creation of matter is impossible for us it can only undergo alterations as the law of causality is a priori, otherwise our sense-organ would not detect any change. And thus Hegel’s philosophical method’s which is nothing but Spinozism wrapped up in all sorts of prolixity whereby Spinoza’s substance was coined the “Absolute”, except it is now unconscious and needs to realise itself through history which amounts to “we’re all supernatural spiritual being realising itself through history,” were to have any merit at all - he would’ve been able to learn basic physics and math, no wonder he hated Newton, he was probably to stupid to do basic arithmetic.

have been waiting for this video for a long time

Weltgeist, your videos are really appreciated. I like Schopenhauer for his take on philosophy, how he emphasizes suffering and desire, and the way he utilizes Plato's Theory of Forms and Kant's concept of representation. He created a great, and deep system that emphasized human psychology. As for Hegel, I also appreciate his take on philosophy; for he shows his brilliance on ontology. Being + Nothing = Becoming; Hegel's equation for being. The more I think and read Hegel's topic on Being, and how he seems to say that ideas of the mind flow without any visible manifestations. Reason and Ideas are embodied through the sole reality of Becoming. They are similar for how they handle holistic view. For Schopenhauer, he says it is simply Will that unites everything; for Hegel, it was the Absolute Spirit. Both are great philosophers in many ways. Thanks for your post, Weltgeist.

@ReverendDr.Thomas

Жыл бұрын

🐟 02. A BRIEF SYNOPSIS OF “LIFE”: Everything, both perceptible and imperceptible - that is, any gross or subtle OBJECT within the material universe which can possibly be perceived with the cognitive faculties, plus the SUBJECT (the observer of all phenomena) - is to what most persons generally refer when they use the term “God”, since they usually conceive of the Primeval Creator as being the Perfect Person, and “God” (capitalized) is a personal epithet of the Unconditioned Absolute. However, this anthropomorphized conception of The Absolute is a fictional character of divers mythologies. According to most every enlightened sage in the history of this planet, the Ultimate Reality is, far more logically, Absolutely NOTHING, or conversely, Absolutely EVERYTHING - otherwise called “The Tao”, “The Great Spirit”, “Brahman”, “Pure Consciousness”, “Eternal Awareness”, “Independent Existence”, “The Ground of All Being”, “Uncaused Nature”, “The Undifferentiated Substratum of Reality”, “The Unified Field”, et cetera - yet, as alluded to above, inaccurately referred to as a personal deity by the masses (e.g. “God”, “Allah”, “Yahweh”, “Bhagavan”, etc.). In other words, rather than the Supreme Truth being a separate, Blissful, Supra-Conscious Being (The Godhead Himself or The Goddess), Ultimate Reality is Eternal-Existence Limitless-Awareness Unconditional-Peace ITSELF. That which can be perceived, can not be perceiving! Because the Unmanifested Absolute is infinite creative potentiality, “it” actualizes as EVERYTHING, in the form of ephemeral, cyclical universes. In the case of our particular universe, we reside in a cosmos consisting of space-time, matter and energy, without, of course, neglecting the most fundamental dimension of existence (i.e. conscious awareness - although, “it” is, being the subject, by literal definition, non-existent). Just as a knife cannot cut itself, nor the mind comprehend itself, nor the eyes see themselves, The Absolute cannot know Itself (or at least objectively EXPERIENCE Itself), and so, has manifested this phenomenal universe within Itself for the purpose of experiencing Itself, particularly through the lives of self-aware beings, such as we sophisticated humans. Therefore, this world of duality is really just a play of consciousness within Consciousness, in the same way that a dream is a person's sleeping narrative set within the life-story of an “awakened” individual. APPARENTLY, this universe, composed of “mind and matter”, was created with the primal act (the so-called “Big Bang”), which started, supposedly, as a minute, slightly uneven ball of light, which in turn, was instigated, ultimately, by Extra-Temporal Supra-Consciousness. From that first deed, every motion or action that has ever occurred has been a direct (though, almost exclusively, an indirect) result of it. Just as all the extant energy in the universe was once contained within the inchoate singularity, Infinite Consciousness was NECESSARILY present at the beginning of the universe, and is in no way an epiphenomenon of a neural network. Discrete consciousness, on the other hand, is entirely dependent on the neurological faculty of individual animals (the more highly-evolved the species, the greater its cognitive abilities). “Sarvam khalvidam brahma” (a Sanskrit maxim from the “Chandogya Upanishad”, meaning “all this is indeed Brahman” or “everything is the Universal Self alone”). There is NAUGHT but Eternal Being, Conscious Awareness, Causeless Peace - and you are, quintessentially, that! This “Theory of Everything” can be more succinctly expressed by the mathematical equation: E=A͚ (Everything is Infinite Awareness). HUMANS are essentially this Eternally-Aware-Peace, acting through an extraordinarily-complex biological organism, comprised of the eight rudimentary elements - pseudo-ego (the assumed sense of self), intellect, mind, solids, liquids, gases, heat (fire), and ether (three-dimensional space). When one peers into a mirror, one doesn't normally mistake the reflected image to be one's real self, yet that is how we humans conventionally view our ever-mutating form. We are, rather, in a fundamental sense, that which witnesses all transitory appearances. Everything which can be presently perceived, both tangible and immaterial, including we human beings, is a culmination of that primary manifestation. That is the most accurate and rational explanation for “karma” - everything was preordained from the initial spark, and every action since has unfolded as it was predestined in ETERNITY, via an ever-forward-moving trajectory. The notion of retributive (“tit-for-tat”) karma is just that - an unverified notion. Likewise, the idea of a distinct, reincarnating “soul” or “spirit” is largely a fallacious belief. Whatever state in which we currently find ourselves, is the result of two factors - our genetic make-up at conception and our present-life conditioning (which may include mutating genetic code). Every choice ever made by every human and non-human animal was determined by those two factors ALONE. Therefore, free-will is purely illusory, despite what most believe. Chapter 11 insightfully demonstrates this truism. As a consequence of residing within this dualistic universe, we experience a lifelong series of fluctuating, transient pleasures and pains, which can take the form of physical, emotional, and/or financial pleasure or pain. Surprisingly to most, suffering and pain are NOT synonymous. Suffering is due to a false sense of personal agency - the belief that one is a separate, independent author of one’s thoughts, emotions, and deeds, and that, likewise, other persons are autonomous agents, with complete volition to act, think, and feel as they wish. Another way of stating the same concept is as follows: suffering is due to the intellect being unwilling to accept life as it manifests moment by moment. There are five SYMPTOMS of suffering, all of which are psychological in nature: 1. Guilt 2. Blame 3. Pride 4. Anxiety 5. Regrets about the past and expectations for the future These types of suffering are the result of not properly understanding what was explained above - that life is a series of happenings and NOT caused by the individual living beings. No living creature, including Homo sapiens, has personal free-will. There is only the Universal, Divine Will at play, acting through every body, to which William Shakespeare famously alluded when he scribed “All the world's a stage, and all the men and women merely players.” The human organism is essentially a biopsychological machine, comprised of the five gross material elements (which can be perceived with the five senses) and the three subtle material elements (the three levels of cognition, which consist of abstract thought objects), listed above. Cont...

I love both these great philosophers!! Like with Nietzsche vs Schopenhauer, I never feel the need to take sides, thank god.

@TaxidermiedMessiah

Жыл бұрын

Thank god…who is dead 😂

@edgregory1

Жыл бұрын

Pun intended?

Great video.

@WeltgeistYT

6 ай бұрын

Glad you enjoyed it

Please make a video of Nietzsche vs Wagner, it’s a very interesting controversy we would like to understand better.

In all our Becoming, greed, resentment, and pride remain constant. I guess I'm with Schopenhauer that we should concern ourselves most with Being rather than Becoming.

Bertrand Russell also hated Hegel, and this is a testament to his greatness.

I was very interested by the comment that Schopenhauer refrained from criticising Hegel’s philosophy because their philosophies were actually similar and he didn’t want to admit this. In what way we’re they similar?

@imano8265

Жыл бұрын

Good question! I think they both started with Kant and his "Ding an sich" (don´t know the common english expression) For Hegel this was the spirit "Geist" and for Shoppenhauer it was the "Wille" the will. So for Hegel the progress of life was something concious whereas for Schopenhauer it comes out of the unconcious. Very different one may say, but both considered a princip behind reality and gave it a name.

@andreab380

Жыл бұрын

To expand on what Imano said, both are intentionally post-Kantian and give similar, albeit opposite, answers to his problem of the "Thing in Itself" (Ding an sich). Kant basically said that we cannot really, directly know the world in itself because our knowledge is always mediated by our subjective senses and intellectual categories. He sharply divided the objective world and the subjective experience. Both Hegel and Schopenhauer tried to find a way to unify subject and object again, in order to find a new access to some "absolute" knowledge about how reality actually is in itself. For both, this reality was something objective that manifests itself in and through our living, human subjectivity: Spirit (in the sense of a living, developing mind) for Hegel and Will (in the sense of a living, ever-striving force) for Schopenhauer. Hegel's philosophy of subject-object unification in absolute Reason/Logos is also pretty similar to Jewish/Christian mysticism, while Schopenhauer's metaphysics of (also) subject-object unification in an all-encompassing Will/Desire is very similar to Buddhist mysticism. They can to radically opposite conclusions about how rational and good the world and history are, but they moved from the same problem and they gave formally similar answers by striving for a unification of subject and object in some absolute dynamic principle that originates and explaines both.

Excellent video! Please keep producing this stuff!

please make a video on hegel's phenomenology of spirit

24:10 I can hardly think of any topic that deserves more exploration than this.

answer: because he completely misread him.

Hegel was grasping at truths beyond words, the first philosopher to do so. The first philosopher to understand the limitations of words in describing the world. Which sometimes makes for a hit and miss, scattershot approach, as he uses words to describe truths that words struggle to convey. A paradoxical position, that nonetheless can bear fruit. E.G. Is there a world spirit, a spirit of history? Not in a rational sense, but certainly we feel it. And if we feel the spirit of history, then it's real, even though immeasurable by science or reason.

But does being not come from becoming? Or does coming come from being? Does the general stem from the particular, or does the particular stem from the general?

Schopenhauer would have been infuriated by the name of this channel, considering how much content focuses on him. 😆

I am no fan of either of these characters but how Hegel bamboozled is a phenomenon in itself! Obviously, most of his ‘revolutionary’ material is from Christian Theology blended with Spinoza & Kant. For example, his' dialectic' is an adaption of Deuteronomic theology in the Old Testament; that history is a ‘process’ likewise is something in the OT; even his ‘geist’ is the ‘Logos’ in St. John Gospel. It just goes on - amazing how the midwit can be taken in so easily every-time

@lorenzbroll0101

3 ай бұрын

By the way, I am not talking from the perspective of a Christian Theologian!

21:50 if philosophy studies the unchanging will does it mean that history studies the manifestation in time of the will?

@mikewiest5135

4 ай бұрын

Yes, but also science

Schopenhauer hit the nail on the head! Bam!

Imagine being at the university of Berlin in 1820 and being able to go to Schopenhauer and Hegel lectures

Useful

Yeah. More please 😘

Karl Popper also hated Hegel and he agreed with Schopenhauer about Hegel. See his "The Open Society And Its Enemies, volume 2".

@keithprice475

10 ай бұрын

Yes, but he just flat out got Hegel wrong. The Philosophy of Right has none of the totalitarian implications he alleges.

@longcastle4863

10 ай бұрын

Vol 2 on Marx and Capitalism is brilliant philosophical writing, imo.

Can someone explain why hegels question was so wrong and why Schopenhauer’s answer is correct? I understand the use of wrong terminology but I don’t understand how it is wrong. I watch these videos with passing interest so I don’t have a ton of philosophy under my belt

@mikewiest5135

4 ай бұрын

Yeah that wasn’t clear. I believe it’s that “reasons” apply to arguments, but he should refer the “causes” when talking about events in the physical world.

I don’t read Hegel or Wittgenstein - what am I missing out on? They’re two of a few philosophers that have always struck me as too... (weird example format) enneagram type one-like. Contrived. Too sure of themselves. I love Schopenhauer, Montaigne, Nietzsche, the pre Platonic Greeks, Zen-Buddhist and Tao literature, Camus, Epictetus, Aurieiles, Seneca- etc down this path - but Hegal, Kant (to an extent), Wittgenstein, Spinoza kinda, Heidegger - Their words on paper to me look like skin that is too dry. ***I am no scholar, I write this from a homeless shelter and was confined through what years school would have been in large part, forgive my ignorant equivalences. Can someone recommend some more scientific reading? I want to take example of Schopenhauer’s affinity for science.

The thing about Hegel and the planets it's not like that, people have given proof of this. Hegel's writing style has been explained by experts, it's not a pretentious style, rather a try to use his speculative style of thought in writing too, it's obviously even annoying sometimes to just read one phrase 10 times and don't understand it, but it's reductionist and childish to reduce it to that.

@honkhonk8009

2 ай бұрын

Please fuckup with the yapping god damn. Ever see a mathematician write proof? Infinitely more complex shit. Litteral kindergartener language, all for the express purpose of conveying ideas efficiently. If efficiently articulating an idea isn't your main goal in writing, then you have already failed.

Kierkegaard also considered Hegel to be a charlatan, describing the latter's philosophical system, because its author didn't preface it with 'thought experiment', as "just hilarious". That's an academic roundhouse to the face! Perhaps a topic for a follow-up video.

@krystal7958

Жыл бұрын

Kierkegaard did not consider Hegel to be a charlatan, he thought Hegel was wrong. He takes Hegel and Hegelianism very seriously, but he thinks that the Hegelian view of philosophy as science, that is, as the categorization of what is according to rational and natural laws, or universal implications and entailments, loses sight of the individual. This is what Kierkegaard means when he says that Hegel doesn't preface his thought with concrete examples, or that Hegel doesn't have an ethics.

Did someone find Schopenhauer quoted in The Origin of Species? I tried to find that quote, but I could not find Schopenhauer namely quoted.

@WeltgeistYT

Жыл бұрын

It’s in The Descent of Man, another work of Darwin’s.

It is important to note that Hegel was Heraclitean like Nietzsche.

Jesus Maestro, Spain's most famous contemporary literature critic, professor, lecturer and originator of a philosophy of Material Literature. Had this to say of Hagel, after reading the complete works of Hagel. " Metaphysical emotional hysteria."

@louisnooope

Жыл бұрын

This is a compliment if you actually understand Hegel

@tarhunta2111

Жыл бұрын

@@louisnooope How?

@andrewryan4016

Жыл бұрын

El autor no es una función social hombre

So Hegel was like ‘can I begin with a question?’ and ur boy Schopenhauer was like ‘I don’t know, _can_ you?’

@_PanchoVilla

10 ай бұрын

Schopenhauer held him with contempt like a child like making a pedantic argument to a toddler as can you vs. may you.

So Daniel Dennett is carrying on in the tradition of Schopenhauer... Excellent presentation. Thank you.

@keithprice475

10 ай бұрын

Now THAT is a truly damning observation! Dennett writes well and often charmingly, but his philosophy is a self-contradictory mess, especially around the mind, as I argued in my honours thesis and have been subsequently backed up by numerous others.

@mikewiest5135

4 ай бұрын

@@keithprice475right on

Welt- you might enjoy “Napoleon” by Elie Faure - I just bought all of his works and they’re truly outstandingly good.

Well, I think that Hegel started that trend of writing in so obnoxious manner, that Heidegger continued using it, and many of the continental philosophers (Sartre, Lacan, Gillez Deleuze, etc.) that Alex Sokal will hit with his "Fashionable Nonsense" book and the article published by him in Social Studies journal, filled with jargon only to prove his point.

The usual defence of complex philosophy is that the concepts discussed are such that stretch everyday language - hence neologisms need inventing to accommodate concepts that previously didn't exist, and this feels fair. But in the case of Hegel, the sentence construction is SO tortured, is that really necessary too? Though it's not like Kant is a cakewalk or Heidegger a walk in the woods. Annoyingly it might just be the case that both charlatans and prophets may be somewhat incomprehensible.

i think that someone with an obsession for truth could dislike hegel just on the basis of his philosophy.

You my man, are probably much more inclined toward Schopenhauer than to Hegel. That concise and clear sentences you gave are the prove. Great work!

Fascinating, thank you

Gravity though can increase without becoming heavier

Schoppenhauer had some rad paintings of himself

i agree wholeheartedly

Hegel: "EVERY DAY IN EVERY WAY I'M GETTING BETTER & BETTER!! 😀😀😀" Schope: "I'll give you a winter prediction: It's gonna be cold, it's gonna be grey, and it's gonna last you for the rest of your life. 😭😭😭"

It doesn’t take a minute to find academic material denying your interpretation of Hegel’s astronomical thesis of there a priori being only 7 bodies.

That's the spirit!

It honestly sounds like a critique you could make of Jordan Peterson, imagine Schopenhauer hearing JP say "holomodor"

While I know you're partial to Schopenhauer, I think your stuff about Hegel's understanding of science really attacks a caricature. Plus, I think it would have been responsible to say ~why~ Hegel thinks that his speculative a priori logic is a necessary approach to nature. It's because he's interested in explaining nature, and on principled grounds, he doesn't think that the empirical method can ever explain the workings of nature. All it can do is point to regularities, and to understand why those regularities are the case, you just appeal to other regularities, but you never get an ~explanation~ of why those regularities are the case. Whether Hegel's correct to think that his speculative logic is the way to offer an explanatory account of nature remains a question, and in my mind it seems implausible albeit interesting. However, I think that you should at least have mentioned this, and should have been more careful in how you presented Hegel's understanding of science and nature. By any stretch, he actually marshals his empirical science well (not to mention how involved he was in geology!). See, for example, Terry Pinkard's intellectual biography of Hegel. It really shows that the "haha Hegel stupid madman was wrong about science lolol" is in many ways an overblown caricature that's factually incorrect.

@SIRVER123456789

Жыл бұрын

Nonetheless, I should say that I very much appreciate your videos and the time and effort you put into them! Just had this minor reservation, but otherwise thank you for the solid philosophy content. We need more people like you on KZread.

@Purwapada

Жыл бұрын

yes i think so too

@andreab380

Жыл бұрын

I also thought that this video, while I enjoyed it, could have been a little less brutal on Hegel about the science bits. Especially since I know very little about Hegel's ideas about science, it would be nice to know more than superficial attacks. To go a bit more philosophical: the example of the iron bar's "weight" really stroke me as weird. I cannot imagine that Hegel was literally saying that movement due to magnetic attraction is the same as weight. But if one reflects about it for a minute, it's clear that the "appearence" or the "phenomenon" is the same: the iron bar moving downwards. What structure helps us discern what forces are acting on matter, and even what these forces are (e.g. what even is a "field"?) is really a profound epistemological question, even now (scientists are still wondering if and how the electromagnetic and gravitational forces can be unified, indeed). There must be something more there about how we unify what we extrapolate from sense data and make it into a coherent picture. So it would really be nice to know what Hegel was really trying to say there, or at least give him the benefit of the doubt.

@_oshiri-2224

Жыл бұрын

@@andreab380 “An example of the existent specification of gravity is furnished by the following phenomenon: when a bar of iron, evenly balanced on its fulcrum, is magnetized, it loses its equilibrium and shows itself to be heavier at one pole than at the other. Here the one part is so affected that without changing its volume it becomes heavier; the matter, without increase in its mass, has thus become specifically heavier.” - §293 Encyclopaedia of the Philosophical Sciences Hegel makes the following inference: “If a bar supported at its centre of gravity subsequently becomes heavier on one side, then it falls to that side; but an iron bar falls to one side once it has been magnetized: therefore it has become heavier in that place.” It is comparable to this: “All geese have two legs, you have two legs, therefore you are a goose.’ The Hegelian syllogism reads: ‘Everything that becomes heavier on one side falls to that side; this magnetized bar falls to one side: therefore it has become heavier in that place.’ ‘Gravitation directly contradicts the law of inertia; for, by virtue of the former, matter strives to get away out of itself to an Other.’ - §269 Encyclopaedia of the Philosophical Sciences Well not only was this a stupid claim to make at the time, Einstein would show the identity of inert and gravitating mass. If you still doubt that Hegel was anything but an absolute idiot who was nothing more then a prostitute for the Prussian government consider the following example: ‘True, it is admitted in the abstract that matter is perishable, not absolute, yet in practice this admission is resisted, . . . ; so that in point of fact, matter is regarded as absolutely self-subsistent, eternal. This error springs from the general error of the understanding, that etc.’ -§298 Encyclopaedia of the Philosophical Sciences The Law of the Conservation of Matter is well understood by mere schoolchildren, even imagining the sudden creation of matter is impossible for us it can only undergo alterations as the law of causality is a priori, otherwise our sense-organ would not detect any change. And thus Hegel’s philosophical method’s which is nothing but Spinozism wrapped up in all sorts of prolixity whereby Spinoza’s substance was coined the “Absolute”, except it is now unconscious and needs to realise itself through history which amounts to “we’re all supernatural spiritual being realising itself through history,” were to have any merit at all - he would’ve been able to learn basic physics and math, no wonder he hated Newton, he was probably to stupid to do basic arithmetic. Compare him with Schopenhauer’s scientific anticipation, where he has the likes of Einstein, Schrodinger, Wolfgang Pauli and Charles Darwin praising his work.

I hate to say it…but as a follower of Schopenhauer I feel bad in fact embarrassed that he never confronted Hegel with reason and argument. I personally dislike all of his ad hominem attacks, having nothing to do with aspects of disagreement with Hegelian philosophy. Schopenhauer is my teacher and Guru….but if there is anything I hope to do with my life is to understand Schopenhauer by carefully reading and critiquing Hegel’s philosophy. It would have been very refreshing if he dedicated more time breaking down Hegel’s philosophy in a historical way and through formal arguments (instead of just being a “hater”) how it fit the scientific “lebenswelt”; I think here Schopenhauer would have offered much on the value of his philosophy NOT only in regard to Hegel but the sickness of the ideological thought of yesteryear and the dreaded “wholeness” of today clown 🤡world! I learned the hard way over the years - one can disagree and even hate a man, a priori but to all it to infect one’s communications in the world, is not only sad and harmful- but also unnecessary wasteful! I hope one day to bring peace two the sense in both philosophies in regard to both thinkers and history.

@ZYX84

Жыл бұрын

Hello. I do believe he went into “withdrawal“ out of sheer upper to high-level narcissism. He didn’t have the capacity to see beyond his own true desire. That can be a fault for many of us. To presume that one is better than the other. Although,from birth you could not, but as a child grows into a young man into a grown man well, in the end the truth will prevail you know. & by the way, fraud, it’s not only illegal. It’s just not nice.😎

@wlrlel

Жыл бұрын

I hope you will get over Schopenhauer

Kierkegaard disliked Hegel too and is just as hilarious in his denouncements

Valuable

No primeiro encontro entre Hegel e Schoppenhauer, o termo "Razão" foi usado erroneamente? Isso parece uma premissa falsa já que Hegel perguntou para Schoppenhauer se as condições corporais eram tbm razões. Essa é uma pergunta filosófica embutida, não uma discordância. Parece que chamar Hegel de charlatão é no mínimo esnobe da parte de Schoppenhauer.

I love a bit of historical beef

10:08 perhaps the reasoning is wrong, but at least the conclusion is correct

🎩✨ Many thanks sir. I’ll be looking forward to hearing from you again.🎩🙂

14:09 actually made me laugh out loud

As unreadable as Hegel is, he certainly has not faded from the scene. If anything, today he is more important than Schopenhauer, given the popularity of disciples like Žižek and others. What this video did not address was the fact that both Schopenhauer and Hegel were post-Kantian philosophers. What I would like is a video on just how both mirrored Kant’s philosophy and how they differed from Kant as well as from each other. From what I understand about Hegel, he rejected Kant’s binary of appearance vs. the thing in itself or to use Kant’s terminology, phenomena vs. noumena. Instead, Hegel believed that noumena manifested itself through phenomena. I would be interested in if Schopenhauer would have agreed with this or not.

@Manx123

Жыл бұрын

“given the popularity of disciples like Žižek and others.” Stopped reading there. If this is what makes a philosopher important, philosophy is dead. Zizek has zero influence on people being memed, and his legacy will not survive him.

@uncommonsensewithpastormar2913

Жыл бұрын

@@Manx123 What do you mean by “people being memed”? Surely you are not suggesting that the mindless pop culture of “memes” is more important than serious philosophy?

@Manx123

Жыл бұрын

@@uncommonsensewithpastormar2913 I wasn't, actually, but yes, it is actually.

@uncommonsensewithpastormar2913

Жыл бұрын

@@Manx123 Indeed, it is for you. For me, not so much.

@Manx123

Жыл бұрын

@@uncommonsensewithpastormar2913 I was speaking regarding aggregate importance.

Schopenhauer is so underrated philosopher. This man is the greatest genius that has ever lived on the surface of earth.

@Robobotic

Жыл бұрын

And a professional sophist

@keithprice475

Жыл бұрын

As we say here in Australia, yeah, nah! A thinker who divorces being and becoming in such a fashion and puts out such uncompromising pessimism rather deserves his ongoing lack of great popularity, in my view. Hegel may have been rather wonky on the sciences, thought you could deduce rather too much from first principles and had a tortuous writing style but he knew that reality had to have a dynamic unity, mean something positive and must somehow embody rationality. He was not being obscure just for the heck of it or to hide his deficiencies, though I do think his general meaning can and has been expressed with much more clarity elsewhere. The clarity of a Hume was useful for pointing out the problems in other people's philosophies but did not a wit allow him to expound deep sense and the same applies to Schopenhauer. Besides, if rigorous logical clarity were so fecund, the Analytic tradition would have long since carried all before it, and it has not!

@EyeLean5280

Жыл бұрын

Is there really such a thing as the one greatest genius?

@keithprice475

Жыл бұрын

@@EyeLean5280 No

@_oshiri-2224

Жыл бұрын

@@keithprice475 Schopenhauer never had to resort to empty abstractions such as "being", "becoming", "non-being", "determination", etc. These are they key terms that sophists like Hegel use. Hegel also misuse the law of causality which is a pure intuition and union of space and time, thus a first cause is inconceivable, so Hegel's stupid sophistry is nothing but a monstrous amplification of the ontological argument. Furthermore, Schopenhauer is well read by the likes of Schrodinger, Einstein, Wolfgang Pauli, Proust, Tolstoy and his scientific anticipations were confirmed subsequently in areas such as physics and most notably Darwinism. Kant similarly defines sensibility as “the receptivity of our mind to receive representations insofar as it is affected in some way” If the sense organ is effected it presupposes an alteration of the sense organ’s state. Thus causality is a priori in order for representations to be present, the understanding would only need to locate a cause for the alteration of the sense organ and consequently the effect would be a representation. Therefore, we see matter as the union of space and time, where in space objects would be rigid and immovable, and in time alone there would be no simultaneity; hence matter is simultaneous but also undergoes alterations in its state. Matter is the union of space and time, and sole function of the understanding is to locate an alteration in the sense organ and is not the result of discursive thought. Philipp Mainländer summarises why the causal law is a priori. We have to see, how the visualizable representation, the objective perception, emerges for us, and start with the impression, which the tree has made on the eye. More has not happened until now. There has been a certain change on the retina and this change has notified my brain. If nothing else happens, would the process end here, then my eye would not see the tree; for how could the weak change in my nerves be processed into a tree, and by what miraculous manner should I see it? But the brain reacts on the impression, and that faculty, which we call the Understanding, becomes active. The Understanding searches the cause of the change in the sense organ, and this transition of the effect in the sense organ to the cause is its sole function, is the causal law. This function of the Understanding is inborn and lies in its being before all experience, like the stomach must have the capability of digesting, before the first nutrition comes in it. If the causal law would not be the aprioric function of the Understanding, then we would not come to a visualizable perception. The causal law is, besides the senses, the first condition for the possibility of representation and lies therefore a priori in us.

So philosophy, defined as "lover of wisdom", changed to "lover of some wisdom" instead?

@honkhonk8009

2 ай бұрын

Yes. It was infiltrated by midwits and turned into the study of acting smarter than you are.

The brain is a Mandelbrot set complex morphology. Understand why this is true. Thanks for your videos.

Oh boy! Schopenhauer throwin' some shade on the H man!!!!!

Schopenhauer is only great philosopher for those, who do not understand philosophy at all. So it makes sense, that for him and his followers Hegel seems like a nonsense. Those people think, that if they have head on their shoulders and sometimes think, they should be able to grasp any philosophical idea or even create their own ideas without any effort at all. Contrary to that, everyone is sure, that in order to make a pair of shoes you need to learn to do it properly. Philosophy is a science. You need time, effort and patience to get a hold of it.

Die Elektrizität ist der reine Zweck der Gestalt, der sich von ihr befreit, die Gestalt, die ihre Gleichgültigkeit aufzuheben anfängt; denn die Elektrizität ist das unmittelbare Hervortreten oder das noch von der Gestalt herkommende, noch durch sie bedingte Dasein, - oder noch nicht die Auflösung der Gestalt selbst, sondern der oberflächliche Prozeß, worin die Differenzen die Gestalt verlassen, aber sie zu ihrer Bedingung haben und noch nicht an ihnen selbständig sind. Georg Wilhelm Friedrich Hegel Enzyklopädie der philosophischen Wissenschaften im Grundrisse, 1817.

@gerhardfischer6057

9 ай бұрын

Danke für den herrlichen Wortsalat! Ist meine erste Begegnung mit Hegel und wird wohl auch die letzte sein.

@rainerausdemspring3584

9 ай бұрын

@@gerhardfischer6057 Als Zugabe hier noch etwas für die Freunde der Anthroposophie: Die Kuh hat Hörner, um in sich hineinzusenden dasjenige, was astralisch-ätherisch gestalten soll, was da vordringen soll beim Hineinstreben bis in den Verdauungsorganismus, so daß viel Arbeit entsteht gerade durch die Strahlung, die von Hörnern und Klauen ausgeht, im Verdauungsorganismus. Wer daher die Maul- und Klauenseuche verstehen will, also das Zurückwirken des Peripherischen auf den Verdauungstrakt, der muß diesen Zusammenhang durchschauen. Und unser Maul- und Klauenseuche-Mittel ist aufgebaut auf dem Durchschauen dieses Zusammenhanges. Nun, sehen Sie, dadurch haben Sie im Horn etwas, was durch seine besondere Natur und Wesenheit gut dazu geeignet ist, das Lebendige und Astralische zurückzustrahlen in das innere Leben. Etwas Lebenstrahlendes, und sogar Astralisch-Strahlendes haben Sie im Horn. Es ist schon so. Würden Sie im lebendigen Kuhorganismus herumkriechen können, so würden Sie, wenn Sie drin wären im Bauch der Kuh, das riechen, wie von den Hörnern aus das Astralisch-Lebendige nach innen strömt. Bei den Klauen ist das in einer ähnlichen Weise der Fall. Rudolf Steiner, VIERTER VORTRAG Koberwitz, 12. Juni 1924 Kräfte und Substanzen, die in das Geistige hereingehen: Die Düngungsfrage Das sollte für eine Einweisung reichen.

I did know this.

23:38 how?

I think that you oversimplified Schopenhauer's argument against the nature of history and "being": for example, where does the possibility of (human) redemption fit in with his pessimism? Is the Universe a mere fleeting moment in cosmic time, but which, scaled down to human existence appear "infinite"? And to my mind, Heideggar is a philosophical decendant of Hegel--both are incomprehensible!

@andreab380

Жыл бұрын

There is no human redemption for Schopenhauer. The Will itself is infinite, and probably the universe also is, but there is no end-goal to our or any being's suffering, to him. The only chance he believes in is the ability to let go of our ego-centric and ultimately delusionary desire to preserve our own existence as an individual. If you manage to lose your limited self, by identifying yourself with others through art or compassion, or by letting go of desires altogether through and ascetic life, you have reached as much "redemption" as he thinks is possible.

@robertburatt5981

Жыл бұрын

@@andreab380 Sounds like "total entropy" to be the ultimate "goal" in the event of life being once again created carrying with it the "Will to live" and the concomitant cycles of suffering and satiety.

@andreab380

Жыл бұрын

@@robertburatt5981 To be honest, I don't know if S. believed that total entropy would happen. I don't know his thoughts about cosmology. But he thought the Will is eternal and it has no "goals" or end-points. The solution for him was not in the apparent world of phenomena (of which entropy is one) but only in the human approach - even if Will in the end appears to devour everything in entropy, that is no source of inner peace.

@robertburatt5981

Жыл бұрын

@@andreab380 It's "nothingness".

Schopenhauer was very correct in this view.