she is fricking proffesor of philosophy. who are you to judge her? i guess you thought she was some teenager talking randomly on hegel, lol.

@@kocahmet1 I think you're being a bit defensive. Certain professors are better than others.

@@kocahmet1 I would be hard pressed to find a philosophy professor in my university’s faculty who can distill a topic as complex as Hegelian dialectic as lucidly and comprehensively as this. Meaning, it’s valid to commend her on it, because her skill is literally exceptional

Lex Fridman had on his podcast the foremost philosophy professor in the Western world (an Australian gentleman, I forget his name), and he became visibly angry that people apply "thesis, antithesis, synthesis" to Hegel's ideas. The professor said Hegel never used this terminology. Instead he rambled on about the "unity" of events, and that there were no temporal constraints on "spirit" (ie, he said you have "a tree, a wooden table, and a pile of ashes" -- together). This is why people generally dislike philosophy-- the specialists in it try to make it as obtuse and illogical as possible. Except for this channel-- where she makes ideas more concrete, and quite smartly cites the page numbers.

@@Borat_Kazakh Spot on!

Although, in the same line as Frederick Beiser, I'm not that fond of the representation of the triadic form as a schemata of "thesis-antithesis-synthesis", even though this form of thinking dialectics is much more approachable.

No it's not... Learn why Hegel was vehemently opposed to Fichtes dialectic

Haha thank you! Dr. Anderson has a PhD in Philosophy from Emory, which has an excellent continental philosophy program, and teaches these concepts regularly to college students.

Jokes on us for not realizing that by naming the podcast"Overthink" y'all actually skip over the thinking that true philosophy demands@@OverthinkPodcastPhilosophy

@@OverthinkPodcastPhilosophy Lmao! Are you kidding? Idk if this is a satirical indictment of Emorys philosophy program...either way, this is the least creative form of anti-Hegelianism.

EDIT: I meant sublation, not substation.

Problem is no color can be seen as a pure color. She fails to get at the non-linearity of Hegels dialectics. Not A B C, but A B B A

Sounds a lot like Leibniz's _entelechy_ as well

It was Fichte, yes. Hegel never said it (and she admits he didn't), even if it is commonly misattributed to him (in fact, the one time he DID mention it, he actually complained about it in Kant). Hegel's actual dialectic was more like Idea-Negation-Concrete.

Yes you're correct, I've taken a course on anti-liberalism where we went over the works of Fichte and Schiller. I find it interesting that classicism relies heavily on harmony considering its apparent juxtaposition with romanticism. The thesis-antithesis-synthesis concept is quite relevant when describing the harmonious appearance of romantic ideals.

Are you suggesting a distinction similar to Being vs Becoming? In the sense that the seed and the trees are both distinct beings create a field of tension characterized by progressive becoming. The becoming is an unactualized being which creates progress through this unresolved tension. The way I see it, the seed is a tree but the tree isn't a seed. The seed's existence relies on the existence of the tree because its utility is inherent to its particular naming. While they are polar opposites creating a field of tension, this tension is resolved progressively because the tree holds inherent power over the seed. The seed can become a tree while the tree cannot become a seed. I don't disagree with your other suggestions and questions. However, I think Hegel's dialectic philosophy might be restricted to modernity as history is a conceptually modern idea. Modernity is synonymous with the belief in progress, especially in its material form. This is itself a relative preference that may rely on time and place. Not sure if this would be consistent with Hegel's thought however. Going back to the "naming" question, wouldn't you say that virtually any meaning behind a name is tied to a specific utility within a particular context? For instance, if we live in a time and a place where agriculture is necessary, the existence of the seed's utility is dependent on the utility of the tree. Of course we can all disagree about the tree's utility in the first place, but we cannot un-see the seed if we understand its particular utility. Now, I think this may be dependent on modernity. For instance, an indigenous society in North America may see the tree as embodying a cyclical process and this can be a good allegory to explain their societal structure. I think Hegel's point is that the state binds us to a universal spirit. Consciousness is achieved through the understanding that the tree's utility universalizes the 'becoming' of the seed and guides it in a particular direction.

@@julienguyon2232 But the tree does become a seed; it becomes numerous seeds. It is the becoming of numerous seeds, and numerous other trees, and it is not the sole becoming as it is just one _perceived_ segment (so, conceptualized segment) of the entirety of all. I'm pointing out that the apparent utility is based on a concept of perspective that is a particular human framing. You said the seed becomes a tree but a tree doesn't become a seed, and I see that as a mere consequence of how you frame what you are observing. How is the seed not dependent on the tree in the same way the tree is dependent on the seed? The seed does not become without the tree, and the tree does not become without the seed. And neither become the conceptually segmented process of energy movement without the prior and concurrent movements from which it became becomes. _Now_ this barely touches on the further concepts of framing with respect to our limited view of the environment and components of both the tree, the seed, and everything in and around that conceptualized segmentation. When we talk about a tree, we talk about a collection of components, but we aren't actually referring to every component, typically. There's much more to a tree than we ever refer to when we talk about trees, and in different moments we talk about different sets of components relative to our needs in those instances. The concept of the tree is a utility for a purpose, such as in warning someone that a tree is about to fall, which only refers to certain characteristics of the tree. Or, when pointing to a tree for someone to collect fruit from it, we aren't referring to the inner bark of the tree, the molecular composition of the leaves of the tree, the state of subatomic particles in and around the tree and how they correspond to any of the other matter in the rest of the universe. We see and frame a particular thing as is our utility for what we can even see of it. So, to answer your question directly, yes, I do see naming mechanisms, all of semiotics, as _being_ of utility. I can't even imagine how it could be any other way. That's said, I want to bring this back to the final point of my comment, which was the assertion of an "end" state of "perfection." What could that even mean? How is the tree dependent on the seed anymore than the seed is dependent on the tree? What would make one state and "end" over another, if an end is even coherent to claim here, and what would make one state any more perfect or any less perfect than another?

@@cloudoftime Thanks for the thoughtful reply. I don't think I disagree with any of what you said actually!! I didn't mean to imply that the tree's perfection is absolute in its material appearance. Of course it is composed of an infinite plurality of parts which can be individualized independently. Perhaps my response here will just prove your point and indicate a misunderstanding on my part because I assumed that what you are claiming here was consistent with Hegel. As I agree with your claim on semiotics being utility-driven, I completely agree with your utility claims about trees. However, I would extend the analogy further. The tension between the tree and the seed exists because the tree requires the development of the seed for its existence. The utility of the seed is dependent on the utility of the tree. The seed stops being a seed when it is absorbed by the utility of the tree. I see this absorption as the teleological end of this dynamic where the tension is broken by the overbearing power of the dominant concept/utility. The tree may have multiple outlined purposes or utilities making it a tree but the seed's ultimate utility is dependent on its potential to be a tree. I think the idea of potentiality is essential to any form of historicism. That being said, the seed ought to be placed in tension with other concepts indicating its perfection in other contexts. For instance, seeds that have utility without being absorbed by a more powerful utility, like seeds which can be consumed as they are. I think the seed in this context is complete and perfect.

Genius.

Hi there! Hegel discusses this most fully in The Phenomenology of Spirit, as well as in a number of places. Since this video is background for Hegel's philosophy of history, it's a somewhat different project. For Hegel, personal development is never really separate from historical consciousness, but you're right to point out that that doesn't mean the two can't be considered in distinct projects (which is what Hegel does).

@@OverthinkPodcastPhilosophy Yeah Hegel goes pretty crazy in using the dialectics of progressive compromise for morals as well as historical progress. Weve seen dialectic materialism come into fruition but there is untapped potential of Hegelian dialectics in terms of fully grasping hermetics, alchemy, Jungian, Lacanian, and Freudian psychology as well as points of synthesis between various fields, such as historical development being immediately perceived by the personal subject and its mapping of personal self actualization to historical actualization in the persons lived experience, as the culmination of history as Spirits comprehension of itself is equivalent to an individual bringing about/ participating in its change

@Xaviar 77versus99 ikr? I think it looks more like a kantian dialectic

No not at all. Hegel is for radical contigency. The necessity of history is only retroactively posited. Everything that has happened *had* to happen. But the future is radically open. That's where Marx fails, he jumps ahead and tries to "predict" where Spirit *must* end up.

Hegel only lays a good ground work.