Thank you for your kind words and thoughtful response. Some reactions to your notions: A) kindly name one lengthy espousing that disconnects from concrete reality in Hegel; B) my goal in this video wasn't to engage with the so-called concrete reality but to show why thesis-antithesis-synthesis does not belong to Hegel (and may even not be Hegelian). As to your first question: I think plenty of utility has happened already, albeit of a damaging kind, so no, I really don't see the benefit of engaging with Hegel in terms of Fichte's TAS notion. To your second question: I don't think there's a better way to understand Hegel's system than to understand Hegel's system on its own terms, as presented by the philosopher. To use your image: it's like you're asking to get to know the land by a finely tailored map, when the land itself is right before you. But ok, philosophy is hard, Hegel is hard, the land is large and foreboding, and you need some help when you're just starting out, and that's why there are plenty of guides out there that aim to do just that. But these are never meant to replace you, ultimately, having to work out Hegel for yourself. I hope that helps answer your questions.

I could refer to Hegel's "The Philosophy of Nature" as a work that while not lengthy left me with the impression that it did not connect well to the concrete. However, that is misdirecting my point about the need for summary or an abstract. The summary need only contain the mode of inquiry, a brief account or map which is really all I am after. Fitchte's thesis-anthesis-synthesis is at best only such a map, and I can agree that your very fine 33-minute video provides a better map. However, a finely tailored map is almost useless on a long trip because when you have the actual territory the details on the map are only redundant. But the mode of inquiry is necessarily general and abstract, and very useful on a long trip. So, I am only asking about Hegel's mode of inquiry that permitted him to navigate the vast expanses of The Science of Logic. Cheers!@@filipniklas

@@filipniklas thank you Filip, great answers, I will wait for the next video, please continue to do this good job!!

No, because this is about Hegel's understanding of dialectics. If you want to understand Adorno and Debord's use of the term, you read them. Philosophers tend to make use of the same words in entirely different ways.

What's the problem if everyone holds the truth? However, I think that the "dialectic" (Hegelian or otherwise) is open for improvement, refinement, more self-explication, etc. but then it falls on that person to actually do the work.

@@filipniklas I just mean that language is sort of a slave to the masses. We use words to reference things to make a connection with people. If I use a word that means something different to me than it does to 99% of people out there, even if I'm correct and they are wrong, then I'm failing to communicate effectively.

@@waakow Why not use more words? Narrow down the exact content or meaning with more determinacy? I can see what you mean with terms becoming slave to the masses - this is something to look out for. But I think that good philosophers, thinkers, writers, etc. exploit this to their benefit. And indeed, sometimes multiple meanings to a word can be seen as something very speculative. Aufhebung e.g. for Hegel meant contradictory things - ceasing to be, lifting up, preserve - which he saw potential in. Thanks for your comment!

@@filipniklasI think it’s vital to clarify misunderstandings in semantics. To go against this will lead to more misunderstanding, further away from any true understanding of a concept. That being said, in practice, we know this is not always the case. Sometimes that which turns out differently in practice does so with better utility (e.g. conflict and psychotherapy).

Julian de Medeiros also has a great long form video. kzfaq.info/get/bejne/ptaSdZByqL2sqH0.html He too points out how a linear formalism of T-A-S is NOT Hegelian at all. To quote you Filip "it's as un-Hegelian as it gets." At 14 minutes 23 seconds, in this video he says, "Rather than moving forward, we thereby have the immanence of a coil that moves into its own self." I like it.

I agree, Nolan should make another Hegel movie. Not everything in Hegel is "always already"--if anything is at all--otherwise there would be no history, which Hegel is a big fan of. Dialectic in Hegel is used in a more technical sense, as a way of describing the manner something develops through itself. Socratic dialogues also reveal this form, but usually in conjuction with another and in concrete terms. For Hegel the whole matter takes place in logic, or pure thinking. So, as a subject you cannot merely interact with substance, as if it was something external, since substance already forms a moment of what it is to be a subject, nonetheless--and this is perhaps the grandeur of subject--the subject is also capable to alienate itself from itself, just as you as a thinking being is able to look upon your surroundings at times otherworldly and unhomely.

I disagree. Hegel's theory is a projection of Hegelian philosophy first and foremost. Sure, there are historical threads, but you don't get Hegel by just reading Aristotle. The tree, table and ash is an interesting example. Though, as with all essence thinking, you kind of just have to take their unity for granted. Here's why the logic of the concept and subjectivity becomes pertinent for modernity.

Nopee. Feuerbach and Proudhon already did T-A-S scheme

Very interesting stuff, Oldschool Dude! I admit I do not know the works you mention in detail, but I will give my initial impressions, which mainly outline my concern and are proably in the end not justified. I'll try to check out Wheat's work in detail, maybe do a commentary video on it someday. In any case, here are my impressions. Only 38? Seems a bit thin given there are likely hundreds of categories (and sub-categories) at work in the SL alone. Regardless, numbers are not really the currency in philosophy. As to Wheat's dual-triadic format: what does it actually reveal of Hegel's philosophy or the truth in general? Does this dual-triadic form develop immanently in the system or is it something externally imposed? Is it something necessary in order to understand Hegel--e.g. do I need it in order to grasp the Idea--or is it tacked on as a way to re-arrange existing furniture? In other words, is the significance of Wheat's thesis that of changing the map or the terrain itself? If the former, I fear this is a kind of scholastic creep that merely invents a whole lot of hullabaloo for little or no substantial gain. The genius in Hegel is show how incredibly difficult it is to make and understand the complex as simple; if commentators needlessly make the simple complex (such as appending terms that do not further the development), I will choose to reserve my patience for Hegel himself. There is of course the other extreme, where one may overly simplify the complex--as if proposing some kind of "key" to the whole philosophy--then I would suspect some kind of external formalism at work, where one merely applies a kind of "master-pattern" and here the same questions from before return: where does this "master-pattern" come from? Does it develop immanently in the system? "In Hegel's widely misinterpreted master-and-slave parable, the master is God, the slave is man, and the slave's gaining his freedom is man's becoming an atheist … Wheat claims Hegel was couching his philosophy in religious language, lest people accuse him of atheism, which could jeopardize his teaching position. " >> That seems a bit far fetched to me. I can understand Hegel needing to couch the introduction of his Phil of Right in a way to avoid the ire of censors, but the PhS and SL? No mindless bureaucrat is going to invest the time to read those tomes, lest he/she gains a thought, at which point there is no concern. The chapter of PhS in question is quite clear that it's about the development of self-consciousness vis-a-vis another and its own mortal fear - bringing God and religious sects, like atheism, is a secondary matter. "Amber Samson defended her PhD at the University of Kansas and took inspiration from Wheat and argued for a new theory of dialectic "which includes a unified definition of dialectic and a reinterpretation of the Hegelian dialectical method in tetradic form. I map this tetradic format (thesis-antithesis-synthesis-diathesis) on a two-dimensional circumplex model in what I term the dialectical circumplex model." >> There is a lot of jargon terms just being thrown out here. I have sympathy for Amber, for that is the reality of PhD training nowdays. "On page 7 Amber points out that when in #50 in Phenomenology, Hegel uses the phrase "lifeless schema", he is referring to Kant's unique conception of a such a triad. In other words, the Gustav Mueller essay from the 1960's is missing the point. Mueller should have read a few more lines in #50 and he would have seen that Hegel said the triadic form was lifeless and uncomprehended "in his work" meaning Kant's. "Since then it has, however, been raised to its absolute significance, and with it the true form in its true content has been presented, so that the Notion of Science has emerged." >> Yes, let's actually look at §50 in the PhS. From what I see, yes, Hegel is referring to Kant, and he makes very telling comments here that should be at the foremost mind of scholars, but that seems to be lost. I see no indication that he wants to preserve any kind of formalism or reform Kant's (so I disagree witht this "meaning Kant's" type reading). Continuing on, we see that the crux of the matter is that the traidic formalism is essentially: "a circle of reciprocity whose result is that one neither learns from experience about the thing at issue, nor does one learn what one or the other of the reciprocal elements is." So, going back to my earlier questions: what does Wheat's formula (or Samson's) teach us about pure being? The nature of essence? The universal? The concept? Objectivity? Truth? The good? The ethical society? I will close it here. Again, I have not read Wheat or Samson in detail, but given your extensive comment I thought there was enough to outline an immediate response. It is likely that Wheat and Samson both have covered my worries and that they have put forward theses that ultimately help us make use of Hegel better to understand ourselves. Once again, thank you for your comment - great food for thought!

@@filipniklas Here is #50 in Phenomenology: "Kant rediscovered this triadic form by instinct, but in his [Kant’s] work it was still lifeless and uncomprehended; since then [since Kant] it has, however, been raised to its absolute significance so that the Notion of Science has emerged.” Here's a wikipedia clip: "Hegel is clearly praising the "scientific" dialectics that have emerged since Kant's tables. He is hinting that we should look for concealed dialectics in Phenomenology. " en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk%3AThesis,_antithesis,_synthesis I would agree with at least THAT sentence I quoted.

@@oldschooldude7729 Thank you for that! That helps make it clear yes. I wonder whether we shouldn't pursue the element of "absolute significance" (what is its criterion?) rather than the means that is raised by it. Based on what Hegel writes elsewhere about the term "synthesis" (in the SL) and about the triadic form in the Enc; I suspect the best any such triadic pattern can do is to be a registry for the understanding. Nevertheless, the understanding IS necessary and indispensable. It's further food for thought.

@@filipniklas "Absolute significance." This is an interesting phrase. If we remember in Hegel what the absolute is, self consciousness or self thinking thought, would Hegel mean that the dialectic has finally been apprehended and properly understood by self thinking thought, not only as the absolute which exists in the universe (how else could self thinking thought think, but in a dialectic process as we see later), but also the PROCESS by which it discovers itself? The message I get from the preface of the Phenomenology, and ESPECIALLY the introduction (only a few pages long) is that it is a mistake of the rationalists to constantly separate things into existence and essence like on a chart. It's good for the mind to understand say what an essence is, or what the characteristics of a thing are if we had to list them. We later see a dependent relationship between existence and essence as such if we just think about it. Because after all what would it mean to exist without any attributes? Hence in a POETIC way, they are one. Or rather, unified as one. Apply this to how Hegel puts self thinking thought as the absolute, and he would say be careful when performing this mental exercise of phenomenology. Because if you do it right, you should come to realize that not only is the absolute, something to be attained or realized as a brute fact, but self thinking thought USES THOUGHT to discover itself. In other words, thought, is both means and end. It's the "end" in a way that you discover this brute fact that underlies all reality and even maintains it (Schopenhauer's voluntarism calls it WILL), but it's also the means because thinking is the only process we have to discover that we are thinking and that thought or spirit underpins and moves everything in the universe. Specially, dialectic thinking because that's how true, mature, scientific thought moves. In a dialectic. Hegel would likely say, "Don't just ask me. Ask all the philosophers before me of the East and West who used a type of dialectic to advance knowledge and understanding. The ones that Amber Samson gave a short history of." haha. Therefore, bearing all this in mind, to use the phrase "absolute significance" would Hegel mean that the dialectical process or the triadic form )which has matured and gotten better SINCE Kant), has FINALLY become the proper vehicle to help attain and realize the absolute? Because if self thinking thought is reflective, and the way we think is a dialectic process, then surely the dialectic could be said to attain absolute significance since Kant because it has finally gotten where it needs to be in terms of maturity or a real science and not just a phantom or a mere notion? The dialectic has attained absolute significance because it has finally morphed to a point beyond Kant where it can help us attain or find the absolute.

Because he's trying to understand the nature of thinking, and thought thinking thinking thinking just isn't obvious.

@@filipniklas Would love to see a Science of Logic Masterclass on halkyonacademy soon.

@@boredtolife7879 hang in there mate! Great things are underway!