In Hegel’s philosophy, the notion of development involves a process of negation and reconciliation. The initial stage is characterized by an unstable unity or an existence that is not adequate to its concept. This can be seen as a state of contradiction or desire, where one’s existence feels inadequate in relation to one’s concept. Hegel suggests that truth lies in the adequacy of existence to the concept.
The second stage involves differentiation, where positive differences are posited. This differentiation can occur in various ways, such as the development of a plant from a seed or the recognition of objects as separate from oneself. However, Hegel emphasizes that these differences are ultimately a product of spirit’s own activity.
The third stage is reconciliation or recognition, where the differences that were posited are overcome. This stage involves recognizing oneself in the object or being reconciled with it. Hegel uses the term “alienation” to describe the state of being separated from one’s own product, which can be overcome through recognition.
It’s important to note that Hegel’s philosophy is idealistic, meaning that the development is determined by the spirit or consciousness rather than external factors. While external conditions may influence the development of a particular object or organism, Hegel’s focus is on the internal processes of consciousness and the unfolding of its own potentialities.
Okay. let me see if it needs any other changes. Yeah, we need to get up at our microphone or something. And I I have a mic. Oh, dude! Well, I mean, it’s okay. I got it early in Covid, like recording lectures. Yeah. I might as well be better, though. Yeah, okay. are you sticking? Oh, nice.
Unknown Speaker 00:00:51 Okay.
Mark Pock 00:01:00 thank you. Where’d, you get this one. that. yeah. there, you go. oh. okay. all right, well, let’s actually. And you start by ring a little bit, since we’re a reading group. Yeah. is there? Okay? If we record.
Unknown Speaker 00:03:22 okay.
Mark Pock 00:03:30 if you’re not too best for.
Unknown Speaker 00:03:43 But if you say it.
Mark Pock 00:03:57 okay.
Unknown Speaker 00:04:17 bye.
Mark Pock 00:04:18 just like that. you guys ready? Yeah. Okay, well, actually, we’ll see. Okay. I’m not actually let me. I go back to if you so by the way. this So this is page starting page 20, and we we’re still on the history of philosophy. We’ll get. We’ll talk about the phenomenology today. But on page 20 which was an history of philosophy. Key Hegel. These this Hegel saying, this is the notion of development. And then he says, this is the notion of concrete. He usually doesn’t do things like that. This is like. you won’t really find him saying this, I mean he kind of will talk. I mean you. You can find what his notion of development is by looking at his other works. And it’s I suppose he does do it in some research. But it’s this is, this is like a really useful moment for me when I found this text because he’s like this is what I mean by development. And this is what I mean by the concrete anyway. So let me get what he’s essentially saying here, so that there are some passengers that we can read. But I was just thinking, maybe I actually, I can first just kind of give it a general sense here. So the notion of development. Okay. By the way, notion motion translates. oh, great. which also gets translated as concepts. typically more typically as concepts. But actually in a lot of translations. Actually, you do get notion instead of concept. that’s not really that important there are ways in which it’s important. Perhaps we can get. So anyways, the concept of the development or the notion of development. and okay, so what is the basic notion of development for, hey? There is a what might say it as a it’s called. This is a kind of initially what we might say it unstable nickel immediately. What is they? Kind of? also kind of unity, but it’s unstable. It’s unstable initial state of a immediately, because, if you remember, this is what it says, you know that what happens is you have the concept. It’s not adequate. or rather not precisely. The existence is not adequate to the concept. Okay, so there, so far as this is our intention. So like, obviously, we, there are probably better examples. But just to use the example we talked about last class for my my session. in concept, all humans are free, but an actual existence. We can exist in a way that doesn’t conform to our concept. Okay? Now, of course, there’s a whole other set of things that given to like, it’s okay. Well, I mean. how does he know work in our concept? Free, etc., like we can get in, get into that. Those kind of things are important. But just in terms of understanding this notion of development. and like, I said last time. this is so, this is typically referred to as the correspondence theory of truth that’s familiar with that correspondence. So But according to what might otherwise be referred to, or at least like what Hegel would probably say, I only wouldn’t put it exactly his work. But there is what what is often referred to as a naive realist notion of the correspondence theory of truth, which is that there are just the objects out there. and then our task is to become adequate to them, to to conform ourselves to them. such that so this, their existence is just existing. And then we gain knowledge of truth by conforming our concepts to objects to be yeah. And of course Hegel’s among other things that he’s doing here. Is he sort of inverting this by saying, actually, what has to happen is existence has to conform to the concept. I mean, I guess that’s one way to think about his so-called idealism that is. existence has to be raised to the level of the idea, or rather the idea is the correspondence of the exist with the, with its concept. But the burning is on existence to come to realize it’s concept rather than the concept coming to conform to and become adequate to. and thus correspond to the object. Okay. that’s it’s kind of its own thing. But and so far as this thing is, it is There is something existing. So the germ, the seed. What you have there is an existence that is not adequate. So that’s another. The germ is existing, but it’s not adequate to its concept, which is to which is to become an oak tree or whatever it about fully as a plant. Okay? And then and thus it realizes that it’s a true oh, 3. So for handle of truth, again, is the adequacy of existence to the concept. But we can talk a little bit more about that. There’s more to be said there. But in terms of getting back again to the notion of development. the problem with the the problem, as it were, with the germ. The seed is that there is a kind of unity. but it’s a kind of diffuse on differentiated unity and and as well as it’s not concrete. Because, as we’re going to see concrete, this is also the development of all all of something’s determinations. whereas in this, in the seat you just have kind of a not much more than a a kind of aggregate and agglomeration of things that need to become differentiated into a full thing. But more specifically, the existence is not adequate to the concept. And so the unity that you have here at the beginning, as it were, is unstable as the and like. I, said he, he does say, this desire is what contradiction feels like. It’s the feeling of one’s existence not being adequate to one’s concept. Okay? And so that’s the first date, is, there’s this kind of an yeah. Yes. that is it. Yeah, that’s the source of it, because this is the tell us to. and it’s present there at the beginning. But as unreal, you know. it’s the ending is at the beginning is at the end of the end of the beginning. but more or less actualized. so yes, and that, and that sets in place motion that that is motion itself. Motion is Desire is his intellectual notion. Do you guys remember when I said that? And And so it’s but you know I’m more poke, he translates, do not be, which is dynamic. So it’s that moves. Okay. And we can all that we can get back to. Now. The second stage is where you there is a differentiation that’s positive. so so spirit, or whatever posits a difference. And again, you can go now, this is the thing. It’s like there are different kind of stages like this, remember, it’s all kind of repeats or whatever. But so like, there’s the differentiation of the plant, but also like for our sake, we can also talk about this ultimate moment differentiation where you know the the the tree falls from the plan. Okay? And there’s a difference. But of course, this is all already happening. There are differentiations occurring as the plan unfolds itself moving from it. Another thing is like moving from input to explicit. So the whole plan has contained in the seed just implicitly. just as on the ultimate sense, when you get to spirit as spirit. The whole of being is contained in the just implicitly. Okay. And then what happens is you go about positing differences by saying, This is mine. This is yours, or that is, and but it’s not me. Now what happens is. of course, you forget that. And so you I. It haven’t been mentioned for getting. I’ll get it to forget it later. But you can treat the difference as if it were given as it as it weren’t a product of your activity. And so then, that gives gives rise to, among other things, the naive. a notion of truth that okay, well, the objects there. Now the task is to get me that my my concept to conform to the object, having forgotten that you posited the object in the first place. And really, what’s happening when you pause. The the object is, your spirit is trying to make an object that’s adequate to you. Okay, but so the second step is the kind of differentiation. and then the third step is reconciliation, hey? And reconciliation. Recognition is a big word in the alien discourse. and notice. There is an English. You get this. I think you get it, and it’s on our can we? In German? and Eric. they’re kind of they’re they’re ketness is cognition I get. This is we? I guess that doesn’t really matter. The reason why I’m just causing this, because it’s a kind of useful kind of a logical little trick there, because you’re recognizing something, as it were. You’ve already something that you no, but then you recognize it as your own. And thus you’re reconciled to it. Now, of course, for those of us that want to make these connections. This is because this is the moment of alienation, and both in in both Hegel and Mark. So yeah. it work for alienation in Germany. And I’m doing this and yeah, that’s both in hang on marks. And but of course, in the context of Marx. he’s talking about the kind of forced social alienation of product of labor from the from the laborer. But. The idea is that ultimately you get this final overcoming of class antagonism where the producers of the social product are about to recognize themselves in their in their product rather than having a hailing in from them. Okay. but that that’s. you know, Marx being, you know, an alien that he wasn’t taking over kind of Hegelian structure. Okay, so does that make sense as a kind of first. And of course, we kind of talked about this last time. But there’s a kind of unstable immediately. And again this happens again and again. So like I guess I need to. I should think of some examples of it. But then there’s a differentiation. But what’s happening here? What’s happening here is that spirit is trying to produce an object adequate to itself which notice it’s happening here like a table set like it’s producing an an object that would correspond to itself. Of course it’s not fully adequate, because this is not adequate. It’s this is not a high level of spirit. the low level. And so it’s limited. So it can’t overcome. So what one of the things. Oh, yeah, one of the things that you overcome differences in this kind of reconciliation. You overcome the difference that you positive for yourself. But the thing is you positive, or yourself so spirit, as it were, gives itself a task. That’s another way of thinking about it is that there’s this kind of positing of difference that never is actually outside of the spirit. But spirit doesn’t necessarily recognize itself. And the difference it’s positive. And so it experiences itself as alienated from its object. and remember, this is so. This is the unstable position, the negation, and then the negation of the indication. and so immediate desire. the differentiating of reason from Desire and Kant. and then the reconciliation of reason and desire in virtue. But that ha! Like that’s just one instance, right? That happens in multiple ways. yeah. And then one of the things that this is this is important because that gets into the notion of the concrete. So the concrete is. if you look at that, it’s the totality of the determinations as opposed to the abstract. where you select one determination and an independently from the rest. yeah. Well, actually, we can look at that. Did you have a question? Yeah, just a quick question on in terms of development. Like. Well, I guess a basic question is, is there always only one way to differentiate from the instability, and just to like look more at the at the metaphor of the tree. Yeah. like, it seems to me that to say that the tree is contained implicitly within the seat is to assume a host of let’s say, material factors, or which upon which the development of the seed into the tree is conditioned upon like, let’s say, I don’t know like rich soil. And you know, good environment, what that in Hegel’s case is it that there’s no that there are no contingencies which might in a certain sense provide a determination above level determination of. you know, development. Does that make sense? I guess the basic part. Partially. I I there’s actually something. I think I know you’re getting up to say a little bit more. Yeah, I guess the basic question is, is there only one way to negate the it’s unstable to the different differentiated and if not. what determines the multiplicity of they get possible negations. So give me an example. I mean, we? I guess the example of the or whatever the tree right? I mean, if the plant, if the seat is being put in, you know the you know the Sahara right? It’s not going to develop into a tree. I mean, it might develop into, you know, a burnt. I don’t see this on heats or something. Yeah. but it seems like the the development. Well, at least in this metaphor, right development of the seed is continuing to bond brought place over determined by other factors. Hegel’s an ideal. So is it just the case that, there is no determination to both the determination of development. So okay, I think I understand your point. And okay, I’ll try to. It’s great. For answer, which is. it’s because, this thing is finite. Okay? And so it’s conditioning them. Yes, it’s a magnitude is to be conditioned by that which is external. Remove basic spinos as spin as this. you know, finitude. So it’d be fine. I was to be conditioned by that which is. that would restrict you. Okay? And so. But and so yes, of course. for mere biological nature. There are external conditions like soil, climate, etc. That will affect how this thing proceeds and differentiates itself. Yes, but notice, it’s it’s not. but it’s already even here, revealing that it that it can. It’s not merely determined by those things because it can set the conditions for its own emergency. That’s what the roots are. The roots are reaching out and transforming the environment to set the conditions for its own emergence. That’s part of what it needs to be self directed, is to set the conditions for your own emergence, rather than as opposed to like mere matter. which is, as it were, completely determined, although perhaps not completely. It will talk about some kind of you know notion of like proposing this of mere matter. But certainly when we get to light. And again, that’s the all important organicist kind of core of Hegel is that you can see that this external thing, that is. that that does determine this. such that there is a kind of contingency to how this all unfolds. It’s. But it’s not merely that because the organism is also acting on the the thing in the and thus negating what was initially external and making it in. In fact, that’s what you do when you meet things you’re negating that which is external, making it internal to you. But not only that. you can go out, and. you know, actively transform the environment. And that’s what clients do. Okay? But it is finite, so it only can we differentiate and affect this much. and then can just be wiped away. Right? Of course not so, for mind. that’s the big thing, spirit. There’s nothing external to it. For did you see the spirit as a body? Then. like all things in the metaphysically real sense? Yes. so it is, but not for the not for the tree. Oh, okay. So the tree, the tree that’s the thing is where it’s necessity here, because there does seem to be contingency. Yeah. but for Hegel there is a there is a kind of deeper and necessity to the day emerges. because all things, if you notice it. the whole history of everything is going towards one end. which is the minds discovery of itself, the spheres, discovery of itself. And but that’s the thing is. that’s a phenomenal logical point you can kind of grapple with, which is as opposed to your body. your your biological organism. Nothing is external to your mind. Yes. Well, okay. The. Oh, hold on 1 s about about immortality, I mean, actually, I don’t. I don’t think I’ve I guess I’ve never really. It’s not clear to me where he can stand on the mortality but that we but what I what I mean is phenomenologically like you, you positive and option. Right? It doesn’t leave your leave your consciousness. Yeah. And there’s no in the in the other way of putting it. There’s no intrinsic limit on spirit as spirit as opposed to spirit, has merely biologic. Oh, okay. And another thing is that therefore it can. It can take to itself. Because remember what we’re talking about here. This is what ankle says over and over is that spirit reveals itself as that which sets the conditions for its own emergence. And you’re doing that right now. You’re setting the conditions for your emergence as a philosopher and nowhere of Hegel. Right now you don’t have to rely on me. You’ve come to me. You’re doing this as you grapple with what I’m saying. so that you come to be spirit. But for yourself. Yeah. What? Yeah. Yes. yeah. But so no. because you remember your question was, where you know where it’s like the the This process of differentiation can be conditioned by things external to it. Yes. but not spirit. because everything is internal to the spirit. Now that’s of course it it does get kind of a little bit mystical, right whatever. But And like you know, there are the contingencies that affect us as individual spirits, as it were right. But again, Hegel will just want to say No. At a certain point you’re it comes. recognizes that nothing is external to it. I kind of like to search in. Nothing is. the world is well. It’s like when he famously says is like, because Con, for example, would set limits as to what, so we can only go so far. And then there’s the thing in itself that we can’t know anything about. and he says, No, at the very moment you reach it, let me. You just surpass it. because all limits are posited by spirit has limits. We decided that that’s the limit of our knowledge. And so that very at that very moment when you’re past it. any limit, mind sets for itself in the in the setting of that limit. It’s already passed it. I ideally. What do you mean by that? Like? It’s passed in the sense that. and maybe you can see. But is that the sense of which it surpassed it? You can see both? Well, it’s kind of it’s kind of a it’s kind of a phrase, I mean, but like, yeah. because what you would say as well. what is this thing in itself? Why do you suppose that who posited this thing himself. How did that even emerge as your object? It’s your object. yeah, anyway. Go ahead. I’m just thinking like. because this is cool. But in what metaphysically real sense, let’s say, is there a limit which me as somehow spirit through me that I can over? I don’t know, because I guess part of my question with contingency. What I’ about then, Marx, is mood. which maybe maybe contingency and like necessity. is where I was sort of one Marxist introduction of materialism factors in such that because I mean. I don’t want to do it because you don’t know, please, please, this this guy. Yeah, this is another quick point, which is. I do is sort of materialism in a not 90 cents already present in Hegel. I mean. what do you mean by. Okay? And the reason why part of the reason why I say that to you is because like there’s a kind of pretense arguably, and materialism that we’re being more scientific, more clear-sided. We’re being concrete by starting with the matter. And whereas Hegel, starting with abstractions and and so that’s why comp or sorry Mark’s famously says he needs to turn Hegel on his head and turn him right side up. He’s upside down, so he he starts with. It’s spirit. But you’re supposed to start with matter and then go up that way. but the the the point. Okay. So loop one of the things there is that you know. Again, it would kind of depend, because and in a certain sense. Marx is following through with this idea that oh. that was what I was saying last time. Was that. yeah, you got one plan. What if you have a plan like a a of machines that can actively transform. we. You know the material conditions. you can transform them into what will, what transforms those with your own conditions? This is actually an important question for marks and say, Oh, history is driven by them. You you, you know, material. What transforms those other material conditions? Spirit does. Spirit is concrete. Now, okay, what am I getting at? The point is that that? But every every factory right is finite too. It’s mine. So when you actually master the whole like that whole thing of the whole history. When you’re doing this. you’re you’re subsuming everything. Now. A factory can just subsume a few. You know things that you titanium, or whatever to build these things you’re now you’re in the factory of factories assuming the whole of existence. Understand? It’s basic pattern. Okay? So like. But That’s why I said, you know from Marx he’s not an environmentalist. He was all in favor of completely transforming the to make it conform to the concept of humanity. the species consciousness that he said and for able to say, Yeah, Okay, fine. But that’s that’s And he would cable with a knowledge that like that’s what’s happening. For example, when they they’ll they’ll appeal to like Aristotle, or so famously says you, could you only get philosophy until you have this slave class. Because why do you need the slave class to generate leisure without leisure? You don’t have. by the way. does anyone know what the word scholastic comes from school. All right. You guys don’t ever meet. I definitely haven’t said it means leisure. When you’re at school. You’re not worried about digging digits. Of course Aerosol’s point is because slaves are doing that for you. And then the the Marxist idea is fully augmented. Luxury communism, where the machines will do that for us. Okay? And so we can fully realize our our humanity by transforming the material commissions. But that’s just one part that’s just setting up leisure for us to transform spiritual our minds. That’s the tool of tools. Hmm. whereas and that’s that’s always a question for Mars, like, okay, what what are we gonna do during the utility? Just work on farms, or what? What are they doing? And Hegel’s ideas? Now we become got? Because that’s what it. That’s what I was going to go back there. That’s what it’s called. yeah. Speaking of recognition, that’s what God is for Aristotle. No is no way to come understanding understanding itself. and we join that in in when we contemplate the highest things we become. anyway. So I don’t know if that dealt with your question about yeah. yeah. yeah. So he. So yeah, Hegel would say, Yeah, of course. Yeah, we need to transform material conditions. That’s not the end. That’s a that’s a mirror need. And that’s a shortcoming for marks. Because Marx doesn’t really speaking of like immortality like. why are we doing it. You know. What’s the point of this Communist Utopia? We’re all going to just die, anyway. It seems like we do need to answer that question can’t be stopped. The question of your hotel. Hmm! Always back to that question Kamloo famously said, there’s only one real philosophical question. You know what it is. I guess Hamlet already kind of said that in. Hmm. what’s that? Okay, so oh, yeah. One little thing here, I mean, why we do this, we’ll just move on. We might as well just get into the phenomenology. but if you look at Page, just so, we’re clear, like one little kind of yeah. So we read this. we read this last time, but this is at the end of that section on the the notion of development. So everything that from eternity has happened in heaven and earth, the life of God and all the deeds of time simply are the struggles of mind to know itself. make it self- objective to itself, to find itself to be for itself, and finally, tonight itself. To itself it is alienated and divided, but only so that it has to be able thus to find itself in return to itself. Only in this matter does mine attain freedom. Now that’s an important point is that that’s one of the reasons why this is not fully free. It has has a hint of freedom because it can. It can set the conditions its own conditions for its emergence. But it’s also constantly being bombarded by things external to it. So it’s not fully free. It’s only mine. Oh, in coming to know that the thing that it knows is it’s just itself that it realizes it’s free, because there’s nothing then external to it. But that’s that’s a obviously like a questionable view of freedom. But for Hegel, freedom Quint essentially, is freedom from any external determinations, recognizing that all determinations are posited internally by spirit itself. So you can recognize yourself in the world. This is our world. This is for us. Okay, so that’s freedom. so like, yeah, in sense, perception, for example. and in feeling I find myself confined, and I’m not free. But I am for you. When I have consciousness of this, my feeling. Man has particular ends, interest even in will. I am free when this is mine. Such ends, however, always contain another something which constitutes for me another, such as desire and impulse. It is thus. and thought alone that all foreign matters disappear from view, and that mine is absolutely free. All interest which is contained in the idea and in philosophy is expressed in it. Okay, one of one other thing as to development, and maybe ask, what has what what does develop and what forms the absolute content? Development is considered in the light of a formal process in action and as destitute of content. But the act has no other end but the activity. and through this activity the general character of the content is already fixed for being in itself and being for itself are the moments present in action, but the acts. the act is the retention of these diverse elements within itself. The act thus is really one, and it is just this unity of differences which is concrete. Does it sound familiar to anyone phenomenology that is perfect. He’s he’s doing. He’s doing Aristotle here. Okay. he’s saying that cause cause you can relate to the object as if it were over against you. But you can also realize no, that nowhere and known this is the basic identity. So when we talk about correspondence there, what? That also for for the non- naive view, it’s that knowing as identity between nowhere and no. since an act is since not known in act as no, or he and That’s what he’s saying here is that but it’s a for Hegel. It’s like for him with the concrete as the is, the the united differences. So there is like this positing of a difference, and then a reconciliation. But there! But in some sense there was only ever the unity. That’s why it’s a recognition. Hmm. Not only in the is the act concrete, but also the implicit which stands into the yeah. Okay. Blah, blah blah. So that’s the idea is in this concrete content within itself. And this in 2 ways, first in his concrete potentiality. And then it is. It’s interest that. But it’s in itself should be there for it. Okay, I think you guys. So we move from in itself to forward. So we are potentially becoming all things. And then we recognize that we are everything that is is for us. And then we recognize ourselves and all things. Hmm. okay. Oh, there’s more we could say about the the first part, but that’s so just to clarify, because that’s kind of the basic notion of development testing work. unstable unity. differentiation, reconciliation. But in some sense there was only ever unity. It was just unrecognized. So there was only one plant and even when it differentiates itself it’s actually still the same thing. But it can’t preserve itself. And that difference it does, but it doesn’t. because the seat has the same nature as the. and that’s what foods are. They have seeds in them right? but it so it is unified, but it can’t maintain it for itself, can maintain the unity with its object for itself. Mere nature. whereas Con, knowing spirit can but like, that’s the whole thing. It’s like a whole thing about how you actually have like getting to immortality. In some sense. Yeah, the ultimate difference is death. And so spirit can preserve itself in the ultimate difference which is deaf. And so that’s why the Christian religion is the true religion for haggles. Supposedly, the obviously the debate is just doing that. So he doesn’t get exile, impression sensors, or whatever. But he does talk about the need to pass through what he calls a speculative good for you guys. No Good Friday. It’s a Good Friday. that’s when Jesus thanks. And then there’s Holy Saturday where he goes to help. and then Easter Sunday it rises. But Handle says you have to go through. What if you don’t know speculative, philosophical Good Friday where you like experiences ultimate separation in order to be unified. Hmm, and that Christianity is the only one that demands that ultimate unity even in death. But anyway, that’s the whole thing. I mean, we would have to probably talk more about that. Yeah. just a quick question. So like, yeah, so one thing to note, okay. is obviously partner in the whole right? But for Hegel, the big ideal thing is that the whole is in every part okay. So Now. you might say in some sense to, I guess, a greater or lesser degree. So when you get to some like so remember like making me becoming all things right? Yeah, potentially. essentially. And that’s which is to say, each the whole, the whole is in every potentially. Can you make it become all things. Yeah. And but then there’s the actualization of that becoming. I mean, there, there’s a mystical element. This is like uniting with God and So like, everything moves towards this one act which is these knowledge of itself, and then God’s self- knowledge, and and knowing God’s self, knowing everything else that’s the mystical, and Hegel’s kind of a mystic here. and and knowing that you actualize your full of potentialities, which in some sense was in you already because you’re you’re a part of the whole, but the whole is also in you. as each part, just as in some sense it is the whole. Isn’t this, too? This is the whole of spirit. so like. Yes, it is the whole spirit, but it’s because you can see the recapitulation of the whole. You can see the whole thing happen here. There is an initial unstable unity, a differentiation, and there is a reconciliation, although it’s the set. I finish you. And now he goes for head with Christianity is not the end. Religion is on a lower level than philosophy. Okay, but it it captures in images. or what do you call picture thinking? What only philosophy grasps in concept as a room cause. Ultimately, what has to happen here is that this has to be. The concept conceives itself. So you have the generator. and that’s what the divine news is. The news understanding itself. and then understanding itself. It understands everything, and our sense itself is the source of everything. And why does the development stop? Well, it because there is development is motion it’s at, but it’s still in potency. Remember that whereas what we’re looking for is that act which is actually perfecting pure act which is not cessation. But it’s also, but it is rest. That is to say, it’s a It’s activity without effort. So like. think about the difference between like walk like how hard it is just to walk across campus, but you can look and see it. It’s not very hard. because that act is an actress, perfect, right? seeing. And and then, once you understand something. It’s like you can rest. But the but you don’t become unconscious of the thing you you studied like learning is that, you know, and then you have the thing, and then it’s actually a pleasure just to have that thing be. And so there is this kind of ultimate act. I mean, this is the basic kind of classical metaphysical view that Hegel does share. despite what people want to say about him being not this. the the ultimate end is for mind to contemplate itself. So why does development stop? Well. otherwise there would be no point in that. We there has to be a tell us there is this teleology, of course. and this is the ultimate toss. And now but remember, it’s not a sensation. So that’s like the terror of majority is like to rest, to rest in pieces, to be dead, cause that’s what famously Hob says in it’s explicitly he’s explicitly inverting a aerosol. What is what is man’s life to see restless, restless. pursue the power after power, ceasing only in death. because all we know is most. We don’t even. you just know motion. He’s restless. and as opposed to the Augustinian and Aristotle in view, I, Augustine, famously says, yes, life is a restless, my heart is restless until I rest in you. My God. okay. And but of course that’s just an image for Hegel. No, he rests when you you can see the mind of God. I know it’s bombkers. and that we I like. I don’t even get too much into the Bunker stuff. I mean, that’s where it goes. That’s just the answer to your question the first one is like, if they become like an actual eschatology of like this, the end times when the spirit of on shawl we can’t come. A human guide to the show know itself, and this shall be the end of all days. It’s not like a for image or I mean, that’s a good question. and I don’t know if you know I don’t. I don’t. I should like I should know these kind of catch phrases better than I do. But when you know, Napoleon writes into Jena in 1,806, and he’s about to finish the phenomenology in 1,807. So Napoleon was guys on, on, on horseback because he because this was the realization and political social terms of the end of history. I mean, yeah, Francis Fiyam, at the end of history. You guys know that whole thing is, he is a Galian. There was a whole Hegalian thing. and he was saying, actually, we got it wrong. It’s it didn’t end in 1,989 with the fall of the Berlin wall. So it ended in 1,807, actually in 1,789 is their claim. Because that’s we. We finally saw that history ends in the sense that once you know that we’re all equal. Supposedly fraternity acknowledged. whatever that means. now. And so like history as a as this thing does come to an end because there’s ultimate reconciliation. Now, when does that happen? Well. supposedly it already did happen. and we’re just kind of working it out, I guess. but it’s but like then, like, but that’s not quite the Christian Esque. A lot of psychological didn’t right in the school. There was like, There’s a There! There’s a man. or is it? I don’t know. It’s not clear it always. maybe. Yeah. But anyway, so that’s I that that one. My. I kind of just stay away from because his I don’t know. It’s it’s It’s hard to say exactly what hang on would say or what what the end is. and like in in terms of history, like, well, we have this. Yeah, I mean the kingdom of God on earth. Some, since I think he thinks, yeah, yeah, that’s that’s where that’s what the end is. And when is it? Realize that I don’t? Was it 8 to 7 with Hegel. Some, of course, some like critics of Hale say, Eagle, fix it ended with hango So I’m sorry I can’t answer your question better than that. What those are? A second question, oh, yeah, I guess the second question is also kind of like, how does that? Well, it’s self valid. So you know, when you know. Yeah, exactly. If you if you have to ask me if you don’t know. that’s terrible. So now, actually. let’s read one or 2 of the first, just literally the first paragraph of phenomenology. But just to back up briefly and just to touch on what I sent in the little thing last night. because that that is I’m in my now. Well, I was like, actually, I kind of sent it to it as a reminder to myself, because I knew I would forget. I was like, Oh, yeah, I got, I wanted to mention this. I’m gonna forget. And so I just okay, that’s actually maybe explain it to that. So if you go to. So okay, we’ll we’ll figure it. Lots of talk about what how you guys want to read this because the the the preference and the introduction are they’re they’re all of Hegel’s introductions are the most, some of the most interesting stuff you write. They’re fun. They’re super fun. But they this, these 2 are the preface and the introduction are. I mean, I guess they’re no different than really the rest of the text. But they they’re trying to like summarize this thing. you know, and there’s a it. It’s it’s this challenge. So. But the thing is, I don’t think it. It would take us too long to read it. you know. section by section here, so we have to kind of talk about. But let’s just try to do one or 2 here real quick, and then see how it feels, and then maybe figure out what we want to do like skip, what parts or whatever. So actually, yeah, I I’ll read the first 2, and then I’ll I’ll try to clarify what’s going on there. Of course you guys can give me your take on it, and then then we’ll wrap up. So which vision video for you? this is, hey? What? The heck? A page one the preface, can you? So like 30 in a number? Yeah, yeah. Sorry about that. 37. Okay. so he’s just says it’s it is customary, the preface of work with an explanation of the author’s aims, why he wrote the book, and the relationship in which he believes it stands to other. Oh, well, okay. In the case of full software, over such an explanation seems not only superfluous and do the nature of that, but even inappropriate, for whatever might probably be said philosophy and a preface say historical statement, blah blah blah. None of this can be accepted as the way in which to expound philosophical truth. Now, that’s actually important. I guess he’s notice how he’s saying you can’t just make claims. Philosophy is not just a matter making arguments. It’s got to be something different. also, philosophy moves essentially within the element of universality which includes within itself. In particular, my team that here blah blah blah. And either the express is in final. Yeah, I can’t explain to that final results. So you actually, that’s the thing is, the phenomenology now is different. It’s a unique moment in history, because it’s written from a moving viewpoint. That is the the the thing itself develops so like. And what that means is that what something means earlier in the phenomenology, the meaning of it changes later. And Heider actually got this to his credit. We’re a rare one for how to I would say no. But tell me what you mean. Well, it’s kind of his his. Well, okay, but that’s yes, that’s true. His. His project changes. but not the actual document, is not enough. It does not itself develop organically. It’s got one argument that it makes over the course of the thing. Yeah, but certainly caught. That’s the thing is, yeah, we’re all developing. And we yeah. And there was a revolution in conception of his own philosophy, for sure. But this is something different. The the work itself is written from a moving viewpoint, that is, it takes on Cott’s philosophy, in other words is just one moment we’ll see Kant show up. all right. But yeah, like, I said, the very meaning of the terms changes. and oh, yeah. Heidegger says. in his his his his book on the Phenomenology. It’s necessary to have read the phenomenology already in order to understand it. But in some sense that is true. That is the hermeneutic circle, that is the Hermeneutic circle, because the parts are on the whole, but the holes in every part. And so. in order to understand each part, you need to understand the whole already. But this is like built. Now it’s built in explicitly to this, that the meaning of the terms that you counter initially change as you. Okay? So that’s what he’s telling us that at the beginning. So then that’s what he’s saying. It’s a problem to say that, because even that changes the meaning of that changes. Okay, so he’s saying, this is almost, I almost can’t give you an introduction. Oh, the law! Further, in the case of such an aggregate of of information which has no right to bear the name of science and opening talk about the aim and other such generalities, is usually conducted in the same historical and uncomprehenting way in which the content itself is spoken of in the case of philosophy on it. So, in other words, sure, in a, in a scientific discourse on anatomy. you can You can just treat it as it. Each term meant the same thing, like all before. but not This will be. It can rise to the integrity that, along with the in one of such a method, it’s an ability to grasp the okay. Now, here’s this, the second paragraph is useful. Stop here. So furthermore, the very attempt to define how well fills up the we’re supposed to be connected with other efforts to deal with the same subject matter which is, say, other philosophy and concern and it drags in an extraneous concern. And what is really important for the cognition of the truth is the more conventional opinion it’s fixated on the antithesis of truth and policy that is. you said this to this he was wrong. or whatever right. the more it tends to either second or contradictory. and hence it finds only acceptance or rejection. does not comprehend the diversity of philosophical systems as a progressive and full of truth, but rather see that in the simple disagreements. hey? This is the second paragraph of the phenomenology. 99% of the people don’t quite understand what he’s doing here. That’s why I tried to write it. It’s right there at the beginning, and it’s the actual history of Block the. So that explicitly, we need to explain rules of this agreement. And okay, now, here’s the medical. The butt disappears in the birth of the blossom. So we’re back to the organic metaphor. The both disappears in the bursting port with the blossom, and one might say that the former is refuted by the latter. So, like the fruit now is contradicting the plant, doesn’t there? There is externally, it is conf confronting. just as you might say. Hum is just externally awesome. as if there weren’t actually an organic relationship between the 2. and then, of course, when the first appears, the blossom is shown. and it’s starting to be a false manifestation. So then, supposedly fit that comes along, and, contrary to, you know, just as the awesome, the the but it’s it’s talked to me by the fruit. Okay? And but you can. And you can do that. You can not realize that this differentiation is actually part of it. Easy. Hmm. okay, these forms are not just distinguished from one another. They also plant one another as mutually in the seeming. At the same time there are fluid. Nature makes them moments of an organic units, they not only do not conflict, but in which each is as necessary as the other. So that, miss, that’s where necessity comes into what might have seen a kind of contingent thing you retrospectively, you turns out actually to have been necessary. That’s the other thing that gets that comes along. Which is what I was saying like there is. That’s where it’s it all the way down. And so like. but like, where is this is a big thing? Where is contingency in But there isn’t a set. What we call a necessitarian isn’t too ha for sure. anyway. as necessary as the other, and this mutual necessity alone. But he rejects a full system that is a block for it not usually comprehend what he is doing in this way. I think they’re just fighting each other. You grasp the contradiction between them. I, the historian, philosophy does not, as a general rule, know how to free it from it’s one side of it. So maintain it. It’s freedom. But I recognize the recipients that take shape of the conflict and see me. Compatibility on last moment. Yeah. Why not? What? What’s that? Why not let on the the what do they do? They don’t recognize. They they look at This is the thing. just as you have to have read the phenomenology in order to to start really good phenomenology. So you need to know what the history of philosophy is in order to study the history of philosophy. because you will look at the history of philosophy. If you don’t know what the history philosophy is, you’ll look at it as a session of conflicts, mere disagreements. you rather than realizing that it’s actually the mind coming to know itself over time. But you have to know your mind already to know that that’s what’s happening in the history of philosophy. So like you have to be at the end of to start. Now, that’s paradox, that’s it. That’s the hermitic circle. Okay? And so. But many historians and philosophers, a of philosophy. Look at the history of philosophy because they don’t know their mind, they cannot recognize themselves in it. So all they see is a battlefield with corpses lay out that have usually killed one another Now, do I? I I I elaborated a little bit of it, but pointing out there is a kind of permanent circle there. This kind of paradox. because it seems like they. This is the thing people get stuck. You get stuck like in like, for example, you might think contest contradicted you. But actually, it turns out they share basic presuppositions. but all kinds of things. But it looks externally like there’s a conflict. But actually, there’s a fundamental unity. but people get stuck just seeing the external hmm out of it. Yeah. Oh, no. So okay, so the that’s like, I mean, it kind of depends on what you guys feel like. I wanted to make sure I got to that, but that like we can do that for any given paragraph whatever I wanted to make sure that it was first. So it’s like, he’s telling us, okay, this is what. But then he can. He actually do this thing he’s going to try to do, which is to show this and what? Okay? Last last note is. oh, I get, we could probably just really pick this up next time. But if you remember, I I mentioned this in my initial notes from for last time. where I talked about the polymorphism of consciousness. You guys remember that polymorphic. Okay, so and don’t worry about this. It’s a fancy word. Obviously, there’s a few those enabled. But it’s we’ll try to get used to it. Okay? And it literally just means. you know, many. many, 4 months more phase this for So what? So Hegel is going to be saying that the different philosophies express different forms of consciousness. which are different levels of self-knowledge, because the spirit is always a spirit. But it may not know it’s, and so it might. Positive difference, but not recognize that it’s done that, and therefore not recognize itself in its object. And so it will think there must be. Also. I don’t know a thing in itself that’s really over there. not realizing that it’s the thing that positive that hmm. or in case of hum, something like or like. What a thing, I know not what, the substance that’s behind the appearances. or even Plato, to some degree the ideas. or in some sense eternal. and not necessarily. It doesn’t quite have the same dynamism. The dynamic account of consciousness as positing its own object. That’s a whole thing to get into. Okay? And so but notice, there will be different objects to. So those there’s objects like a mirror sensation that’s treated like that’s a because it only knows itself has since. even though it’s doing a lot of other stuff behind its own back. understanding things like Newtonian science, and so on, but things limited to this level. And so but then there’s like different objects. But then there’s the knowledge, self knowledge, and it’s kind of this process for over time different forms of conference and some. and they know more or less about themselves, but they said that they know themselves not sufficiently. They’ll opt for a philosophy of some kind. You can even say I’m sorry I was wanted to, some degree, because it’s insistence on immediate evidence. There’s definitely a and you can get into things like, of course, ethics. And so on. And so they, okay, we’ll stop the best we’ll see in these different form of the what are the conferences, what which express various fault? Philosophies are expressions and forms of consciousness for a. And again, so what will seem obvious to one viewpoint will not be just as the before thinks that it’s obvious the container, the tolerance in there has more water in it. and there’s no arguing with them. You just have to wait and let them develop. And but that happens again repeatedly. so that it’s just obvious for him that all knowledge comes from sense experience. of course. and maybe some principles of association of those, since experiences there’s nothing like insight. and that could be honest. But that’s another thing every generation has. It’s empiricists, because ontogeny. And you’re in a place place. Biologically. that’s why. Why. Why don’t we make progress? Because you have to start a new each time. To each. Each part has to rediscover itself. And so some points get disrupted for whatever reason. And that’s the thing is that you can say, well, this person is just being up to when I say that, don’t you see what a reduction that I want to be okay is. Oh, that’s not thing, or like whatever the the veil, that doing the veil of ignorance and rawls, or whatever. Oh, that’s not! And you’re like, what do you do for it? It’s a thing, whatever, but they it’s not that they’re being up to. Necessarily, it’s that literally what they receive is received differently because they are different to their form of consciousness is different. And so they’re affecting different people. The philosophy itself. Yeah, it’s obvious for some people that we’re all motivated by yourself unless you ascended the But yeah, it’s obvious for some people. or it’s obvious, for don’t know that we have even duties that we’re absolutely counter to our because he’s a good scientist. Post Christian. My office is that, hey? This is making sense? so I guess we’ll stop there with quite big is that hopefully. our goal should be to try to understand some of this, these notions of forms of consciousness. cause. What another way of saying this. What Hegel is proposing is a philosophy of philosophy for the first time. Hmm Which needed to be done. That’s the ultimate kind of recognition. they might have failed, but he gave us a task. Cool. what do you think we should? Oh, okay, let me think about that. Let me think about that, I would say. You know. you know you can. You can mess around with the preface. Maybe you mess around and tell me if you if it’s complete gibberish, you know, we’ll let me know. and we can kind of go from there like. because, like I said, if we go like this. It’ll go pretty slow, and I want to get to like at least the first, whatever the first 4 major forms of consciousness, those are. Those are my favorite, because it gets kind of going, while those are like art and religion. And just all this stuff which we can talk about. But it’s not my super interested, even though it’s kind of fun. But like, I definitely want to get through these first, or they’re called sets perception, force and understanding. And then self consciousness. Because that’s where you’re going to get the master slave. I like it. I imagine a lot of it doesn’t make it there. Okay. so I want to get to that quickly. But like I said, the preference and the introduction are kind of important and interesting. But it would be this kind of like just reading them. So I would say, maybe just take a look for yourselves to see how quickly you think it could be possible to move through that, or at a certain point, maybe we would just say, you guys go back to later on time. Let me just take a look at the breakfast and our introduction kind of give. Give me a sense of it. It’s total gibberish. but if it’s like making sense, we’re not looking for it. Good. But there are like they’re all definitely like, maybe half a dozen things in those that will want to just talk about.