The conversation begins with a reference to Hegel’s philosophy and the concept of spirit. It is suggested that Hegel posits a fundamental demand within individuals, a desire for something external to satisfy their inner expectations. This demand manifests itself through our questioning and pursuit of knowledge.
The distinction between “in itself” and “for itself” in Hegelian philosophy is explored. “In itself” refers to a state where something exists but lacks self-direction or self-objectification. In contrast, “for itself” implies a self-directed entity that possesses the ability to initiate its own direction and is aware of its own existence.
The relationship between humanity and nature is discussed. Nature is characterized as being “in itself,” existing independently of human consciousness. Humanity, however, is seen as “for itself,” representing self-consciousness and self-objectification. Hegel’s philosophy suggests that human history represents a progression from nature’s self-objectification to humanity’s self-objectification.
The conversation acknowledges the ambiguity surrounding Hegel’s use of the terms “in itself” and “for itself.” One interpretation proposed is that “for itself” can be understood as something being directed towards itself or having a relationship with a person’s consciousness.
The concept of final causes in nature is examined. Hegel’s philosophy seeks to transcend the reductionist approach of Newtonian science and recognizes a dynamic aspect within nature, moving away from a strictly mechanistic understanding. The idea of final causes suggests that nature has inherent purposes or goals that drive its development.
The conversation touches upon the notion of the “thing in itself,” which refers to how something appears to us versus its true essence. Hegel’s philosophy aims to reintegrate science and philosophy, rejecting the notion that science must eliminate teleological explanations or final causes from nature.
Additionally, the discussion delves into the role of personal experience in understanding philosophical concepts. It is recognized that concepts such as “in itself” and “for itself” require careful examination and lived experience to grasp their full meaning and significance.
Overall, the conversation revolves around Hegel’s ideas of spirit, the distinction between “in itself” and “for itself,” the relationship between humanity and nature, the significance of final causes in nature, the integration of science and philosophy, and the importance of personal experience in understanding philosophical concepts. These ideas intertwine and offer different perspectives on how we relate to the world and the nature of our consciousness.
What does Hegel mean by “spirit” and the fundamental demand within individuals? Answer: Hegel posits that individuals have a fundamental demand, a desire for something external to satisfy their inner expectations. This demand manifests itself through our questioning and pursuit of knowledge.
What is the distinction between “in itself” and “for itself” in Hegelian philosophy? Answer: “In itself” refers to a state where something exists but lacks self-direction or self-objectification. “For itself” implies a self-directed entity that possesses the ability to initiate its own direction and is aware of its own existence.
How does Hegel view the relationship between humanity and nature? Answer: Nature is seen as “in itself,” existing independently of human consciousness. Humanity, on the other hand, is viewed as “for itself,” representing self-consciousness and self-objectification. Human history is considered a progression from nature’s self-objectification to humanity’s self-objectification.
What does “for itself” mean in Hegelian philosophy? Answer: “For itself” can be understood as something being directed towards itself or having a relationship with a person’s consciousness.
How does Hegel’s philosophy challenge the reductionist approach of Newtonian science? Answer: Hegel’s philosophy recognizes a dynamic aspect within nature, moving away from a strictly mechanistic understanding. It embraces the idea of final causes, suggesting that nature has inherent purposes or goals that drive its development.
What is the concept of the “thing in itself”? Answer: The “thing in itself” refers to how something appears to us versus its true essence. Hegel’s philosophy aims to reintegrate science and philosophy, rejecting the notion that science must eliminate teleological explanations or final causes from nature.
How can philosophical concepts like “in itself” and “for itself” be understood through personal experience? Answer: It is acknowledged that grasping the full meaning and significance of concepts like “in itself” and “for itself” requires careful examination and lived experience. Personal experiences can provide insight into the nature of our consciousness and help us understand these philosophical concepts.
Question: “What is Hegel’s view on the concept of progress?” Answer: Hegel sees history as a progression of consciousness, where human understanding and self-awareness develop over time, leading to the realization of freedom and the actualization of spirit.
Question: “How does Hegel address the concept of self-objectification?” Answer: Hegel argues that self-objectification is a process through which self-consciousness encounters and externalizes itself in the world, forming a reciprocal relationship between subject and object.
Question: “What is Hegel’s understanding of phenomenology?” Answer: Hegel’s phenomenology explores the subjective experiences of consciousness and the development of self-consciousness, aiming to understand how knowledge and truth are attained through the dialectical movement of thought.
WEBVTT
1 00:00:09.840 –> 00:00:13.160 Mark Pock: hey? Do you guys have the zoom link?
2 00:00:14.410 –> 00:00:18.940 Mark Pock: It’s on the website. It’s on on the discord.
3 00:00:19.030 –> 00:00:24.289 Mark Pock: I can send it in this. Oh, the what I was for it! There’s a website
4 00:00:24.770 –> 00:00:38.539 Mark Pock: I don’t know. I’ll wait. Okay, no, I don’t have it. I’ll I’ll send in this for you.
5 00:00:45.480 –> 00:01:00.289 Mark Pock: you you sent it on discord.
6 00:02:01.890 –> 00:02:02.800 Mark Pock: All right.
7 00:02:03.950 –> 00:02:07.710 Mark Pock: Well, actually. what I thought
8 00:02:10.270 –> 00:02:13.869 Mark Pock: we can do is actually just start reading through the introduction.
9 00:02:15.000 –> 00:02:16.380 Mark Pock: And
10 00:02:18.080 –> 00:02:22.249 Mark Pock: there’s we are already quite a bit
11 00:02:29.180 –> 00:02:32.599 Mark Pock: in the first couple of paragraphs. Alright. So let’s just do that.
12 00:02:34.090 –> 00:02:34.960 Mark Pock: So
13 00:02:36.690 –> 00:02:47.829 Mark Pock: it’s a natural assumption that in philosophy, before we start deal with, it’s proper subject matter, namely, the actual cognition of what truly is. One was first of all come to you with an understanding and understanding about cognition.
14 00:02:48.170 –> 00:02:54.479 Mark Pock: which is regarded either as an instrument to get hold of the absolute or a medium through which one discovers it.
15 00:02:54.780 –> 00:03:02.080 Mark Pock: so what do you. Yeah, hopefully. By the way, for those of you that
16 00:03:02.610 –> 00:03:17.079 Mark Pock: I didn’t inform. There’s a there in the back of the book. There is a full commentary on this. Yeah, on each paragraph. So it’s it’s hit or miss. But some of them are very helpful. Yeah, by Finley, yeah.
17 00:03:17.200 –> 00:03:23.219 Mark Pock: And so if you go back you’ll see that he’s he makes this clear.
18 00:03:23.250 –> 00:03:33.940 Mark Pock: And it. It’s true that this is the same Hegel’s more or less referring to. and I block here, but just definitely
19 00:03:34.220 –> 00:03:36.990 Mark Pock: but
20 00:03:37.520 –> 00:03:42.010 Mark Pock: more generally speaking, he’s referring to this.
21 00:03:42.450 –> 00:03:43.610 Mark Pock: I suppose
22 00:03:44.500 –> 00:03:52.570 Mark Pock: effort that was launched, if you will, in the kind of early modern to modern period.
23 00:03:53.350 –> 00:03:58.570 Mark Pock: where? Okay? So obviously, so like, just like the briefest of little things. Here
24 00:04:02.970 –> 00:04:04.979 Mark Pock: you have
25 00:04:07.110 –> 00:04:09.950 Mark Pock: you know. sort of pre-modern
26 00:04:14.100 –> 00:04:17.170 Mark Pock: metaphysics.
27 00:04:17.870 –> 00:04:19.230 Mark Pock: And this this is
28 00:04:20.779 –> 00:04:25.220 Mark Pock: cliche is, but it’s on the on it, and not entirely.
29 00:04:25.250 –> 00:04:29.730 Mark Pock: You’re running us. So Pre. And we metaphysics is first philosophy.
30 00:04:31.360 –> 00:04:38.200 Mark Pock: which is to say, the study of the absolute of being. It is first. Yes.
31 00:04:40.800 –> 00:04:47.430 Mark Pock: because, of course, that’s the most important thing to be the you want to start with with most of our thing. so
32 00:04:47.500 –> 00:05:03.519 Mark Pock: for it’s Aristotle played away or onwards. Metaphysics is first philosophy, then things, and and thus every other science sort of devolves from this. So, for example, famously.
33 00:05:04.050 –> 00:05:08.420 Mark Pock: Aristotle’s account of cognition of knowing is
34 00:05:08.990 –> 00:05:13.949 Mark Pock: organizing metaphysical terms of potency and acts. Those are metaphysical terms.
35 00:05:14.000 –> 00:05:16.380 Mark Pock: And remember, we talked about the phenomenology class.
36 00:05:16.870 –> 00:05:23.140 Mark Pock: Aristotle. And up to
37 00:05:23.570 –> 00:05:26.769 Mark Pock: well, yeah, up through at least the late Middle Ages.
38 00:05:26.950 –> 00:05:32.280 Mark Pock: they had begun to develop a technique by which to study these acts.
39 00:05:32.560 –> 00:05:37.299 Mark Pock: Conscious acts for themselves, co cognitional acts for themselves.
40 00:05:38.590 –> 00:05:46.169 Mark Pock: that is a method for for doing that. So, in other words, they would. They would apply the same method to motion, to
41 00:05:46.400 –> 00:05:50.969 Mark Pock: biological processes, to merely animal processes
42 00:05:51.220 –> 00:05:56.730 Mark Pock: that they would to cognition, because it was all kind of devolved from a basic metaphysics of potency and act
43 00:05:58.700 –> 00:06:03.089 Mark Pock: and cause potencies. 1, one of the things we’ll get to your potencies.
44 00:06:04.690 –> 00:06:06.690 Mark Pock: There are different policies.
45 00:06:06.710 –> 00:06:08.360 Mark Pock: and sometimes this gets
46 00:06:08.510 –> 00:06:11.329 Mark Pock: you’ll see it to talk about us back on some
47 00:06:12.560 –> 00:06:14.859 Mark Pock: So you have a faculty of
48 00:06:15.170 –> 00:06:18.920 Mark Pock: vegetation. But you also have a faculty of sensation.
49 00:06:19.360 –> 00:06:24.730 Mark Pock: faculty of understanding, and the faculty of reason.
50 00:06:24.990 –> 00:06:26.220 Mark Pock: And those are all
51 00:06:26.400 –> 00:06:30.650 Mark Pock: things that are potentialities in you that get actuated.
52 00:06:32.050 –> 00:06:44.830 Mark Pock: and those actually much more to be said about this. It’s called faculty psychology. So that if that’s what he is, psychology is the metaphysics of
53 00:06:45.260 –> 00:06:46.270 Mark Pock: cognition
54 00:06:47.560 –> 00:06:52.410 Mark Pock: But the point being is that for right now meditating was first lost
55 00:06:52.780 –> 00:06:57.340 Mark Pock: and everything. And then the ethics, ethics is just again
56 00:06:57.580 –> 00:07:00.320 Mark Pock: the goal of Aristotelian ethics.
57 00:07:00.530 –> 00:07:01.800 Mark Pock: The tell us
58 00:07:02.740 –> 00:07:10.289 Mark Pock: of this, teleologies, eudaemonia happiness, which is better translated as flourishing, which is to say, fulfillment, which is to say.
59 00:07:10.360 –> 00:07:16.750 Mark Pock: fulfilling your nature as a rap with all of these faculties, bring them to full act. Intellectuality.
60 00:07:17.940 –> 00:07:20.599 Mark Pock: So because, remember, the ultimate pot and C is
61 00:07:20.620 –> 00:07:29.759 Mark Pock: news. Human news is potentially making me becoming all things. God is all things. And there’s a journey of what’s going to full actualization.
62 00:07:31.010 –> 00:07:33.590 Mark Pock: Okay? And
63 00:07:35.760 –> 00:07:40.020 Mark Pock: as opposed to in starting in. I guess you would call modernity.
64 00:07:40.920 –> 00:07:45.260 Mark Pock: and he kind of
65 00:07:49.110 –> 00:07:52.929 Mark Pock: where you could call it epistemology. If you want
66 00:07:56.380 –> 00:07:59.229 Mark Pock: it comes first. Philosophy. That’s what Descartes.
67 00:07:59.370 –> 00:08:02.049 Mark Pock: what is called the meditation on first Philosophy.
68 00:08:02.800 –> 00:08:06.790 Mark Pock: And he’s saying, actually what we need before we can study
69 00:08:06.810 –> 00:08:09.770 Mark Pock: being. yeah, absolutely.
70 00:08:11.190 –> 00:08:13.189 Mark Pock: we need to know
71 00:08:14.200 –> 00:08:18.989 Mark Pock: is the mind capable of knowing the absolute
72 00:08:19.340 –> 00:08:20.410 Mark Pock: first.
73 00:08:24.040 –> 00:08:26.740 Mark Pock: So we have to study cognition first
74 00:08:27.770 –> 00:08:38.770 Mark Pock: see it. Our cognition is adequate to knowing the absolute Descartes. is it? It doesn’t do quite yet what
75 00:08:39.880 –> 00:08:41.820 Mark Pock: comes out more clearly in
76 00:08:42.549 –> 00:08:49.640 Mark Pock: lock. And then cons, they’re a little bit more explicit about because Descartes, actual epistemology, winds up. Being pretty
77 00:08:50.540 –> 00:08:52.200 Mark Pock: scholastic.
78 00:08:53.110 –> 00:08:56.060 Mark Pock: he talks about essentially faculties.
79 00:08:56.780 –> 00:08:58.839 Mark Pock: but he, he says
80 00:08:59.100 –> 00:09:05.079 Mark Pock: he doesn’t necessarily start with them, but he, because this is the whole thing. I think. There for him. The I is. This kind of
81 00:09:06.250 –> 00:09:16.819 Mark Pock: it’s it’s something new. It’s a so it’s a new method, first of all, so that they they got a discourse on method and then meditation on first philosophy. And he’s developing
82 00:09:17.350 –> 00:09:21.860 Mark Pock: kind of getting off the ground a method by which you you approach.
83 00:09:22.140 –> 00:09:25.059 Mark Pock: So another way of thinking about this this is, this is
84 00:09:26.720 –> 00:09:36.280 Mark Pock: we can. This is not erroneous, but it gets called. It’s there’s a longer story here. So this is
85 00:09:36.400 –> 00:09:37.870 Mark Pock: subject.
86 00:09:40.140 –> 00:09:44.480 Mark Pock: And so far we’re talking about Ca cognition. We’re talking on the subject as object.
87 00:09:46.170 –> 00:09:52.209 Mark Pock: and Descartes starts to transition out from you. Study subject to subject.
88 00:09:55.470 –> 00:09:58.459 Mark Pock: That’s very far. He’s like I said he gets.
89 00:09:59.130 –> 00:10:04.610 Mark Pock: He’s still trapped in a lot of scholastic metaphysics.
90 00:10:04.920 –> 00:10:05.910 Mark Pock: But
91 00:10:06.290 –> 00:10:09.220 Mark Pock: something happens with the
92 00:10:10.030 –> 00:10:16.050 Mark Pock: yeah. Do that. I think, therefore, I am that kind of self certainty of the subject as as its own
93 00:10:16.090 –> 00:10:20.640 Mark Pock: in its own subjectivity rather than that. It’s just a bearer of faculties
94 00:10:22.810 –> 00:10:28.880 Mark Pock: But like I said, he doesn’t do, he kind of gets that kind of going. But
95 00:10:28.950 –> 00:10:30.979 Mark Pock: here, when he says, Okay.
96 00:10:31.180 –> 00:10:33.770 Mark Pock: what we need to do is,
97 00:10:35.050 –> 00:10:47.939 Mark Pock: We must first of all come to an understanding about cognition, which is regarded either as an instrument to get hold of the absolute, or as a medium through which one discovers it. That’s more becomes more explicit in lock, and then even more so in con, which is to say.
98 00:10:48.260 –> 00:10:50.160 Mark Pock: we need to establish
99 00:10:50.630 –> 00:10:54.130 Mark Pock: the nature and limits of the mind
100 00:10:54.790 –> 00:10:58.589 Mark Pock: before we start talking about whether or not it can know the absolute.
101 00:10:58.720 –> 00:11:02.289 Mark Pock: because the presumption is, maybe it’s distorting it.
102 00:11:04.660 –> 00:11:07.090 Mark Pock: and also.
103 00:11:07.100 –> 00:11:09.950 Mark Pock: maybe it can’t know the absolute at all
104 00:11:10.280 –> 00:11:15.679 Mark Pock: as absolute. And we need to recognize that because it’s the illusion that these
105 00:11:16.300 –> 00:11:22.929 Mark Pock: you know scholastics, and so on, that thought that they could discourse
106 00:11:23.070 –> 00:11:26.240 Mark Pock: coherently about the nature of God, for instance.
107 00:11:26.610 –> 00:11:35.319 Mark Pock: that gave rise to all those intellectual disputes that gave us the religious wars. Right? So what they’re saying is, look, we presume, to know about the absolute
108 00:11:35.500 –> 00:11:43.030 Mark Pock: and what Constant says. No, we have to limit knowledge, to make room for faith in order to understand that we don’t know the absolute.
109 00:11:44.280 –> 00:11:46.739 Mark Pock: and therefore we need to stop arguing about it.
110 00:11:50.310 –> 00:11:57.740 Mark Pock: And so we need to. And that’s all tied into this idea that okay, we need to establish the nature of the limits, the nature, and the limits of this
111 00:11:58.380 –> 00:12:01.310 Mark Pock: this process of cognition by itself.
112 00:12:01.780 –> 00:12:06.499 Mark Pock: prior to, and so to some degree, that means being absolutely
113 00:12:06.660 –> 00:12:09.340 Mark Pock: as distinct from the study of being, of being
114 00:12:11.250 –> 00:12:22.550 Mark Pock: again. in order to establish the nature and the limits of this. So we don’t transgress them.
115 00:12:23.710 –> 00:12:32.359 Mark Pock: This is, you know, if you want to go full post modern. This is a policing mechanism. Okay. but it’s also its own thing.
116 00:12:32.710 –> 00:12:40.210 Mark Pock: Try to take it on its own terms. To which is there they think they’re trying to solve a problem.
117 00:12:40.840 –> 00:12:55.859 Mark Pock: okay, so I guess to keep going and stop me, any time, good questions so certain on the easiness seems justified. partly because there are different types of cognition, and one of them might be appropriate to more perfectly than another for the attainment of this goal, knowing the absolute.
118 00:12:56.260 –> 00:13:02.330 Mark Pock: so that we could make a bad choice of a means. and partly because cognition is a faculty
119 00:13:02.430 –> 00:13:11.170 Mark Pock: of a definite kind and scope, and thus, without a more precise definition of its nature and limits, we might grasp clouds of error instead of the heaven of truth.
120 00:13:11.420 –> 00:13:22.380 Mark Pock: which is what Kant and Lock and all the modern, said the scholastics we’re doing. They’re just talking about angels on the head of a PIN. You guys know about all that stuff.
121 00:13:22.820 –> 00:13:27.829 Mark Pock: So they would have debates about how many the angels can you fit on the head of a pen? Because
122 00:13:28.550 –> 00:13:42.639 Mark Pock: God is. God alone is pure spirit. and so is doesn’t exist in place or time. But angels are don’t have bodies. but they can’t. They’re not peer spirits, so do they take up any space at all.
123 00:13:43.220 –> 00:13:57.939 Mark Pock: and so, presumably they don’t. But they can’t be pure spirit. So it’s like, well, they maybe they have this like really fine spiritual body. And then you ask how many of them can fit on the head of a PIN? Another famous one? This is
124 00:13:58.620 –> 00:13:59.950 Mark Pock: another famous one
125 00:14:00.220 –> 00:14:08.819 Mark Pock: that they debated. And the thing is, some of this is a caricature like they weren’t. It’s actually not quite. This is the modern reaction to this. But it’s kind of a caricature.
126 00:14:08.900 –> 00:14:11.330 Mark Pock: Some of these debates really weren’t really happening.
127 00:14:11.610 –> 00:14:19.549 Mark Pock: but it some kind of a Jake. Things that were adjacent to this were happening. Like one thing I think they were debating at 1 point was
128 00:14:20.040 –> 00:14:25.850 Mark Pock: whether or not the will stink in the afterlife.
129 00:14:26.750 –> 00:14:27.840 Mark Pock: because
130 00:14:28.040 –> 00:14:36.040 Mark Pock: for the Christian tradition. Specifically, we’re classics. Obviously, we’re using philosophy to kind of develop Christian thought.
131 00:14:37.400 –> 00:14:40.239 Mark Pock: It’s not simply a spiritual
132 00:14:40.370 –> 00:14:43.170 Mark Pock: after life, right as it might be for
133 00:14:43.440 –> 00:14:53.239 Mark Pock: Plato, perhaps, or any number of other views. Pythagoreanism, like you kind of want to get out of the the body is the the of the soul. For for Plato.
134 00:14:54.480 –> 00:15:01.709 Mark Pock: for Christianity. One key difference, at least they would, they would claim, is the notion of a bodily or resurrection.
135 00:15:02.240 –> 00:15:04.729 Mark Pock: Your Chris is resurrected in body.
136 00:15:05.380 –> 00:15:08.470 Mark Pock: The that stone is removed from the
137 00:15:08.570 –> 00:15:17.760 Mark Pock: Tom, and he’s gone. His body is not daring, so he’s been resurrected. Okay, but and that’s a big deal for Christianity. But
138 00:15:17.980 –> 00:15:20.550 Mark Pock: And the part of the point is that
139 00:15:20.720 –> 00:15:36.089 Mark Pock: unless we are in body where resurrected, it’s not really a true resurrection, because we are embodied in our bodies, and we need them to be who we are, we, we would otherwise lose our identity. Okay, so, but if it is a true resurrection, and it’s a true bodily resurrection
140 00:15:36.510 –> 00:15:38.040 Mark Pock: body shit
141 00:15:38.740 –> 00:15:46.170 Mark Pock: in heaven. There’s supposed to be no pain, no discomfort, including smelling bad things. So if it’s going to be a full bodily resurrection
142 00:15:46.300 –> 00:15:51.199 Mark Pock: with defecation. Is that defecation going to okay and then to debate this?
144 00:15:56.250 –> 00:15:58.710 Mark Pock: now, anyway?
145 00:15:58.830 –> 00:16:07.520 Mark Pock: so they were. And that’s like, you know, they’re talking. They’re grasping at clouds of error instead of the actual heaven, the real heaven of truth. Okay.
146 00:16:07.620 –> 00:16:12.700 Mark Pock: this classics. We’re doing that because they weren’t doing according to cons.
147 00:16:13.450 –> 00:16:20.600 Mark Pock: and who Hegel is referring to because they didn’t establish the limits because it turns out no one’s ever met an angel.
148 00:16:20.690 –> 00:16:23.299 Mark Pock: No one’s ever been resurrected. And
149 00:16:23.560 –> 00:16:34.959 Mark Pock: you know at least a human that that that’s beyond our experience. We can have a faith that okay, yeah, in heaven. We’ll have full bodies that defecate, but they won’t smell. But there’s no way we could know that.
150 00:16:36.370 –> 00:16:38.670 Mark Pock: because it’s beyond the scope of our cognition.
151 00:16:38.760 –> 00:16:41.339 Mark Pock: and so we need to shut up about it.
152 00:16:42.590 –> 00:16:52.099 Mark Pock: and don’t fight over it. Okay, this feeling of the uneasiness that is uneasiness. about.
153 00:16:53.720 –> 00:17:05.329 Mark Pock: can we actually know the Absolute is surely bound to be transformed into the conviction that the whole project of securing consciousness, 4. Consciousness through cognition. What exists in itself is absurd.
154 00:17:05.390 –> 00:17:07.900 Mark Pock: That’s the modern thing here.
155 00:17:08.300 –> 00:17:14.570 Mark Pock: and that there’s a boundary between cognition and the absolute that completely separates them. Of course it’s the problem of the bridge.
156 00:17:15.300 –> 00:17:27.629 Mark Pock: for of cognition is the instrument for getting hold of absolute being is obvious. That the use of an instrument on a thing certainly does not let it be what it is for itself, but rather sets out to reshape and alter it.
157 00:17:28.410 –> 00:17:40.979 Mark Pock: If, on the other hand, cognition is not an instrument of our activity, but a more or less passive medium through which the light of the truth reaches us. Then, again, we do not receive the truth as it is in itself, but only as it exists through
158 00:17:41.380 –> 00:17:51.910 Mark Pock: and in this medium. Either way, we employ a means which immediately brings about the opposite of its own end, or rather, what is really absurd is that we should make use of a means at all.
159 00:17:52.820 –> 00:17:54.040 Mark Pock: I’ll keep going
160 00:17:54.050 –> 00:18:01.029 Mark Pock: cause there’s more that he said about that point. But I’ll just keep going because it might be more sense in the second year.
161 00:18:01.040 –> 00:18:02.360 Mark Pock: It would seem
162 00:18:02.480 –> 00:18:07.649 Mark Pock: to be to be sure that this evil could be in. Okay, so could be remedied
163 00:18:08.640 –> 00:18:16.359 Mark Pock: through an acquaintance with the way in which the instrument works. This is the cons transcendental method he’s going to
164 00:18:16.520 –> 00:18:21.700 Mark Pock: show how the mind acts upon the object
165 00:18:23.480 –> 00:18:26.509 Mark Pock: walk to.
166 00:18:27.790 –> 00:18:41.920 Mark Pock: or this would enable us to eliminate from the representation of the absolute which we have gained through it whatever is due to the instrument, and thus get the truth in its purity. But this improvement would, in fact, only bring us back to where we were before.
167 00:18:42.580 –> 00:18:44.000 Mark Pock: If we remove
168 00:18:44.140 –> 00:18:53.179 Mark Pock: from a reshaped thing with the instrument has done to it, then the thing here the absolutely comes for us exactly what it was before this, accordingly, superfluous effort.
169 00:18:53.490 –> 00:19:04.389 Mark Pock: on the other hand, if the Absolute is supposed to be nearly brought near to us through this instrument without anything in it being altered like a bird caught in the lime twig, it would surely laugh our little reduced to scorn it
170 00:19:04.670 –> 00:19:21.599 Mark Pock: if it were not with us, and then for itself all along. And that was on relation for a reason, just what cognition would be in such a case, since it would, with manifold exertions, be giving itself the air of doing something quite different from creating a merely immediate and therefore effortless relationship.
171 00:19:21.820 –> 00:19:26.769 Mark Pock: or by testing, if by testing and cognition me, which we can see
172 00:19:26.910 –> 00:19:30.650 Mark Pock: of as a medium. We get to know
173 00:19:30.990 –> 00:19:50.969 Mark Pock: the law of its refraction. It is again useless to subtract this from the end result. for it is not the refraction of the ray, but the ray itself, or my truth reaches us, that is cognition, and if this were removed, all that would be indicated would be a pure direction or a plank space. Okay, what he’s saying, of course, is this. So if if you have
174 00:19:51.750 –> 00:19:52.830 Mark Pock: you have
175 00:19:54.870 –> 00:19:57.129 Mark Pock: the absolute over here.
176 00:19:57.360 –> 00:20:01.669 Mark Pock: hey? And we’re worried. That.
177 00:20:02.090 –> 00:20:10.829 Mark Pock: And this is not a joke, as I mentioned before, you can see or to perceive literally means to grab. hey, grab with so as we grab it.
178 00:20:10.890 –> 00:20:13.480 Mark Pock: and we pull it to ourselves so that we can know it.
179 00:20:13.680 –> 00:20:18.189 Mark Pock: But now it looks like this, then it’s been shaped. By the way we grab it.
180 00:20:18.430 –> 00:20:23.380 Mark Pock: hey? And so now, it’s not the absolute.
181 00:20:24.610 –> 00:20:27.740 Mark Pock: Okay? So what if I
182 00:20:28.470 –> 00:20:30.449 Mark Pock: eliminate the effect I have on
183 00:20:32.430 –> 00:20:39.460 Mark Pock: by Rect, by doing this critique of the cognition itself. Well, then, now it’s back over here.
184 00:20:40.640 –> 00:20:47.750 Mark Pock: and I the then how how well, I know that is the actual thing anymore, because I’ve just removed my cognition of it.
185 00:20:49.370 –> 00:20:51.450 Mark Pock: It’s the comparison problem once again.
186 00:20:52.710 –> 00:20:55.100 Mark Pock: because this is the only way in which I’ve ever known it.
187 00:20:55.440 –> 00:20:57.880 Okay, I’ve removed my effect lines.
188 00:20:59.000 –> 00:21:04.010 Mark Pock: but if that’s the only way I’ve ever known it, I can’t know it as it is over here.
189 00:21:06.190 –> 00:21:13.480 Mark Pock: and there’s no third point, because there’s no third position. I can compare these 2. Say, Oh, yeah, this is the thing
190 00:21:13.610 –> 00:21:18.810 Mark Pock: separated from the the influence of my cognition, because my cognition is happening up here, too.
191 00:21:25.190 –> 00:21:38.519 Mark Pock: Yeah, that’s what he’s saying. or or or if it’s a kind of medium that, like works its way through like cognition, is this medium? And then you have the representation over here. Well, then, remove the medium
192 00:21:38.820 –> 00:21:40.519 Mark Pock: and don’t get this.
193 00:21:41.000 –> 00:21:44.119 Mark Pock: and you’re just left with this that you haven’t known yet.
194 00:21:44.450 –> 00:21:46.090 Mark Pock: like the uncertainty
195 00:21:55.670 –> 00:22:08.420 Mark Pock: it’s velocity at the same time location in. But of course, like the knowing one affects the other. Is that right?
196 00:22:09.480 –> 00:22:14.149 Mark Pock: Yeah, it’s related. It’s actually in some way. But it’s actually it’s different, because those are all
197 00:22:15.710 –> 00:22:17.449 Mark Pock: that’s all talking still about.
198 00:22:19.110 –> 00:22:31.610 Mark Pock: They always aren’t necessarily epistemologies. As such. They’re kind of running into a epistemological problem. but they aren’t necessarily talking about, not because then the question is, okay, what is
199 00:22:32.120 –> 00:22:34.449 Mark Pock: what is this thing that’s perceiving?
200 00:22:36.210 –> 00:22:38.469 Mark Pock: And that would be epistemology.
201 00:22:39.820 –> 00:22:43.700 Mark Pock: or philosophy of science.
202 00:22:44.700 –> 00:22:50.170 Mark Pock: But this is specific to okay, if you.
203 00:22:51.170 –> 00:22:56.140 Mark Pock: it’s just a problem, because it’s. And then so what Kant says, okay.
204 00:22:56.150 –> 00:22:58.260 Mark Pock: and the absolute is just unknowable.
205 00:23:00.860 –> 00:23:05.679 Mark Pock: So no, say, well, because our cognition is intrinsically distortive.
206 00:23:07.180 –> 00:23:09.330 Mark Pock: We could only know phenomena. And the
207 00:23:09.420 –> 00:23:17.840 Mark Pock: I think you had this right in your note. Yeah, yeah, that’s that. I think what you said was pretty much right. Exactly what he was saying. Is that is that what you’re getting at?
208 00:23:18.290 –> 00:23:21.109 Mark Pock: yeah, yeah, yeah.
209 00:23:31.020 –> 00:23:34.439 Mark Pock: Yeah. So it seems, I’m referring back to the problem of the bridge.
210 00:23:34.590 –> 00:23:39.820 Mark Pock: Right? I guess I was asking about. I said it was paragraph 75,
211 00:23:39.830 –> 00:23:42.000 Mark Pock: because I guess with a circle.
212 00:23:42.270 –> 00:23:46.720 Mark Pock: there, I guess it’s talking about trees there. So I’m wondering about
213 00:23:46.890 –> 00:23:48.370 Mark Pock: to what extent?
214 00:23:48.470 –> 00:23:51.010 Mark Pock: there is a truth.
215 00:23:51.180 –> 00:24:01.000 Mark Pock: or there’s a because we can get to the idos. Remember, zoom, is that the like corollary of the absolute for us, or through
216 00:24:01.030 –> 00:24:03.860 Mark Pock: purely phenomenal investigation?
217 00:24:04.560 –> 00:24:10.229 Mark Pock: Right? Yeah. But that’s always a problem, right? Because it’s like it’s trapped in imminent still. Yeah.
218 00:24:11.510 –> 00:24:12.919 Mark Pock: And it’s a but
219 00:24:14.360 –> 00:24:20.740 Mark Pock: yeah, yeah.
221 00:24:26.420 –> 00:24:34.340 Mark Pock: who? Sarah was trying to get us on faculty psychology. And the Ipo, yeah, the knowledge as an instrument.
222 00:24:34.780 –> 00:24:37.220 Mark Pock: That’s certainly true.
223 00:24:38.490 –> 00:24:42.440 Mark Pock: And and so
224 00:24:43.980 –> 00:24:50.189 Mark Pock: But the question will remain like, Okay, then where is the app? Where is the
225 00:24:53.040 –> 00:24:58.370 Mark Pock: then, the the the thing that is what’s like, as it were, transcendent, weird eminence.
226 00:24:59.940 –> 00:25:06.809 Mark Pock: And who’s who? Who? Sarah thought he could. He kind of could find it. In this notion of intuition of
227 00:25:07.450 –> 00:25:14.049 Mark Pock: especially with the notion of universality and necessity, it comes back over and over, using our universal necessary
228 00:25:14.840 –> 00:25:15.740 Mark Pock: E day
229 00:25:17.280 –> 00:25:18.650 Mark Pock: and
230 00:25:19.830 –> 00:25:25.579 Mark Pock: but it. It’s what we talked about. It’s not clear that it can do that. You can get transcendence
231 00:25:25.640 –> 00:25:26.779 Mark Pock: and that way.
232 00:25:27.780 –> 00:25:35.459 Mark Pock: because what we talked about in the class, and it was all different ways you could say, well, you thought this universal necessary is actually not turns out
233 00:25:36.310 –> 00:25:37.470 Mark Pock: turns out like
234 00:25:37.670 –> 00:25:41.759 Mark Pock: All of including geometry, is now been relatively
235 00:25:42.490 –> 00:25:44.980 Mark Pock: where they thought it was universally necessary.
236 00:25:45.360 –> 00:25:49.740 Mark Pock: So maybe it’s not in universal, and it says, now Hegel is actually trapped in that.
237 00:25:50.120 –> 00:25:58.620 Mark Pock: So it’s a German. But but actually not, it goes back to you. Don’t remember It’s in posture analytics
238 00:25:59.650 –> 00:26:02.630 where he says, what is science? What is it?
239 00:26:02.960 –> 00:26:10.379 Mark Pock: It’s universal and necessary knowledge of things that are causes. because they all thought science was Euclid.
240 00:26:11.730 –> 00:26:15.809 Mark Pock: And you know all, any science should conform to that ideal in some way.
241 00:26:17.900 –> 00:26:21.040 Mark Pock: so that’s I don’t know if that got to your question. But
242 00:26:21.200 –> 00:26:26.929 Mark Pock: yeah last quick thing, and then, in like sort of he goes, narration of the history of philosophy.
243 00:26:27.390 –> 00:26:37.840 Mark Pock: Where does this in in relation to Khan? Is he like after, or sort of a similar notion. But okay, so
244 00:26:42.890 –> 00:26:46.070 Mark Pock: it’s okay, or it can go back to a letter. If it’s option.
245 00:26:47.260 –> 00:26:54.810 Mark Pock: Yeah, let’s come back. It’s come back. But let’s definitely come back, because there’s actually a bigger story until that I’m waiting to sell.
246 00:26:55.270 –> 00:26:56.219 Mark Pock: okay.
247 00:26:57.190 –> 00:27:00.090 Mark Pock: there is another way of looking at this. Sure.
248 00:27:00.670 –> 00:27:07.579 Mark Pock: this is, I’m always looking at this. But of course it’s just to one. Yeah, please.
249 00:27:07.610 –> 00:27:11.189 Mark Pock: Kant said. We can’t know this thing, and it’s
250 00:27:11.460 –> 00:27:17.420 Mark Pock: because we have our minds in our way of understanding things is
251 00:27:17.430 –> 00:27:29.530 Mark Pock: made up, is determined, is, is, is made up of certain categories that we have in our mind as to how we perceive and how we make sense of the work
252 00:27:29.640 –> 00:27:33.779 Mark Pock: and the the phenomena? Are they
253 00:27:33.840 –> 00:27:37.929 Mark Pock: some manifold representations, etc.
254 00:27:38.030 –> 00:27:41.130 Mark Pock: And he says in a.
255 00:27:41.190 –> 00:27:47.009 Mark Pock: In a chapter in the Critique of Pure Reason, he talks about
256 00:27:47.470 –> 00:27:55.989 Mark Pock: the meaning of the Numa. which is the thing in itself. and as opposed to the appearances that we have.
257 00:27:56.060 –> 00:28:06.389 Mark Pock: and as opposed to the concepts that we have through the categories that are that we have in our mind. He says that the reason that we
258 00:28:06.790 –> 00:28:12.979 Mark Pock: that there is all our mind is organized in such a way that we can only learn things through these categories.
259 00:28:13.040 –> 00:28:23.820 Mark Pock: There might be things outside of these categories that we can’t comprehend. And so he calls that the numerator.
260 00:28:23.840 –> 00:28:26.749 Mark Pock: He doesn’t say that the new minute exists.
261 00:28:27.820 –> 00:28:36.860 Mark Pock: He says that we just don’t have the ability to N necessarily understand it, because we have limits to our cognition.
262 00:28:37.230 –> 00:28:42.239 Mark Pock: And so when you say, for example, where is the Absolute, which is
263 00:28:42.440 –> 00:28:45.290 Mark Pock: he was gonna give his take on that.
264 00:28:45.330 –> 00:28:49.770 Mark Pock: But where is the absolute in content in terms it just.
265 00:28:49.780 –> 00:28:51.040 Mark Pock: We don’t know.
266 00:28:51.460 –> 00:29:09.159 Mark Pock: We don’t know what that, even if there is an absolute, we just don’t know. We only know with certain weight. There’s only certain ways of knowing, and that’s what we’re limited to to and other way, other things that are out there. There could be other things outside of that that we just don’t know. So for current.
267 00:29:09.400 –> 00:29:22.770 Mark Pock: Thank you. Question of the new minute. It’s an epistemological question rather than a ontological or metaphysical question. Sure, that’s the whole idea. He wanted to limit knowledge, to make room for faith
268 00:29:22.880 –> 00:29:31.890 Mark Pock: so that we can’t know the absolute we can have a rational faith. and it’s and
269 00:29:32.830 –> 00:29:39.070 Mark Pock: on one so like the Neumann not literally means thought objects of the news.
270 00:29:40.140 –> 00:29:42.809 Mark Pock: and a and a numer.
271 00:29:43.860 –> 00:29:45.399 Mark Pock: I guess.
272 00:29:46.210 –> 00:29:52.149 Mark Pock: is we we can’t know what it is. But we, we actually have to think it.
273 00:29:52.490 –> 00:30:06.509 Mark Pock: We have to think that there is something causing the appearances, even though we can never know what it is. And so yeah, caught. Yeah, he’s saying that that’s kind of his whole point is that we cannot know the absolute
274 00:30:06.730 –> 00:30:15.000 Mark Pock: as absolute. And so that’s the problem with all these scholastic, pre modern thinkers is that they thought they knew, and then they would fight over it.
275 00:30:15.070 –> 00:30:22.870 Mark Pock: And he’s so he’s saying, Look, I’m limiting knowledge, I’m saying. Look, we, we can’t know the absolute. We must think the Absolute
276 00:30:23.910 –> 00:30:24.960 Mark Pock: as
277 00:30:25.040 –> 00:30:31.810 Mark Pock: an ultimate horizon. That explains all the appearances, but it can never be known, because anytime we would try to grasp it.
278 00:30:32.120 –> 00:30:34.790 Mark Pock: It would be affected by the categories
279 00:30:36.760 –> 00:30:38.859 Mark Pock: that are part of the faculty.
280 00:30:39.390 –> 00:30:42.040 Mark Pock: the the mine.
281 00:30:45.000 –> 00:30:48.650 Mark Pock: Yeah. So I think we’re actually in that.
282 00:30:48.850 –> 00:30:56.590 Mark Pock: I was just saying. the question still persists, okay, where is the absolute conscious set as well? It’s beyond.
283 00:30:57.900 –> 00:31:00.820 Mark Pock: We’re separated from it by a bridge.
284 00:31:01.110 –> 00:31:04.289 Mark Pock: and any attempt to cross the bridge will distort the object.
285 00:31:06.290 –> 00:31:11.220 Mark Pock: Now we have to positive we have to think the object cause we have to explain.
286 00:31:11.570 –> 00:31:14.719 Mark Pock: give an account to ourselves as to how these appearances occur.
287 00:31:14.960 –> 00:31:20.199 Mark Pock: but any attempt to to apply that to the thing will I our our concept of causality.
288 00:31:22.760 –> 00:31:26.059 Mark Pock: which you cannot find in the object, as you had shown.
289 00:31:30.400 –> 00:31:37.299 Mark Pock: And so, in order to just, we can’t say it, we? We can’t confidently say. The thing in itself causes all the appearances.
290 00:31:37.450 –> 00:31:38.929 Mark Pock: but we have to think it does.
291 00:31:39.290 –> 00:31:41.989 Mark Pock: But how often the appearances
292 00:31:44.840 –> 00:31:50.500 Mark Pock: in the other piece here. We need the history when you time up
293 00:31:50.650 –> 00:32:07.679 Mark Pock: looking at philosophy in a historical way, and he’s expressing this needs to be not situational exactly what he’s saying, we have to take into account culture, timing impact of that time. And like. So when we look back, I find it really interesting to think.
294 00:32:07.680 –> 00:32:23.930 Mark Pock: how did he define instruments? How did you define a representation? Because those terms have shifted dramatically right? And then it’s it’s that’s where I have to get me. I go to etymology and say, Okay, that’s what we think. How did it evolve?
295 00:32:24.080 –> 00:32:45.149 Mark Pock: We’re is Kant the first to say that those that in that space. There we have representations, but not the things themselves or the Absolute. Or is that already emerging from that? I mean, it’s already emerging as a concept
296 00:32:45.170 –> 00:32:46.520 Mark Pock: restriction
297 00:32:46.600 –> 00:32:49.780 Mark Pock: on the possibility of moving beyond anything
298 00:32:49.870 –> 00:32:54.150 Mark Pock: beyond mere representation and able to say.
299 00:32:54.400 –> 00:32:59.259 Mark Pock: Yeah, we can
300 00:32:59.300 –> 00:33:01.560 Mark Pock: kind of put down in my notes. He’s really
301 00:33:01.660 –> 00:33:15.479 Mark Pock: he. He doesn’t like this idea of representations media. He wants to kind of us through that and kind of. But but but he’s saying that if you don’t bust through it. It’s actually already present. But absolutely
302 00:33:16.220 –> 00:33:20.389 Mark Pock: okay. The, the absolutely. Yeah. The very idea that there’s something to bus through.
303 00:33:20.450 –> 00:33:38.859 Mark Pock: Well, in that. In a process. Yeah, no, no, no, no. I. I said, yeah, for sure, for sure. yeah, that’s so. The instrument, the other. The term that’s interesting. Here’s instrument. Yeah. Actually, I don’t know if the German is there. but
304 00:33:39.410 –> 00:33:50.269 Mark Pock: I think he’s referring in a kind of generic sense to something like a content view of the mind as an instrument for reaching out literally
305 00:33:50.510 –> 00:33:55.290 Mark Pock: a griffin to to grab hold of the absolute
306 00:33:55.350 –> 00:33:59.120 Mark Pock: which begins with the child’s experience of
307 00:33:59.960 –> 00:34:04.699 Mark Pock: beings over there that lay my hands on okay and
308 00:34:05.280 –> 00:34:06.420 Mark Pock: And so.
309 00:34:06.440 –> 00:34:20.479 Mark Pock: And of course, when I pick something up, I do and plant a little bit of myself, too. Right? So if I want to know how that is really in itself, I got to back away right. But then I’m still happy faculties in my mind that are shaping this thing. Okay?
310 00:34:20.679 –> 00:34:40.890 Mark Pock: And so, that’s what he means by an instrument. Yeah, because it’s I think of instrument also as evolving into a microscope where it’s instructive because we’re looking more at the thing itself. But you’re looking. You’re cutting through that hasn’t quite taken hold in their minds. Right? It’s yeah. Well, right? Sure. That’s good.
311 00:34:41.850 –> 00:34:43.270 Mark Pock: right
312 00:34:43.929 –> 00:34:49.219 Mark Pock: no, no, that’s I. What you might say is that
313 00:34:49.449 –> 00:34:50.780 Mark Pock: or Hegel. Yes.
314 00:34:50.880 –> 00:34:56.519 Mark Pock: you could recover that term instrument and say, but the absolute is a self assembling instruments.
315 00:34:57.170 –> 00:34:58.360 Mark Pock: Hmm, okay.
316 00:34:59.020 –> 00:35:06.020 Mark Pock: and that it’s it’s not reaching out to anything other than itself to come to know itself. It’s
317 00:35:06.040 –> 00:35:08.490 Mark Pock: becoming the absolute is
318 00:35:09.770 –> 00:35:16.880 Mark Pock: is not something over there it’s not something transcendent and it’s forging itself.
319 00:35:17.250 –> 00:35:22.579 Mark Pock: if you want to like, I’m just trying to think this through like that would be a way to think about
320 00:35:22.930 –> 00:35:24.389 Mark Pock: because what do you want to get.
321 00:35:24.530 –> 00:35:28.750 Mark Pock: Because, of course, there’s this organicism. And for Hegel there’s a
322 00:35:29.140 –> 00:35:30.300 Mark Pock: content.
323 00:35:30.580 –> 00:35:39.700 Mark Pock: These early models were to me they were. They were infected by mechanism and a lot of different ways, and thinking of instruments as these mechanical tools
324 00:35:39.850 –> 00:35:40.790 Mark Pock: that you would
325 00:35:40.900 –> 00:35:49.460 Mark Pock: act upon, and that the universe itself was a kind of mechanism. This is the basic kind of early modern view of reality.
326 00:35:49.580 –> 00:35:50.910 Mark Pock: And
327 00:35:52.850 –> 00:35:58.470 Mark Pock: as opposed to something like an organic organic notion in which the
328 00:35:59.550 –> 00:36:02.830 Mark Pock: the tool itself assembles itself as it.
329 00:36:05.570 –> 00:36:11.699 Mark Pock: But yeah, I don’t know. Well, let me think about that a little more, too. But that’s good. That’s interesting. Yeah, because, like you’re you’re mentioning. Well.
330 00:36:11.760 –> 00:36:15.580 Mark Pock: because what Hegel would probably say about like modern technology
331 00:36:16.000 –> 00:36:25.309 Mark Pock: that’s complicated. It’s complicated because he would say, like E, those are just giving you. That’s just immediacy.
332 00:36:25.510 –> 00:36:33.530 Mark Pock: like the sense experience of like the macro is not qualitatively distinct from the sense experience of the micro
333 00:36:34.260 –> 00:36:37.519 Mark Pock: All that has to be mediated by thought
334 00:36:38.670 –> 00:36:40.210 Mark Pock: to get to the absolute.
335 00:36:40.830 –> 00:36:46.419 Mark Pock: Because, of course, you’re not really seeing you’re seeing all this things mediated by electrons and all this stuff you’re not seeing
336 00:36:47.190 –> 00:36:50.230 Mark Pock: like the microscopic as it is in itself.
337 00:36:51.890 –> 00:36:54.060 Mark Pock: And so you could say, Well, I can never know it.
338 00:36:54.350 –> 00:37:06.019 Mark Pock: Yeah, you can think of like cause. That’s literally what Con saying is like. These categories are like a microscope. But if you unpack the microscope, you can’t get back to the thing that you supposedly we’re supposed to see.
339 00:37:06.550 –> 00:37:11.179 Mark Pock: but that you might be looking for the absolutely. What kind of things you’re looking for the absolute in the wrong place.
340 00:37:11.200 –> 00:37:13.059 Mark Pock: or he goes thing that
341 00:37:14.490 –> 00:37:16.889 Mark Pock: and part of it is that you’re looking for the absolute.
342 00:37:19.420 –> 00:37:20.130 Mark Pock: Hmm.
343 00:37:22.310 –> 00:37:24.810 Mark Pock: okay.
344 00:37:26.850 –> 00:37:33.479 Mark Pock: 74. We’ll read a couple more. But we’ll get back to Andre.
345 00:37:34.900 –> 00:37:36.350 Mark Pock: Question. Okay?
346 00:37:36.930 –> 00:37:46.570 Mark Pock: Meanwhile, okay, so this is interesting. This is one of the one more famous passages. If the fear of falling into error, sets up a mistrust of science.
347 00:37:47.250 –> 00:37:55.069 Mark Pock: which is the absence of such scruple, which, which, in the absence of such scruples, gets on with the work itself. and actually cognizes something.
348 00:37:55.120 –> 00:38:01.619 Mark Pock: It is hard to see why we should not turn around and mistrust this very mistrust that is mistrust costs very skepticism
349 00:38:03.810 –> 00:38:05.710 Mark Pock: about knowing that the absolute
350 00:38:06.400 –> 00:38:11.909 Mark Pock: she would not be concerned as to whether this fear of error is not just the error itself.
351 00:38:13.100 –> 00:38:18.049 Mark Pock: Indeed, this fear takes something a great deal, in fact, for granted as truth.
352 00:38:18.290 –> 00:38:28.860 Mark Pock: this is the big thing. Tom’s got all kinds of presuppositions, just as Descartes did. Oh, Descartes doubted everything that could be doubted. And then what do you know we’re back to like 15 century
353 00:38:29.010 –> 00:38:32.840 Mark Pock: late scholastic metaphysics. Okay.
354 00:38:33.300 –> 00:38:39.579 Mark Pock: there’s all kinds of presuppositions in these guys. And what Hegel is. Well, we’ll get to that later.
355 00:38:40.420 –> 00:38:43.489 Mark Pock: Indeed, this fear of something
356 00:38:44.380 –> 00:39:01.219 Mark Pock: need this. Yeah. This fear of something takes a great deal, in fact, for granted. That’s true. It’s supporting it, scruples and inferences on what is itself in need of prior scrutiny to see if it is true. So it’s it’s supporting its doubt on this notion that the mind is a instrument
357 00:39:01.550 –> 00:39:04.250 Mark Pock: without questioning whether that’s what the mind is
358 00:39:06.370 –> 00:39:12.930 Mark Pock: to be specific, it takes for granted certain ideas about cognition as an instrument and as a medium.
359 00:39:12.940 –> 00:39:23.159 Mark Pock: and it assumes that there is a difference between ourselves and this cognition. above all, presupposes that the absolute stands on one side and a cognition on the other. The problem of the bridge.
360 00:39:23.680 –> 00:39:31.920 Mark Pock: independent and separated from it, and yet is something real, or, in other words, it presupposes that cognition, which, since it is excluded from the absolute.
361 00:39:32.660 –> 00:39:35.610 Mark Pock: is surely outside of the truth as well.
362 00:39:35.890 –> 00:39:46.410 Mark Pock: is nevertheless true. So this is a this is a fundamental problem which is kind of saying his philosophy is true. It’s a big deal, because he’s saying this is absolutely true
363 00:39:47.360 –> 00:39:48.959 Mark Pock: that you cannot know the absolute
364 00:39:51.270 –> 00:39:56.519 Mark Pock: He’s saying, this doesn’t just appear to me, this is true.
365 00:40:00.480 –> 00:40:16.529 Mark Pock: you might want to say, you, you might say, I’m not really saying that. But you people saying you you’re saying that. But he’s not, but he is. I think he is. Here’s why, if we look at it from an epistemological point of view, he’s saying
366 00:40:17.000 –> 00:40:32.870 Mark Pock: we don’t have in it. If we accept in our that we have categories of the mind if we accept that which Heckle doesn’t eventually. But if we accept that any, it will be a different notion of category. But yeah.
367 00:40:32.930 –> 00:40:40.430 Mark Pock: hey, go ahead. Hegel will say, that’s give me. Kant says that we can’t know the in itself.
368 00:40:40.760 –> 00:40:52.209 Mark Pock: if there isn’t in itself, there are things that might be beyond our ability to know things. There’s a limit to what we, the categories are limited.
369 00:40:52.250 –> 00:41:02.930 Mark Pock: and if there is, if that there, we can’t know everything, it could be things beyond our ability to understand our ability to yeah
370 00:41:03.270 –> 00:41:08.589 Mark Pock: cognitively and embrace them. So if those things
371 00:41:08.760 –> 00:41:20.909 Mark Pock: he, he, he’s making a statement that’s almost a skeptical statement in the sense in my understanding my humble opinion. By the way, it’s always
372 00:41:21.870 –> 00:41:26.619 Mark Pock: that there could be things beyond our ability to know them.
373 00:41:27.210 –> 00:41:29.220 Mark Pock: And it’s not
374 00:41:29.570 –> 00:41:34.629 Mark Pock: so. I think that’s an epistemological, he said in a mythological boundary
375 00:41:35.530 –> 00:41:39.090 Mark Pock: he’s in in, in the statement that well.
376 00:41:39.180 –> 00:41:48.259 Mark Pock: we see these. We see these representations. And we then recognize these representations. They must have a cause.
377 00:41:49.360 –> 00:41:51.770 Mark Pock: and that’s the absolute.
378 00:41:52.530 –> 00:42:02.930 Mark Pock: But the problem is that the causation is a category cause. It affects the category, which is that we understand things to cause an effect. And
379 00:42:03.320 –> 00:42:11.560 Mark Pock: what if there is another category that’s outside our ability to understand those kinds of relationships.
380 00:42:12.200 –> 00:42:22.079 Mark Pock: And so when he says that it’s an absolutely, can’t absolutely can’t know it, it’s because we don’t. Really, there may be things. It it. I think it’s
381 00:42:22.590 –> 00:42:27.159 Mark Pock: or friendly to say to God they may be things that we just don’t know.
382 00:42:28.100 –> 00:42:31.949 Mark Pock: Sure. But what? Okay that. That’s
383 00:42:32.390 –> 00:42:35.570 Mark Pock: I would say I would I would agree with that
384 00:42:36.950 –> 00:42:39.790 Mark Pock: But what Hegel is saying
385 00:42:40.320 –> 00:42:49.049 Mark Pock: is he saying that he’s still been saying, look, you’re just. This is this instrument over here? That’s the story, the Absolute.
386 00:42:50.900 –> 00:42:53.600 Mark Pock: How would you know this? That that’s the instrument.
387 00:42:55.110 –> 00:42:58.999 Mark Pock: presumably through the instrument? So are we into an infinite regress.
388 00:43:00.360 –> 00:43:02.970 Mark Pock: But no, he’s saying, no, this is the instrument.
389 00:43:03.690 –> 00:43:10.090 Mark Pock: This is true, this is what this is, not merely how knowledge appears to us. This is what knowledge is.
390 00:43:10.520 –> 00:43:12.040 Mark Pock: and that’s a contradiction.
391 00:43:17.650 –> 00:43:19.150 Mark Pock: That which is to say.
392 00:43:19.260 –> 00:43:32.069 Mark Pock: And this is a it’s a relatively standard critique of many conscience, miss it, but it’s not that controversial does Kant’s account cost pistonology account for C.
393 00:43:32.620 –> 00:43:35.439 Mark Pock: What costs doing in the in the critique?
394 00:43:35.570 –> 00:43:43.120 Mark Pock: What he says about knowledge? Does it account for what Con is actually doing in the critique itself, which is to say, this is absolutely true of cognition.
395 00:43:45.530 –> 00:43:47.389 Mark Pock: that cognition distorts its object.
396 00:43:58.330 –> 00:44:14.380 Mark Pock: Yes, good, please, please. What’s the what is the like? Prehigalian, modern heuristic notion, the absolute, if not the totality that contains all these things like? Why is it that conscious striving they do have an absolutely just outside of the minds to be in. Well, he’s not striving, he’s saying, Don’t strive.
397 00:44:14.460 –> 00:44:42.919 Mark Pock: Yeah, we’re well, I guess. Like, well, where did the where did the idea of like God being in all people like the Holy Spirit? The modeling? Where does that idea? Well, it’s been a. It’s like you have gone is everything. Where do you have like identity? Go between like, then between 1,600 and hey, where does that? Just is it your off? Why do you walk and can’t start talking about this great totality, and something which excludes us from it? or no, we’ve split ourselves from it for you? Why do we exclude ourselves from it
398 00:44:43.350 –> 00:44:59.820 Mark Pock: of our own limited backs, like, why did that say keep saying that we’re you so just like, why is that historically happened? Where is the moment where we stop thinking about the absolute has already been in each and every one of us for our sales is already being virtually well. The.
399 00:44:59.970 –> 00:45:05.779 Mark Pock: it seems like the the proximate context is the 30 Years War. The reformation of the 30 is worth
400 00:45:05.970 –> 00:45:15.679 Mark Pock: okay? And what the the all, the modern. Starting with Descartes, it found a little bit earlier. We’re saying you have. These scholastic philosophers talking about
401 00:45:15.900 –> 00:45:18.360 Mark Pock: the absolute is, if they were standing next to it.
402 00:45:19.400 –> 00:45:29.200 Mark Pock: that is, it was just there, but they they would all disagree about it. They couldn’t settle their disputes, so, for example, them. So this is like
403 00:45:29.260 –> 00:45:36.110 Mark Pock: maybe less trivial, although for the early moderns, into the full enlightenment period which we were getting into now
404 00:45:36.730 –> 00:45:38.110 Mark Pock: and then, Hegel.
405 00:45:38.260 –> 00:45:52.790 Mark Pock: the. These are all the same absurd questions whether you’re talking about Angel wanna have a PIN Feces smelling in the afterlife? But also is Jesus present in the Eucharist.
406 00:45:53.660 –> 00:46:04.529 Mark Pock: which is the for the Catholic masses. The center of the mass is the thing around which the whole math or mass revolves. Is that is, yeah. Transistentiation substance
407 00:46:05.000 –> 00:46:13.200 Mark Pock: does the substance of the. So here’s back to the substance. Does the host become a different substance.
408 00:46:13.880 –> 00:46:22.990 Mark Pock: and by the priest doing the magic. the me sorry, the the miracle. Okay, it has a merit. Okay?
409 00:46:23.140 –> 00:46:24.160 Mark Pock: And
410 00:46:24.420 –> 00:46:35.699 Mark Pock: And the Catholic said, yes, at least the Thomas, the Catholics from that would have taken over the termism of the late scholasticism.
411 00:46:36.310 –> 00:46:38.100 Mark Pock: And the
412 00:46:38.670 –> 00:46:41.619 Mark Pock: Lutheran said, no, Luther said, No, the
413 00:46:41.830 –> 00:46:43.180 Mark Pock: the
414 00:46:45.250 –> 00:46:47.910 What did he say it’s symbolically present.
415 00:46:47.930 –> 00:46:57.600 Mark Pock: Jesus is in both the President and the you, Chris, but not there. There’s no transubstantiation. There’s a certain presence. And then I think, Calvin said, there’s no presence at all
416 00:46:58.570 –> 00:47:10.529 Mark Pock: So the what? I don’t actually, I can’t remember what it is, because I I actually had a Calvin his friend that says, Yeah, we take this, we still take the egress. We drink the wine. But like.
417 00:47:11.080 –> 00:47:22.439 Mark Pock: we don’t really think it’s the real presence. It’s the yeah, this is from the real presence of the Real Presence, because for strict Catholic theology, God is there in the Eucharist. Okay? And so they have these fights
418 00:47:23.410 –> 00:47:29.850 Mark Pock: and what the early modern. Okay, then you have this third thing called the 3 Years War, which is an apocalyptic confrontation.
419 00:47:30.040 –> 00:47:40.659 Mark Pock: arguably worse than World war. 2 whole, like sections of Germany, were just wiped out like 50 of the population.
420 00:47:41.070 –> 00:47:46.700 Mark Pock: tortures and murders beyond imagination.
421 00:47:46.800 –> 00:47:49.900 Mark Pock: back and forth for 30 years. You mentioned that
422 00:47:50.130 –> 00:48:03.870 Mark Pock: just like half of Seattle gets wiped out by a torturous, bloody affair and just going keeps going on and on and on. Okay. And with these early modern, they they finally got over it. Okay. But the early modern Dayc was in the 30 years work.
423 00:48:04.160 –> 00:48:13.240 Mark Pock: He was in the first battle of the White Mountain. And he talks about it. He says, gosh, darn it, this is, they all say this is the beginning of
424 00:48:13.410 –> 00:48:14.900 Mark Pock: both the
425 00:48:15.570 –> 00:48:22.950 Mark Pock: discord, my method and discord on that. This goes on method and
426 00:48:23.500 –> 00:48:31.970 Mark Pock: meditation is on first philosophy. He’s like these scholastic one, shut up, and once, you know, we wind up in these endless wars that don’t so.
427 00:48:32.130 –> 00:48:34.849 Mark Pock: and that’s kind of the only way they can resolve their disputes.
428 00:48:35.040 –> 00:48:44.070 Mark Pock: They cannot resolve them intellectually, because they’re talking about things they cannot know about. They don’t realize that lots of the same thing.
429 00:48:44.260 –> 00:48:47.039 Mark Pock: Talk comes in human says same thing.
430 00:48:47.200 –> 00:48:53.639 Mark Pock: and they all say, we’re going to restart. We’re going to start over. We’re going to found things a new. This is the great Cartesian project we’re going to start over
431 00:48:54.050 –> 00:49:02.259 Mark Pock: well, didn’t work. Lots of knowing where I got this didn’t work, he says, don’t worry. I got this. Didn’t work, so don’t worry. I really, I got it this time.
433 00:49:06.390 –> 00:49:08.779 Mark Pock: And so why, when did that happen?
434 00:49:09.100 –> 00:49:14.079 Mark Pock: Well, it was yeah, it was kind of a it was, this is where politics and philosophy do
435 00:49:14.370 –> 00:49:16.699 Mark Pock: kind of have an important overlaps here.
436 00:49:16.920 –> 00:49:22.059 Mark Pock: because there was this, this huge disillusionment
437 00:49:23.150 –> 00:49:24.060 Mark Pock: with
438 00:49:24.770 –> 00:49:27.270 Mark Pock: religion, they call it the wars of religion
439 00:49:28.100 –> 00:49:29.580 Mark Pock: and
440 00:49:30.640 –> 00:49:40.019 Mark Pock: philosophy response. And of course there are other underlying currents like the new science mechanism and the idea that, like.
441 00:49:40.250 –> 00:49:47.050 Mark Pock: you know, then you have, like Deism or God. Kind of is this, you know, abstract watchmaker, but is not really imminent
442 00:49:47.430 –> 00:49:56.040 Mark Pock: in reality. and just S. The universe in motion, but then backs away. That kind of falls away. And then you’re kind of yeah, you’re just left with.
443 00:49:56.710 –> 00:50:02.990 Mark Pock: no longer a sense. Yeah, that God is present in the in this world
444 00:50:04.050 –> 00:50:05.290 Mark Pock: that has left us
445 00:50:06.510 –> 00:50:08.540 Mark Pock: as a editor, finally said.
446 00:50:10.250 –> 00:50:11.930 Mark Pock: I don’t know if that answer your question
447 00:50:12.180 –> 00:50:24.959 Mark Pock: so just as the historical piece that it’s just like the same, actually as like a similar solution. And Bowling World War Ii, that it’s so. It’s it’s it’s generates. Yeah, yeah, yeah, I would say, that’s longer. Yeah.
448 00:50:24.970 –> 00:50:39.730 Mark Pock: But yeah, just the other part of my question is that in what sense isn’t table just a rehab? Oh, oh, oh, just in what sense he’s in table just to rehash this elastic ideas about God just being here. Yeah. So he thinks he is passing through this trauma
449 00:50:39.940 –> 00:50:41.430 Mark Pock: of maternity.
450 00:50:42.090 –> 00:50:50.110 Mark Pock: and because what Hegel wants to say is, spirit does allow for this absolute alienation.
451 00:50:51.960 –> 00:50:57.459 Mark Pock: but then it reconciles. and that images of the reconciliation were already present
452 00:50:57.850 –> 00:51:01.190 Mark Pock: in Christian imagery. For example, Jesus
453 00:51:01.770 –> 00:51:03.920 Mark Pock: going through death and coming out.
454 00:51:04.720 –> 00:51:09.879 Mark Pock: And so he’s saying in modernity, yeah, there was this routing of
455 00:51:10.310 –> 00:51:12.680 Mark Pock: for the Absolute.
456 00:51:13.940 –> 00:51:22.040 Mark Pock: We’re in the pretty free modern. They hadn’t experienced that quite yet, although there, some of their images suggested that of course this thing
457 00:51:22.640 –> 00:51:30.810 Mark Pock: it’s like this is spiraling upwards right? And so you have to pass through this modern philosophy where you’re fully alienating from the absolutely.
458 00:51:32.070 –> 00:51:35.329 Mark Pock: and then reconcile, which is, makes it different then.
459 00:51:35.420 –> 00:51:40.829 Mark Pock: supposedly pre modern, where the Absolute was sort of naively accepted
460 00:51:42.130 –> 00:51:43.279 Mark Pock: as present.
461 00:51:43.550 –> 00:51:45.790 Mark Pock: Now it’s critically read.
462 00:51:46.160 –> 00:51:47.060 Mark Pock: gathered.
463 00:51:48.910 –> 00:51:58.040 Mark Pock: that would. That’s what Hegel, like most general terms. How he would say, project is different than or not, just a rehash between the Supreme. It is a recovery of the pre-modern.
464 00:51:59.140 –> 00:52:02.349 Mark Pock: He’s saying yes, because the Absolute never was over here.
465 00:52:04.230 –> 00:52:06.989 Mark Pock: In fact, what you can say is, this, is the absolute
466 00:52:08.560 –> 00:52:09.470 Mark Pock: scared.
467 00:52:11.430 –> 00:52:13.759 Mark Pock: and but it
468 00:52:14.100 –> 00:52:15.770 Mark Pock: it needs its essence
469 00:52:16.280 –> 00:52:19.130 Mark Pock: only to.
470 00:52:23.450 –> 00:52:40.719 Mark Pock: Oh, very good question of how far away. Okay, but he’s he’s in authoritarianism of the church. But he did seem to retain the kernel. The main notion that you’re talking about
471 00:52:40.920 –> 00:52:50.479 Mark Pock: unless he’s saying that it can happen, and it it maybe the person becomes we become. The mind is the instrument of the sphere becomes the instrument.
472 00:52:50.620 –> 00:52:56.260 Mark Pock: whereas in I was thinking of someone like Meister Echart or the the mystics who thought
473 00:52:56.490 –> 00:53:06.779 Mark Pock: they always had that unity presence. We’re only needed from unity, and we’ll only be there after death. Right? We’ll only be there fast enough. But is Hegel making that
474 00:53:07.070 –> 00:53:08.090 Mark Pock: a
475 00:53:08.320 –> 00:53:19.400 Mark Pock: secular? Yeah, okay, yeah, yeah, all right. But it’s still steeped in the in this idea. Right? Yeah, that was the question. It’s like, how far is he? Really?
476 00:53:19.740 –> 00:53:21.340 Mark Pock: Yeah, I mean, there.
477 00:53:21.770 –> 00:53:25.969 Mark Pock: Hegel, I mean, Heckart was the great German mystic, and he was.
478 00:53:26.240 –> 00:53:30.560 Mark Pock: He had that yeah.
479 00:53:31.460 –> 00:53:32.330 Mark Pock: And
480 00:53:32.640 –> 00:53:37.210 Mark Pock: spirit. It preserves itself even in that death.
481 00:53:37.280 –> 00:53:57.060 Mark Pock: Yeah, because they have mystics penetrate things by saying they actually have. Yes, yeah. And what Hegel is saying, we can be on that mysticism to rational conceptual grass of the absolutely. The categories are not tools. They are the thing.
482 00:54:18.620 –> 00:54:23.190 Mark Pock: okay, let’s oh, sorry. Go ahead.
483 00:54:23.470 –> 00:54:37.019 Mark Pock: I don’t want to be. No, please. I was, you know, I can’t get thinking I’m new here. Okay, so up there’s not anything. The first time around. We’re all just new here, too. But then there’s the the other connection is Hume and Kant.
484 00:54:37.130 –> 00:54:38.439 Mark Pock: In what? That
485 00:54:38.680 –> 00:54:42.550 Mark Pock: the huge notion that you can’t see cause and effect.
486 00:54:42.990 –> 00:54:53.560 Mark Pock: you know Billy Ball hits another bill. You. You don’t see the calls. In effect, you see 1 billion bob moving in another bill. So Cohen agrees with that. You don’t see that.
487 00:54:53.680 –> 00:55:12.519 Mark Pock: So where is this causing effect? And then he comes up with this notion of categories, which is a different way of looking at the world as opposed to world looking at the world as you start with objects in the world, especially in organic conflicts in the world. And then you try to figure him out scientifically, let’s say.
488 00:55:12.640 –> 00:55:30.050 Mark Pock: But here he’s saying that all this is in your mind. The the constant effect is in your mind. That’s a whole new. you know, twist. and then starts off on the thing. Well, if that’s why our mind is structured, then we can’t go the absolute. So it’s a
489 00:55:31.040 –> 00:55:32.349 Mark Pock: what what’s that next
490 00:55:32.480 –> 00:55:36.039 Mark Pock: that Brooklyn.
491 00:55:36.180 –> 00:55:51.070 Mark Pock: I’m from Boston. But I was married to a woman from Brooklyn for 19 years. Really, yeah, which destroys anybody’s ability to talk like a regularly
492 00:55:53.210 –> 00:55:55.880 Mark Pock: wow, yeah. Interesting.
493 00:55:57.240 –> 00:56:03.190 Mark Pock: okay. Well. yeah. Anyway, let’s
494 00:56:03.440 –> 00:56:04.710 Mark Pock: So what he says.
495 00:56:05.920 –> 00:56:14.539 Mark Pock: it presupposes that cognition, which is which, since it is, it is excluded from the Abs, and it is surely outside the truth as well. It’s never the less true
496 00:56:14.780 –> 00:56:21.020 Mark Pock: an assumption whereby what calls itself fear of error reveals itself rather as fear of the truth.
497 00:56:24.040 –> 00:56:29.580 Mark Pock: This conclusion stems from the fact that the absolute alone is true. for the truth alone is absolutely.
498 00:56:29.880 –> 00:56:35.730 Mark Pock: which is what? This is a big thing. Okay, this is enormous, because what is being said here is
499 00:56:37.680 –> 00:56:40.440 Mark Pock: what’s the criterion for
500 00:56:41.480 –> 00:56:42.610 Mark Pock: knowing
501 00:56:43.210 –> 00:56:47.440 Mark Pock: the absolute for for Kant. What is it?
502 00:56:48.750 –> 00:56:52.250 Mark Pock: And but if it, if we could know, how would we know it
503 00:56:54.400 –> 00:56:57.890 Mark Pock: to our mind through immediate intuition?
504 00:56:59.100 –> 00:57:09.039 Mark Pock: Yeah, but we can’t do that, because anything that’s given to us an intuition is distorted. Okay? But sense sensuition, tuition
505 00:57:09.620 –> 00:57:17.670 Mark Pock: immediacy is the ideal of knowledge for content. he said. We can’t get it. And so, therefore we can’t know the absolute
506 00:57:18.830 –> 00:57:25.099 Mark Pock: Hegel is saying, no, the criterion for knowing the absolute is not sensuous intuition. It’s truth.
507 00:57:27.110 –> 00:57:29.000 Mark Pock: What is true is what is absolute.
508 00:57:30.690 –> 00:57:34.999 Mark Pock: And so when Kant says that it is true that the mind is this way.
509 00:57:35.430 –> 00:57:46.560 Mark Pock: that’s what he’s saying. You’re then you’re saying, that’s what’s absolute. So you have to. You have to shift your cr. This is the whole thing we’ll get into. When the progressions of forms of consciousness. They have different criteria of truth.
510 00:57:46.870 –> 00:57:49.380 Mark Pock: but make something true. Hmm.
511 00:57:49.770 –> 00:57:54.469 Mark Pock: and for and what and that by which one knows the absolute.
512 00:57:54.480 –> 00:57:57.130 Mark Pock: for he has an ideal of truth which
513 00:57:57.410 –> 00:58:01.500 Mark Pock: we saw. It’s who Serrell does not fully overcome.
514 00:58:02.090 –> 00:58:03.120 Mark Pock: which is that
515 00:58:03.500 –> 00:58:08.349 Mark Pock: the Absolute must be given an immediate intuition on
516 00:58:08.680 –> 00:58:11.530 Mark Pock: which is what? okay.
517 00:58:12.140 –> 00:58:18.230 Mark Pock: that is that is that that appearance.
518 00:58:18.740 –> 00:58:20.690 Mark Pock: anyway? It’s shining.
519 00:58:20.750 –> 00:58:26.950 Mark Pock: Yeah.
520 00:58:30.810 –> 00:58:34.569 Mark Pock: yes, Joe. But actually
521 00:58:35.950 –> 00:58:39.390 Mark Pock: it. It’s because, you know, I can get like converted.
522 00:58:40.310 –> 00:58:43.600 Mark Pock: The is actually so you say.
523 00:58:43.800 –> 00:58:49.449 Mark Pock: look, look over there. but it is your origin of our show.
524 00:58:49.950 –> 00:58:58.480 Mark Pock: So that’s where it can sound like an appearance, but it’s actually on sound, which is to say, looking into something.
525 00:58:59.360 –> 00:59:01.479 Mark Pock: And so
526 00:59:03.360 –> 00:59:04.410 Mark Pock: for
527 00:59:04.550 –> 00:59:09.220 Mark Pock: haunt and for him
528 00:59:10.390 –> 00:59:16.360 Mark Pock: the ideal of objectivity is looking
529 00:59:16.610 –> 00:59:17.610 Mark Pock: on show.
530 00:59:18.660 –> 00:59:23.100 Mark Pock: and all they say is, you can’t get the object in itself through looking.
531 00:59:23.940 –> 00:59:31.579 Mark Pock: Hegel says, that’s not how you know the ups. You know the absolute, not through looking, but through knowing the true.
532 00:59:32.490 –> 00:59:37.739 Mark Pock: Okay, so the question is, what’s the criterion for for knowing? Is it on show.
533 00:59:38.370 –> 00:59:42.279 Mark Pock: or is the truth. and there’s also a gradations in between there.
534 00:59:43.320 –> 00:59:52.529 Mark Pock: But that’s a that’s a fundamental thing. This is. I’m getting a little bit of a longer gaming thing in the background here. But it’s clear right here from Hegel that you have to. You have to learn to
535 00:59:52.830 –> 00:59:55.839 Mark Pock: overcome the naive presupposition that
536 00:59:57.480 –> 01:00:00.669 Mark Pock: to know being is to to have it given to you. An intuition
537 01:00:01.160 –> 01:00:07.229 Mark Pock: rather than to know being, is to know the true that actually goes back to a pre modern notion, which is the idea of the
538 01:00:07.490 –> 01:00:11.880 Mark Pock: the convertibility.
539 01:00:12.860 –> 01:00:17.440 Mark Pock: This is the old notion of the transport vert ability of the transcendentals.
540 01:00:21.210 –> 01:00:22.450 Mark Pock: This is a
541 01:00:25.900 –> 01:00:32.010 Mark Pock: fundamentals. These are the original categories. modern categories. a true
542 01:00:33.290 –> 01:00:34.170 Mark Pock: good
543 01:00:35.910 –> 01:00:36.960 Mark Pock: being
544 01:00:38.620 –> 01:00:39.760 Mark Pock: beautiful.
545 01:00:40.840 –> 01:00:43.769 Mark Pock: And you asked about simplicity to this
546 01:00:44.850 –> 01:00:46.850 Mark Pock: simplicity or unit team.
547 01:00:50.670 –> 01:00:51.770 Mark Pock: And
548 01:00:52.870 –> 01:00:58.579 Mark Pock: okay, what this is the this is the last of you. Which is it? Because what they were saying is, they had this notion. Okay.
549 01:00:59.970 –> 01:01:02.719 Mark Pock: metaphysics was the.
550 01:01:02.840 –> 01:01:08.410 Mark Pock: And so what they? What they said is, okay. What does it? What must some? What? What was something
551 01:01:08.610 –> 01:01:10.160 Mark Pock: be in order to be?
552 01:01:11.320 –> 01:01:14.830 Mark Pock: That is what are the one of the most. So, for example, like, if you go up
553 01:01:15.080 –> 01:01:18.649 Mark Pock: this is the. This is the hierarchy of
554 01:01:19.320 –> 01:01:21.349 Mark Pock: the sort of Aristotelian
555 01:01:22.640 –> 01:01:28.860 Mark Pock: low chart. Okay? So you have, like, you know.
556 01:01:29.170 –> 01:01:30.760 Mark Pock: different individuals.
557 01:01:32.010 –> 01:01:38.450 Mark Pock: bread and James, hey? And then you have human right. But you can also have
558 01:01:39.350 –> 01:01:41.470 Mark Pock: of a you know, an 8.
559 01:01:42.270 –> 01:01:44.809 Mark Pock: So you don’t have to be in hate in order to be
560 01:01:46.650 –> 01:01:47.490 Mark Pock: yeah.
561 01:01:49.030 –> 01:01:51.420 Mark Pock: But so that category is
562 01:01:51.760 –> 01:02:00.770 Mark Pock: not universal or necessary in order to be, you don’t have to be in a but in order to be, you do have to be.
563 01:02:01.970 –> 01:02:07.049 Mark Pock: And for the traditional philosophy you had to be good
564 01:02:09.530 –> 01:02:10.990 Mark Pock: and also beautiful.
565 01:02:13.370 –> 01:02:15.190 Mark Pock: and you have to be one thing.
566 01:02:16.380 –> 01:02:23.960 Mark Pock: that is to say, mere diffusion as such is doesn’t exist. That would be pure potency.
567 01:02:25.430 –> 01:02:29.360 Mark Pock: If any anything to exist, it must be. What can that be unified in some way?
568 01:02:31.030 –> 01:02:33.559 Mark Pock: There’s another thing. It’s just just that.
569 01:02:35.520 –> 01:02:36.669 Mark Pock: Show me black.
570 01:02:38.930 –> 01:02:42.459 Mark Pock: It has to have. Actually, you is actually a criterion for me.
571 01:02:42.920 –> 01:02:49.230 Mark Pock: And but here’s the thing true also. This is, think, if it’s assign it. B. It must be true, then it.
572 01:02:50.710 –> 01:02:55.619 Mark Pock: which is to say that being in truth are convertible, not on challenge.
573 01:03:00.140 –> 01:03:02.400 Mark Pock: And so then the question of what is true.
574 01:03:03.990 –> 01:03:05.490 Mark Pock: But this is
575 01:03:05.550 –> 01:03:06.630 Mark Pock: famously
576 01:03:06.790 –> 01:03:11.690 Mark Pock: when they talk about medium. This is what this is, the things. This is what this is.
577 01:03:11.950 –> 01:03:13.540 Mark Pock: Truth was the medium.
578 01:03:14.980 –> 01:03:22.379 Mark Pock: It was called like end, mediocre, or something that by which the beating is known. But the point is that they’re not 2 different things.
579 01:03:22.500 –> 01:03:24.120 Mark Pock: They’re they’re convertible.
580 01:03:25.580 –> 01:03:27.239 Mark Pock: Truth and being are convertible.
581 01:03:29.040 –> 01:03:33.950 Mark Pock: anyway, that’s kind of sorry. That was kind of maybe good about that. That’s
582 01:03:34.220 –> 01:03:38.860 Mark Pock: that’s just so, you know that that’s the part of the background of the content notion of
583 01:03:38.970 –> 01:03:44.260 Mark Pock: the categories. These are the original transcendentals, because transcendental here, just and
584 01:03:44.460 –> 01:03:46.650 Mark Pock: transcending any particular category.
585 01:03:46.880 –> 01:03:50.500 Mark Pock: What for all things must possess
586 01:03:51.110 –> 01:03:53.460 Mark Pock: goodness being beauty in order to be.
587 01:03:54.420 –> 01:03:58.380 Mark Pock: and but it’s important that truth is there too, because truth
588 01:03:58.640 –> 01:04:03.880 Mark Pock: is that by which being is known. and that’s true for pre-modern.
589 01:04:04.940 –> 01:04:09.230 Mark Pock: although not all of them, because you have you go back and find. Actually there were these
590 01:04:10.260 –> 01:04:11.649 Mark Pock: on sound
591 01:04:12.380 –> 01:04:14.699 Mark Pock: in like
592 01:04:15.490 –> 01:04:28.179 Mark Pock: all throughout lost. It repeats again and again this notion that you’re gonna if you want to find the absolute, you have to find it an immediate, sensuous intuition. You constantly just get disappointed that it’s not actually there. And then you say, Okay, then it can’t be known.
593 01:04:29.700 –> 01:04:33.599 Mark Pock: Instead of saying, maybe my criterion for knowing is is the problem.
594 01:04:38.470 –> 01:04:41.130 Mark Pock: Okay? Last little last little session here.
595 01:04:41.160 –> 01:04:48.670 Mark Pock: and then actually, we’ll do I what do you want to get back to your question about? So? Because I got one little thing to say, but let’s finish one or 2 more of these barriers.
596 01:04:52.570 –> 01:04:57.689 Mark Pock: This, this, this conclusion comes from the fact that the absolute alone is true, or truth alone is absolute
597 01:04:57.990 –> 01:05:04.420 Mark Pock: when they set this aside on the grounds. If there’s a type of cognition which, though it does not recognize the absolute as science teams to
598 01:05:04.820 –> 01:05:18.449 Mark Pock: is still true, and that cognition in general, though it is incapable of grasping the absolute, still capable of grasping other kinds of truth. This is Kant, that you can, that you can grasp truth of the phenomenal world.
599 01:05:19.110 –> 01:05:20.790 Mark Pock: but not truth, truth.
600 01:05:22.510 –> 01:05:31.409 Mark Pock: But we gradually come to see that this kind of talk which goes back and forth only leads to a hazy distinction between the absolute truth and some other kind of truth.
601 01:05:32.950 –> 01:05:38.549 Mark Pock: and the words, like absolute cognition, etc. presuppose a meeting which is not has yet to be ascertained.
602 01:05:40.150 –> 01:05:46.420 Mark Pock: yeah, we could probably see that.
603 01:05:48.030 –> 01:05:50.649 Mark Pock: Probably stop there, I guess.
604 01:05:53.440 –> 01:05:59.110 Mark Pock: hopefully, I may help you guys getting through the rest of the Oh, there’s one big thing
605 01:05:59.420 –> 01:06:02.190 Mark Pock: we’ll get to that. Maybe I’ll write something about this for you guys
606 01:06:02.200 –> 01:06:06.960 Mark Pock: for because it’s it’s kind of a big topic. For in in paragraphs
607 01:06:09.830 –> 01:06:14.300 Mark Pock: 78 starting, it’s a big thing. Because this this
608 01:06:16.940 –> 01:06:18.280 Mark Pock: let me actually see?
609 01:06:20.850 –> 01:06:23.140 Mark Pock: Actually, yeah, a little bit further down
610 01:06:31.900 –> 01:06:37.259 Mark Pock: okay, so this is okay. So this is a
611 01:06:39.520 –> 01:06:48.109 Mark Pock: where he’s so where he starts to talk about the problem of the criterion. So the problem with the criterion
612 01:06:48.120 –> 01:06:54.810 Mark Pock: he knows paradox. the whole idea of do we have a criterion that can test itself?
613 01:06:55.960 –> 01:07:02.800 Mark Pock: and so he says, I’ll just read it really quick and 81 and 82. I’m just going to read through it.
614 01:07:03.870 –> 01:07:09.460 Mark Pock: So, in addition to these preliminary general remarks about the manner and necessity of the progression. Blah blah blah
615 01:07:10.310 –> 01:07:14.289 Mark Pock: It is this.
616 01:07:15.330 –> 01:07:28.949 Mark Pock: If this exposition is viewed as a way of relating science to phenomenal knowledge, and as an investigation and examination of the reality of cognition, it would seem that it cannot take place without some presupposition we can which can serve as the underlying criterion.
617 01:07:29.910 –> 01:07:31.729 Mark Pock: It’s a who.
618 01:07:31.770 –> 01:07:34.370 Mark Pock: for a proof in in German.
619 01:07:34.590 –> 01:07:36.079 Mark Pock: but needs to prove itself
620 01:07:36.640 –> 01:07:49.549 Mark Pock: for an examination consistent applying an accepted standard and determining whether something is right or wrong on the basis of the resulting agreement or disagreement of the thing examined. It’s a standard as such, and science likewise, if it were, the criterion.
621 01:07:50.270 –> 01:08:01.080 Mark Pock: is accepted as the essence or as the thing in itself. But here, where science has just begun to come on the scene. Neither the science or anything else is justified itself as the essence.
622 01:08:02.950 –> 01:08:07.390 Mark Pock: and and without something of the sort it seems that no examination can take place.
623 01:08:07.590 –> 01:08:14.220 Mark Pock: You don’t know the criterion by which we’re going to judge everything else. Now, how are we going to know that we’re even going in the right direction.
624 01:08:14.710 –> 01:08:26.609 Mark Pock: This contradiction and its removal will become more definite if we call to mind the abstract or terminations of truth and knowledge is the current conscious consciousness simultaneously distinguishes itself from something. Okay. This is the big, the.
625 01:08:27.609 –> 01:08:39.549 Mark Pock: and at the same time relates itself to it. Or, as it is said, this something exists for consciousness. and the determined aspect of this relating of, or of the being of something, for consciousness is knowing.
626 01:08:39.930 –> 01:08:49.980 Mark Pock: But we distinguish this being for another from being in itself. That is the same con just did that for us the thing in itself versus its appearance.
627 01:08:51.740 –> 01:08:58.769 Mark Pock: Whatever is related to knowledge or knowing, is also distinguished from it, and positive as existing outside this relationship.
628 01:08:59.490 –> 01:09:01.810 Mark Pock: This being in itself is called truth.
629 01:09:02.170 –> 01:09:11.559 Mark Pock: Just what might be involved in this these determinations is of no further concern to us here, since our object is phenomenal knowledge, determination to blah blah blah.
630 01:09:11.859 –> 01:09:19.500 Mark Pock: Now, if we inquire into the truth of knowledge. It seems that we are asking what knowledge in itself is, hey? That’s what I was just talking about, right
631 01:09:20.270 –> 01:09:28.109 Mark Pock: to be talking about what knowledge in itself is yet in this inquiry knowledge is our object, something that exists for us.
632 01:09:28.140 –> 01:09:38.940 Mark Pock: so we just distorting it and coming to know what it is. and the in itself that would supposedly result from it would rather be the being of knowledge for us. And then we’re in an infinite regress.
633 01:09:39.750 –> 01:09:46.050 Mark Pock: What we assert it to be, its essence would be no. not so much. It’s truth, but rather just our knowledge of it.
634 01:09:46.120 –> 01:09:49.239 Mark Pock: Yes, since our criterion would lie outside within ourselves.
635 01:09:49.390 –> 01:09:58.420 Mark Pock: and that which was to be compared with it, and about which a decision would be reached. Through this comparison it would not necessarily have to recognize the validity of such a standard.
636 01:09:58.490 –> 01:10:00.300 Mark Pock: That’s the problem with comparison.
637 01:10:02.130 –> 01:10:03.590 Mark Pock: Okay, now, here’s the thing.
638 01:10:06.150 –> 01:10:11.039 Mark Pock: But the dissociation or the the semblance of the dissociation
639 01:10:11.270 –> 01:10:23.320 Mark Pock: and presupposition is overcome by the nature of the object we are interested in. Consciousness provides its own criterion from within itself. so that the investigation becomes a comparison of consciousness with itself.
640 01:10:23.410 –> 01:10:29.140 Mark Pock: or, in other words, no comparison at all. or the distinction made above falls within it.
641 01:10:30.040 –> 01:10:36.030 Mark Pock: that is to say, the distinction between the being in itself versus the being for us falls within consciousness.
642 01:10:37.960 –> 01:10:38.760 Mark Pock: Yeah.
643 01:10:40.070 –> 01:10:42.549 Mark Pock: And consciousness. One thing exists for another.
644 01:10:43.760 –> 01:11:03.759 Mark Pock: I consciousness regularly. It contains the determinations of the moment of knowledge. At the same time, this other is consciousness, not merely for it is to conscious, it is not really for, but it’s also outside of this relationship existing in itself the moment of truth. Thus, and what questions the firms from within itself as being in itself, or the true, we have the standard which consciousness itself, consciousness itself sets up
645 01:11:04.290 –> 01:11:06.150 Mark Pock: by which to measure what it knows.
646 01:11:06.500 –> 01:11:09.340 Mark Pock: If we distinguish knowledge as the notion.
647 01:11:09.610 –> 01:11:12.229 Mark Pock: but the essence or the true as what exists.
648 01:11:12.350 –> 01:11:15.269 Mark Pock: Okay. So then he goes on and say, you can just
649 01:11:17.310 –> 01:11:30.179 Mark Pock: the step. So consciousness provides its own. Essentially, what he’s saying is, consciousness provides some standard. and drawing this distinction between being merely for it and being for itself, that is, or being in itself, that
650 01:11:30.740 –> 01:11:36.250 Mark Pock: distinction falls within consciousness, so that you don’t have to compare something outside of consciousness.
651 01:11:37.490 –> 01:11:42.429 Mark Pock: in order to know whether or not you know the object. Consciousness
652 01:11:43.070 –> 01:11:49.510 Mark Pock: has already self made the distinction in some sense overcome the distinction, because it just is itself
653 01:11:51.010 –> 01:11:54.790 Mark Pock: in the distinction. let me see if I can say it better.
654 01:11:55.380 –> 01:11:59.590 Mark Pock: If we doesn’t acknowledge as the notion.
655 01:12:00.570 –> 01:12:07.810 Mark Pock: But this is true of what exists on the object and the examination consist, and seeing whether the notion corresponds to the object. But if you call the essence, or the in itself, or the
656 01:12:07.830 –> 01:12:12.650 Mark Pock: of the object, the notion, and then the the other hand, understand the object
657 01:12:13.040 –> 01:12:20.420 Mark Pock: the notion itself as objects. This one, then the examinations is what it is evident, of course, that the 2 procedures are the same.
658 01:12:20.560 –> 01:12:28.620 Mark Pock: but the essential point to bear in mind throughout the whole investigation is that these 2 moments notion in objects so notion, there is concept
659 01:12:29.530 –> 01:12:34.709 Mark Pock: an object so cons categories. and the object.
660 01:12:34.720 –> 01:12:40.620 Mark Pock: the thing in itself, and being for another, and being in itself both fall within that knowledge we are investigating.
661 01:12:41.920 –> 01:12:53.940 Mark Pock: Consequently we do not need to import criteria to make our use of our own bright ideas and thoughts during the course of the inquiry is precisely when we leave these aside that we succeed in contemplating the matter in hand as it is in for itself.
662 01:12:59.980 –> 01:13:07.839 Mark Pock: That’s the that’s the crucial. It’s the core of the whole thing. Yeah. Consciousness provides its own criterion.
663 01:13:10.130 –> 01:13:15.270 Mark Pock: it should be discussed.
664 01:13:15.380 –> 01:13:18.739 Mark Pock: I’m not sure it’s notion of imminent criterion.
665 01:13:19.250 –> 01:13:23.580 Mark Pock: Okay? And the point being is that when Kant does this
666 01:13:26.170 –> 01:13:27.570 Mark Pock: made it, the
667 01:13:28.190 –> 01:13:30.859 Mark Pock: thinking about. It’s in his consciousness.
668 01:13:34.420 –> 01:13:36.280 Mark Pock: That’s
669 01:13:36.400 –> 01:13:38.590 Mark Pock: what’s that?
670 01:13:40.360 –> 01:13:43.919 Mark Pock: Our
671 01:13:44.320 –> 01:13:46.470 Mark Pock: if Con is describing how our mind works.
672 01:13:47.680 –> 01:13:58.899 Mark Pock: I guess. But something. So what’s that one that’s please. I am sorry. No, no, we’re not. I’m saying I
673 01:13:59.180 –> 01:14:05.090 Mark Pock: because of the we we talk about, because this is the problem with comparison. Right?
674 01:14:06.110 –> 01:14:09.810 Mark Pock: How do you know that you have the thing itself to compare to your knowledge of it?
675 01:14:10.740 –> 01:14:12.460 Mark Pock: It’s presumably
676 01:14:12.680 –> 01:14:14.569 Mark Pock: your knowledge that knowing this
677 01:14:15.750 –> 01:14:16.820 Mark Pock: and so
678 01:14:17.240 –> 01:14:23.009 Mark Pock: but the question, okay, another way of thinking about this. Have you ever known anything? That was true?
679 01:14:27.580 –> 01:14:29.310 Mark Pock: Okay, how did you know that?
680 01:14:31.410 –> 01:14:37.430 Mark Pock: And if you were to say. Well, I had. I looked over here the thing that I knew, and it my knowledge of it.
681 01:14:38.430 –> 01:14:45.959 Mark Pock: There’s that’s that’s just incoherent, because you just presumably you know that this is the thing.
682 01:14:46.480 –> 01:14:48.880 Mark Pock: All right. Hmm.
683 01:14:50.100 –> 01:14:52.410 Mark Pock: so there must be an imminent criterion.
684 01:14:53.630 –> 01:14:55.610 Mark Pock: Knowledge cannot be comparison
685 01:14:56.920 –> 01:14:59.049 Mark Pock: of the criterion with the thing.
686 01:15:02.140 –> 01:15:20.779 Mark Pock: I I it feels I keep getting up pulled back to 77 and other parts for now, because to me, what’s missing? Because I don’t quite comprehend that is the process like, and it’s like.
687 01:15:20.780 –> 01:15:32.670 Mark Pock: because he talks about the path of the natural consciousness which presses toward to knowledge and sort of the spirit of inquiry is the reason. It’s not just the criterion. It’s the fact that our minds
688 01:15:32.750 –> 01:15:51.909 Mark Pock: and I can’t. You know I have never come to a truth without a process. So that’s not with the criterion discussion. I don’t feel the process part. But is that just? That’s the evolution of the the criterion, in some sense is the criterion of the process. It’s the sort of the thing that it’s the kick off. Yeah, it guides it.
689 01:15:52.000 –> 01:15:54.229 Mark Pock: Yeah, it’s it’s
690 01:15:54.370 –> 01:16:02.920 Mark Pock: cause you you’re anticipating already the end in the beginning. It’s that very dynamism
691 01:16:03.630 –> 01:16:11.770 Mark Pock: that’s that’s a big word dynamic. He talks about it. It’s because it’s the same word as he could translate as potency. Dynamism
692 01:16:12.610 –> 01:16:14.630 Mark Pock: is
693 01:16:15.840 –> 01:16:18.369 Mark Pock: the it’s motion
694 01:16:18.590 –> 01:16:22.199 Mark Pock: towards the end. But it’s not just like
695 01:16:22.210 –> 01:16:24.730 Mark Pock: it’s not merely it’s dynamic.
696 01:16:25.520 –> 01:16:32.529 Mark Pock: So the the criterion is dynamic. It’s not just the state of rest. So it’s just sitting there. It’s anticipating an end.
697 01:16:33.090 –> 01:16:35.640 Mark Pock: So. And again for me.
698 01:16:35.650 –> 01:16:37.119 Mark Pock: this is where just the
699 01:16:38.030 –> 01:16:42.419 Mark Pock: the money isn’t monitoring because you can just go. Have you ever asked the question?
700 01:16:43.210 –> 01:16:47.110 Mark Pock: That’s the imminent Cr, the imminent criterion is a dynamic anticipation.
701 01:16:47.300 –> 01:16:50.640 Mark Pock: It doesn’t quite have that clear phenomenology
702 01:16:51.070 –> 01:16:52.910 Mark Pock: of questioning, for example.
703 01:16:53.130 –> 01:17:07.160 Mark Pock: So he’s gonna still, he’s he’s he’s aware of it. He he hasn’t quite gotten there yet, either. And so he’s going to talk about this imminent criterion is kind of work around it, but he’ll have a general. It’s it’s it’s actually more or less.
704 01:17:07.560 –> 01:17:11.429 Mark Pock: It’s an notion that there’s a kind of imminent.
705 01:17:12.010 –> 01:17:14.290 Mark Pock: Tell us an imminent tendency
706 01:17:15.140 –> 01:17:15.910 Mark Pock: that
707 01:17:16.470 –> 01:17:21.429 Mark Pock: can judge whether or not the thing that it anticipates has satisfied hit.
708 01:17:22.770 –> 01:17:24.279 Mark Pock: because what it turns out
709 01:17:25.410 –> 01:17:29.590 Mark Pock: for for longing and for a
710 01:17:30.030 –> 01:17:32.119 Mark Pock: hey? Go
711 01:17:32.980 –> 01:17:38.530 Mark Pock: the ultimate criterion. How you know you’ve got the absolute. Are you satisfied?
712 01:17:41.950 –> 01:17:48.560 Mark Pock: Are you satisfied? I’m not sense. But notice, okay, you got that criteria in you.
713 01:17:51.150 –> 01:17:58.200 Mark Pock: does he say that across all beings? Because, let’s say, spirit is in
714 01:17:58.250 –> 01:18:01.009 Mark Pock: all of us that we have the same criterion.
715 01:18:02.810 –> 01:18:07.430 Mark Pock: Yeah, I mean, yeah. I mean, you know, he’s a good
716 01:18:08.380 –> 01:18:17.649 Mark Pock: kind of job of the enlightenment that this is a a universal truth of all humanity. one spirit
717 01:18:20.170 –> 01:18:29.740 Mark Pock: The differences are explicable. has moments in the unfolding and the fact that you know
718 01:18:30.150 –> 01:18:38.120 Mark Pock: because, like what he’ll say is, you could just it’s there in K. He’s already got it. He just doesn’t quite see what he’s got.
719 01:18:38.140 –> 01:18:40.470 Mark Pock: because the the Absolute is already there.
720 01:18:41.660 –> 01:18:49.960 Mark Pock: and the but it’s not yet forkant. The absolute is income. But it’s obviously at 4 con. I see, and that’s happening all the time everywhere for everyone
721 01:18:50.660 –> 01:18:53.850 Mark Pock: different cultures.
722 01:18:54.930 –> 01:18:57.629 Mark Pock: and then there’s then there’s hang on.
723 01:18:59.860 –> 01:19:06.810 Mark Pock: But so you would say that. Yeah, there’s a you know, there’s a kind of a universal going pre-human.
724 01:19:06.930 –> 01:19:28.199 Mark Pock: He’s a tiny bit ethnocentric, though. Right? I mean, oh, yeah, I mean, we. He didn’t actually go into the history of philosophy. Like the actual cause he starts with like supposedly pre philosophical traditions in the East, and he talks about like he says, like
725 01:19:28.850 –> 01:19:33.840 Mark Pock: he even has biases like in favor of like Greece and Rome like. Oh, he says it.
726 01:19:34.270 –> 01:19:37.830 Mark Pock: you want okay and ready for some. you ready.
727 01:19:38.130 –> 01:19:43.469 Mark Pock: So in China only one person is free to the Emperor, increase. Many are free.
728 01:19:43.550 –> 01:19:44.960 Mark Pock: but there’s still slaves.
729 01:19:45.950 –> 01:19:51.750 Mark Pock: and then only in modern Germany. Russia is everyone free now.
730 01:19:51.990 –> 01:19:57.629 Mark Pock: But here’s the thing he totally doesn’t understand the real horror of slavery, and
731 01:19:58.480 –> 01:20:07.799 Mark Pock: it was not what he thought. It was like. The whole, like democracy like we talk about. This is the birthplace of the that’s a complete illusion like the the Demos was not
732 01:20:08.780 –> 01:20:11.720 Mark Pock: what we think of as like United
733 01:20:12.040 –> 01:20:13.170 Mark Pock: equals.
734 01:20:13.610 –> 01:20:20.759 Mark Pock: it was a completely like that. He’s looking at everything. Speaking of his own, he’s looking at a post Christian.
735 01:20:20.790 –> 01:20:22.690 Mark Pock: specifically Protestant
736 01:20:23.020 –> 01:20:27.009 Mark Pock: projection backwards on all of history.
737 01:20:28.890 –> 01:20:36.990 Mark Pock: But of course. Then he so he ratifies that through the very narrative, you know. so
738 01:20:37.050 –> 01:20:44.609 Mark Pock: yeah, like he’s it’s totally, I mean, we know all kinds of things that he just didn’t know about cultural changes in the way
739 01:20:45.200 –> 01:20:50.679 Mark Pock: Greek society was nothing like what an eighteenth century nineteenth century German Stock Creek Society function like.
740 01:20:51.080 –> 01:20:53.940 Mark Pock: which is great, you know, like we should be doing that.
741 01:20:54.190 –> 01:21:00.340 Mark Pock: But you know the question is that okay? Then do we throw out all of him.
742 01:21:00.780 –> 01:21:02.880 Mark Pock: you know, or do we say.
743 01:21:04.640 –> 01:21:14.790 Mark Pock: there’s actually maybe something there in the sense that like, okay, like you said, I’m not satisfied. Well, Hegel is going to say, Okay, good. That. Notice that.
744 01:21:15.180 –> 01:21:18.030 Mark Pock: and sometimes even about Hegel himself.
745 01:21:19.660 –> 01:21:23.550 Mark Pock: and maybe that will Brok draw you actually closer to what Hegel is trying to get at.
746 01:21:26.970 –> 01:21:29.730 Mark Pock: It seems to me that between 70,
747 01:21:30.010 –> 01:21:34.330 Mark Pock: 6, and 80
748 01:21:35.650 –> 01:21:42.650 Mark Pock: bye. the end of 84 there is, one or 2
749 01:21:43.270 –> 01:21:55.560 Mark Pock: not more logical leaps. Oh, it was a lot of them. And so what would seem to me, and I’d be doing this myself to go over them and see where he’s making these logical leaps.
750 01:21:55.670 –> 01:21:59.000 Mark Pock: because he’s just going from
751 01:21:59.190 –> 01:22:21.930 Mark Pock: at this age. Old problem that is mystified all these people, and then 3 day to see solved it. I just think that it would be interesting to and and I’ll do that for myself. Surely you seem to like parse that one. Well, 2 things. One is an introduction. So it’s not quite yet the argument itself. Yeah, kind of telling you where you think he’s going to go
752 01:22:22.460 –> 01:22:26.129 Mark Pock: to. There is a paper on this. It’s called. You can’t get there from here
753 01:22:26.210 –> 01:22:42.369 Mark Pock: by this guy named Robert Pippin. You can’t. You can’t get there from here that you can’t get to work. Cable says I just got here from here. You can’t actually get there. But it’s a tip in this great vehicles color.
754 01:22:42.450 –> 01:22:43.470 Mark Pock: I
755 01:22:43.910 –> 01:22:48.090 Mark Pock: my heavy critical about 99% of tipping. But
756 01:22:48.110 –> 01:22:49.660 Mark Pock: that’s a good. It’s a good essay.
757 01:22:49.850 –> 01:22:54.400 Mark Pock: Yeah, I mean you. You can check it out if you want, I pretty sure you can get easy access to it.
758 01:22:54.900 –> 01:22:59.050 Mark Pock: I’m pretty sure you can get. Probably you don’t have access to the article.
759 01:22:59.070 –> 01:23:02.409 Mark Pock: You can’t get there from here. Yeah, if you want to check it out.
760 01:23:02.700 –> 01:23:05.649 Mark Pock: So that’s I think that’s along the lines of what you’re saying is that
761 01:23:05.760 –> 01:23:14.340 Mark Pock: that’s but that’s in the phenomenon that’s actually in the phenomenal, even in this argument, not even just in the introduction. The whole thing you you can’t get there from here.
762 01:23:28.610 –> 01:23:33.440 Mark Pock: If you have like, universal like, where does the
763 01:23:38.110 –> 01:23:41.400 Mark Pock: the singularity or the
764 01:23:41.830 –> 01:23:46.959 Mark Pock: it’s the singular? Yeah. I like, when when does this angles like? Very like
765 01:23:55.320 –> 01:23:58.929 Mark Pock: suggestion of the
766 01:23:59.010 –> 01:24:00.890 Mark Pock: that’s
767 01:24:01.490 –> 01:24:10.590 Mark Pock: yeah. Well, I mean, what is, what does he say is, it’s internal to conscious, imminent internal criterion. Yeah, how does it? How does the where does the internal, what? What are like?
768 01:24:11.230 –> 01:24:12.050 Oh.
769 01:24:13.200 –> 01:24:15.539 Mark Pock: I I would simply give you one. Yes.
770 01:24:16.720 –> 01:24:17.990 Mark Pock: look into that.
771 01:24:19.980 –> 01:24:26.599 Mark Pock: Yeah. Well, okay. So the like, I said the first thing, and I you know this may never.
772 01:24:27.240 –> 01:24:28.890 Mark Pock: It clicks for me.
773 01:24:29.000 –> 01:24:33.500 Mark Pock: but it may not for anyone else. But both
774 01:24:33.770 –> 01:24:41.389 Mark Pock: laundering would say this more, but Hegel would also basically say the same thing. I I think you would say
775 01:24:44.240 –> 01:24:48.070 Mark Pock: you notice your own notes, your own
776 01:24:48.200 –> 01:24:50.499 Mark Pock: question right? There, what are you demanding?
777 01:24:55.100 –> 01:24:55.860 Mark Pock: Okay.
778 01:24:57.230 –> 01:25:04.250 Mark Pock: yeah. So like you’re you, there’s something you’re doing. You’re setting. You’re saying, I I want this thing.
779 01:25:05.430 –> 01:25:06.750 Mark Pock: I want to know this thing.
780 01:25:07.540 –> 01:25:11.270 Mark Pock: and I I in that very question.
781 01:25:12.330 –> 01:25:15.539 Mark Pock: is that kind of expectation that there is something that will satisfy it.
782 01:25:16.580 –> 01:25:21.770 Mark Pock: and that you’ll know when you’re when it’s satisfied.
783 01:25:22.620 –> 01:25:23.930 Mark Pock: asking what?
784 01:25:25.350 –> 01:25:27.419 Mark Pock: I don’t know. What is a man?
785 01:25:27.480 –> 01:25:32.020 Mark Pock: You? It’s from you. You have a demand inside you and asking my question.
786 01:25:32.720 –> 01:25:36.949 Mark Pock: I don’t. Yeah, it’s not. It’s not it. It doesn’t.
787 01:25:38.230 –> 01:25:40.989 Mark Pock: I mean it, doesn’t it?
788 01:25:42.590 –> 01:25:51.249 Mark Pock: Oh, I wasn’t I? That wasn’t my definitive response. That was just to say that the first thing that Hegel would want you to notice
789 01:25:51.350 –> 01:25:58.460 Mark Pock: or try to notice if it’s really there. Is that
790 01:25:58.830 –> 01:26:07.699 Mark Pock: Because part of this is as he says, this is about experience. This whole thing is phenomenology of the experience of consciousness. That’s actually the subtle of the book.
791 01:26:08.170 –> 01:26:19.849 Mark Pock: It’s the phenomenology of the experience. So what he’s saying is, you have to. All this is, yeah. There are arguments here. but yet, but there’s a more fundamental task which is to to advert to your own experience.
792 01:26:20.710 –> 01:26:26.070 Mark Pock: and part of that would be the experience of the mind setting up its own criterion
793 01:26:26.820 –> 01:26:29.409 Mark Pock: in doing things like asking questions.
794 01:26:30.730 –> 01:26:33.540 Mark Pock: Now. So
795 01:26:35.150 –> 01:26:44.220 Mark Pock: having said that, could you actually remind me what you? The precise nature of your question was
796 01:26:46.110 –> 01:26:48.379 that was interesting? it goes
797 01:26:51.900 –> 01:26:53.660 Mark Pock: resolution.
798 01:26:54.060 –> 01:26:56.820 Mark Pock: Yeah.
799 01:26:57.010 –> 01:26:59.070 Mark Pock: Question. So
800 01:26:59.740 –> 01:27:03.110 Mark Pock: so let’s go. Yeah.
801 01:27:03.860 –> 01:27:05.700 Mark Pock: yes, I.
802 01:27:05.990 –> 01:27:08.830 Mark Pock: But When does that?
803 01:27:12.420 –> 01:27:13.949 Yes,
804 01:27:14.670 –> 01:27:20.789 Mark Pock: And and what I’m saying is, okay, there’s 2 again. There’s it’s almost like 2 things happening simultaneously. There’s like.
805 01:27:21.270 –> 01:27:22.200 Mark Pock: there’s like
806 01:27:23.230 –> 01:27:26.360 Mark Pock: the well, okay, one. First of all.
807 01:27:26.550 –> 01:27:33.359 Mark Pock: none of us have to accept any anything. Hail
808 01:27:33.610 –> 01:27:39.580 Mark Pock: right? Right and I and so if we’re talking about like
809 01:27:40.780 –> 01:27:47.030 Mark Pock: what Hegel claims to be the kind of the universal scope of what he’s
810 01:27:47.070 –> 01:27:48.990 Mark Pock: his his for a project
811 01:27:50.940 –> 01:27:57.579 Mark Pock: or his argument.
812 01:28:03.650 –> 01:28:07.900 Mark Pock: What to what extent is like? When is when this is
813 01:28:11.390 –> 01:28:15.150 Mark Pock: well, it’s always been. There’s only ever been spirit spirit all the way down
814 01:28:15.830 –> 01:28:19.560 Mark Pock: for hang on. But but there’s always spirit.
815 01:28:19.670 –> 01:28:24.109 Mark Pock: the spirit in itself. And then there’s the reports of from the minister in and for itself.
816 01:28:25.240 –> 01:28:27.980 Mark Pock: So nature, nature of spirit and
817 01:28:31.300 –> 01:28:35.310 Mark Pock: And then you have
818 01:28:36.240 –> 01:28:40.349 Mark Pock: well, what is here for itself in some sense, that’s that’s just
819 01:28:40.700 –> 01:28:43.740 Mark Pock: ultra in the mind. I mean. It’s sort of
820 01:28:45.480 –> 01:28:48.959 Mark Pock: humanity prior to hang off.
821 01:28:50.590 –> 01:28:57.600 Mark Pock: It’s because it’s nate is. But it. But notice that spirit has spirit is always for itself.
822 01:28:58.050 –> 01:29:03.740 Mark Pock: So even though nature is spirit in itself, spirit is always for itself, so nature is.
823 01:29:03.840 –> 01:29:06.800 Mark Pock: and it is for itself, but only in itself.
824 01:29:07.440 –> 01:29:09.229 Mark Pock: It’s not for itself, for itself.
825 01:29:10.230 –> 01:29:11.189 Mark Pock: And so
826 01:29:11.360 –> 01:29:15.409 Mark Pock: with with with humanity, we get
827 01:29:16.170 –> 01:29:18.479 Mark Pock: spirit being for itself.
828 01:29:19.270 –> 01:29:26.120 Mark Pock: but not. And this is where Tom comes in, because he’s saying, Yeah, we have. We have this proposal.
829 01:29:26.660 –> 01:29:33.810 Mark Pock: nature to our cognition, and ultimately to our ethical life, which is the most important thing.
830 01:29:33.830 –> 01:29:40.830 Mark Pock: right with self-directed, we can get nature, giving the reason, giving the law to nature and supplying the law to itself.
831 01:29:41.010 –> 01:29:44.570 Mark Pock: But and so that’s the kind of apex of
832 01:29:45.740 –> 01:29:50.739 Mark Pock: spirit for it
833 01:29:50.990 –> 01:29:53.719 Mark Pock: spirit in and for itself.
834 01:29:53.850 –> 01:29:56.380 Mark Pock: which is, we’re actually realized that
835 01:29:56.740 –> 01:30:01.400 Mark Pock: we’re not opposed to the absolutely that the for itself is actually
836 01:30:02.270 –> 01:30:04.269 Mark Pock: the full culmination of nature.
837 01:30:05.640 –> 01:30:12.699 Mark Pock: But what I’m saying is that it’s been. You know this is nature, this is the whole, this is everything. All of nature is already spirit.
838 01:30:16.730 –> 01:30:19.570 Mark Pock: and but it’s spirit merely in itself.
839 01:30:21.000 –> 01:30:23.870 Mark Pock: and then it’s here. It becomes for itself in
840 01:30:24.040 –> 01:30:28.480 Mark Pock: human history. and then it becomes in for itself at the end of history.
841 01:30:32.660 –> 01:30:39.350 Mark Pock: I don’t know if that got your question. But what what I was saying universal from the beginning, and it’s spirit all the way down from the beginning.
842 01:30:39.830 –> 01:30:40.700 Mark Pock: Sure.
843 01:30:42.050 –> 01:30:51.080 Mark Pock: yeah, it just doesn’t know itself as such. Sure. Right? Yeah. yes. yeah.
844 01:31:07.420 –> 01:31:10.580 Mark Pock: But they’re still. They’re still spirits, because they’re they’re part of nature.
845 01:31:12.040 –> 01:31:13.479 Mark Pock: Your voice is the
846 01:31:13.500 –> 01:31:17.470 Mark Pock: in itself which I will never hear.
847 01:31:17.680 –> 01:31:24.359 Mark Pock: Okay, so it’s a basic question. Actually. So when we contrast it itself and for it. So
848 01:31:24.790 –> 01:31:41.829 Mark Pock: we’re talking mainly about the for itself. As I say, proposing this, yeah. Well, that’s the thing is, there’s as I think we established. There’s a bit of ambiguity. There they’ll kind of. He’ll kind of shift back and forth between like for itself. As to self-directed versus for itself, is self- objectified
849 01:31:43.290 –> 01:31:49.599 Mark Pock: to be in and for itself.
850 01:31:49.670 –> 01:31:55.270 Mark Pock: in and and for itself. Yes, yeah. And for itself, you would have to be
851 01:31:55.950 –> 01:31:56.840 There you go.
852 01:31:57.120 –> 01:32:01.759 Mark Pock: So just basic basic terms. Yeah, in itself
853 01:32:02.360 –> 01:32:07.679 Mark Pock: is so what? So what does for itself? What is it in itself? Not have that for itself?
854 01:32:08.060 –> 01:32:21.739 Mark Pock: it’s it’s not self objectified. As yeah, it’s probably the different in the main difference. So it doesn’t have. It doesn’t have difference the way it for itself does work posits difference from install. So it has this.
855 01:32:21.860 –> 01:32:27.239 Mark Pock: So it is for itself. Yeah, the in itself is always for itself, and essentially it is proposal.
856 01:32:27.530 –> 01:32:29.180 Mark Pock: But it
857 01:32:29.980 –> 01:32:39.540 Mark Pock: it’s not, it hasn’t objectified. It’s so, it’s yeah. So actually, because what’s happening here is, hey? Khan is objective by himself. This is not a
858 01:32:39.660 –> 01:32:42.269 Mark Pock: he’s talking about the reason.
859 01:32:43.380 –> 01:32:45.729 Mark Pock: And so he’s objectified himself for himself.
860 01:32:46.660 –> 01:32:49.349 Mark Pock: which tells a kind of difference
861 01:32:50.450 –> 01:33:04.780 Mark Pock: that he hasn’t actually reconciled and kind of gets expressed in the social. We must be this thing in itself over here. since forward cell phone in in, in relation to
862 01:33:05.040 –> 01:33:12.930 Mark Pock: so for itself, is is something is for itself in relationship
863 01:33:13.330 –> 01:33:17.890 Mark Pock: to itself or your relationship to a person’s consciousness
864 01:33:18.020 –> 01:33:19.650 Mark Pock: that
865 01:33:20.000 –> 01:33:32.670 Mark Pock: that oh. that which is for itself is is I. it’s a relationship to me. And it’s in itself. The relationship to itself
866 01:33:32.790 –> 01:33:38.350 Mark Pock: is that it all correct?
867 01:33:39.960 –> 01:33:53.550 Mark Pock: this is this turns out to be a mean in itself, because reason is self-relating, not the content. No, no, absolutely no call. That’s even, for he go ahead for for for
868 01:33:53.890 –> 01:33:58.830 Mark Pock: well, hold on 1 1 1 s because I didn’t realize you were talking about Con. Give me 1 s
869 01:33:59.130 –> 01:34:02.939 Mark Pock: because I want to finish. I was, Hey, want to finish with 100
870 01:34:03.270 –> 01:34:06.190 Mark Pock: So
871 01:34:06.530 –> 01:34:20.249 Mark Pock: yeah, I think there’s there is often kind of an ambiguity, but like cause, it’s a problem, because it is for itself all the way down. Sometimes it’s in for it. So it’s just not in itself, in for itself. and so
872 01:34:20.720 –> 01:34:26.469 Mark Pock: but yeah, because there’s a sense in which, like
873 01:34:27.780 –> 01:34:31.240 Mark Pock: mirror, materiality
874 01:34:31.250 –> 01:34:33.040 Mark Pock: kind of isn’t self directed.
875 01:34:33.760 –> 01:34:40.610 Mark Pock: even though it kind of is, if but you only kind of find that out later, as he says it’s all like retrospective.
876 01:34:41.290 –> 01:34:43.020 Mark Pock: and so like
877 01:34:43.990 –> 01:34:48.840 Mark Pock: at the time, it can sort of appear that it doesn’t really have any direct self-
878 01:34:49.870 –> 01:34:52.899 Mark Pock: in itself for itself and for itself.
879 01:34:52.920 –> 01:35:01.059 Mark Pock: maybe even are more like epistemic markers of the spirits understanding. But I’ve been on theological flames
880 01:35:01.480 –> 01:35:04.349 Mark Pock: the quality of the thing before. So
881 01:35:05.420 –> 01:35:07.680 Mark Pock: so you.
882 01:35:10.830 –> 01:35:17.960 Mark Pock: Yeah.
883 01:35:19.860 –> 01:35:25.360 Mark Pock: for it. Oh, well.
884 01:35:25.400 –> 01:35:36.050 Mark Pock: I and I think it. Yeah, I mean, if you remember, I I mean, he talks about it. It’s been getting right at the what goes on with history.
885 01:35:36.310 –> 01:35:39.100 Mark Pock: in itself is a.
886 01:35:41.220 –> 01:35:42.290 Mark Pock: and so
887 01:35:43.080 –> 01:35:44.819 Mark Pock: for itself is at.
888 01:35:46.150 –> 01:35:48.920 Mark Pock: But like it’s a full thing, because
889 01:35:51.230 –> 01:35:54.509 Mark Pock: is what happens is to that, potency is always
890 01:35:55.840 –> 01:36:02.500 Mark Pock: like you reach a new level, and that becomes potential for something else.
891 01:36:02.950 –> 01:36:08.020 Mark Pock: So like the child is potentially. but also
892 01:36:10.870 –> 01:36:11.989 it makes our potentially
893 01:36:12.650 –> 01:36:13.550 Mark Pock: child.
894 01:36:17.590 –> 01:36:19.330 Mark Pock: and so
895 01:36:19.590 –> 01:36:27.950 Mark Pock: yeah, it’s it’s not. It’s it’s it’s got to go with it kind of feel it out here. But he’s getting at
896 01:36:28.280 –> 01:36:36.379 Mark Pock: because what he, of course, is what he thought, because this is the the thing in itself.
897 01:36:36.710 –> 01:36:38.370 Mark Pock: and what he’s saying is that
898 01:36:39.280 –> 01:36:43.950 Mark Pock: The in itself is not over there.
899 01:36:44.480 –> 01:36:46.879 Mark Pock: And so it comes for itself
900 01:36:49.220 –> 01:36:58.410 Mark Pock: by this. It’s a weird thing, because he’s he’s saying he’s kind of playing a little bit with, for this might have been what you’re doing it like for itself. Well, this is how this appears for me
901 01:36:59.080 –> 01:37:06.920 Mark Pock: is that that’s what we say. This is the thing for us as opposed to the thing in itself. and what Khan is saying, or hey?
902 01:37:06.990 –> 01:37:18.210 Mark Pock: It’s kind of an exploiting on ambiguity. There’s well, the for itself is also the thing that is for itself, that that initiates its own direction, but also is objectified for itself.
903 01:37:20.810 –> 01:37:25.200 Mark Pock: and so he he’s sort of saying that
904 01:37:25.450 –> 01:37:32.790 Mark Pock: this is not a problem. To say that there’s a thing weirdly for us, and then there’s a thing in itself. if the in itself is for
905 01:37:36.790 –> 01:37:39.290 Mark Pock: well, that’s nature.
906 01:37:43.170 –> 01:37:48.690 Mark Pock: But in
907 01:37:49.590 –> 01:38:01.459 Mark Pock: yeah. I mean, because there is a lingering. there is a telling you about final causes. Okay.
908 01:38:01.570 –> 01:38:04.170 Mark Pock: that there’s a for itself or the falling rock.
909 01:38:05.920 –> 01:38:07.659 Mark Pock: Now Hegel is Post
910 01:38:08.140 –> 01:38:10.180 Mark Pock: Galileo Post, Newton.
911 01:38:11.130 –> 01:38:24.430 Mark Pock: but he’s gonna say he has a philosophy of nature that’s trying to overcome the mirror mechanism into which Newtonian science fell for singing so. and saying, there is a kind of dynamism
912 01:38:24.470 –> 01:38:26.330 Mark Pock: in nature tending towards the
913 01:38:28.480 –> 01:38:31.900 Mark Pock: which it seemed to have been eliminated by
914 01:38:32.770 –> 01:38:34.389 Mark Pock: falling body is not fall
915 01:38:34.750 –> 01:38:36.950 Mark Pock: relative to their to their maths.
916 01:38:37.490 –> 01:38:40.519 Mark Pock: Wait, because that’s just air resistance.
917 01:38:41.020 –> 01:38:44.909 Mark Pock: you know, a huge phone ball. And it all the same rate.
918 01:38:45.240 –> 01:38:51.920 Mark Pock: whereas there’s always no, they they fall at a different rate, because there’s more mass there. And so there’s more tendency to go to its
919 01:38:52.240 –> 01:38:53.590 Mark Pock: natural place
920 01:38:54.250 –> 01:38:57.170 Mark Pock: and download the.
921 01:38:57.260 –> 01:39:00.719 Mark Pock: and that seemed to eliminate the whole idea of the
922 01:39:02.140 –> 01:39:08.999 Mark Pock: and cop and a they don’t want to say No, there is, there is. This kind of final comes out in nature
923 01:39:10.400 –> 01:39:17.799 Mark Pock: again, it’s in principle, not reverting to the pre modern semi-animism of Aristotle.
924 01:39:18.110 –> 01:39:25.810 Mark Pock: I’m having trouble, seeing what is that? It’s different. Yeah, okay? Well, actually, you know, I have to study it closely with your nature. We could. I don’t know.
925 01:39:25.980 –> 01:39:30.149 Mark Pock: that’s actually one of the few things I haven’t looked at closely, and I’ve gone through it.
926 01:39:30.180 –> 01:39:31.529 Mark Pock: But it’s been a while.
927 01:39:31.790 –> 01:39:36.160 Mark Pock: and because it’s it’s kind of silly it doesn’t need to do that
928 01:39:36.330 –> 01:39:42.189 Mark Pock: longer than this is how to do their thing. You don’t need to subway science in this way.
929 01:39:42.200 –> 01:39:48.010 Mark Pock: because what he’s going back to is making at the end of this. This is going to happen again like
931 01:39:53.940 –> 01:39:57.430 Mark Pock: That’s not how we integrate science.
932 01:39:59.200 –> 01:40:00.869 Mark Pock: He wants to sub like this whole thing.
933 01:40:00.990 –> 01:40:05.400 Mark Pock: and we certainly get get proposals back into nature.
934 01:40:08.050 –> 01:40:17.580 Mark Pock: And it’s not that you can’t actually find it that way. but not stuck away. So that’s a whole. But I don’t that help
935 01:40:17.900 –> 01:40:25.889 Mark Pock: because it like, because I’m Jc. Saying we’re again again. There’s there’s something that you would. You kind of do have to slide into it.
936 01:40:26.560 –> 01:40:34.549 Mark Pock: And just kind of used to. Okay, now, he’s talking about the for itself. And actually, the for itself turns out to be what is in.
937 01:40:34.680 –> 01:40:35.740 Mark Pock: Okay?
938 01:40:36.430 –> 01:40:40.129 Mark Pock: but once you get the hang of it, it does.
939 01:40:40.240 –> 01:40:46.100 Mark Pock: Lot of it does hold together like it’s not just purely arbitrary gibberish.
940 01:40:47.410 –> 01:40:49.220 Mark Pock: Some of it is
941 01:40:49.810 –> 01:40:55.700 Mark Pock: a philosophy nature definitely. but the phenomenology is different, but it’s this is where it is.
942 01:40:57.430 –> 01:41:02.790 Mark Pock: You can deal with stuff that you can see. And you can actually test it in your own experience. That’s where it becomes interesting.
943 01:41:03.160 –> 01:41:03.940 Mark Pock: Okay?
944 01:41:06.180 –> 01:41:07.110 Mark Pock: All right.
945 01:41:07.700 –> 01:41:10.130 Mark Pock: 2 h. Yes.
946 01:41:17.930 –> 01:41:18.730 Mark Pock: Oh.
947 01:41:21.700 –> 01:41:23.950 Mark Pock: put me on your
948 01:41:24.240 –> 01:41:33.129 Mark Pock: yes, yeah. Okay, yeah. I’ll do that. I’ll send you. You ever been on this for? You know just
949 01:41:33.940 –> 01:41:34.420 what.