The lecture discusses the concept of consciousness and its relationship with knowledge. It highlights the distinction between being for itself and being in itself, emphasizing the importance of understanding this distinction. Consciousness simultaneously distinguishes itself from something while relating to it. This something exists for consciousness, and the determinant aspect of this relationship is knowing.
The lecture addresses the common mistake of considering something as existing outside the relationship to knowing. It asserts that there is nothing outside the realm of knowing and that the distinction between what is in itself and what is for us arises due to our tendency to forget this fact.
The lecture acknowledges the modern question of certainty and the challenge of knowing if the external world is truly how it appears to us. It suggests that although we encounter this problem, we must go through the process of resolving it rather than relying on predetermined knowledge. It emphasizes the need to recognize that there is no absolute distinction between what is in itself and what is merely for us.
The lecture further discusses the idea of being for itself, explaining that an entity may possess characteristics that are not fully recognized by itself. For example, an infant is rational in itself but not yet fully aware of its rationality. This concept applies to other entities as well, indicating that everything has an inherent self-directedness, but it may not be fully self-objectified.
The lecture introduces the notion of pulling oneself up by the bootstraps, emphasizing that there is no external criterion upon which knowledge can rely. It suggests that matter cannot serve as a firm ground for justifying knowledge. Instead, it asserts that spirit, or consciousness, sustains itself and must find its own footing without relying on an external framework.
In relation to Friedrich Nietzsche, the lecture references the concept of Baron Munchausen pulling himself out of the swamp by his own hair. This analogy highlights the need for spirit or consciousness to rely on itself rather than seeking external validation. It further explores Nietzsche’s perspective on bearing ultimate responsibility for one’s actions and the rejection of external influences.
Overall, the lecture emphasizes the complex relationship between consciousness, knowledge, and the distinction between being for itself and being in itself. It encourages a deeper understanding of these concepts and the recognition that consciousness sustains itself without relying on external criteria.
Objects are perceived through sensory experience, but Hegel’s perspective emphasizes that concepts shape our understanding of objects. Concepts provide the content and structure to our intuitions, going beyond mere labels or categories. Sensuous intuition is limited to what can be directly sensed, while concepts like causality extend beyond sensory perception. Hegel argues that concepts like causality cannot be grounded solely in sensuous intuition, leading to philosophical problems in areas like free will and the existence of God. Concepts are not static entities but are formed through acts of conceiving. Concepts and intuitions are interconnected, and without concepts, intuitions remain blind data. Recognizing the distinction between the act of conceiving and the content of concepts is crucial for a comprehensive understanding of philosophy and knowledge.
In the dialectical movement of experience, the criterion for revealing the changing nature of the object emerges. Negating prior assumptions about the object becomes integral to this process. A moment of skepticism arises, wherein all previous knowledge faces annihilation, leaving us in a state of uncertainty. Yet, it is precisely this apparent loss that paves the way for the emergence of a new object, one that becomes the foundation for deeper knowledge and understanding to unfold.
And that concludes the lecture on sense certainty. As we can see, Hegel delves into the nature of immediate knowledge and explores how it is not as certain as it may seem. He introduces the idea of mediation and highlights the limitations of sense certainty in grasping the essence of objects. Hegel also touches on the concept of the “now” and how it undergoes a dialectical process of negation and transformation. While there may be some confusion or ambiguity in certain parts of the lecture, the overall goal is to challenge our assumptions about knowledge and reality.
WEBVTT
1 00:00:01.930 –> 00:00:03.110 Mark Pock: Yeah.
2 00:00:04.810 –> 00:00:08.430 Mark Pock: long overdue. So yeah.
3 00:00:29.230 –> 00:00:29.940 okay.
4 00:00:31.250 –> 00:00:36.079 Mark Pock: So what’s up?
5 00:00:36.960 –> 00:00:38.849 Mark Pock: What you guys want to talk about?
6 00:00:39.990 –> 00:00:41.049 Mark Pock: How are you all doing?
7 00:00:48.390 –> 00:00:49.619 Mark Pock: Did
8 00:00:50.800 –> 00:00:52.340 Mark Pock: It was
9 00:00:52.610 –> 00:00:55.960 Mark Pock: I had. It’s got Asher.
10 00:00:57.650 –> 00:01:00.240 Mark Pock: You can’t hold anybody. I guess we’ll just
11 00:01:02.030 –> 00:01:07.379 Mark Pock: because there was. Let’s see, there was this person. Sarah said she was interested.
12 00:01:08.590 –> 00:01:10.050 Mark Pock: I guess she emailed me
13 00:01:12.060 –> 00:01:12.990 Mark Pock: bye.
14 00:01:14.110 –> 00:01:23.870 Mark Pock: doesn’t matter. I I’ve I’ve I’ve completely proud to check this
15 00:01:25.190 –> 00:01:29.380 Mark Pock: And then there was a guy, Asher. I think he signed up on the discord.
16 00:01:30.550 –> 00:01:33.989 Mark Pock: and and then I got in.
17 00:01:35.050 –> 00:01:36.200 Mark Pock: Tyler.
18 00:01:39.380 –> 00:01:46.509 Mark Pock: I can’t remember. I thought one of them minded said they were. Gonna try to attend remotely. But I honestly can’t remember it.
19 00:01:47.480 –> 00:01:49.550 Mark Pock: Oh, yeah, yeah, I think.
20 00:01:50.810 –> 00:01:53.060 Mark Pock: yeah.
21 00:01:53.180 –> 00:01:55.879 Mark Pock: Yeah. Well, the zoom room is, it’s open. Okay?
22 00:01:56.070 –> 00:01:57.340 Mark Pock: Yeah. Yeah.
23 00:01:57.710 –> 00:02:01.159 Mark Pock: Maybe I’ll I’ll try to make a follow up with them. And kinda I
24 00:02:01.290 –> 00:02:04.689 Mark Pock: I think I sent them those links. Yeah.
25 00:02:05.160 –> 00:02:07.149 Mark Pock: they’ll just anything on this one.
26 00:02:09.570 –> 00:02:10.449 Mark Pock: Okay.
27 00:02:11.710 –> 00:02:14.390 Mark Pock: well.
28 00:02:14.420 –> 00:02:15.829 Mark Pock: there’s a few
29 00:02:17.450 –> 00:02:21.190 Mark Pock: different things we can go after today.
30 00:02:22.070 –> 00:02:30.849 Mark Pock: actually didn’t have a chance to respond to
31 00:02:32.890 –> 00:02:36.750 Mark Pock: your question, Andre, I?
32 00:02:37.340 –> 00:02:41.919 Mark Pock: Oh, she and I did. I actually downloaded that rawls article. I didn’t read it.
33 00:02:42.730 –> 00:02:59.800 Mark Pock: Well, what was that really interesting? What was what was it about? It was trying to bridge all this political philosophy with Hegel’s metaphysics. And I. So it was. Yeah, generals. It was interesting, because, like.
34 00:03:00.010 –> 00:03:02.609 Mark Pock: I’ve got a lot of roles in the courses here.
35 00:03:02.690 –> 00:03:06.930 Mark Pock: And I was having trouble like bridging the 2. But
36 00:03:07.240 –> 00:03:15.350 Mark Pock: like, for instance, he was comparing rawls. This concept of like a reflective people in the room with He goes
37 00:03:16.580 –> 00:03:18.419 Mark Pock: like reconciliation. Kind of
38 00:03:19.040 –> 00:03:21.680 Mark Pock: it was iffy, but it was interesting.
39 00:03:22.790 –> 00:03:26.410 Mark Pock: I should have looked at it. Oh, well.
40 00:03:26.500 –> 00:03:32.280 Mark Pock: well, actually, then, why don’t we? Let’s just try to look at.
41 00:03:32.650 –> 00:03:34.479 Mark Pock: since there’s a question on the board this
42 00:03:34.510 –> 00:03:40.279 Mark Pock: to talk about that, and I got some stuff we can get into. Alright. But let’s look at Mark’s question here, so
43 00:03:40.550 –> 00:03:44.930 Mark Pock: has to do with or sorry I’m on. This question has to do with
44 00:03:46.830 –> 00:03:50.620 Mark Pock: paragraph 84
45 00:03:52.070 –> 00:04:05.720 Mark Pock: and actually, yeah. So like.
46 00:04:06.120 –> 00:04:15.230 Mark Pock: starting at like.
47 00:04:16.550 –> 00:04:17.940 Mark Pock: So you want to start?
48 00:04:22.290 –> 00:04:25.650 Mark Pock: Yeah, I would say, starting it about paragraph 81.
49 00:04:25.960 –> 00:04:37.259 Mark Pock: we get a kind of, I guess, a, a, a, a new theme, a new theme, and they
50 00:04:38.560 –> 00:04:40.200 Mark Pock: introduction.
51 00:04:40.260 –> 00:04:42.190 Mark Pock: It’s
52 00:04:43.900 –> 00:05:01.100 Mark Pock: yeah, it’s it’s, you know, it’s he’s bringing up new things. It’s in principle. It’s related to everything that’s going before on going after. But it’s a relatively new. okay, so what is it? It’s this issue of the criterion, the problem of the criterion for all the criterion of knowledge.
53 00:05:01.150 –> 00:05:02.340 Mark Pock: because
54 00:05:04.010 –> 00:05:09.930 Mark Pock: on the basis of what
55 00:05:10.490 –> 00:05:13.039 Mark Pock: do we declare? Something to be knowing
56 00:05:14.510 –> 00:05:16.730 Mark Pock: and like,
57 00:05:18.490 –> 00:05:30.300 Mark Pock: yeah, it’s a fundamental problem.
58 00:05:30.810 –> 00:05:34.080 Mark Pock: And because one way to think about this is that
59 00:05:35.540 –> 00:05:38.659 Mark Pock: like, for example, we call, we have this so called scientific method.
60 00:05:40.700 –> 00:05:41.749 Mark Pock: We made it up
61 00:05:43.580 –> 00:05:46.790 Mark Pock: over time. It came into being. It wasn’t just sitting there
62 00:05:47.190 –> 00:05:48.170 Mark Pock: and
63 00:05:49.250 –> 00:05:50.520 Mark Pock: but
64 00:05:50.960 –> 00:05:55.840 Mark Pock: what Hegel’s getting, what what Hegel is going to get at here is this idea that
65 00:05:56.250 –> 00:06:04.110 Mark Pock: the Criterion for? There’s a couple of things. One is that it’s self-validating because it has to be, because otherwise you’re going to
66 00:06:04.320 –> 00:06:06.259 Mark Pock: run into a problem of
67 00:06:06.940 –> 00:06:18.570 Mark Pock: Well, something like Amino’s paradox. some kind of notion of comparison. that is, you have the object of knowledge, and then you compare it with
68 00:06:18.710 –> 00:06:23.890 Mark Pock: the criterion. But the criterion itself is just the object.
69 00:06:24.440 –> 00:06:33.409 Mark Pock: And you say, Okay, this thing that I know is it, does it correspond to? Can I compare it such that I can see that they are the same thing.
70 00:06:33.420 –> 00:06:39.479 Mark Pock: the thing that it is, and the thing that I know. And but of course that begs every question. Because
71 00:06:39.690 –> 00:06:46.560 Mark Pock: how do you know in advance of this is the thing you have been looking for? Right? So we’ve talked about that a few times.
72 00:06:47.360 –> 00:06:53.080 Mark Pock: so there seems like we have. We need a self self validating, but also self correcting
73 00:06:53.640 –> 00:07:01.129 Mark Pock: criterion. Because that’s why I asked. The and the last thing is. have you ever known anything at all?
74 00:07:03.570 –> 00:07:06.470 Mark Pock: Okay? And through what did you come to know that? But also.
75 00:07:07.410 –> 00:07:09.950 Mark Pock: have you ever been wrong?
76 00:07:11.830 –> 00:07:15.070 Mark Pock: Okay? And on the basis of what did you?
77 00:07:15.270 –> 00:07:17.340 Mark Pock: correct yourself?
78 00:07:17.910 –> 00:07:22.709 Mark Pock: Because you could say, well, I saw that it wasn’t what I thought it was.
79 00:07:23.200 –> 00:07:25.040 Mark Pock: but that
80 00:07:25.210 –> 00:07:33.319 Mark Pock: the very active correcting you can think of again, you can fall into a notion of correction as a kind of comparison, because there was like the thing
81 00:07:33.530 –> 00:07:34.520 Mark Pock: that I
82 00:07:34.820 –> 00:07:42.109 Mark Pock: was looking for, and then the thing that turned out to be different than it was, or I had a firm that it had been. But
84 00:07:50.290 –> 00:07:54.400 Mark Pock: You have to assume. You know, the thing that you have now is the thing you were looking for.
85 00:07:55.580 –> 00:07:56.820 and
86 00:07:56.870 –> 00:07:59.069 Mark Pock: on the basis of what you judge that.
87 00:08:00.010 –> 00:08:04.080 Mark Pock: So that’s a problem. So you have to. it has to be
88 00:08:04.170 –> 00:08:09.640 Mark Pock: arguably has to be still validating self correcting. because that’s what we do when we correct for error.
89 00:08:09.930 –> 00:08:25.509 Mark Pock: but also a third thing that Hegel is going to talk about is that the actual criterion? This is kind of a big historicist kind of moment in Hegel, which is the criterion itself, changes over time, that is to say, that by which we determine something to be knowledge
90 00:08:26.580 –> 00:08:27.720 Mark Pock: changes.
91 00:08:29.220 –> 00:08:45.510 Mark Pock: So like, for example, yeah, you had the criteria for knowledge. We can. I mean the obvious ones. But they’re useful to note, because it was true, for previous sort of sort of so that pretty scientific criteria involved things like
92 00:08:45.960 –> 00:08:47.040 Mark Pock: augury
93 00:08:47.620 –> 00:09:00.350 Mark Pock: like, how did you know something? A magician, ma match, I mean’s nowhere. you knew things. If you could sort of manipulate. or seem to manipulate things,
94 00:09:00.360 –> 00:09:01.940 Mark Pock: or describe
95 00:09:02.120 –> 00:09:08.270 Mark Pock: the movements of planets or birds, and so on. You, that that was a criterion. What did the birds do?
96 00:09:08.380 –> 00:09:09.110 Mark Pock: Hmm.
97 00:09:09.650 –> 00:09:20.529 Mark Pock: And of course, that that’s gone through this process of self correction. There’s not. There’s there isn’t this thing over here that’s telling. Oh, yeah, that’s the right thing. You guys did it right? You got it right this time
98 00:09:20.950 –> 00:09:25.059 Mark Pock: when we’re in rejecting augury or magic. We decided that
99 00:09:25.260 –> 00:09:36.340 Mark Pock: presumably we did so intelligently and rationally. But then the question is okay, it seems like intelligence and reason are this criterion. And then what what are those?
100 00:09:37.390 –> 00:09:49.899 Mark Pock: But so, having said that, that was kind of an introduction to get? Because, of course, I’m trying to get back to mark question, what’s happening now? Starting at at paragraph roughly 81.
101 00:09:50.050 –> 00:10:01.660 Mark Pock: Because Mark’s question has to do with paragraph 84. But I think it’s probably useful to just back up ever so slightly. To see this in a little slightly larger context is to look okay. He goes laying out. And there’s like
102 00:10:02.080 –> 00:10:12.680 Mark Pock: 3 to 5 kind of major moments. Even within this discussion of the criterion, like the the problem with the criterion. Because, like I said, the problem of the criterion is the problem of the Mayo
103 00:10:12.780 –> 00:10:15.950 Mark Pock: is,
104 00:10:16.770 –> 00:10:18.949 Mark Pock: in some sense, the hermeneutic circle, even
105 00:10:19.440 –> 00:10:22.329 Mark Pock: they’re all kind of roughly, the
106 00:10:23.460 –> 00:10:27.979 Mark Pock: going into the same problem which it seems like you already need to know something in the in order to know that, you know.
107 00:10:28.640 –> 00:10:37.359 Mark Pock: And so it seemed like, we have this problem of generating criterion that doesn’t doesn’t trap us in one of those paradoxes
108 00:10:37.650 –> 00:10:39.259 Mark Pock: or circles. Okay.
109 00:10:39.570 –> 00:10:48.880 Mark Pock: so let’s look at 81 of us to see like. I said that. So it’s the overarching problem. But then there’s a kind of a set of sub problems that are like dealing with this overarching problem with the criterion.
110 00:10:50.630 –> 00:11:00.850 Mark Pock: So let’s start in 81. In addition to these preliminary general remarks about the manner, necessity of the progression, that is to say, the progression through the various forms of consciousness which hopefully will start today.
111 00:11:01.400 –> 00:11:08.169 Mark Pock: it may be useful to say something about the method of carrying out this inquiry.
112 00:11:09.670 –> 00:11:22.130 Mark Pock: That is how he’s going to, because he’s going. He has a method that in some sense in acts, but also reveals the self correcting self. adjusting process of coming to know.
113 00:11:23.010 –> 00:11:36.149 Mark Pock: So he wants to cause he let me actually note one thing. I guess I’ve got a couple of side notes here that I plan on talking about? I mean this, this, this comes up. So let me just know very, very quickly. We’ll try not to get too distracted.
114 00:11:36.540 –> 00:11:37.380 Mark Pock: Oh.
115 00:11:39.250 –> 00:11:43.939 Mark Pock: but we have. Okay, this is an important, it’s, it’s it’s a whole thing. People talk about
116 00:11:44.000 –> 00:11:48.259 Mark Pock: all the thing. But so we have, you know, as we’re going to see.
117 00:11:48.280 –> 00:11:54.910 Mark Pock: you know, these forms of consciousness. and we haven’t said enough about them yet, like they are you
118 00:11:57.560 –> 00:12:07.589 Mark Pock: and they there’s different. There’s this, there’s a progression of forms, and we need to establish what they are, how they relate to another, how they transition from one to the next. That’s on the way.
119 00:12:08.050 –> 00:12:14.390 Mark Pock: But there’s another thing that’s happening all along, which is that we have this thing called the phenomenological observer.
120 00:12:15.000 –> 00:12:19.469 Mark Pock: This is actually partly what has that state in your question. Andre.
121 00:12:20.680 –> 00:12:23.970 Mark Pock: yeah. which is that we’re observing this?
122 00:12:24.010 –> 00:12:33.129 Mark Pock: We’re so. And this is why I said, we don’t need to do anything but step back and watch consciousness do this on its own. But we that
123 00:12:33.280 –> 00:12:39.829 Mark Pock: but it but that’s that gets back to you. Hi, there’s point, because the phenomenological observer.
124 00:12:40.130 –> 00:12:44.029 Mark Pock: Okay, these forms of consciousness think one thing is happening
125 00:12:44.370 –> 00:12:49.549 Mark Pock: as I am as they develop. That is half the time they don’t know that they’re developing.
126 00:12:50.460 –> 00:12:52.439 Mark Pock: So they don’t know that about themselves.
127 00:12:52.930 –> 00:13:09.600 Mark Pock: amongst many other things. So they think one thing is happening. We know something else has happened. We, the phenomenological observer. Now, of course. it seems like we need to have already read the cause. This is the whole permanent circle. You need to have read the whole play in order to understand the beginning of the play.
128 00:13:10.050 –> 00:13:14.590 Mark Pock: So in some sense we need to already have read the phenomenology to read the phenomenology.
129 00:13:15.570 –> 00:13:18.079 Mark Pock: which, of course, is in principle true for any work.
130 00:13:19.000 –> 00:13:30.260 Mark Pock: but Hegel is sort of embedding this principle into the work itself, kind of calling our attention to it, that all along with what these forms of consciousness think they’re doing and think what’s happening is not actually what’s happening.
131 00:13:31.770 –> 00:13:36.600 Mark Pock: And we both will produce, then is, watch how they correct themselves.
132 00:13:38.410 –> 00:13:41.140 Mark Pock: they continually get it wrong.
133 00:13:41.150 –> 00:13:43.899 Mark Pock: but they add each time they get it wrong to add something new.
134 00:13:45.160 –> 00:13:46.600 Mark Pock: Something doesn’t merge
135 00:13:47.080 –> 00:13:50.719 Mark Pock: which is to say, one of the things that emerges the new criterion.
136 00:13:50.850 –> 00:14:05.080 Mark Pock: So as we see in the sense that the initial criterion for knowing is the media. immediate sense intuition. Oh, some subside note on the word intuition I mentioned this last time clarify.
137 00:14:05.650 –> 00:14:09.610 Mark Pock: is it on showing that that doesn’t really matter?
138 00:14:11.850 –> 00:14:14.730 Mark Pock: So that’s just the German. But
139 00:14:15.870 –> 00:14:20.210 Mark Pock: this does not mean when you, when it’s in a a content or a yelling
140 00:14:20.270 –> 00:14:25.880 Mark Pock: necessarily in context, does not refer to you like
141 00:14:26.710 –> 00:14:29.630 Mark Pock: I had an intuition you might show up, and then you showed up
142 00:14:30.850 –> 00:14:36.339 Mark Pock: it as it refers. It’s a technical term that refers to for the most part
143 00:14:36.600 –> 00:14:38.410 Mark Pock: sense data.
144 00:14:39.700 –> 00:14:41.450 Mark Pock: immediate sense data.
145 00:14:42.220 –> 00:14:43.899 Mark Pock: because
146 00:14:44.030 –> 00:14:47.700 Mark Pock: they’re partly the remote context. For this is actually.
147 00:14:48.270 –> 00:14:53.620 Mark Pock: I think I mentioned that which is. you have concept
148 00:14:53.670 –> 00:14:59.399 Mark Pock: the concepts, the form. So concepts in the situation, of course, form and matter. Okay?
149 00:15:00.030 –> 00:15:02.360 Mark Pock: And so you have
150 00:15:03.270 –> 00:15:09.369 Mark Pock: and this is What? What? What cons? Of course, it’s big challenge to him
151 00:15:09.460 –> 00:15:18.700 Mark Pock: is that Hume says, okay, we generate the notion of calls all through repeated experience, right through awesome. The experience of constant conjunction of similar events.
152 00:15:18.730 –> 00:15:24.909 Mark Pock: that over time we associate one with the other, and one of the forms of those association is cause an effect? Okay?
153 00:15:24.970 –> 00:15:28.920 Mark Pock: And so the form. the concept, causality.
154 00:15:29.370 –> 00:15:37.140 Mark Pock: is generated from sense experience, from from the intuition of various sensible objects. And what Kant says, is no.
155 00:15:37.290 –> 00:15:43.309 Mark Pock: because in order to have sensuous experience at all, to even see one
156 00:15:43.850 –> 00:15:50.060 Mark Pock: fill your ball, collide with another bill, your ball. your your this already has to be formed
157 00:15:50.620 –> 00:15:54.720 Mark Pock: by the forms of consciousness, by the
158 00:15:54.860 –> 00:16:08.569 Mark Pock: okay. So that’s why these are the conditions of the possibility of experience. But the point is that there? But there is a distinction that that cop would have us note. which is that there is a decision between
159 00:16:08.730 –> 00:16:10.810 Mark Pock: intuition, which
160 00:16:13.000 –> 00:16:19.230 Mark Pock: this is a whole thing. It’s pre conceptual, pre discursive. This is where you get
161 00:16:19.620 –> 00:16:22.140 Mark Pock: who Serrell?
162 00:16:22.530 –> 00:16:35.260 Mark Pock: doing things here? And then the question is, can you have like? Well, how do you? And then know that you have this because you have to speak about it? And it seems like we’re using discourse in order to speak about the prescript. Blah blah blah kind of questions. Come up
163 00:16:36.830 –> 00:16:49.420 Mark Pock: so I guess we can let me let me prevent myself from going too far. A field. The main point I wanted to get out here was that intuition when when it’s using this context, does not mean like flash of insights or something. I have an intuition that means
164 00:16:49.890 –> 00:16:54.580 Mark Pock: more or less immediate, sensuous material or data. But
165 00:16:54.630 –> 00:16:57.960 Mark Pock: sometimes it can mean, like you can talk about like.
166 00:16:58.260 –> 00:17:02.380 Mark Pock: for example, cop will talk about an intuitive intellect.
167 00:17:02.740 –> 00:17:15.110 Mark Pock: an intuitive intellect which doesn’t understand things conceptually, or sometimes it discursively, but as a sort of direct intuition of some kind of intelligibility. I know I know, Aima.
168 00:17:16.069 –> 00:17:20.449 Mark Pock: so no, so see the would be a kind of
169 00:17:20.950 –> 00:17:23.609 Mark Pock: or
170 00:17:24.869 –> 00:17:26.029 Mark Pock: the Neumann.
171 00:17:26.869 –> 00:17:33.659 Mark Pock: So this is what God would be. God would be a kind of immediate intuition of the whole reality.
172 00:17:33.860 –> 00:17:39.799 Mark Pock: God doesn’t have to reason out what things, how things and why things happen if we if there were such a
173 00:17:40.600 –> 00:17:53.670 Mark Pock: as opposed to us rational meetings, finite, rational things, we have to kind of reason discursively, using concepts to understand. So I don’t want to confuse us. I’m just saying that intuition typically, is this kind of sensuous media. See?
174 00:17:53.780 –> 00:17:56.970 Mark Pock: But there’s another sense in which it’s just any kind of a mean
175 00:17:58.720 –> 00:18:03.140 Mark Pock: which would be corresponded to some kind of
176 00:18:04.240 –> 00:18:05.790 Mark Pock: understanding of it.
177 00:18:08.240 –> 00:18:09.200 Mark Pock: Okay?
178 00:18:09.750 –> 00:18:14.240 Mark Pock: yeah. So that that was that I wanted to clarify. Because.
179 00:18:14.760 –> 00:18:19.000 Mark Pock: yeah, what I like, I said, for the first form of consciousness that we’re going to encounter in certainty.
180 00:18:19.090 –> 00:18:20.799 Mark Pock: It takes what
181 00:18:21.390 –> 00:18:31.959 Mark Pock: Hegel uses various terms something he just calls it, since consciousness. but he will kinda say, like immediacy or intuition, because he’s alluding to this content background
182 00:18:33.340 –> 00:18:35.540 Mark Pock: and then, of course.
183 00:18:35.890 –> 00:18:54.630 Mark Pock: one of the things he was going to point out is that this criterion of immediacy. is it it? It it gets. That’s the thing. It can’t satisfy itself on its own grounds. That’s why we, as phenomenal observers, we don’t import some criterion that we know secretly, if end is the real criterion.
184 00:18:54.830 –> 00:18:57.740 Mark Pock: We do know that which is why we can understand what’s happened.
185 00:18:58.310 –> 00:19:09.089 Mark Pock: but we don’t import it into these various forms of conscious. We let them play out their own criteria and let them defeat themselves on their own grounds.
186 00:19:11.320 –> 00:19:12.400 Mark Pock: Yes.
187 00:19:12.460 –> 00:19:22.110 Mark Pock: yes, the form of consciousness experiences the problem. It runs into a a contradiction that can’t surmount without changing.
188 00:19:22.190 –> 00:19:27.360 Mark Pock: But it doesn’t understand that. It’s what the nature of the problem is it? It just experiences it.
189 00:19:31.060 –> 00:19:36.929 Mark Pock: It’s it’s a natural
190 00:19:37.280 –> 00:19:45.030 Mark Pock: right? Right? Oh. you go, hey, go!
191 00:19:45.160 –> 00:19:50.529 Mark Pock: We’ll say, No, no, no, yeah.
192 00:19:50.570 –> 00:19:58.839 Mark Pock: This or this isn’t what’s actually happening. yeah. So that’s that was
193 00:20:00.350 –> 00:20:09.110 Mark Pock: I just realized. I wanted to make sure I mentioned the the both phenomenological observer and this notion of intuition to get it clear on, because
194 00:20:09.310 –> 00:20:16.649 Mark Pock: I think I use them. or I forgot. I failed to mention it for a while ago. Server not used intuition last time, and I I didn’t clarify what I meant
195 00:20:17.460 –> 00:20:19.819 Mark Pock: But I mean
196 00:20:20.670 –> 00:20:22.559 Mark Pock: in some sense, yeah.
197 00:20:23.390 –> 00:20:30.649 Mark Pock: I mean, Kant is a big part of this, for I mean as much as Hegel
198 00:20:31.840 –> 00:20:40.699 Mark Pock: Pickle doesn’t like Con at all. Okay, highly critical. And he just it’s kind of disparaging at times. I I I disagree with with Pip and Nuts, who says that
199 00:20:40.790 –> 00:20:45.299 Mark Pock: to the major influence on Hegel, and like he’s a fundamental influence, I think
200 00:20:46.010 –> 00:20:48.069 Mark Pock: that’s misunderstood. I think
201 00:20:48.160 –> 00:20:58.170 Mark Pock: Aristotle is. You can look at the lectures on history of philosophy. The the on Aristotle is like 3 times as long as anyone else. So if you really want to get it But
202 00:20:58.460 –> 00:21:01.029 Mark Pock: despite what Hegel might have said about himself.
203 00:21:01.790 –> 00:21:12.459 Mark Pock: You. It is useful to know a lot of cons to get into what Hegel’s doing, because it because it’s the immediate context, not just con, it’s really con to. And then Shelling, who was his friend and roommate, and they
204 00:21:12.860 –> 00:21:16.749 Mark Pock: But anyway, so we don’t. Obviously we’re not going to study them. But
205 00:21:17.720 –> 00:21:19.390 Mark Pock: I’ll try to give you
206 00:21:19.780 –> 00:21:24.539 Mark Pock: some links to Kant as they come up, because we kind of need them.
207 00:21:24.600 –> 00:21:26.550 Mark Pock: But we can. Yeah, anyway.
208 00:21:29.740 –> 00:21:30.950 Mark Pock: Okay? So
209 00:21:33.470 –> 00:21:45.040 Mark Pock: if this exposition is viewed as a way of relating science to phenomenal knowledge, that is the forms of consciousness as they emerge. Right? So that’s the another thing about phenomenal knowledge is to say.
210 00:21:45.840 –> 00:21:55.259 Mark Pock: consciousness that it emerges as we just observe it as it appears to us. and what it’s doing without us importing our own standard as to what it should be.
211 00:21:58.470 –> 00:22:08.260 Mark Pock: and as an investigation and examination of the reality of cognition, it would seem to me that it cannot take place without some presupposition which can serve as an underlying criterion
212 00:22:08.710 –> 00:22:17.520 Mark Pock: for an examination consistent, apply and accepted standard. and then determining whether something is right or wrong on the basis of the resulting agreement or disagreement with that thing examined.
213 00:22:17.760 –> 00:22:22.939 Mark Pock: of the thing examined. Thus, the standard, as such.
214 00:22:23.690 –> 00:22:36.610 Mark Pock: is accepted as the essence or as in itself. But here, where science has just come on the scene, neither science nor anything else. So because we do have to eventually. This is the thing. It’s the it’s the circle. Because, like
215 00:22:37.940 –> 00:22:40.260 Mark Pock: Hegel saying, this is what we’re going to do.
216 00:22:40.400 –> 00:22:49.520 Mark Pock: But why should this be the the method. In some sense we sort of already need to be at the end. to to have this, to have justified this very approach.
217 00:22:50.450 –> 00:23:00.610 Mark Pock: where science is just become on the scene. Neither science or anything else has justified itself as the essence of the in a cell phone without making it something of it
218 00:23:00.720 –> 00:23:04.159 Mark Pock: of the sort. It seems that no examination can take place. Okay.
219 00:23:05.540 –> 00:23:14.800 Mark Pock: this contradiction and its removal will become more definite if we call to mind the abstract determinations of truth and knowledge as they occur in consciousness.
220 00:23:15.460 –> 00:23:22.800 Mark Pock: Okay, so truth is the object. Knowledge is the subject. But as we’re going to see these it continually kind of reverted and inverted as they
221 00:23:22.820 –> 00:23:24.260 Mark Pock: as things go forward.
222 00:23:24.950 –> 00:23:30.110 Mark Pock: So we at 1 point thought, was the object turns out to be the subject.
223 00:23:30.750 –> 00:23:32.300 Mark Pock: So for kont.
224 00:23:32.330 –> 00:23:36.049 Mark Pock: what we thought was
225 00:23:36.090 –> 00:23:39.730 Mark Pock: causality was over here. and the object.
226 00:23:41.160 –> 00:23:44.379 Mark Pock: even pretty hum especially turns out it’s it’s here.
227 00:23:46.420 –> 00:23:51.889 Mark Pock: Okay. So which is to say, in the concept, or the the notion or or knowledge
228 00:23:53.640 –> 00:24:04.070 Mark Pock: consciousness. Okay, then, then, this gets into this whole thing. Here consciousness simultaneously distinguishes itself from something at the same time relates itself to it.
229 00:24:04.140 –> 00:24:07.909 Mark Pock: or, as it is said that this something exists for consciousness.
230 00:24:08.100 –> 00:24:14.089 Mark Pock: and this the determinant aspect of this relating, or of the being of something, for consciousness is knowing.
231 00:24:14.790 –> 00:24:17.380 Mark Pock: So the being of something for consciousness is knowing.
232 00:24:17.430 –> 00:24:29.470 Mark Pock: But we distinguish the being for another from being in itself. Whatever is related to knowledge or knowing is distinguished from it, and positive as existing outside of the relationship. Now, here’s the thing.
233 00:24:29.480 –> 00:24:31.090 Mark Pock: A lot of people get stuck here.
234 00:24:32.240 –> 00:24:33.950 Mark Pock: He’s saying, we do this.
235 00:24:34.820 –> 00:24:41.169 Mark Pock: but we’re it’s not right, we’re we. We do this. We do positive distinction.
236 00:24:41.220 –> 00:24:46.209 Mark Pock: as if there was just the being in itself outside the relation to knowing.
237 00:24:47.080 –> 00:24:49.889 Mark Pock: I see. But that’s not correct.
238 00:24:50.560 –> 00:24:53.109 Mark Pock: There’s nothing ever outside the relation to knowing
239 00:24:54.610 –> 00:25:12.629 Mark Pock: We we do that. And then we forget that we’ve done that. And then we have all these problems that arise which was earlier in the the whole thing about the problem of the bridge. How can I be certain? That’s the whole modern question not going to be certain that the thing out there is like what it is for me.
240 00:25:14.110 –> 00:25:20.179 Mark Pock: but the fact that that as kind of partially getting to your question, we have to do that, though
241 00:25:20.270 –> 00:25:23.560 Mark Pock: we have to go through that that error
242 00:25:24.450 –> 00:25:37.719 Mark Pock: and in and trying to solve it, but not by just knowing in advance. Oh, yeah, really, don’t worry. It’s actually the self differentiating spirit. We have to deal with the fact that it seems like there is a distinction between what is in itself and what is merely for us.
243 00:25:38.700 –> 00:25:46.950 Mark Pock: This is a quick question. Yeah. So I understand that I think so then. But then why do we need to go from being for itself to being in an important so
244 00:25:47.270 –> 00:25:51.670 Mark Pock: well, that would just be, I suppose, the
245 00:25:52.550 –> 00:26:02.469 Mark Pock: It’s been kind of happy, so I don’t know why, actually, why are we inscribed to it so well, because then we would just be contents.
246 00:26:03.370 –> 00:26:13.890 Mark Pock: because we say, Well, we only ever know what is for us, what it merely appears to us. And what Hegel says earlier is that? Well, then, we’re in this problem, saying, Well, there’s 2 types of knowledge
247 00:26:14.010 –> 00:26:26.750 Mark Pock: and 2 types of true. There is the phenomenal the phenomenon of the appearances, and that’s remember. Don’t don’t forget the phenomena. The wrong with the phenomenon in cont is the totality of
248 00:26:26.970 –> 00:26:35.790 Mark Pock: science. It’s the whole Antonian universe and con saying, but yeah, but that’s just how things appear. That’s not really reality in itself.
249 00:26:35.970 –> 00:26:41.110 Mark Pock: Yeah, science is great. And we know all this stuff. but it’s not knowledge of the really real.
250 00:26:42.400 –> 00:26:44.530 Mark Pock: the really real.
251 00:26:45.430 –> 00:26:52.020 Mark Pock: the thing in itself. Hmm! And so Hegel’s Hegel is just saying, like
252 00:26:53.830 –> 00:26:58.829 Mark Pock: one thing, consciousness doesn’t settle for that. We demand the thing in itself.
253 00:26:59.560 –> 00:27:05.520 Mark Pock: and 2, it was never actually separated from us. In the first place. We just have to recollect that.
254 00:27:09.300 –> 00:27:14.339 Mark Pock: Not as if not as of yeah, of course. But though he will, he will say that
255 00:27:15.040 –> 00:27:17.120 Mark Pock: not that he’s going to provide a proof.
256 00:27:17.400 –> 00:27:23.980 Mark Pock: but that you’re going to see you’re going to participate in the proof itself.
257 00:27:27.500 –> 00:27:35.530 Mark Pock: Sure. Sure. Okay, so in here, this is this is Michael inwards? dictionary.
259 00:27:57.390 –> 00:27:58.960 Mark Pock: and
260 00:28:03.100 –> 00:28:06.070 Mark Pock: and what he does in here
261 00:28:06.120 –> 00:28:13.150 Mark Pock: is, among other things, I really find this What he does is he, miss?
262 00:28:13.260 –> 00:28:21.889 Mark Pock: what the be in itself meetings. And then you give 4 different explanations of what the
263 00:28:22.370 –> 00:28:31.390 Mark Pock: and they give a 4 different definition of what they’re being in for itself. It’s
264 00:28:31.400 –> 00:28:33.150 Mark Pock: or do you want to read them? Or
265 00:28:34.760 –> 00:28:35.910 Mark Pock: as for me.
266 00:28:37.760 –> 00:28:38.640 Mark Pock: so
267 00:28:39.000 –> 00:28:44.809 Mark Pock: one of the things that you see is that it’s not first off. It’s not just one
268 00:28:44.980 –> 00:28:48.150 Mark Pock: kind of uses them in different ways.
269 00:28:48.420 –> 00:28:52.510 Mark Pock: And so so get
270 00:28:53.280 –> 00:29:01.219 Mark Pock: It’s it’s it’s difficult to keep up with people sometimes, because sometimes it means it’s one way to
271 00:29:02.240 –> 00:29:04.970 yeah. Yeah, very true. That’s true, absolutely.
272 00:29:04.980 –> 00:29:06.539 Mark Pock: Yeah. That happens a lot
273 00:29:07.090 –> 00:29:13.709 Mark Pock: I found it being for it. So because you were bringing that up.
274 00:29:13.950 –> 00:29:17.509 Mark Pock: that which is not.
275 00:29:17.640 –> 00:29:26.150 Mark Pock: But
276 00:29:28.910 –> 00:29:32.999 Mark Pock: yeah, see what it is about for itself.
277 00:29:39.090 –> 00:29:40.320 Mark Pock: Yeah. Okay.
278 00:29:42.260 –> 00:29:45.459 Mark Pock: so each of these ideas.
279 00:29:45.520 –> 00:29:53.410 Mark Pock: you know how much that was
280 00:29:58.380 –> 00:30:00.400 Mark Pock: being for another.
281 00:30:01.320 –> 00:30:04.370 Mark Pock: if you need
282 00:30:05.210 –> 00:30:06.710 Mark Pock: things like that.
283 00:30:13.850 –> 00:30:20.390 Mark Pock: yeah. Okay. So the idea
284 00:30:21.380 –> 00:30:23.979 Mark Pock: is is a
285 00:30:31.220 –> 00:30:33.890 Mark Pock: Oh, we’re all.
286 00:30:34.300 –> 00:30:35.740 Mark Pock: Yeah.
287 00:30:39.220 –> 00:30:40.470 Mark Pock: Okay. Thank you.
288 00:30:42.660 –> 00:30:47.759 Mark Pock: yeah. So we’ve covered the most of this. So
289 00:30:48.420 –> 00:30:49.720 Mark Pock: the idea
290 00:30:49.740 –> 00:31:01.289 Mark Pock: that if something is so, this is a second, the first one. I’m not really sure what is getting at but second one. So the idea that if something is for itself, it is aware of itself.
291 00:31:01.500 –> 00:31:11.750 Mark Pock: leads to the further idea that an entity may have in itself certain characteristics that are not for itself. So an infinite infant is rational in itself, but not for itself.
292 00:31:12.460 –> 00:31:25.450 Mark Pock: so yeah, I think we we covered that, although in some sense it is for itself, just not for itself. That’s that’s the problem. Because all
293 00:31:25.870 –> 00:31:30.169 Mark Pock: the the the organism as an infant has already begun to direct itself.
294 00:31:31.290 –> 00:31:38.840 Mark Pock: so just the seed is already for itself just not for itself.
295 00:31:39.890 –> 00:31:43.470 Mark Pock: it’s only
296 00:31:43.510 –> 00:31:48.059 Mark Pock: So it doesn’t recognize itself yet. As for itself.
297 00:31:49.550 –> 00:31:51.030 Mark Pock: right?
298 00:31:51.420 –> 00:32:01.089 Mark Pock: And so that’s why it’s it’s there. What I’m saying is, there’s ambiguities already here. There’s a there are ambiguity. So yes, it’s true that in some sense an infant is rational merely in itself, but not for itself.
299 00:32:01.390 –> 00:32:03.470 Mark Pock: because
300 00:32:04.210 –> 00:32:09.400 Mark Pock: that’s I mean, like, I said, the one of the basic distinctions is
301 00:32:10.340 –> 00:32:13.940 Mark Pock: the basic distinction in self-directed
302 00:32:15.850 –> 00:32:18.730 Mark Pock: versus So I
303 00:32:21.760 –> 00:32:29.479 Mark Pock: in terms of and making it in the very notion of for itself. So in some sense everything is
304 00:32:29.650 –> 00:32:32.989 Mark Pock: is self directed all the way down to
305 00:32:33.700 –> 00:32:40.980 Mark Pock: nearest nature. and he as he says, he’s trying to recover the Aristotleian cosmology really.
306 00:32:40.990 –> 00:32:44.710 Mark Pock: where there, where there is directionality to even motion.
307 00:32:45.540 –> 00:32:53.450 Mark Pock: But certainly by the time, like I said in the first meeting, really, it’s organisms. Okay, he’s an organicist. And so
308 00:32:53.800 –> 00:32:56.899 Mark Pock: once you’re on the level of life. You have self-direction.
309 00:32:56.990 –> 00:33:00.309 Mark Pock: which is to some extent for itself, but life as life
310 00:33:00.540 –> 00:33:03.810 Mark Pock: it’s for itself, but never for itself.
311 00:33:04.130 –> 00:33:09.190 Mark Pock: that is to say, because it never objectifies itself.
312 00:33:09.270 –> 00:33:16.000 Mark Pock: because that’s I’m referring to a self objectified, then.
313 00:33:17.320 –> 00:33:22.319 Mark Pock: that is to say, you have it so. The so, for example, the rational man
314 00:33:22.810 –> 00:33:24.920 Mark Pock: isn’t necessarily fully
315 00:33:25.190 –> 00:33:29.800 Mark Pock: for themselves, either, in the sense because they haven’t done philosophy yet.
316 00:33:30.920 –> 00:33:33.609 Mark Pock: Well, he said, he.
317 00:33:33.930 –> 00:33:35.849 Mark Pock: That
318 00:33:42.070 –> 00:34:04.010 Mark Pock: may not be actual
319 00:34:04.460 –> 00:34:08.469 Mark Pock: 3 is
320 00:34:09.460 –> 00:34:11.610 Mark Pock: yeah.
321 00:34:11.750 –> 00:34:15.969 Mark Pock: Well, no. The tree was always for itself. That’s the thing. Is that
322 00:34:16.320 –> 00:34:20.989 Mark Pock: the tree develops
323 00:34:21.100 –> 00:34:22.290 Mark Pock: from the.
324 00:34:22.580 –> 00:34:25.550 Mark Pock: and then it’s and the fruit.
325 00:34:25.980 –> 00:34:27.729 Mark Pock: But the problem is that
326 00:34:28.810 –> 00:34:35.870 Mark Pock: now they’re outside one another. Okay, now, there’s a distinction and the
327 00:34:35.980 –> 00:34:39.309 Mark Pock: plant precisely does not recognize itself in the fruit
328 00:34:40.440 –> 00:34:48.570 Mark Pock: because it’s not conscious, some intelligent. it has objectified itself. but not for itself. Well.
329 00:34:49.949 –> 00:34:55.750 Mark Pock: since since, as as opposed to
330 00:34:58.870 –> 00:35:07.380 Mark Pock: yeah, it’s women from potency to act. Yeah, so it is. It is self directed.
331 00:35:07.590 –> 00:35:09.849 Mark Pock: but it’s not self- objectified.
332 00:35:12.770 –> 00:35:21.540 Mark Pock: It is implicitly in itself. That’s the thing in itself. It’s sort of. It’s all projected by this. As we we’ve got, there’s a whole analogy. He deals with this in the intro. We did this, I think, the first day.
333 00:35:21.560 –> 00:35:34.720 Mark Pock: So there’s a whole analogy in the introduction to what shows on this. Your philosophy relays this out and differentiates this this from consciousness, which pauses. It’s an object, but the object doesn’t fall outside. It’s relation.
334 00:35:34.780 –> 00:35:41.510 Mark Pock: that is, it remains internal to consciousness. But even then it may not be an adequate.
335 00:35:41.960 –> 00:35:46.650 Mark Pock: that is to say, you can objectify yourself in ways that are not adequate.
336 00:35:46.920 –> 00:35:50.070 Mark Pock: And so like, you’re not actually for yourself fully yet.
337 00:35:51.530 –> 00:35:54.419 Mark Pock: And that goes through a series of developments itself.
338 00:35:54.430 –> 00:36:10.909 Mark Pock: That’s why it so it’s there’s not just the in itself for itself. There’s in itself at this stage, and then they itself at the next stage, and then it’s up, and the for itself, this stage for self, for the next stage, as it things go. And then there is in some sense a of Ted. They’re sort of like provisional in and for themselves.
339 00:36:11.910 –> 00:36:19.080 Mark Pock: but they turned out they’re sort of they kind of, because everything in some sense is in for self, because everything is, and everything is for itself
340 00:36:19.400 –> 00:36:29.320 Mark Pock: But it’s not self objectified adequately. That’s the whole thing. The big thing with the object has to be adequate to the concept
341 00:36:29.360 –> 00:36:33.630 Mark Pock: right until you get full and and for itself.
342 00:36:38.460 –> 00:36:43.140 Mark Pock: because being in some sense has to come into being to be adequate to its own concept.
343 00:36:44.870 –> 00:36:52.740 Mark Pock: Hmm! But there, there is only ever be. There’s no some that’s the thing you can’t think of. The concept is outside dictating some external criterion.
344 00:36:56.900 –> 00:36:58.769 Mark Pock: It’s not like it’s catching up to something
345 00:37:03.780 –> 00:37:05.970 Mark Pock: I don’t know does that? I don’t know if that helps.
346 00:37:06.590 –> 00:37:09.940 Mark Pock: But yeah. So there, this is just to say, there’s
347 00:37:10.500 –> 00:37:15.249 Mark Pock: there’s there’s yeah, there’s other ways. You can kind of cash out the ambiguity. But I would. I would just say that
348 00:37:15.740 –> 00:37:24.229 Mark Pock: these are, if you can get a hold of this, that he and he will kind of shift back and forth. He won’t always clarify when he’s making using these in different senses.
349 00:37:24.560 –> 00:37:30.949 Mark Pock: and like, yeah, sometimes it’s obviously an act, and so on.
350 00:37:32.690 –> 00:37:40.520 Mark Pock: yeah, yeah, it’s like, I, I I don’t understand like the
351 00:37:40.630 –> 00:37:50.930 Mark Pock: we haven’t even finished that. So right. But keep going. What it’s like. How much of that is kind of like Nisha is pulling yourself up this wall, going on here.
352 00:37:51.120 –> 00:37:52.550 Mark Pock: Well, that’s barren munches.
353 00:37:53.450 –> 00:38:01.319 Mark Pock: You guys know that you guys are Terry Gilliam and
354 00:38:01.810 –> 00:38:09.100 Mark Pock: it’s called, what’s this cause? It was it was much I was in that fell into the quicksand and pull himself up. By the but you said, Nietzsche says this.
355 00:38:09.230 –> 00:38:14.600 Mark Pock: oh, I need your reference to yeah. Yeah. So that because it is, I think it’s a German thing, so it makes sense.
356 00:38:14.840 –> 00:38:20.519 Mark Pock: But the Baron Munchausen and I I don’t know if it’s this. I don’t think it’s the same origin as Munchausen. But
357 00:38:20.540 –> 00:38:22.040 Mark Pock: Munchausen’s disease.
358 00:38:22.310 –> 00:38:41.510 Mark Pock: You guys know what it is for someone to be sick to get attention more. It’s kind of pathology. But then there’s also munch houses for a proxy. Where parents do that to their children they constantly bring them to the er sometimes they may actually give them things that make them sick.
359 00:38:41.550 –> 00:38:43.869 Mark Pock: I think. Hem! And he said his mom would do that to him.
360 00:38:44.020 –> 00:38:48.459 Mark Pock: Yeah, but it’s M. And M.
361 00:38:48.730 –> 00:38:52.980 Mark Pock: That old guy from a long time ago.
362 00:38:53.850 –> 00:39:01.300 Mark Pock: but yeah, there’s so yeah, so you pull on your cell phone. But yeah, spirit pulls itself up by the bootstraps.
363 00:39:06.400 –> 00:39:13.650 Mark Pock: because there is no outside, because in the very ideas like well, then, there would be some kind of thing you have to stand on.
364 00:39:15.090 –> 00:39:23.690 Mark Pock: That’s external. That’s it, supplying a kind of criterion that you can trust in advance. This is this is firm and steady ground. This is being in itself.
365 00:39:24.140 –> 00:39:29.349 Mark Pock: and I’m going to kind of pull myself to be on that safe ground now, as if I knew in advance. That’s what it was
366 00:39:31.000 –> 00:39:33.130 Mark Pock: when I could just be more quick quicksand.
367 00:39:36.470 –> 00:39:47.899 Mark Pock: So you have to find you can’t rely. That’s actually kind of a useful image because of Kegel is going to say, yeah, matter can never be. The criterion. Matter cannot be the firm ground upon which we stand
368 00:39:48.080 –> 00:39:51.830 Mark Pock: to justify knowledge, whereas for some it is.
369 00:39:52.610 –> 00:39:56.680 Mark Pock: and I’m just exploiting the analogy there a little bit. But
370 00:39:57.400 –> 00:40:00.480 Mark Pock: spirit, only spirit. We can sustain itself.
371 00:40:03.010 –> 00:40:07.319 Mark Pock: yeah, matter will fall. There’s not anything beneath it.
372 00:40:07.700 –> 00:40:08.510 Mark Pock: Hmm.
373 00:40:11.340 –> 00:40:25.140 Mark Pock: yeah, okay. But what’s yeah, very good, very good. But so what is he? What does he just say, what? What’s his? What is he saying? There, I don’t think it’s like a a criticism of
374 00:40:26.540 –> 00:40:30.420 Mark Pock: of it’s it’s a it’s a metaphysical.
375 00:40:30.900 –> 00:40:42.569 Mark Pock: What a lot of philosophy does is pull the cell phone by its own here cause. I, because I think me too, is okay with that right? I mean the will to power itself. The whole thing right? I’m not sure I I feel so critical about it. But
376 00:40:43.330 –> 00:40:51.480 Mark Pock: what? I forget how to spell Munchausen.
377 00:40:53.920 –> 00:41:06.100 Mark Pock: the desire to bear the entire and ultimate responsibility for one’s actions oneself, and to absolve God. The world ancestors. Chance of society involves nothing less than to be precisely this
378 00:41:06.130 –> 00:41:15.589 Mark Pock: calls a suite, and to pull himself up into existence by the hair out of the swamp, it into nothing
379 00:41:15.790 –> 00:41:22.810 Mark Pock: from the from the swamp.
380 00:41:22.820 –> 00:41:30.599 Mark Pock: What is it? A speech in 1,966? But So it’s a reference to something.
381 00:41:32.720 –> 00:41:41.020 Mark Pock: It would be yeah, beyond good and evil.
382 00:41:41.170 –> 00:41:45.940 Mark Pock: Yeah. Paragraph 21
383 00:41:46.050 –> 00:41:50.690 Mark Pock: for section 21. Oh, you’re a good neighbor. Yes.
384 00:41:51.970 –> 00:41:54.619 Mark Pock: I lost it. Keep it.
385 00:41:54.790 –> 00:41:55.570 Mark Pock: Yeah.
386 00:42:03.240 –> 00:42:04.030 Mark Pock: yeah.
387 00:42:10.350 –> 00:42:26.269 Mark Pock: So let’s see, we can put it on the we’re at. Okay. So that’s I was like, okay, am I on camera like right here.
388 00:42:26.510 –> 00:42:36.970 Mark Pock: So life. Okay. So if I go or sorry you, your life is fundamentally will to power the doctor that every power draws the ultimate consequence that every month. Okay.
389 00:42:37.520 –> 00:42:40.569 Mark Pock: The extreme form of this of this doctrine.
390 00:42:40.980 –> 00:42:52.989 Mark Pock: however, is the brief that will is totally okay. So that’s the issue that a hundred times with you in theory of free will which needs that need to. So he’s saying, you don’t have free will.
391 00:42:53.190 –> 00:42:57.200 Mark Pock: even though life is fundamentally will the power
392 00:42:57.560 –> 00:43:04.029 Mark Pock: Extravagant pride has led man to believe that he is an autonomous creature that is, as well as entirely free
393 00:43:04.570 –> 00:43:10.570 Mark Pock: here he’s talking more about this is, this is probably yeah.
394 00:43:10.890 –> 00:43:15.439 Mark Pock: it’s actually kind of interesting, because he he’s sort of he’s referring. If you were to be
395 00:43:17.050 –> 00:43:24.680 Mark Pock: to kind of be sympathetic to what he’s talking about here. or because con for coffee will is a.
396 00:43:25.750 –> 00:43:38.199 Mark Pock: It’s a it’s a new and all thing. It’s an uncaused cause. We don’t experience it as such. We have to pause it as such in order to claim for ourselves ultimate responsibility. The will cannot be conditioned by anything else.
397 00:43:38.980 –> 00:43:46.020 Mark Pock: and for for Hegel it’s a bit opposite. If you remember, you go from natural inclination to content discipline to
398 00:43:46.200 –> 00:43:50.550 Mark Pock: a kind of sublation of your inclinations.
399 00:43:50.660 –> 00:43:52.870 Mark Pock: And you. This is the thing. You sort of
400 00:43:53.190 –> 00:43:57.090 Mark Pock: realize that spirit posited its own conditions.
401 00:43:57.310 –> 00:44:00.140 Mark Pock: But it’s not. It’s not
402 00:44:00.680 –> 00:44:03.040 Mark Pock: mere license, it’s not near
403 00:44:03.160 –> 00:44:10.249 Mark Pock: free will, and the kind of vulgar, either libertarian sense, or even in the content sense of just
404 00:44:10.570 –> 00:44:14.660 Mark Pock: spontaneous will. It’s educated
405 00:44:15.120 –> 00:44:17.029 Mark Pock: cultivated
406 00:44:17.450 –> 00:44:22.680 Mark Pock: desire, which is kind of what the will to power really is for Nietzsche, too.
407 00:44:23.880 –> 00:44:25.120 Mark Pock: like to
408 00:44:25.690 –> 00:44:35.040 Mark Pock: to. It’s not just caprice. So they’re actually in German. It’s versus they look as caprice versus vila, which is
409 00:44:35.650 –> 00:44:46.239 Mark Pock: different. It’s not America. Priest. Okay? So this view of the desire to bear the entire and ultimate responsibility for one’s actions oneself. That’s con.
410 00:44:47.300 –> 00:45:00.099 Mark Pock: and to absolve the God the world ancestors chance in society, which Hegel would all take into account. That’s conditioning it will. And while it’s nothing less than the precisely
411 00:45:00.770 –> 00:45:07.529 Mark Pock: that. How the Sui. and to pull himself into existence by the hair out of the swamp of nothingness.
412 00:45:08.200 –> 00:45:11.070 Mark Pock: Now, of course, in some sense. Yeah.
413 00:45:11.290 –> 00:45:15.669 Mark Pock: that is, that is what it was. But what he’s talking about more precisely. Here is
414 00:45:15.980 –> 00:45:22.720 Mark Pock: what I’m trying to say is that and what I was thinking. Well, Nietzsche. for me to yeah, the the will to power is
415 00:45:22.810 –> 00:45:27.970 Mark Pock: all of reality, and in some sense is self-conditioning. But he’s trying to say that it’s different than
416 00:45:28.290 –> 00:45:32.690 Mark Pock: this abstract content will that is just
417 00:45:33.270 –> 00:45:38.230 Mark Pock: beyond experience, like hiding my power
418 00:45:38.870 –> 00:45:47.920 Mark Pock: cause. That’s what cause cause. What for the the point is that if the will is conditioned by something external to itself, it’s not free.
419 00:45:48.700 –> 00:45:50.669 Mark Pock: And so we can’t hold people responsible.
420 00:45:52.220 –> 00:46:07.279 Mark Pock: That’s what we say we say, well, it was a like, it was some psychological malady, it was. Society put me in this condition, and so the whole point of like holding moral responsibility is just gone unless you have a non-cost cause.
421 00:46:07.720 –> 00:46:16.770 Mark Pock: Hmm! Now, the problem is that because causality is the condition of the possibility of experience. We never experience ourselves as on caused causes.
422 00:46:16.880 –> 00:46:21.260 Mark Pock: but we have to postulate ourselves as such as nominal
423 00:46:22.610 –> 00:46:29.079 Mark Pock: nominally goes, that we can hold responsible, even though we can never be really sure that it was with us.
424 00:46:30.800 –> 00:46:35.389 Mark Pock: It’s kind of yeah. It runs into a problem like, How do you hold someone responsible and say, this is your fault
425 00:46:37.530 –> 00:46:41.240 Mark Pock: as well. We have to postulate that they ultimately
426 00:46:41.770 –> 00:46:46.689 Mark Pock: acted merely from themselves, even though they and us never actually experience something like that.
427 00:46:50.510 –> 00:46:51.470 Mark Pock: anyway.
428 00:46:51.850 –> 00:46:57.850 Mark Pock: So but back to your actual question it was. The point is that
429 00:46:59.080 –> 00:47:03.830 Mark Pock: yeah, in one sense, it’s true. but I don’t know if he is critiquing
430 00:47:03.980 –> 00:47:12.699 Mark Pock: Hegel at that point, because there is some sense in which niece is talking about himself, too. He’s just trying to say this is a naive view of the will, which is just kind of spontaneous
431 00:47:13.230 –> 00:47:16.500 Mark Pock: caprice.
432 00:47:20.430 –> 00:47:28.279 Mark Pock: Well, that’s a that’s a point of contention as to what, how you know the the who’s hang on which Nietzsche are we talking about?
433 00:47:34.180 –> 00:47:40.370 Mark Pock: Oh, Nietzsche’s Nietzsche? Okay.
434 00:47:45.130 –> 00:47:48.430 Mark Pock: that’s a long story. I mean the whole
435 00:47:50.240 –> 00:47:53.509 Mark Pock: master slave dialectic is
436 00:47:54.630 –> 00:47:56.339 Mark Pock: you could say. The entirety of
437 00:47:56.630 –> 00:48:06.570 Mark Pock: Nietzsche’s master of morality or slave round is already there, and the problem is that Nietzsche doesn’t go far enough with Ego. But he’s fully, you know.
438 00:48:06.770 –> 00:48:10.799 Mark Pock: a Galen up to a point. So there’s all different ways to approach that
440 00:48:27.800 –> 00:48:29.939 Mark Pock: this is
442 00:48:45.970 –> 00:48:49.200 Mark Pock: So
443 00:48:54.240 –> 00:48:58.380 Mark Pock: of the concept of reflection which it rises to the confusion.
444 00:49:01.740 –> 00:49:04.890 Mark Pock: And so he has here.
445 00:49:05.030 –> 00:49:09.199 Mark Pock: Yeah, I actually
446 00:49:09.600 –> 00:49:27.879 Mark Pock: not a close student that so cot starts to bring in some some wild terminal like even beyond Hegel is uses and and fibolis parallelism, analogies of what’s even for even for Hegel. It’s wild. This is this is the later parts of the
447 00:49:28.590 –> 00:49:37.359 Mark Pock: But it’s different than a paradox. It’s different than a parallelism. It’s different than a
448 00:49:37.660 –> 00:49:44.009 Mark Pock: Yeah, I’m not I. It’s fine. But I, you just said you you just use and and fibly, and I wasn’t sure if they
449 00:49:47.260 –> 00:49:52.350 Mark Pock: okay here since
450 00:49:54.650 –> 00:50:00.350 Mark Pock: he says he’s talking about the notion of.
451 00:50:01.680 –> 00:50:06.690 Mark Pock: And he said, if we want to call this object
452 00:50:07.400 –> 00:50:13.510 Mark Pock: because the presentation of it is not sensible. and we if we do so. so we.
453 00:50:13.790 –> 00:50:17.740 Mark Pock: you know.
454 00:50:17.970 –> 00:50:21.310 we can say that there’s something behind that.
455 00:50:21.400 –> 00:50:25.470 Mark Pock: It’s
456 00:50:25.990 –> 00:50:27.710 Mark Pock: But
457 00:50:28.080 –> 00:50:40.120 Mark Pock: since we cannot apply to any of our concepts of understanding, the presentation yet remains empty for us, and does not serve for anything but to block the bounds of our sensible cognition.
458 00:50:52.640 –> 00:50:59.660 Mark Pock: he said, we can be virtually that, but it’s an empty notion, because it’s not that there is some archaeological
459 00:51:00.990 –> 00:51:05.560 Mark Pock: well, there could be
460 00:51:05.890 –> 00:51:17.400 Mark Pock: there could be. We don’t know that. So it’s not that. It’s not that there is one. He’s saying that we do not know whether there is
461 00:51:17.620 –> 00:51:21.429 Mark Pock: he. He says that the concept of the minimum
462 00:51:21.590 –> 00:51:30.290 Mark Pock: is So it’s a boundary. Well, our sensible cognition. So it’s really, in my view.
463 00:51:30.440 –> 00:51:33.899 Mark Pock: and it’s some a logical boundary.
464 00:51:34.620 –> 00:51:39.939 Mark Pock: because we don’t know whether, even if it exist or not. And the only thing we know that
465 00:51:39.990 –> 00:51:49.010 Mark Pock: we can not them eligible to be involved with understanding our things that confirmed to the characters, and
466 00:51:49.300 –> 00:51:53.730 Mark Pock: 3 of the 3 of the categories are
467 00:51:54.250 –> 00:51:57.309 Mark Pock: distance, necessity, and possibility
468 00:51:57.610 –> 00:52:03.950 Mark Pock: impossible, and we can’t even say that it exists.
469 00:52:03.980 –> 00:52:07.969 Mark Pock: We just don’t know. and we should be building it as possible.
470 00:52:08.430 –> 00:52:31.669 Mark Pock: I
471 00:52:32.090 –> 00:52:34.129 not just
472 00:52:36.900 –> 00:52:43.419 Mark Pock: the use of understanding.
473 00:52:43.540 –> 00:52:47.059 Mark Pock: and thus objects that it is possible into machines.
474 00:52:47.150 –> 00:52:55.439 Mark Pock: It’s going to go into concepts instead of concepts conforming to possible the traditions is that we are
475 00:52:58.250 –> 00:53:00.349 Mark Pock: so today. That’s
476 00:53:00.370 –> 00:53:04.220 Mark Pock: she will come. Not that it’s not
477 00:53:04.290 –> 00:53:13.909 Mark Pock: it’s true, but it’s not that the matter out there. There are ideas that you can forward to the matter
478 00:53:14.370 –> 00:53:17.610 Mark Pock: when he’s out there. It’s
479 00:53:24.330 –> 00:53:25.040 Mark Pock: no
480 00:53:26.380 –> 00:53:27.070 Mark Pock: it’s
481 00:53:28.040 –> 00:53:35.020 Mark Pock: yeah. Actually, could you come back to that.
482 00:53:35.270 –> 00:53:36.920 Mark Pock: That’s the thing.
483 00:53:37.010 –> 00:53:38.330 Mark Pock: Just one thing.
484 00:53:39.770 –> 00:53:42.820 Mark Pock: What’s the which we’re going to be getting to?
485 00:53:44.850 –> 00:53:46.800 Mark Pock: if you want to?
486 00:53:47.550 –> 00:53:52.480 Mark Pock: What do you think? what or or are you reading? Oh, I do
487 00:53:58.380 –> 00:53:59.290 Mark Pock: right.
488 00:54:05.150 –> 00:54:08.929 Mark Pock: So right. So one of the one of the things to note here is
489 00:54:11.290 –> 00:54:20.319 Mark Pock: he says, and thus objects, ie. Possible intuitions, must conform to concepts.
490 00:54:20.700 –> 00:54:21.450 Mark Pock: Okay.
491 00:54:22.700 –> 00:54:26.670 Mark Pock: why are why are objects called possible intuitions?
492 00:54:31.470 –> 00:54:40.170 Mark Pock: Khan is taking it as obvious to be an object is to be in to be intuitive on a sensuous level. Yes, it has content.
493 00:54:44.630 –> 00:54:58.360 Mark Pock: Yep, that’s a couple of consequences. That’s what I’m saying that what Hegel is going to say is that that’s one notion of an object. and that so count counts
494 00:54:59.190 –> 00:55:04.810 Mark Pock: essentially an intuitionist. So he’s saying that the criterion of objectivity is immediate
495 00:55:05.200 –> 00:55:09.469 Mark Pock: sensuous intuition. and because we cannot get that
496 00:55:10.240 –> 00:55:14.030 Mark Pock: good because we cannot directly into it. Causality.
497 00:55:15.150 –> 00:55:17.089 Mark Pock: it cannot be coming from the object.
498 00:55:19.760 –> 00:55:25.710 Mark Pock: But the point is that causality is not sense sensuous. It doesn’t mean it’s not an object of experience.
499 00:55:30.330 –> 00:55:34.920 Mark Pock: Okay, this is what Hegel is going to be getting at. Is that con saying.
500 00:55:35.680 –> 00:55:38.729 Mark Pock: Yeah, the subject over here with these concepts.
501 00:55:40.550 –> 00:55:41.810 Mark Pock: and then you have
502 00:55:41.970 –> 00:55:44.740 Mark Pock: the objects which is intuition.
503 00:55:47.020 –> 00:55:56.189 Mark Pock: And the thing is that I can Comp. There’s there’s double and triple ambiguities here because you have multiple objects. It turns out because you have
504 00:55:56.350 –> 00:56:04.769 Mark Pock: objects as possible intuitions. But that’s actually not the object. Sorry objects turn out to be intuition that’s structured by concepts.
505 00:56:06.530 –> 00:56:15.790 Mark Pock: Okay? But the point is is that he can’t really say that clearly because he thinks if it’s going to be an object, it has to be immediately President, since it was intuition.
506 00:56:16.810 –> 00:56:18.260 Mark Pock: Yeah, we all just see it.
507 00:56:19.510 –> 00:56:24.250 Mark Pock: And since you cannot see causality. it cannot be an object for
508 00:56:28.120 –> 00:56:34.500 Mark Pock: because humid shown, it’s not. But Hegel’s point is this is the object.
509 00:56:35.060 –> 00:56:38.499 Mark Pock: These are objects. When you conceive of something.
510 00:56:38.890 –> 00:56:39.670 Mark Pock: Hmm!
511 00:56:40.190 –> 00:56:42.000 Mark Pock: It’s an object for you.
512 00:56:42.760 –> 00:56:45.289 Mark Pock: That’s the whole of science, too. Again.
513 00:56:46.050 –> 00:56:51.819 Mark Pock: not what I’m saying, not for for cop. This, in some sense is not an object.
514 00:56:51.930 –> 00:56:58.259 Mark Pock: No, i’ it’s anything. You. Okay, this is, this is a key point. This is
515 00:56:58.610 –> 00:57:04.120 Mark Pock: I I know what cont is saying, Okay, but we have to think through what is actually saying and and
516 00:57:04.130 –> 00:57:07.240 Mark Pock: and take a step back. He’s saying the reason why.
517 00:57:08.080 –> 00:57:13.559 Mark Pock: we cannot say that causality
518 00:57:14.210 –> 00:57:20.229 Mark Pock: is a characteristic of the thing in itself is because I can’t see it.
519 00:57:21.890 –> 00:57:29.179 Mark Pock: Yes, which is to say, because only that which is sensible is objective.
520 00:57:30.400 –> 00:57:31.340 Mark Pock: Okay?
521 00:57:32.650 –> 00:57:40.880 Mark Pock: Sure. Okay. And he was also in the yeah. Exactly so. But what Hegel is saying is that that’s according to the one viewpoint of an object.
522 00:57:41.070 –> 00:57:44.020 Mark Pock: objects. concepts, or objects
523 00:57:50.660 –> 00:57:51.720 Mark Pock: right
524 00:57:52.020 –> 00:57:58.450 Mark Pock: in that.
525 00:57:58.830 –> 00:58:09.800 Mark Pock: So the concept, the object is concept that brings people together. So that this is
526 00:58:10.400 –> 00:58:13.130 Mark Pock: something
527 00:58:13.220 –> 00:58:15.510 Mark Pock: is that that’s appearance.
528 00:58:19.570 –> 00:58:26.129 Mark Pock: That’s it. But it’s not
529 00:58:28.150 –> 00:58:50.390 Mark Pock: an epistemological boundary that says all we can see of the appearance, all we can sense, the appearances in what field our concepts are those appearance and what they, whether they are not in the things beyond those appearances, we just don’t know. No. But why? Why is this the object. This, this conjunction of concepts and intuition
530 00:58:52.160 –> 00:59:04.770 Mark Pock: that you’re saying now is the object. This Con. Remember, just said that objects are possible intuition. He didn’t say, this is the. It’s the concept controlling the intuition.
531 00:59:04.800 –> 00:59:06.760 Mark Pock: No, I understand that they are objects.
532 00:59:07.350 –> 00:59:20.459 Mark Pock: their objects. So. But now you. Now we’re saying that that’s what concept. Intuitions are our intuitions are objects are possible intuitions. You just said that. Now what I’m saying is, I understand there’s a there there’s there’s more than one notion of objecting.
533 00:59:20.830 –> 00:59:22.560 Mark Pock: Okay, and so
534 00:59:22.870 –> 00:59:23.880 Mark Pock: and
535 00:59:23.940 –> 00:59:29.160 Mark Pock: why is the the union now of concept and intuition? Not an object?
536 00:59:32.590 –> 00:59:33.580 Mark Pock: Okay.
537 00:59:33.750 –> 00:59:42.239 Mark Pock: why is this? Why is this not a thing in itself? Why is this not the thing in itself? Okay? Because it is not
538 00:59:44.160 –> 00:59:48.190 Mark Pock: because we’re talking to some logic.
539 00:59:48.740 –> 00:59:56.229 Mark Pock: He’s 6. And he says it’s that one. So is not that.
540 00:59:56.270 –> 00:59:59.800 Mark Pock: It’s because that’s the most we can
541 01:00:01.150 –> 01:00:05.100 Mark Pock: conceptualize and proceed is that
542 01:00:05.190 –> 01:00:15.840 Mark Pock: that’s mostly
543 01:00:16.210 –> 01:00:23.259 Mark Pock: you just rest of the problem. Why is that okay? That your
544 01:00:23.590 –> 01:00:39.220 Mark Pock: as an object? No, I’m asking, why is it not the thing in it? Sense from Zoom. I’m not referred to as a thing that’s all been asking, why is it not the thing? It’s all does not refer to that. So I signed up that I’m saying, why is it not? Why does he not refer to it as a thing itself?
545 01:00:39.560 –> 01:00:46.260 Mark Pock: Because he is in this understanding to me, on this communication. all right, like
546 01:00:46.860 –> 01:00:51.629 Mark Pock: between what is meant by the thing itself
547 01:00:52.450 –> 01:01:01.030 Mark Pock: as you’re you’re saying, why couldn’t it be the concept? And I’m saying, because contact us that way.
548 01:01:01.250 –> 01:01:13.999 Mark Pock: that’s not an answer, because I’m telling. That’s not an answer. Because you’re saying, Okay, why doesn’t I’m asking why? Doesn’t need you with that, and I’ll I’ll I’ll I’ll cut the long story short because we continue this on. I’ll tell you what Hegel says. Okay, Hegel is saying that
549 01:01:14.170 –> 01:01:19.460 Mark Pock: the problem here is that comp is in the viewpoint of sense certainty which we’ll talk about.
550 01:01:19.730 –> 01:01:23.859 Mark Pock: Okay. And he thinks that in order for something to be an object.
551 01:01:23.980 –> 01:01:25.240 Mark Pock: it must be sensible.
552 01:01:26.510 –> 01:01:34.659 Mark Pock: Yeah. And since it can’t be sent causality. it cannot be an object. It cannot come from the object
553 01:01:36.090 –> 01:01:39.780 Mark Pock: it has to come from in here in the subject.
554 01:01:41.230 –> 01:01:46.209 Mark Pock: Hegel’s point is that concepts or objects. we conceive them.
555 01:01:47.230 –> 01:01:54.310 Mark Pock: This is a basic thing this is. And then you get into the basic phenomenology of yes, there’s an oasis in the Olymp okay.
556 01:01:54.440 –> 01:01:58.730 Mark Pock: the oasis is conceiving right
557 01:01:59.610 –> 01:02:03.400 Mark Pock: the act and then they can see the contact
558 01:02:05.910 –> 01:02:13.910 Mark Pock: that’s the object that’s that’s the whole of scientific reality
559 01:02:14.100 –> 01:02:15.369 Mark Pock: cannot be sensed.
560 01:02:18.460 –> 01:02:20.140 Mark Pock: Since intuition
561 01:02:20.210 –> 01:02:22.349 Mark Pock: is merely matters.
562 01:02:25.310 –> 01:02:29.589 Mark Pock: it’s being being actualized, not standing over against some concept
563 01:02:30.080 –> 01:02:33.739 Mark Pock: concept itself. it emerges out of the matter
564 01:02:34.980 –> 01:02:43.540 Mark Pock: and the
565 01:02:45.870 –> 01:02:46.530 okay.
566 01:02:47.010 –> 01:02:59.199 Mark Pock: okay, and what I’m saying, okay, what? What? Hegel is saying is that concepts so that’s a famous thing concepts without intuitions are empty. So concepts without intuitions. They’re empty.
567 01:02:59.210 –> 01:03:00.330 Mark Pock: Which is
568 01:03:00.730 –> 01:03:04.259 Mark Pock: he, the point he’s trying to make there is that
569 01:03:04.670 –> 01:03:14.570 Mark Pock: you can’t use concepts like causality with respect to something like free will, because you don’t ex. There’s no, there’s no intuition of that.
570 01:03:14.700 –> 01:03:30.880 Mark Pock: Okay. And so it’s illicit to. And like, for instance, like talking about God as the first cause. because there’s no sensible intuition. So and that’s why we run into problems philosophically, we use these concepts with without granting this is supposed to empiricism of Con, we have to ground our concepts
571 01:03:30.890 –> 01:03:50.359 Mark Pock: in sensuous intuition. And then intuitions without concepts are blind. That is, they don’t. It’s just data coming at us, which is what you was saying. Look, you can’t even have these intuitions without the concepts there. In the first place. Okay, this is Kayle saying something completely different. So this is this is huge. Okay, he’s saying.
572 01:03:50.600 –> 01:03:53.950 Mark Pock: concepts are their own content.
573 01:03:54.040 –> 01:03:56.280 Mark Pock: Concepts are contents
574 01:03:56.320 –> 01:04:03.579 Mark Pock: of no, that’s but that’s not what it says. No, I’m saying, yeah. So con concepts are contents.
575 01:04:04.850 –> 01:04:07.770 Mark Pock: Yes, yes, okay.
576 01:04:08.270 –> 01:04:16.480 Mark Pock: so and that. And the reason why Con Cont doesn’t have that. He thinks that the content of concepts as intuition.
577 01:04:16.880 –> 01:04:21.149 Mark Pock: What Hegel is saying is concepts on the content of acts of conceiving.
578 01:04:21.930 –> 01:04:23.070 Mark Pock: Okay?
579 01:04:28.780 –> 01:04:30.330 Mark Pock: So
580 01:04:31.690 –> 01:04:34.020 Mark Pock: no.
581 01:04:34.080 –> 01:04:37.940 Mark Pock: okay, so
582 01:04:40.370 –> 01:04:55.360 Mark Pock: well, okay, we didn’t actually get to 84. But I think we got the point about this whole idea of criterion. The one thing that I wanted to add, though. And then we will. we’ll at least start a little bit of sense certainty.
583 01:04:55.490 –> 01:05:06.170 Mark Pock: So I mean that all that is all important, that that is fun, fundamental. Okay, like, this is a problem
584 01:05:06.650 –> 01:05:09.320 Mark Pock: that I mean, it’s not
585 01:05:09.460 –> 01:05:21.600 Mark Pock: just even like whole philosophy departments are missing this. Okay, that this, that? yeah, and how. And not understanding that.
586 01:05:21.610 –> 01:05:30.539 Mark Pock: like people just think concepts like it’s called the substantive model of concepts substantive. So you concept of zoom things underneath them.
587 01:05:30.570 –> 01:05:33.850 Mark Pock: and that’s their content
588 01:05:35.170 –> 01:05:36.889 Mark Pock: and not differentiating. No.
589 01:05:38.280 –> 01:05:49.899 Mark Pock: this is, it’s just not attending, not being able to differentiate the actual act. I I’m trying to tell you guys. there’s the phenomenology of acts. It doesn’t happen
590 01:05:50.020 –> 01:05:54.389 Mark Pock: like I was. I actually pulled up this book. It’s doesn’t matter. But, like.
591 01:05:54.440 –> 01:05:58.250 Mark Pock: here’s this guy I heard about his name, Jason Stanley. I was going to talk because I
592 01:05:58.420 –> 01:06:03.040 Mark Pock: I can’t encounter them in another context, for I can become pissed all these standard kind of analytic
593 01:06:03.970 –> 01:06:06.250 Mark Pock: stuff. And
594 01:06:06.470 –> 01:06:14.399 Mark Pock: hey, they talk about justified. True of the completely right? Police believe you guys familiar with this believe, believe, like, how do we justify our beliefs?
595 01:06:14.450 –> 01:06:15.739 Mark Pock: And that’s knowledge?
596 01:06:15.790 –> 01:06:18.530 Mark Pock: Okay? But what’s the belief?
597 01:06:19.700 –> 01:06:29.169 Mark Pock: Is it the act of believing. or is it the thing believed? And you have to. It’s both okay. You have to distinguish, but they don’t. There’s just like belief.
598 01:06:29.840 –> 01:06:42.039 Mark Pock: And then they go. We’re off and running about. Okay, what are the conditions that I can trust my beliefs without even doing a basic phenomenology, different, differentiating, believing from the believed as just a first thing to do.
599 01:06:42.280 –> 01:06:43.849 Mark Pock: And that’s happening.
600 01:06:45.120 –> 01:06:51.790 Mark Pock: Okay? And people run with Compton, they think they’re doing this. And it’s it’s missing a fundamental thing. Okay, anyway.
602 01:06:56.730 –> 01:07:01.469 Mark Pock: sorry. Anyway, what I got distracted on something. So so
603 01:07:01.670 –> 01:07:05.319 Mark Pock: one last thing, this is this is going to 85
604 01:07:05.340 –> 01:07:10.549 Mark Pock: bottom of 80. The paragraph 85 on page 54.
605 01:07:10.670 –> 01:07:20.080 Mark Pock: Yeah, we because we need to get into since certainty. But we’ll we maybe come back to that later.
606 01:07:21.740 –> 01:07:36.889 Mark Pock: Yeah. Okay, so, but this distinction between the in itself and knowledge. So this is about halfway down two-thirds of the way down the page.
607 01:07:37.030 –> 01:07:43.760 Mark Pock: But this distinction between the in itself and knowledge is already present in the very fact that consciousness knows an object at all.
608 01:07:44.230 –> 01:07:55.460 Mark Pock: something is for it in itself and knowledge, or the being of the object for consciousness is for it another moment, right? So for for consciousness. At this stage
609 01:07:56.250 –> 01:07:58.389 Mark Pock: the in itself is something different.
610 01:08:00.260 –> 01:08:06.810 Mark Pock: Oh. about 2 thirds of the way down. Paragraph 84. First time in the video.
611 01:08:07.020 –> 01:08:09.009 Mark Pock: Oh, is that different?
612 01:08:10.650 –> 01:08:12.990 Mark Pock: Upon this distinction.
613 01:08:13.040 –> 01:08:16.220 Mark Pock: which is present as a fact, the examination rests.
614 01:08:17.590 –> 01:08:27.690 Mark Pock: If the comparison shows that these 2 moments do not correspond to one another, it would seem that consciousness must alter its knowledge to make it conform to the object.
615 01:08:27.819 –> 01:08:30.300 Mark Pock: So you change?
616 01:08:30.590 –> 01:08:38.439 Mark Pock: yeah, you you alter what you think, you know in order to, because, of course, the problem there is like, Okay, so if you already have the object
617 01:08:39.050 –> 01:08:53.440 Mark Pock: you’re now, you’re gonna alter your knowledge to conform to it. But of course, if you have the object already. What are you conforming it to? But, in fact, and the alteration of knowledge, the object itself
618 01:08:53.470 –> 01:08:55.310 Mark Pock: alters for in 2,
619 01:08:55.830 –> 01:09:00.209 Mark Pock: for the knowledge that was present essentially was essentially a knowledge of that object.
620 01:09:01.109 –> 01:09:12.669 Mark Pock: As the knowledge changes so to does the object. for it initially belong to this knowledge. Hence it comes to pass for consciousness that what it previously took to be the in itself is not, and in itself.
621 01:09:13.529 –> 01:09:18.200 Mark Pock: that is to say, what previously thought. The object was what was given. Intuition
622 01:09:18.600 –> 01:09:21.820 Mark Pock: turns out not to be that that’s not what an object is
623 01:09:22.490 –> 01:09:31.319 Mark Pock: or that it was only and in itself for consciousness, since consciousness thus finds that. And that’s what Cont concludes. Of course.
624 01:09:31.689 –> 01:09:41.870 Mark Pock: since consciousness does find that it’s knowledge does not correspond to its object, the object itself does not stand the test. In other words, the criterion for testing is itself altered
625 01:09:41.890 –> 01:09:43.720 Mark Pock: when that for which it has been
626 01:09:43.729 –> 01:09:54.149 Mark Pock: the criterion fails to pass the test. And the testing is not only the testing of what we know, but also a testing of the criterion of what knowing is okay. So the criterion of a knowledge itself changes
627 01:09:55.530 –> 01:09:56.580 Mark Pock: as
628 01:09:57.030 –> 01:10:08.580 Mark Pock: The object fails to correspond to the the criterion it initially set out, which is to say, as consciousness learns it can’t experience
629 01:10:09.330 –> 01:10:11.359 Mark Pock: causality and sensation.
630 01:10:15.930 –> 01:10:20.510 Mark Pock: And the point is is not to say that okay, therefore calls out they can’t be known.
631 01:10:20.850 –> 01:10:27.879 Mark Pock: or is not in itself. But it’s to change your criterion of what knowing is the honest uncertainty?
632 01:10:30.370 –> 01:10:42.459 Mark Pock: And but that’s that’s It’s one thing that’s adding to this whole thing of the correct, the criterion blah, blah blah! And the criterion is that the criterion? It’s not there. There’s not just one criterion.
633 01:10:43.940 –> 01:10:51.100 Mark Pock: The criterion itself develops over time. which is to say, another way of thinking about this is the very meaning of object
634 01:10:52.190 –> 01:10:53.400 Mark Pock: changes.
635 01:10:53.740 –> 01:11:00.240 Mark Pock: This is one way for science people. You can. This is this is what Kun got into. What Kun realized. Is that
636 01:11:01.190 –> 01:11:11.439 Mark Pock: what was an object for Einstein was not what an object was from me not. They’re not the same. And by object, remember, we’re talking about
637 01:11:11.550 –> 01:11:13.910 Mark Pock: be what is objective
638 01:11:15.750 –> 01:11:16.760 Mark Pock: and what
639 01:11:16.960 –> 01:11:22.600 Mark Pock: what reality consisted in for Newton. It’s not where consistent. The object changes.
640 01:11:23.810 –> 01:11:28.889 Mark Pock: and part of what happens is that because science changes. it starts to.
641 01:11:29.110 –> 01:11:31.909 Mark Pock: it develops different criteria
642 01:11:32.470 –> 01:11:33.480 Mark Pock: for itself.
643 01:11:34.140 –> 01:11:40.859 Mark Pock: Of course you go. You can perceive that, of course, the objective world for pre-scientific things, where in which things like
644 01:11:41.130 –> 01:11:49.419 Mark Pock: was a reality in which the flight of birds had some kind of objective meaning
645 01:11:50.870 –> 01:11:52.590 Mark Pock: in terms of cause, Alan, for example.
646 01:11:54.150 –> 01:12:00.619 Mark Pock: and and fact. Tom will say, this is another critique for Kant, in a way, is that causality.
647 01:12:01.110 –> 01:12:02.299 Mark Pock: Didn’t you exist
648 01:12:02.650 –> 01:12:08.829 Mark Pock: for long, a long time in human consciousness? They did not understand causality. So like.
649 01:12:09.660 –> 01:12:11.279 Mark Pock: it wasn’t an object
650 01:12:13.500 –> 01:12:18.059 Mark Pock: like we don’t. Just. It’s like, Oh, yeah, one thing causes another. Tell that to a one-year-old
651 01:12:23.980 –> 01:12:45.789 Mark Pock: And so okay, does that make some sense? This idea that it’s actually even more complicated that the criterion, because this is the thing. Yes, of course, at the end we know there’s like the criterion of criteria, criteria and criteria in some sense. But what we witness is that coming to be? That is
652 01:12:46.260 –> 01:12:50.409 Mark Pock: the the very nature of the criteria, and shifting as it tests itself.
653 01:12:50.730 –> 01:13:00.219 Mark Pock: And like, I said, I think you can verify that in the history of science, the very criteria by which we set up to judge knowledge, and the object itself thus changes
654 01:13:00.690 –> 01:13:05.800 Mark Pock: the world in which we live. As Cocoon says, scientists live in a different world now
655 01:13:06.340 –> 01:13:08.880 Mark Pock: they live in a different world. It’s not the same world.
656 01:13:09.110 –> 01:13:13.449 Mark Pock: Say, well, there’s always this one world. Then you’re taking the of you from nowhere.
657 01:13:15.390 –> 01:13:22.559 Mark Pock: You’re taking the view from nowhere. It’s like, Oh, I can judge this is this have been the real world all along with. Guess what it’s subject to change
658 01:13:23.790 –> 01:13:25.290 Mark Pock: one to 2 about.
659 01:13:25.410 –> 01:13:39.649 Mark Pock: we’re talking about a class with some results, because it’s like you got the you love with I because it’s good, like we’re so much. You skip the hang of results in my seat. Everyone.
660 01:13:39.830 –> 01:13:42.760 Mark Pock: the object of ethical action.
661 01:13:42.850 –> 01:13:55.309 Mark Pock: kind of changes in the equipment, and we cannot go back. We cannot even conceive of what it would be to be a Roman right?
662 01:13:55.540 –> 01:14:02.029 Mark Pock: But then you could sort of go to find that direction to be a Christian fundamentalist and then take the view from nowhere.
663 01:14:02.040 –> 01:14:07.550 Mark Pock: Because what? Okay? Here’s one other thing that happens. I I should note this. this is.
664 01:14:08.740 –> 01:14:15.769 Mark Pock: this is a major interest in mine, because in the collected in the Scholarship. I don’t. I don’t. Okay. But I think I can.
665 01:14:15.780 –> 01:14:21.479 Mark Pock: One thing that happens. Okay, as as you send to these different viewpoints, we haven’t again really gotten this number.
666 01:14:21.820 –> 01:14:34.020 Mark Pock: But this gets to your point directly to your point is that there’s this thing, and trust me, it’s there you can look at it and says it many, many times in the phenomenology it’s very rarely revoked upon, although indirectly forget it.
667 01:14:34.470 –> 01:14:35.560 That yes.
668 01:14:35.980 –> 01:14:39.110 Mark Pock: okay, what happens is, consciousness
669 01:14:39.170 –> 01:14:40.260 Mark Pock: develops.
670 01:14:40.870 –> 01:14:47.350 Mark Pock: and as it changes the criterion, it posits a new object, because the object is relative to the criterion.
671 01:14:47.450 –> 01:14:52.690 Mark Pock: but it forgets that it does that, and so it treats the object as just there
672 01:14:53.830 –> 01:14:56.340 Mark Pock: as having always been true.
673 01:14:57.980 –> 01:15:07.319 Mark Pock: In fact, you can go back to talked about even pretty Christian sort of religions he talks about in ticket, he says to crayon
674 01:15:07.680 –> 01:15:08.730 Mark Pock: to.
675 01:15:09.230 –> 01:15:15.910 Mark Pock: is in the process of moving to a new criterion from the old myths to the kind of rational city of the Greek city state.
676 01:15:16.020 –> 01:15:18.430 Mark Pock: and and and he says
677 01:15:18.570 –> 01:15:20.900 Mark Pock: we don’t know where these laws come from.
678 01:15:21.420 –> 01:15:25.230 Mark Pock: We just know the gods gave them to us, and they’ve always been there. They always will be.
679 01:15:26.320 –> 01:15:27.250 Mark Pock: and
680 01:15:27.410 –> 01:15:30.810 Mark Pock: and it would say, No, these these are totally contingent
681 01:15:31.040 –> 01:15:32.640 Mark Pock: historical realities.
682 01:15:33.020 –> 01:15:38.399 Mark Pock: But spirit has forgotten its own process of positing its world.
683 01:15:38.950 –> 01:15:40.649 Mark Pock: And so, yes, you can. Then.
684 01:15:40.680 –> 01:15:44.700 Mark Pock: yeah, most fundamentalisms are just radical forgettings.
685 01:15:47.490 –> 01:15:49.379 Mark Pock: Yeah, absolutely. I mean.
686 01:15:49.420 –> 01:15:52.159 Mark Pock: yeah, that’s probably true for a lot of Islam.
687 01:15:52.670 –> 01:15:57.790 Mark Pock: like the whole history of Islam, the contingencies that were involved that’s denied by orthodox
688 01:15:58.870 –> 01:16:02.179 Mark Pock: Muslims. This came directly from got to
689 01:16:02.710 –> 01:16:07.060 Mark Pock: to say, I don’t know. If you guys know this, this came directly from God. It wasn’t like
690 01:16:07.710 –> 01:16:09.979 Mark Pock: there. There wasn’t like an influence from like
691 01:16:10.220 –> 01:16:18.019 Mark Pock: Judaism or Christianity. This is out in the desert came directly from God, and that’s that’s an orthodox belief.
692 01:16:18.650 –> 01:16:21.279 Mark Pock: Now I won’t go into the history of whether how
693 01:16:21.400 –> 01:16:25.960 Mark Pock: subtle that can get and how That’s been reinterpreted. I’m fine to.
694 01:16:26.220 –> 01:16:36.420 Mark Pock: but there is certain orthodox fundamentalist strands in parts of Islam that say, you know this is direct revelation without any history that any context.
695 01:16:36.750 –> 01:16:47.350 Mark Pock: Sure, yeah, I mean, it depends on the the strain. Of course, the the the tradition. But yeah, absolutely. There’s there’s fundamentalisms
696 01:16:47.730 –> 01:16:55.249 Mark Pock: all around. And I think you could classify that. What makes Hegel interesting. It’s the same with property. Right? You take property. It’s just given
697 01:16:56.060 –> 01:16:58.310 Mark Pock: without remembering
698 01:16:58.570 –> 01:17:00.250 Mark Pock: the history of conquest.
699 01:17:11.380 –> 01:17:15.590 Mark Pock: I don’t know. I don’t know, that’s I. I I’m not a scholars, so I I
700 01:17:15.690 –> 01:17:21.670 Mark Pock: I I don’t want to go too far in that direction. Yeah, yeah.
701 01:17:22.030 –> 01:17:31.709 Mark Pock: like. And I’m more than happy to be corrected on that. And you know, but I I think that I think we can say pretty safely. There are fundamentalists in Islam.
702 01:17:31.800 –> 01:17:32.970 Mark Pock: and they’re not
703 01:17:33.350 –> 01:17:44.490 Mark Pock: They’re not like, not as they’re they’re they’re Muslim people, you know, just as they’re fundamentalist evangelical Christians. I mean, that’s just. And so what? Hey? Gold says, yeah, yeah.
704 01:17:44.740 –> 01:17:46.729 Mark Pock: you can start explaining
705 01:17:47.440 –> 01:17:52.280 Mark Pock: why we have fundamentalisms. Libertarianism is basically a fundamental lesson
706 01:17:53.750 –> 01:17:58.220 Mark Pock: and
707 01:17:58.670 –> 01:18:04.199 Mark Pock: it has to do with this process of forgetting because it treats me. But this can happen at any given instance, right?
708 01:18:05.110 –> 01:18:07.759 Mark Pock: in all manner of context, like,
709 01:18:10.060 –> 01:18:15.910 Mark Pock: yeah, like Kant, I mean, Con comes on. This is the, you know, Tony, object as just the object.
710 01:18:19.530 –> 01:18:20.430 Mark Pock: And
711 01:18:20.740 –> 01:18:31.260 Mark Pock: and for Con, that’s a problem. Because we’ve gone past this categories in science way, past his notion of space and time causality even
712 01:18:32.190 –> 01:18:36.110 Mark Pock: for him. It was definitive. The revelation came from Newton.
713 01:18:39.570 –> 01:18:42.970 Mark Pock: In fact, there’s a poem by Pope. It says once they’re
714 01:18:43.310 –> 01:18:47.719 Mark Pock: was darkness, and God said, Let there be Newton, and all those light
715 01:18:48.840 –> 01:18:53.830 Mark Pock: that was the Enlightenment view then, once it was darkness. Now we step into a brave light.
716 01:18:55.300 –> 01:18:56.800 Mark Pock: and history is over.
717 01:18:56.930 –> 01:19:09.290 Mark Pock: Of course Hegel famously on that, really, because, of course, we know Hegel is going to say, then this is the real real end. But that’s fine fine. We can critique. He go on healing grounds or post healing grounds.
718 01:19:09.410 –> 01:19:18.220 Mark Pock: but hopefully we can generate a lesson still that like this is a radical change in the way we’re looking at history, and how
719 01:19:18.580 –> 01:19:20.970 Mark Pock: these ideas of merge. Yeah.
720 01:19:29.110 –> 01:19:55.579 Mark Pock: But in that sense, so for the ph phenomenon logical observer that I guess cable would see it as like purely in the history as having this true view from nowhere. Right? But if we want to do the kind of first Italian thing and say that we’re still in development. And we’re just right. Right? Very good clients. Why, why do we remember? Why do we remember what we forgot what to remember the history. Yeah.
721 01:19:56.000 –> 01:19:57.060 Mark Pock: Well.
723 01:20:03.010 –> 01:20:05.240 Mark Pock: I guess I guess one
724 01:20:05.660 –> 01:20:13.450 Mark Pock: part of what I guess we’re headed on might start to respond to be something like, well, it’s just a matter of fact. This is this is what conditioned our present view.
725 01:20:13.950 –> 01:20:25.010 Mark Pock: And if we want to that cause, this kind of claim is that we can’t. You can’t understand these views unless you understand their history. That in which you say you can’t. I’m not ultimately talking about these as sort of
726 01:20:25.080 –> 01:20:31.919 Mark Pock: expressing philosophies. You can’t really critique them, understand them, and therefore critique them adequately
727 01:20:32.360 –> 01:20:36.170 Mark Pock: unless you can explain how they emerged. Oh.
728 01:20:38.360 –> 01:20:43.790 Mark Pock: so. But again. It’s also about self-knowledge. Because of this. Is the mind coming to know itself.
729 01:20:44.640 –> 01:20:48.170 Mark Pock: we can’t really know ourselves fully unless we understand our
730 01:20:48.580 –> 01:21:04.250 Mark Pock: The conditions of our emergency history. Now we have a problem here because Hegel is very selective in the history. Okay? And that that that might be a problem, because but it may also be something you can sort of negotiate
731 01:21:04.550 –> 01:21:06.010 Mark Pock: by saying, Well.
732 01:21:07.250 –> 01:21:10.110 Mark Pock: we really need to focus, because Hegel has a sense
733 01:21:11.340 –> 01:21:12.260 Mark Pock: of like
734 01:21:12.380 –> 01:21:16.330 Mark Pock: community, and like. No one person can do this
735 01:21:17.320 –> 01:21:27.329 Mark Pock: and that knowledge is carried forward in the group. And so these these recollections we do. we have to. We we require other people to do them. We can’t do them all at once.
736 01:21:28.580 –> 01:21:30.709 Mark Pock: I don’t know if that is your question.
737 01:21:31.310 –> 01:21:37.920 Mark Pock: yeah. Or I guess in a certain sense, too. Just like, why we reach the form of mind what we’re able to even do.
738 01:21:39.240 –> 01:21:57.909 Mark Pock: Yeah. I’ll keep going. Keep going for yes. Why? Why can it? So this is, yeah, definitely necessary to understand what’s come before? Yeah. But it seems like whatever immediately preceded us, assuming that we’re just kind of at the top of the food chair. Yeah, it failed it. It’s like, yes, the radical break that allows us to be so fundamentally different in attaining the capacity of community. And for
739 01:21:58.210 –> 01:22:07.179 Mark Pock: is it something special about? Well, that’s just that’s the problem with criterion, like, you know, like he goes to say it self validating. We can. We now see that we’re at the end.
740 01:22:09.830 –> 01:22:16.059 Mark Pock: that we’re at the end, or that we’ve come to this culminating point in in the history of self knowledge.
741 01:22:16.650 –> 01:22:19.569 Mark Pock: and I’m fully comfortable with
742 01:22:19.830 –> 01:22:22.620 Mark Pock: just to that with from hang on
743 01:22:23.660 –> 01:22:30.649 Mark Pock: But then we then we’re almost thrown back into this continual challenge. Okay, is there?
744 01:22:32.140 –> 01:22:41.950 Mark Pock: Does that? Because, like, yeah. she coon talks about. You know. you can’t really say this is going anywhere.
745 01:22:42.710 –> 01:22:50.999 Mark Pock: And he talks about evolution as just like, well, it’s a process that happens. And it’s unfolding over time. Yes, this helps us understand. It’s an analogy
746 01:22:51.080 –> 01:23:07.900 Mark Pock: like you can understand biological species, the understanding of history. But we’re certainly not the end of it. But we do have it now. and it does help us understand this where we are now. and maybe it does help us. That’s another thing is like, can we use this? Because, of course, Marx comes right along, and he says the point of
747 01:23:08.530 –> 01:23:13.449 Mark Pock: philosophers spent their time trying to understand the world. The point of was to change it.
748 01:23:14.190 –> 01:23:15.870 Mark Pock: And so can we.
749 01:23:16.170 –> 01:23:19.399 Mark Pock: Can we?
750 01:23:26.280 –> 01:23:30.599 Mark Pock: Because you came? You were looking for the you really the funnel at home? Server?
751 01:23:31.280 –> 01:23:32.410 Mark Pock: so.
752 01:23:32.460 –> 01:23:39.000 Mark Pock: And and you know you could, you can say, no, we’re actually going to integrate this into a of revolutionary
753 01:23:39.130 –> 01:23:43.409 Mark Pock: liberate laboratory movement that is ongoing.
754 01:23:43.840 –> 01:23:48.600 Mark Pock: I think it.
755 01:23:49.110 –> 01:23:59.089 Mark Pock: it seems in this, but he developed to philosophy, noting that we that he on the subject
756 01:23:59.140 –> 01:24:03.460 Mark Pock: is, is imminent, imminently connect
757 01:24:03.860 –> 01:24:16.450 Mark Pock: to the and the object is the world ultimately, and that to consciousness and the relationship between consciousness to other consciousness of the people
758 01:24:16.590 –> 01:24:20.720 Mark Pock: and self-consciousness the Master slain.
759 01:24:21.630 –> 01:24:28.939 Mark Pock: it’s also part of that. We’re all in this together, and he develops it.
760 01:24:28.970 –> 01:24:30.160 Mark Pock: The philosophy
761 01:24:30.270 –> 01:24:36.910 Mark Pock: to note that this is a communal. we’re we’re operating.
762 01:24:36.920 –> 01:24:40.410 Mark Pock: It is a collective to sign.
763 01:24:41.780 –> 01:24:46.920 Mark Pock: which I think was tremendously. And yeah.
764 01:24:48.900 –> 01:24:52.689 Mark Pock: yeah, so I don’t know. Did that to your question.
765 01:24:52.920 –> 01:25:05.090 Mark Pock: Yeah, I think that’s at least in but just follow up second. was there a concern like what?
766 01:25:06.360 –> 01:25:08.040 Mark Pock: we might be able to be a problem
767 01:25:08.520 –> 01:25:24.480 Mark Pock: with with Hegel at this point, or something like that. Yeah. Or I guess it was just like the wise man problem with, like, How do we get out? Why is this special? Yeah. And I, I. It probably does go back to the problem criterion, like.
768 01:25:24.680 –> 01:25:32.629 Mark Pock: it was just going to say you have to go through it. We haven’t started. and
769 01:25:33.940 –> 01:25:37.000 Mark Pock: if you all along
770 01:25:38.190 –> 01:25:39.069 Mark Pock: you’ll see it.
771 01:25:39.310 –> 01:25:49.670 Mark Pock: But yeah, I mean, that’s true like it’s it’s always yeah like you, said the the wise mentioned. I was like, I need to be wise in order to find the wise man I’m like.
772 01:25:50.020 –> 01:25:59.809 Mark Pock: I haven’t yet to find one. So how do I? Where are these wise? And you guys are talking about? Yeah, why do we have this special here, I mean
773 01:26:01.670 –> 01:26:04.220 Mark Pock: I have a question
774 01:26:04.690 –> 01:26:11.220 Mark Pock: which one?
775 01:26:11.420 –> 01:26:14.820 Mark Pock: So again. So what’s how to do with what?
776 01:26:14.920 –> 01:26:19.100 Mark Pock: The first she mentioned?
777 01:26:25.370 –> 01:26:26.500 Mark Pock: If I home.
778 01:26:29.560 –> 01:26:32.240 Mark Pock: there’s a whole thing, I thought, when you design.
779 01:26:32.590 –> 01:26:37.670 Mark Pock: there’s 2 words that get translated as experience in a term, one is a
780 01:26:38.020 –> 01:26:41.210 Mark Pock: and what is it? A thought one. And
781 01:26:43.060 –> 01:26:47.710 Mark Pock: Hegel was using a a far from here deliberately, because I
782 01:26:47.920 –> 01:26:58.339 Mark Pock: like what we would think of like experience as like what we experience like. So a sensation, whereas I have for him is an undergoing cause for him
783 01:26:58.420 –> 01:27:09.940 Mark Pock: is to travel. So if following is a kind of experience like you go. I’m going to have an experience when I go travel right. anyway. Keep continue. Please
784 01:27:17.190 –> 01:27:22.459 Mark Pock: wait. What we wait. Keep key. What? What? What passage is this.
785 01:27:22.780 –> 01:27:25.909 Mark Pock: and what part of it
786 01:27:27.360 –> 01:27:31.709 Mark Pock: at the end? Missions at the beginning.
787 01:27:32.140 –> 01:27:42.989 Mark Pock: the experience, the dialectical movement which consciousness exercises on itself.
788 01:27:43.290 –> 01:27:44.160 Mark Pock: the
789 01:27:44.330 –> 01:27:50.430 Mark Pock: criterion, and therefore the object changing over time. Pickled calls. That’s experience, that’s experience.
790 01:27:50.870 –> 01:27:55.829 Mark Pock: For some people. Experience is just what Hume says. It’s just sense that a
791 01:27:56.930 –> 01:27:59.040 Mark Pock: and then
792 01:27:59.390 –> 01:28:04.059 Mark Pock: and this is the true for being, for consciousness of this. And so.
793 01:28:04.070 –> 01:28:13.959 Mark Pock: oh, yeah, okay, that that that has to do with the the fact that
794 01:28:15.200 –> 01:28:19.619 Mark Pock: there’s a negation here. Okay, so the
795 01:28:20.730 –> 01:28:25.329 Mark Pock: what you thought was in the object is no longer the object.
796 01:28:26.510 –> 01:28:28.340 Mark Pock: Okay? What you thought was being
797 01:28:29.060 –> 01:28:31.140 Mark Pock: isn’t.
798 01:28:32.040 –> 01:28:43.269 Mark Pock: So there’s something. The but what Hegel is saying is, this gets into something we I skipped over. but he talked about. There’s a kind of skeptical moment which is pure
799 01:28:43.730 –> 01:28:57.349 Mark Pock: annihilation is to say. therefore, nothing can be no, because we just got rid of this criterion by which we would presume to know anything. And now we realize that that criterion was inadequate because the object was inadequate
800 01:28:57.800 –> 01:28:59.090 Mark Pock: to the criterion
801 01:28:59.550 –> 01:29:03.500 Mark Pock: and last week, so like
802 01:29:04.430 –> 01:29:14.060 Mark Pock: in some sense, cont is part of that, too, because the the the object has now been band. The cause for Hegel, the object is the absolute.
803 01:29:14.430 –> 01:29:20.160 Mark Pock: Okay. What is apps? The ultimately we, we have to introduce this term absolute. The thing that is.
804 01:29:21.190 –> 01:29:22.470 Mark Pock: I think, that really is.
805 01:29:22.640 –> 01:29:28.730 Mark Pock: And but if you find that that’s not what it is absolute, what you took as the object is not absolute.
806 01:29:29.610 –> 01:29:35.360 Mark Pock: then it starts to be looked like nothing. It wasn’t anything. But what Hegel was saying is that
807 01:29:36.620 –> 01:29:42.349 Mark Pock: no, it’s we will build upon what appeared to be a loss. It turns out to be
808 01:29:43.270 –> 01:29:52.809 Mark Pock: It’s setting up something that we will become the new object. So out of this nothing is what it’s the ultimate nothing. It’s the. The appearance of nothing is to this form of consciousness.
809 01:29:54.410 –> 01:29:58.880 Mark Pock: So it’s the indication of the negation. It’s like it’s the
810 01:29:59.850 –> 01:30:04.950 Mark Pock: because, remember, you have to try to keep track of yourself all along that
811 01:30:05.060 –> 01:30:12.909 Mark Pock: there’s a difference between what the what each form of consciousness does for us and what it thinks it’s doing.
812 01:30:14.770 –> 01:30:17.529 Mark Pock: and it thinks that it’s. And I think that it’s
813 01:30:17.980 –> 01:30:27.039 Mark Pock: There is nothing now which say, a version of that is, well, the Absolute is just gone. It’s fled, it may. It’s not present in experience.
814 01:30:27.400 –> 01:30:29.990 Mark Pock: We we could know it at some point, but it’s gone.
815 01:30:30.640 –> 01:30:36.979 Mark Pock: But Hegel is actually going to say no, that that thing that is the the mere Newman on we’re going to. We’re going to build out of that
816 01:30:38.220 –> 01:30:38.940 Mark Pock: is
817 01:30:39.130 –> 01:30:59.610 Mark Pock: yeah, he says. But as a matter of fact, we have here the same situation as the one discussed in regards to the relation between our exposition and step the system. Yes, right? You’re saying that in every case the result of an untrue mode of college, let’s not be allowed to run away. It’s an empty nothing.
818 01:31:00.000 –> 01:31:03.789 Mark Pock: Yeah, I don’t know if that I don’t know. That makes sense. I mean, kind of general. Yeah.
819 01:31:04.690 –> 01:31:17.670 Mark Pock: So would that be in opposition to maybe you? How sorry I think this same, or how how search
820 01:31:17.930 –> 01:31:20.010 Mark Pock: in the sense that maybe
821 01:31:20.110 –> 01:31:39.739 Mark Pock: I haven’t read no search. But maybe it’s not worth it. It’s it’s not worth it, it’s it’s it’s not worth it, it’s it’s it’s it’s it’s not worth, it, it’s it’s it’s it’s, it’s not worth it, it’s it’s, it’s, it’s it’s not worth it, it’s it’s it’s it’s it’s it’s not, worth, it it’s it’s it’s it’s it’s it’s it’s, it’s it’s not worth it. It’s it’s it’s it’s it’s it’s it’s it’s it’
822 01:31:40.020 –> 01:31:43.050 Mark Pock: but maybe maybe nothing is.
823 01:31:43.310 –> 01:31:48.990 Mark Pock: Well, actually, maybe maybe there’s someone. But it’s it’s like nothing. This is this thing which oncologically persists and
824 01:31:49.260 –> 01:31:54.509 Mark Pock: and all being. And so I guess it is kind of. particularly in the sense that
825 01:31:55.120 –> 01:32:01.240 Mark Pock: within all being is non-being. But maybe it’s not dialectic, only it’s motion.
826 01:32:01.740 –> 01:32:10.150 Mark Pock: There’s maybe something there. Yeah, that’d be interesting, does it? Sort of address dialogical reason? Yeah. Well, he does. Well, of course, at the beginning of
827 01:32:10.590 –> 01:32:26.459 Mark Pock: being nothing else. But he also hasn’t booked a dialectical reasoning or a reason. My critique of dialectical reason. No, I haven’t read it. I I I need to read it. I’m lazy.
828 01:32:26.780 –> 01:32:30.120 Mark Pock: He was granted towards the end of his life to finish.
829 01:32:32.950 –> 01:32:34.530 Mark Pock: and I tried to read it.
830 01:32:34.750 –> 01:32:39.620 Mark Pock: Some of it is somewhat accessible.
831 01:32:40.230 –> 01:32:45.490 Mark Pock: and then it became like.
832 01:32:45.590 –> 01:32:54.789 Mark Pock: is that he was so frantic about trying to get this done before he died. They kept on taking tremendous
833 01:32:57.640 –> 01:33:02.559 Mark Pock: of I’m a of met, and he was like
834 01:33:02.610 –> 01:33:07.510 Mark Pock: completely wired. like 2020,
835 01:33:07.670 –> 01:33:19.160 Mark Pock: so we had to be. When he finished he sent it to a publisher, and such in the second giant that
836 01:33:19.320 –> 01:33:26.730 Mark Pock: nobody, no editor was going to critique it, criticize me, so they just let it go through on a
837 01:33:26.810 –> 01:33:35.280 Mark Pock: and when you try to read it, it’s a challenge, anyway. So yeah, we could
838 01:33:35.470 –> 01:33:40.969 Mark Pock: another reading group. Okay, so let’s let’s do like 10 min of
839 01:33:41.420 –> 01:33:43.990 Mark Pock: consciousness since certainty.
840 01:33:45.880 –> 01:33:46.900 Mark Pock: Okay.
841 01:33:47.640 –> 01:33:55.999 Mark Pock: so this is good. Yeah, this is, now we’re gonna do the thing. so the knowledge or no one.
842 01:33:56.540 –> 01:34:07.360 Mark Pock: which is at the start, or is immediately our objects, cannot be anything else but immediate knowledge itself. A knowledge of the immediate. This is Paragraph 90.
843 01:34:08.130 –> 01:34:11.270 Mark Pock: This the beginning of since 1,958
844 01:34:12.400 –> 01:34:23.079 Mark Pock: Our approach to the object must also be immediate. Our approach to the object must also be immediate or receptive. We must all turn nothing in the object as it presents itself.
845 01:34:23.400 –> 01:34:26.109 Mark Pock: Okay. So of course, what he’s saying, here is that
846 01:34:27.350 –> 01:34:31.600 Mark Pock: you know this. This is all. This is always a problem. Where do we start? Okay.
847 01:34:31.960 –> 01:34:45.170 Mark Pock: And this is why Hegel writes to a preface in an introduction, basically saying, I don’t know how to write it. And so it’s like, Okay, we are going to start somewhere. And what Hegel appeals to here is like, Okay, what would seem to be otherwise? The
848 01:34:47.350 –> 01:34:50.810 Mark Pock: what one might be most inclined to.
849 01:34:51.170 –> 01:35:03.419 Mark Pock: think, should one sort of unreflectively just say, Okay, what is what is. and try to describe that viewpoint.
850 01:35:04.560 –> 01:35:06.860 Mark Pock: Try to do a phenomenology of that, any point.
851 01:35:08.090 –> 01:35:13.569 Mark Pock: And so, according to Hegel, he’s saying. According to that view.
852 01:35:15.670 –> 01:35:20.829 Mark Pock: your your, your thing is just that there are things there, and I just
853 01:35:20.850 –> 01:35:22.050 Mark Pock: they just hit me.
854 01:35:23.800 –> 01:35:27.890 Mark Pock: and they just reveal themselves immediately to me. I don’t do anything.
855 01:35:28.760 –> 01:35:39.140 Mark Pock: Immediate or receptive, and apprehending it, you must reframe from trying to comprehend it.
856 01:35:39.920 –> 01:35:53.689 Mark Pock: Okay, now, why does it? Why do we do this? Well, because of its concrete content set certainty immediately appears as the richest kind of knowledge. Because it’s just all there. Look, guys, look around. It’s everything. Boom
857 01:35:53.820 –> 01:35:57.010 Mark Pock: being is just. and it’s the richest
858 01:35:57.030 –> 01:36:12.570 Mark Pock: indeed the knowledge of infinite wealth for which no balance can be found, either when we reach out into space and time, and which is dispersed, or when we take a bit of this wealth and division into our and then enter into it. So just take your pick. You can just
859 01:36:12.920 –> 01:36:17.900 Mark Pock: look out. It’s expansive things, or look at something. It’s just all there. And all this richness.
860 01:36:18.390 –> 01:36:33.950 Mark Pock: Moreover, it’s uncertainty appears to be the truest knowledge. not just the richest, but the. for it has not yet not as yet omitted anything from the object. but as the object to forward and perfect, and it’s perfect entirely there it is. Zoom being is just there.
861 01:36:34.380 –> 01:36:45.299 Mark Pock: and it’s entirely. But in the event this very certainty proves itself to be the most abstract and the poorest truth. Oh, turns into it’s opposite. Wouldn’t you know?
862 01:36:45.570 –> 01:36:49.420 Mark Pock: All that it says about what it knows is just that it is.
863 01:36:50.560 –> 01:36:53.170 Mark Pock: that’s all it can say. Well, what it what is.
864 01:36:53.490 –> 01:37:02.920 Mark Pock: whatever is, what is being that which is and it’s truth contains nothing but the sheer being of the thing.
865 01:37:03.480 –> 01:37:07.569 Mark Pock: consciousness for its part. So that’s the object that it
866 01:37:07.870 –> 01:37:10.880 Mark Pock: since certainty thinks it knows
867 01:37:12.050 –> 01:37:13.800 Mark Pock: it, thinks it knows the
868 01:37:14.880 –> 01:37:21.789 Mark Pock: the richest and truest object. We’ve just noticed that it’s actually the poorest. We’re gonna have to see how it is.
869 01:37:21.960 –> 01:37:26.860 Mark Pock: We’ll watch, but we’ll also watch how consciousness discovers this too.
870 01:37:28.000 –> 01:37:34.449 Mark Pock: So consciousness, for its part, is in this certainty only as here as a pure I
871 01:37:35.240 –> 01:37:38.549 Mark Pock: or I am, and it’s only as appear this.
872 01:37:38.660 –> 01:37:48.789 Mark Pock: and the objects similarly only appear. This I, this particular. I am certain of this particular thing, not because I quote consciousness, and knowing it, have to develop myself
873 01:37:49.720 –> 01:37:52.289 Mark Pock: or thought about it in various ways.
874 01:37:52.440 –> 01:37:56.530 Mark Pock: So again, we’re back to development potency to act me thinking that
875 01:37:57.090 –> 01:37:59.400 Mark Pock: we think we know something
876 01:37:59.440 –> 01:38:03.159 Mark Pock: consciousness, things that that
878 01:38:07.470 –> 01:38:13.049 Mark Pock: it, doesn’t it? it just takes the thing like, because this is the thing it’s like. It’s the richest thing
879 01:38:13.150 –> 01:38:19.560 Mark Pock: like as if the world of the child, the one year old child is the richest thing. Now, of course, I love you little children. They’re beautiful.
880 01:38:19.780 –> 01:38:33.739 Mark Pock: Yeah, okay, so okay, anyway, you guys go that round. But Hegel will make the case. We live in a much richer.
881 01:38:34.970 –> 01:38:45.309 Mark Pock: Okay? And so, even though the whole world is apparently out there for the infants. On all its richness. It’s actually very limited, confined, and not only just spatially and temporarily but
882 01:38:45.440 –> 01:38:48.819 Mark Pock: qualitatively, there’s just less to the reality for the
883 01:38:48.920 –> 01:38:49.830 Mark Pock: okay.
885 01:38:55.830 –> 01:39:15.730 Mark Pock: not because we’ve developed ourselves or thought about in various ways, and also not because the thing of which I’m certain, in, in virtue of a host of distinct qualities. Again, that I would have thought through and developing would be in its own self a rich complex of connections, of course, ultimately will be. The totality of reality is a rich complex of connections for Hegel, or related in various ways to other things.
886 01:39:15.990 –> 01:39:28.180 Mark Pock: Neither of these has anything to do with the truth of sense certainty here, neither. I know the thing has the significance of a complex process of mediation. The I does not have the significance of a manifold imagining or thinking?
887 01:39:28.390 –> 01:39:41.360 Mark Pock: Or does the thing signify that? something that has a host of qualities. On the contrary, the thing is, and it is merely because it is. It is. This is the essential point for sense knowledge.
888 01:39:41.370 –> 01:39:46.090 Mark Pock: And this pure being. Now one thing to know okay, is that
889 01:39:48.470 –> 01:39:52.739 Mark Pock: this gets to mark what you’re saying, what we’ve been talking about, which is
890 01:39:59.000 –> 01:40:00.029 Mark Pock: some sense
891 01:40:01.070 –> 01:40:04.049 Mark Pock: I’m I’m getting way ahead of myself here, but in some sense
892 01:40:05.600 –> 01:40:07.320 Mark Pock: spirit is because it is
893 01:40:08.710 –> 01:40:11.860 Mark Pock: so, since certain team maybe not entirely wrong here.
894 01:40:13.240 –> 01:40:17.000 Mark Pock: But it it’s it’s doesn’t quite understand what it’s saying.
895 01:40:17.180 –> 01:40:21.690 Mark Pock: because it’s it’s has a sense of something self validating.
896 01:40:23.190 –> 01:40:31.249 Mark Pock: But it’s the immediate. the Me. It is the problem. In some sense it’s not so much that it’s self validating, that they immediate. It’s not self validating
897 01:40:31.580 –> 01:40:43.290 Mark Pock: would be the problem. But all along is this other thing happening where it is. cause it. But what’s funny is it’s self validating, but it’s also it is because it is. It gives a reason.
898 01:40:43.500 –> 01:40:46.250 Mark Pock: But the only reason it can give is because
899 01:40:47.330 –> 01:40:48.449 Mark Pock: it is
900 01:40:48.880 –> 01:40:55.949 Mark Pock: Anyway, I hope that made a little bit of sense. There’s something going on there.
901 01:40:55.960 –> 01:41:07.110 Mark Pock: if you wanted to go big, big. Well, okay, there’s one slightly bigger. There’s this particular person he’s referring to here. His name is G. Shultz. I can tell you guys about him later. He’s a transition point between
902 01:41:08.520 –> 01:41:11.450 Mark Pock: can’t
903 01:41:11.630 –> 01:41:14.280 Mark Pock: and and and he’s right up to Ficta
904 01:41:14.300 –> 01:41:31.460 Mark Pock: into hang on. Okay? And it’s a long thing. He was the this he was this moderate because he wass first work was Published work was a critique of modern skepticism in favor of ancient skepticism. It’s called Sip skepticism. The skepticismous essay. And then he’s particularly critical
905 01:41:31.800 –> 01:41:39.430 Mark Pock: of Ge. Schultz. But, gee! It’s also a representative of the modern skepticism. Starting with Descartes, which is, how do I get outside of my head
906 01:41:39.760 –> 01:41:46.879 Mark Pock: to the thing. And what Schultz’s solution was, don’t worry about it. It is because it is okay. Just you just have the absolute.
907 01:41:46.900 –> 01:41:53.129 Mark Pock: Okay. Now, there’s a bigger thing, even bigger, which is, do you guys know the tetragonal grammaton?
908 01:41:53.330 –> 01:42:20.099 Mark Pock: You do not. You know the pronunciation you can say to the name of God. Yeah, he’s not supposed to say, though, yahweh, yeah. Oh, it’s like tetragrammaton. Because I am that I am yeah, right? Right? Right?
909 01:42:20.300 –> 01:42:22.490 Mark Pock: Yeah, yeah, I am that I am, or
910 01:42:22.600 –> 01:42:25.300 Mark Pock: I am he who is. and
911 01:42:25.440 –> 01:42:33.310 Mark Pock: he on those he he’s not getting. He’s good theologian. Okay, this is all lurking in the background. Because cause cause? Moses asks.
912 01:42:33.750 –> 01:42:38.009 Mark Pock: what is, how can you? How can you justify yourself to me because
913 01:42:38.130 –> 01:42:52.050 Mark Pock: he wants a he wants a reason he wants a criterion. and he says. I am because I am okay. But like, Okay, anyway, we’ll get into all that kind of stuff that’s lurking in the background. Similarly.
914 01:42:52.190 –> 01:42:56.750 Mark Pock: certainty as a connection is an immediate peer connection. Okay, that’s the problem.
915 01:42:58.020 –> 01:43:10.499 Mark Pock: Consciousness is I nothing more appear. This, the singular consciousness knows up here this or the single item. Now we shifted a little bit. We’ve gone from the full richness of things to
916 01:43:11.830 –> 01:43:16.020 Mark Pock: what? So this is the thing. Okay, this is this business. We go.
917 01:43:17.620 –> 01:43:19.860 Mark Pock: What? What is? What’s this?
918 01:43:21.550 –> 01:43:24.460 Mark Pock: What’s an object? It’s this, you know, this, this, this.
919 01:43:25.050 –> 01:43:37.369 Mark Pock: this, this okay, which is what is a kind of a version of this immediately? and so for for
920 01:43:37.740 –> 01:43:39.190 Mark Pock: for uncertainty.
921 01:43:40.790 –> 01:43:49.769 Mark Pock: Yeah, I mean literally, in apprehending prehensile of pre prehending is to to grab as we talked about. Right? It’s saying, well.
922 01:43:50.210 –> 01:43:52.710 Mark Pock: so whatever, it’s just kind of this thing that is there.
923 01:43:53.260 –> 01:44:07.390 Mark Pock: Hegel famously says for Kant. A an object is a candle box. I don’t know a snuff box and a candle, so that box here, candle there because cotton, it continues in this. He doesn’t actually get past uncertainty, but we’ll get into that later.
924 01:44:08.670 –> 01:44:12.600 Mark Pock: so the this. But when we look carefully at this pure being
925 01:44:12.690 –> 01:44:26.419 Mark Pock: which constitutes the essence of this on of a certainty, and which this certainty pronounces to be its truth. we see that much more is involved. An actual sense certain is not merely this pure immediately, but an instance of it.
926 01:44:26.480 –> 01:44:37.910 Mark Pock: Okay, this is, gonna be interesting. Among the countless differences cropping up here, we find in every case, that the crucial one is that, and sense certainty here being at once split up into what I have called to this is
927 01:44:38.820 –> 01:44:43.460 Mark Pock: this, as I and this and the other. This as object.
928 01:44:44.250 –> 01:44:57.139 Mark Pock: we, we, we when we reflex. So that’s us. That’s like phenomenal. When we reflect on this difference, we find that neither one or the other is only immediately present in sense certainty, but each is at the same time mediated.
929 01:44:57.320 –> 01:45:02.660 Mark Pock: I have this certainty through something else the thing. And similarly, it is sense certain to you
930 01:45:03.380 –> 01:45:07.599 Mark Pock: through something else, namely, through the I. Okay. So what he’s saying is.
931 01:45:09.220 –> 01:45:11.069 Mark Pock: you say this is
932 01:45:12.190 –> 01:45:14.400 Mark Pock: but for I’m saying it.
933 01:45:16.490 –> 01:45:25.530 Mark Pock: and so we would immediately have mediation immediately. I mean, you see, falls apart into an opposition
934 01:45:30.890 –> 01:45:33.869 Mark Pock: on its own terms. What he’s trying to say
935 01:45:34.500 –> 01:45:41.070 Mark Pock: yes, right? Because that’s
936 01:45:42.850 –> 01:45:47.279 Mark Pock: I don’t want to see this.
937 01:45:50.420 –> 01:46:00.070 Mark Pock: you start up with the the knowledge of no, or knowing which. It is a concern that you immediately. Our object cannot think of.
938 01:46:00.080 –> 01:46:01.359 Mark Pock: So
939 01:46:01.370 –> 01:46:09.870 Mark Pock: we’re talking about immediately, without anything coming in between crossing the object. It just right there.
940 01:46:10.000 –> 01:46:15.580 Mark Pock: And so the question is, what do you refer to that?
941 01:46:15.590 –> 01:46:16.780 Mark Pock: Yes.
942 01:46:16.960 –> 01:46:20.430 Mark Pock: and who’s so? This already is cuts?
943 01:46:20.560 –> 01:46:24.000 Mark Pock: Well, we’re not there yet. We’re not there yet.
944 01:46:24.310 –> 01:46:29.919 Mark Pock: It’s it’s it’s already defined it to a certain extent.
945 01:46:29.990 –> 01:46:41.830 Mark Pock: and it’s not something that’s immediate, be. It is already some particular thing as opposed to something other thing to this, and I
946 01:46:42.010 –> 01:46:45.410 Mark Pock: in a in in regard
947 01:46:45.420 –> 01:46:47.550 Mark Pock: that I am different from
948 01:46:47.600 –> 01:46:51.060 Mark Pock: that in.
949 01:46:51.320 –> 01:46:52.360 Mark Pock: So
950 01:46:52.510 –> 01:47:21.309 Mark Pock: they cut right away on its own terms. It’s falling apart, this notion of immediacy. It’s on the part, on its own terms. And that’s what I think it means by the the observer is that this method just doesn’t. We don’t do anything to make this come about. It happens on. It’s on the core, I guess, looking at it carefully, and we see them in false partners.
951 01:47:22.840 –> 01:47:30.479 Mark Pock: it’s the best use of time. Well, what do you think it? I just
952 01:47:30.710 –> 01:47:43.050 Mark Pock: that makes sense. I just. I’m wondering how much maybe we can push back on the idea that it does collapse on its own terms. Yeah. Like, for instance. why not like, why necessarily
953 01:47:43.060 –> 01:48:01.960 Mark Pock: does to this? Why does why do I appear to myself? Because from our, okay? Good, yeah, yeah, yeah. Good. So so that’s good. Because he he does say, when we reflect on this difference. So maybe we’re already doing that thing like, like, why not have a world of Pre mirror stage?
954 01:48:02.030 –> 01:48:12.809 Mark Pock: Well, okay, so let’s see, let’s see, because you may raised a good point there. Which is, have we really shown that this is what the the viewpoint is actually experiencing for itself?
955 01:48:13.170 –> 01:48:16.890 Mark Pock: That’s good, because in some sense. So yeah, it’s like
956 01:48:17.950 –> 01:48:22.989 Mark Pock: Hegel is saying, well. the viewpoint is just send this about itself.
957 01:48:23.390 –> 01:48:27.760 Mark Pock: it said, the this is the thing that is there immediately for me.
958 01:48:28.440 –> 01:48:34.680 Mark Pock: Well, what does that mean? It means you just introduce mediation. He’s adding that you’re right.
959 01:48:34.750 –> 01:48:50.189 Mark Pock: And so is that satisfying the viewpoint itself. No, not yet, because it doesn’t have the capacity to rep to reflect on that very point. Yet that is to say, that it has introduced differentiation. It still thinks it’s got the thing immediately.
960 01:48:50.380 –> 01:48:58.649 Mark Pock: Now we’ll see. I I think Hegel is going to claim that eventually it starts to pick up on this, that this is what’s happening.
961 01:48:59.700 –> 01:49:01.540 Mark Pock: Are you starting to get
962 01:49:02.380 –> 01:49:09.120 Mark Pock: in the the beginning of negation with that? But it doesn’t.
963 01:49:09.540 –> 01:49:15.800 Mark Pock: it doesn’t. And I it just
964 01:49:15.920 –> 01:49:23.589 Mark Pock: to the this.
965 01:49:23.640 –> 01:49:24.960 Mark Pock: it’s concerned.
966 01:49:25.550 –> 01:49:29.380 Mark Pock: But yeah, so like, you’re right that
967 01:49:31.100 –> 01:49:35.130 Mark Pock: this is not exactly what the with the viewpoint, would say by itself. Right?
968 01:49:35.780 –> 01:49:42.610 Mark Pock: But Hegel saying, I’m just doing a phenomenology. Still, I’m just reading off what’s going on there. I’m not added anything.
969 01:49:45.850 –> 01:49:49.630 Mark Pock: So you have to see. But let’s keep going. Okay.
970 01:49:51.640 –> 01:49:56.870 Mark Pock: It’s not just that we
971 01:49:56.970 –> 01:50:06.020 Mark Pock: who make this distinction between essence in this instance, between the on the contrary, we find it is within, since certainty itself.
972 01:50:06.510 –> 01:50:15.679 Mark Pock: and it is to be taken up in the form and which is present here, not as we have just to find it. Okay, so not as we just just find it. But it does make a distinction.
973 01:50:17.000 –> 01:50:28.179 Mark Pock: One of the terms is positive, since certainty in the form of a simple, immediate being, or as the essence, the object. The other, however, is positive as what is on essential and mediated something which is.
974 01:50:28.600 –> 01:50:31.150 Mark Pock: which in the uncertainty, is not in itself.
975 01:50:32.250 –> 01:50:35.360 Mark Pock: but through the mediation of another, the I.
976 01:50:35.400 –> 01:50:48.120 Mark Pock: Okay. Because remember, okay, for one thing, let’s just emphasize for set for consciousness. Well, because, by the way. I I mean, there’s a lot of structural thing that he goes. Consciousness, self consciousness, reason. Okay, and then spirit. But through it is really just reason.
977 01:50:48.530 –> 01:51:00.349 Mark Pock: So in when we go to, when we, we, we’re starting in consciousness, it has 3 sections since certainty, perception. for an understanding, and then kind of a subsection on transition to to
978 01:51:00.410 –> 01:51:04.920 Mark Pock: self-consciousness in consciousness the object is all important
979 01:51:05.520 –> 01:51:20.559 Mark Pock: and self-consciousness the self. The subjects becomes all important and then reasonable medium together. Okay, so we’ll see. But even. But there’s always circles within circles. So there’s going to be a point in sense, certainty where it thinks the subject is most important, but it’s always still kind of.
980 01:51:21.000 –> 01:51:25.349 Mark Pock: or it out on the object. Because this is a media scene. This is
981 01:51:26.030 –> 01:51:35.030 Mark Pock: pretty philosophical on reflective consciousness, trying to tell us about what reality is.
982 01:51:36.420 –> 01:51:52.009 Mark Pock: the up. So for this consciousness the object is, it is what is true or the essence. It is regardless of whether it is known or not. That’s a big thing, right? It’s just out there, and it remains, even if it is not known, whereas there is no knowledge, if the object is not there.
983 01:51:52.380 –> 01:51:53.470 Mark Pock: the question
984 01:51:53.580 –> 01:52:01.720 Mark Pock: must therefore be considered whether, in sense, certainty itself, the object is, in fact, the kind of essence that’s in certainty proclaims it to be
985 01:52:01.950 –> 01:52:15.560 Mark Pock: so. That’s partially the answer to. I’m not dealt with your question. It does recognize some kind of difference, but it doesn’t understand. It thinks it’s just like there’s this absoluteness. And then there’s this kind of fleeting consciousness that may or may not be present to sense certainty.
986 01:52:15.630 –> 01:52:18.889 Mark Pock: But the object is the only thing it’s claims to be worried about.
987 01:52:19.450 –> 01:52:24.939 Mark Pock: You see what I’m saying as opposed to like you’ve actually acknowledged. There’s a fundamental mediation going on here.
988 01:52:25.710 –> 01:52:27.290 Mark Pock: But there’s plenty more to be said.
989 01:52:27.350 –> 01:52:46.489 Mark Pock: Okay, whether this notion of it as the essence corresponds to the objects. Okay, since sort of to this end we we have not to reflect on it and ponder what it might be in truth, but only consider the way in which it is present in sense certainty. Okay, here’s here’s and we’ll we’ll end here. This is a good, this is a good spot to end. It’s it’s a fun thing.
990 01:52:46.640 –> 01:52:52.589 Mark Pock: It is then sent certainty itself that must be asked. This is good
991 01:52:53.270 –> 01:52:54.329 Mark Pock: because we’re kind of
992 01:52:54.780 –> 01:52:59.830 Mark Pock: creating a question of sensor and asking it to answer for itself. What is the this
993 01:53:00.910 –> 01:53:04.160 Mark Pock: if we take the this and the twofold shape
994 01:53:04.170 –> 01:53:06.769 Mark Pock: of its being as now, and as here
995 01:53:07.720 –> 01:53:12.710 Mark Pock: the dialectic in it that like has in it will receive a form
996 01:53:12.900 –> 01:53:17.979 Mark Pock: as intelligible as the this itself. To the question, What is now? Let us now
997 01:53:18.040 –> 01:53:25.849 Mark Pock: let us answer now is night. Okay? So we’re saying, we’re kind of saying, Well, what is it? This? What’s this here? Now? This here? Now.
998 01:53:26.170 –> 01:53:28.540 Mark Pock: that’s what it is. Okay, fine.
999 01:53:28.590 –> 01:53:29.660 Mark Pock: What is now
1000 01:53:30.710 –> 01:53:32.560 Mark Pock: let us answer, now is night.
1001 01:53:32.950 –> 01:53:39.650 Mark Pock: In order to test the truth of this uncertainty, a simple experiment will suffice right down this truth.
1002 01:53:40.500 –> 01:53:43.130 Mark Pock: it’s classic.
1003 01:53:43.510 –> 01:53:51.230 Mark Pock: Any. A truth cannot lose anything by being written down, any more than it can lose anything through our preserving it. If now.
1004 01:53:51.420 –> 01:54:01.310 Mark Pock: if now this noon we look again. We will say that this has become stale. So what we thought was absolute this year. Now.
1005 01:54:02.370 –> 01:54:08.349 Mark Pock: okay, fine. What what is now. Well, now, it’s 6 30.
1006 01:54:08.630 –> 01:54:10.269 Mark Pock: Okay, is that absolute?
1007 01:54:11.390 –> 01:54:20.589 Mark Pock: just wait. Oh. and so then what he’s gonna say, we can, we can stop here. But he’s gonna say. you go through this things you realize like
1008 01:54:20.990 –> 01:54:24.680 Mark Pock: every
1009 01:54:24.930 –> 01:54:35.030 Mark Pock: you know, the now is constantly changing. But then you you get this point where you can see. Yeah, but in some sense there’s an an eternal now. It’s always now.
1010 01:54:35.140 –> 01:54:39.009 Mark Pock: And so in some sense the now is absolute, but not on the way immediately he thought of it
1011 01:54:39.690 –> 01:54:42.310 Mark Pock: has the now that is just day.
1012 01:54:43.810 –> 01:54:52.889 Mark Pock: and so there’s a kind of a negation of the negation where he thought that now was just this, you know, 12 noon sunny outside
1013 01:54:53.760 –> 01:54:55.760 Mark Pock: turns out
1014 01:54:55.840 –> 01:55:00.630 Mark Pock: that now is also midnight. so that has been negated.
1015 01:55:00.720 –> 01:55:09.990 Mark Pock: But then you negate that negation. And you say, Well, yeah, in some sense, but that makes it a universal. The. It turns out that now is not immediate. It’s mediated. It’s universal.
1016 01:55:11.110 –> 01:55:14.300 Mark Pock: It’s not a particular this. It’s always now.
1017 01:55:15.270 –> 01:55:18.610 Mark Pock: yes, very good.
1018 01:55:19.500 –> 01:55:23.539 Mark Pock: And that will be the same for this, too, as we will see.
1019 01:55:23.800 –> 01:55:32.029 Mark Pock: because everything is as is this. So this, what? We’re trying to say something individual, everything is, this is a universal.
1020 01:55:33.540 –> 01:55:44.630 Mark Pock: Yeah. I was just wondering about that. Yeah. Yeah. So yes, of course. Yeah, that’s a problem. I that I think that’s a
1021 01:55:47.770 –> 01:56:10.259 Mark Pock: yes, he is a little bit. He is okay. So so there’s
1022 01:56:10.980 –> 01:56:16.420 Mark Pock: At the same time, maybe there are ways to
1023 01:56:18.090 –> 01:56:21.270 Mark Pock: try to recover what he is actually saying, which is
1025 01:56:29.820 –> 01:56:41.370 Mark Pock: yeah, I mean, I guess he’s kind of seeing what I already said, which is that I mean, we can almost dispose of this. I think that this is a problem because he doesn’t. Yeah, it’s a, it’s a problem with, because you guys know what we’re talking about like,
1026 01:56:42.190 –> 01:56:54.090 Mark Pock: demonstratives or or indicatives where you’re in Texacles. Yeah, sorry. In Texas, where you’re You have universal notions like now.
1027 01:56:54.310 –> 01:56:59.290 Mark Pock: But then you say this now as opposed to that now, and this is
1028 01:56:59.780 –> 01:57:08.059 Mark Pock: not being used as a universal. That’s not the function it plays in the sentence. It’s not a now title’s treating it as it now.
1029 01:57:08.610 –> 01:57:12.249 Mark Pock: because in some sense you can use this as this. What’s real this?
1030 01:57:12.840 –> 01:57:17.260 Mark Pock: But he’s confused it. And he’s thinking we’re using it to be transformed.
1031 01:57:17.480 –> 01:57:19.850 Mark Pock: What is merely a demonstrative into a now.
1032 01:57:20.470 –> 01:57:29.709 Mark Pock: and he’s he’s confusing something there. But that’s true. That’s a kind of blunder on Hales part.
1033 01:57:29.830 –> 01:57:36.959 Mark Pock: but I suppose we can either. Just just kind of ignore that.
1034 01:57:37.750 –> 01:57:43.580 Mark Pock: There is something that a little bit more there, because there is a way to back up
1035 01:57:44.300 –> 01:57:46.680 Mark Pock: and talk about.
1036 01:57:47.540 –> 01:57:51.840 Mark Pock: this gets while you’d have to start talking about Scotus.
1037 01:57:52.530 –> 01:57:54.240 Mark Pock: And this
1038 01:57:54.960 –> 01:57:59.679 Mark Pock: also known as Hitchhi Tos. It’s the Latin.
1039 01:58:00.350 –> 01:58:01.450 Mark Pock: because
1040 01:58:01.560 –> 01:58:07.500 Mark Pock: this was a big problem of of solving the. It was the thirteenth century. It was called the Problem of the Universals.
1041 01:58:07.550 –> 01:58:15.910 Mark Pock: where they couldn’t figure out how universal. So then you ended up with Nominalism, so that universals are merely just words. They don’t refer to anything in reality.
1042 01:58:16.300 –> 01:58:22.409 Mark Pock: and Scotus tried to split the difference and say, there was this, this.
1043 01:58:22.900 –> 01:58:34.079 Mark Pock: that was a not a universal, because every you could say, Okay, what’s it had to do with the problem of individual? What individuates? Because everything we used to describe something. All of its qualities are universal terms blue, red.
1044 01:58:34.470 –> 01:58:37.340 Mark Pock: and then but is there something in the thing that’s just
1045 01:58:37.440 –> 01:58:40.290 Mark Pock: the this which makes it individual.
1046 01:58:40.910 –> 01:58:49.710 Mark Pock: this is part of what this has been remarkable, and I don’t think it’s been developed nearly enough. I don’t think people will realize, because there is an issue with Echinstein and the
1047 01:58:49.900 –> 01:59:00.900 Mark Pock: a linguist confusion here. But I don’t think it’s merely that there’s something else about how we’re dealing with, because we’re this is the whole thing, the universal in particular. That’s a big thing, an ongoing thing. And
1048 01:59:01.330 –> 01:59:02.569 Mark Pock: how do we?
1049 01:59:02.940 –> 01:59:07.919 Mark Pock: Because the famous paradox is actually the er it’s it’s it’s it’s because sciences of the universal.
1050 01:59:09.450 –> 01:59:13.349 Mark Pock: There’s no sign of the individual as individual. but everything is individual.
1051 01:59:13.820 –> 01:59:18.880 Mark Pock: Everything is particular. So either science. either reality is unknowable
1052 01:59:19.980 –> 01:59:30.049 Mark Pock: or science is not of reality. It’s a that’s a fundamental paradox aerosol does to confront because it has to do with what is the principle of individuation, and how do we know it?
1053 01:59:30.730 –> 01:59:32.810 Mark Pock: How do you know the individual as individual?
1054 01:59:33.990 –> 01:59:37.360 Mark Pock: So that’s part of what’s going on here.
1055 01:59:37.570 –> 01:59:39.770 Mark Pock: And what he’s kind of saying is that, well.
1056 01:59:41.510 –> 01:59:50.449 Mark Pock: he’s he’s basically saying, Yeah, that the individual only exists through the universal or something like that it’s kind of what he’s getting at. I mean, it’s I don’t know. But
1057 01:59:51.280 –> 01:59:57.349 Mark Pock: if we want to just put that to the side, we can simply look at like the now on the here and say, like, Okay.
1058 01:59:57.790 –> 02:00:02.570 Mark Pock: We thought that we thought the object was so this year now.
1059 02:00:02.700 –> 02:00:07.009 Mark Pock: but then, now it turns out to be not absolute in the way that we took it to me.
1060 02:00:08.200 –> 02:00:13.890 Mark Pock: It’s actually constantly being negated, but it still preserves itself in that negation.
1061 02:00:15.050 –> 02:00:19.419 Mark Pock: But that’s just the start. Okay? And what he was trying to say. Of course, the larger point is that
1062 02:00:20.200 –> 02:00:26.279 Mark Pock: being is not immediate, and our knowing of being is not immediate. So in our very knowing of it now, we’re already
1063 02:00:26.750 –> 02:00:28.760 Mark Pock: meeting it through a university
1064 02:00:30.880 –> 02:00:34.199 Mark Pock: that make make sense. Yeah.
1065 02:00:34.740 –> 02:00:36.169 Mark Pock: that’s the direction.
1066 02:00:37.630 –> 02:00:44.549 Mark Pock: So good. Yeah, that’s the direction we’ll maybe we’ll pick up. We keep going 7, 30, no finished and 30 tomorrow. That’d be good.
1067 02:00:45.470 –> 02:00:51.960 Mark Pock: Your nation today. Yes.