Gaofeng 276 Historical Narrative

First Greece was all Rome, then the Middle Ages, then the early modern Enlightenment, and then the French Revolution may not necessarily be. Because Hegel is here discussing philosophy, not strictly speaking history.

So, it is not written according to the development process of human history or civilization history. Hegel wrote according to the thread of rational development, rather than the chronological order of chronicles. What he wants to write is a history of absolute self-awareness, not a chronicle of human cognitive development.

This is completely different, it must be clarified. Instead of a chronicle of human historical development, what happened at the beginning and what happened later. Hegel said that the purpose of Phenomenology of Spirit is truth, absolute truth.

But we can understand his concept of truth from an epistemological perspective. The truth of philosophy refers to a holistic understanding of the world by humanity. So, "Phenomenology of Spirit" not only involves various philosophical theories, but also includes materials from various religions, ethics, and history, because he said that what I am discussing here is absolute truth, which refers to our overall understanding of the world.

So, it must encompass all aspects of human spiritual activity.

Hegel referred to "Phenomenology of Spirit" as an introduction to his entire system, although at this time his system had not yet been written. However, it has been unclear in what sense this is meant, and there is debate among scholars. In what sense does Hegel say that spiritual phenomena are an introduction to the system of development.

Scholars have always debated that the concept of system became a notorious term in the 20th century, and when it comes to systems, they are always talked about as something that is ridiculed. However, for German classical philosophers, if philosophy is not a system, then there is no philosophy. The concept of a system comes from Kant. Why?

Because in his view, philosophy should be a unified and all encompassing science.

Since it is an all encompassing science that needs to be unified, it should be a system, because this word can also be translated as a system, and systematic, not just random or fragmented. This is an idea of Kant.

I think it's still right, unless we completely change it, for example, we accept the ideas of several contemporary French philosophers. Philosophy is a guerrilla force, a short-term assault, a bee sting, specializing in stirring up wrong ideas and then walking away. It's busy, but that's okay. We're just a short-term assault. I'll hit you and leave, I'll say some shocking words, just push you down. My goal is not to establish, my goal is just to point out that you're a fraud. My goal is like the child in the emperor's new outfit in a fairy tale, pointing out that you're not wearing any clothes is enough. My philosophy doesn't want to tell you, and why do they think he's saying this? Maybe?

They mainly believe that humans cannot have a holistic understanding. But now it seems a bit different. He is different. His book has been translated recently, and it can be translated soon. He has a broader perspective and demeanor. Why?

Because he comes from the Marxist tradition, he said that he is not quite like those other postmodern French people. Zizek highly praises him, and reading his books is like having a dialogue with Plato, as if contemporary Plato is speaking, highly praising him. This person is different, with a broad demeanor and a broad perspective.

However, there is no clear definition in classical German philosophy that philosophy is a grasp of a whole, as a comprehensive science. Of course, in the eyes of Fichte and Schelling, other post Kantian philosophers, Kant did not succeed on the path of various systems. Why?

It's simple, he left behind a binary philosophy for future generations. He didn't unify nature and institutions, didn't clarify the unity of human spirit, the unity of the world, and the unity of philosophy. He has not achieved these three most important unifications. In the view of the last three people, the philosopher's so-called appropriateness is to prove the unity of human spirit.

The unity of experience, the unity of the world, and the unity of philosophy, in fact, there cannot be any distinction between moral philosophy and natural philosophy. Philosophy is one, and they all believe that Kant's attempt to solve the problem of the division between nature and freedom has not been completed. Humans are still struggling in two worlds.

None of these three provide the kind of synthesis required for a true system, and Kant's concept of the unknowable thing in itself is also considered a serious mistake by Kant's philosophers. Why is that?

Because as long as you acknowledge that someone's ability to recognize things beyond themselves will inevitably lead to skepticism and agnosticism, to argue for the unity of experience and concrete skepticism, this is a common problem faced by post Kantian philosophy and also a problem that Hegelian philosophy needs to solve.

I'm afraid our era still faces such a problem. The first thing to prove is the unity of experience. Our experience cannot be divided, including the height of the world we see now. Why do humans need countries? Development is the absolute principle. He has not thought about development. If we want comprehensive development, then experience should not only be engaged in production and consumption, but also gratitude for nature, appreciation of beauty, love for human beings and all living species, including the earth itself. These should be our most basic experience.

But in today's world, these experiences are either purely personal or personal, you can have them or not. For example, if you are a painter, you may say that you appreciate nature. As the CEO of the company, I don't need to have the same experience as you. The experience I have is not shared by others. For example, if I have free time, I can go fishing or do other things through me.

Today, the human world is divided, which is very absurd and ridiculous. He tells you that we only have one experience, which is how to satisfy our desires, and satisfying our desires becomes a material production and consumption, becoming such a thing.

The division of this experience is even greater than that of Kant's era. Today's world is divided, and our world today has issues that cannot be explained by reason, such as terrorist attacks, series of inexplicable killings, and the recent Taiwan incident. The United States also experienced one a few days ago.

Kill all three of his roommates, then kill six more on the road, and then kill three more before committing suicide. There's no reason for this. Westerners may say the world is crazy, but in reality, what is it called?

Germans may be calm and say that the human spirit is broken and there is no complete experience, which is very dangerous. Another thing is skepticism. Today, there are many people who, when we talk about the prevalent cynicism, believe that there is no truth. Truth is all talk, and there is no absolute way of heaven. The way of heaven is just that some people, like you intellectuals, sometimes have to eat and write articles like this, and there is no such thing?

The whole world is generally in a nihilistic atmosphere, of course nihilism or even skepticism, not believing that there is anything eternal in the world.

Personally, I don't think it's wrong to think so, but in fact, our lives are all torn apart. Sometimes, besides reading and thinking seriously, you also need to experience various aspects of life. This way, people's experiences are complete. Your experience is rational, and you won't tear yourself apart. Although you can excel in a certain aspect, it's a matter of comprehensive human development.

20 years ago in the World Cup, the main players of the Brazilian team in Paris were all from law schools. College and graduate students were cultured, not doing nothing from a young age. Like Liu Xiang, he was not good at anything except for two legs. Exercise was like splitting a person, all of them were polite college students. You walked out in a suit and looked like an intellectual, even though he was a rough person.

No one would think that starting from the age of four or five, if you don't think about anything, your problem is just a weakness in certain muscles and reaction abilities. No, but now I'm sorry, these players from the Brazilian team in the West are no longer like Socrates. Those people can say, even if it's not important, what's important is that we demonstrated the philosophy and charm of football. This is where football controls us. The game your children were born in was the recent semi-final between Brazil and France, where both sides were exhausted and the Brazilian team fell. But the real winner was the Brazilian team. Why? Their philosophical honor advocates the charm of philosophy, but the French team did their best not to play conservatively that time. However, France was injured by Brazil and entered the semifinals. When competing for the final spot, they didn't play at all and were defeated by others all at once.

However, the final report stated that this World Cup was won by the cunning utilitarian Italian team who played defensive football that year. We believe that the real champion is the Brazilian team, and we have a balance in our hearts because it's not working anymore. Those guys are just money strings now, and I only watch a few games in the World Cup and they fall. Why?

Because he is someone who is torn apart in the competition, of course, you are different from a complete person in the competition. This is the whole world we face today, it is a divided world.

Hegelian philosophy, why did it move me and many of my students, not now, but also Mr. Jiang Jinsheng who used to be in Beijing and Shanghai? Many people have become Hegelians in the future. Why?

It's simple, because I think his problem is the problem we are facing today, and it's not the same problem - our lives are divided. Another thing is that we cannot rely on anything, and people have nothing trustworthy in the world.

His solution, of course, is philosophy, which provides us with a clear and actionable answer, and then he uses absolute concepts as a link in his problem-solving process. So, most people think that the problem you just talked about is shrouded in clouds and mist. We can understand it very realistically. The human spirit has been distinguished by experience, and humans have skepticism. So, how can you absolutely solve such a problem of the times?

The Phenomenology of Spirit, so thick, is meant to tell what absolute is. Of course, if you sometimes just know, there is another answer, and absolute is spirit. If you don't provide further explanation, you will feel even more frustrated, which is definitely equivalent to not saying anything. Both concepts are things that cannot be grasped.