Unfortunate detail: I'm not totally sure who exactly those "others" are he's complaining about, and what exactly that "absolute idea" is which they are trying to pass off as the pinnacle of all science.
Thoughts? — WerMaat

Good questions.
I don't know. However, I think it might refer to Hegel's critique of Kantian idealism.
Perhaps the contemporary 'Empty Formalism Objection' as googled after reading:

'this other view instead consists in only a monochrome formalism' (para 15 ).
[my bolds]

Others will know better and in greater detail. I look forward to hearing from them.

Note: I am reading outwith the text. I find the SEP article on Hegel useful:

In Hegel, the non-traditionalists argue, one can see the ambition to bring together the universalist dimensions of Kant’s transcendental program with the culturally contextualist conceptions of his more historically and relativistically-minded contemporaries, resulting in his controversial conception of spirit, as developed in his Phenomenology of Spirit. — Paul Redding

https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/hegel/

To return to an earlier analogy it is as if one were to look at a baby or toddler or child or youth or teen and on that basis alone judge what it is to be a human being. The potential is there but at each of these stages it has not been actualized and thus cannot even be realized or known. — Fooloso4

Yes. That is a helpful way of looking at and understanding para 14. As is :

They are the demands of those who are critical of science who:

... insists on immediate rationality and divinity

It might help to think of this in relation to the analogy in 12 of the prize at the end of the path, won through struggle and effort. — Fooloso4

.

it strikes me there are two distinctly different meanings of over-thinking, over-working, and worth noting, even if just in passing. First is the idea of existing material over-worked, over-wrought; second the idea of additional and too-much material added. If we try to eat all the thistles in the field, there won't be any left, nor appetite nor capacity for them. — tim wood

Yes. It is right to point out the problem of over-thinking.
For sure, the Preface won't be completely understood after a first read through.

Individual appetites and capacity for close reading and analysis vary.
While the thread and the 'we' of a reading group might need or wish to proceed quickly, it is about finding the right balance.To take time to discuss. To share thoughts.

The thread appears steady and on course to reach its aim of understanding the Preface.
As well as possible.

It's useful background to know that the book was published in 1807. I am not a student of the Napoleonic period, but I think Hegel is writing while Napoleon is tearing Europe to pieces, at times within the sound of cannon. — tim wood

The beauty of having a pdf is its search function. Type in 'Napoleon' to read of Hegel's claim.

For context and understanding, I think it helpful to read Pinkard's Introduction which tells of 'Hegel's Path to the Phenomenology'. Hegel calls it his 'voyage of discovery' (p10).

The Intellectual, Political and Social Ferment of the Time (p12).
2 major upheavals:
1. When Hegel was 19yrs old - the French Revolution upended all conventional thought.
2. Intellectual upheaval - brought in by Kant's writings with his insistence on freedom of thought revolutionised philosophy (p13).

Then 3. Goethe changed the outmoded Jena University from stuffy, conventional orthodox to a place where a professor could be a hero following Kant's injunction to 'think for oneself', laying the blueprint for the emerging modern world itself (p14).

This ties in with Fooloso4's important point re para 13:

Hegel is not talking just about the development of some intellectual pursuit, philosophy, or even a science of the whole, but of a new world in its incipience. — Fooloso4

The emergence of a new Spirit.

p18 continues with 'What is a Phenomenology?'.
And so on.

Hegel envisaged his audience to be the people of modern Europe (p10).

Trump is not the problem. He is a symptom. — creativesoul

He can be both. And more besides. So many nouns and adjectives. Either way, he is a dangerous preacher of hate and division. This latest is an atrocious development.

Goaded on by the president, a crowd at a Donald Trump rally on Wednesday night chanted “send her back! send her back!” in reference to Ilhan Omar, a US congresswoman who arrived almost 30 years ago as a child refugee in the United States.

Trump used the 2020 campaign rally in Greenville, North Carolina, to attack Omar and three other Democratic congresswomen – Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez of New York, Ayanna Pressley of Massachusetts and Rashida Tlaib of Michigan – calling them “hate-filled extremists”.

SEND HER BACK, SEND HER BACK,’ is ugly. It’s ignorant. It’s dangerous,” tweeted Joe Walsh, the conservative radio host and former Republican congressman. “And it’s un-American. It’s flat out bigotry. And every Republican should condemn this bigotry immediately. Stop this now.” — Tom McCarthy

https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2019/jul/17/trump-rally-send-her-back-ilhan-omar

I do not think the leap is an illusion: — Fooloso4

Having taken the time to read more, I now understand the term 'qualitative leap' and the revolutionary aspect.

So, I agree with you and the important point you were making.
Thanks.

Hegel has not given us any examples — Fooloso4

I'm tired so will ask only one question - perhaps a follow up tomorrow, or if someone else wants to contribute their thoughts...

Examples of what and where ?
Of revolution ?

From the Greeks to Hegel. — Fooloso4

Ah yes. The movement of history. I had been thinking about the duration of Hegel's own journey.
His time of revolution within the overall evolutionary process, meaning changes over successive generations.Ideas changing individuals.

It is the difference between process and product. The product is not simply the continuation of the linear process that led up to it. It is birth of something new, something revolutionary. — Fooloso4

Understood. The product can be both an end and a beginning. Just like the conclusion of an argument can become a premise of another in an inference chain.
Still, I wouldn't describe it as revolutionary. The term 'revolution' is debatable.
Struggle and effort are involved in both evolution and revolution.

But don't wish to bog the discussion down.

Btw, these cut-and-pastes come from this site:

https://libcom.org/files/Georg%20Wilhelm%20Friedrich%20Hegel%20-%20The%20Phenomenology%20of%20Spirit%20(Terry%20Pinkard%20Translation).pdf — tim wood

Thank you, Tim.
Although initially critical of need to cut and copy whole paragraphs, thinking a reference sufficient, I now appreciate this very much.
It means I can easily find and copy relevant pieces of text in response to others.
My own pdf is Read Only.

 

And in #12 that the beginning of a new spirit is the outcome of a widespread revolution. — Fooloso4

Yes, I read that. However, I am wondering how long this took in real life.
How long was 'the winding path' ?

12. The beginning of a new spirit is the outcome of a widespread revolution in the diversity of forms of cultural formation; it is both the prize at the end of a winding path just as it is the prize won through much struggle and effort.

Hegel died before the publication of The Origin of Species and so we should not attribute Darwin's vocabulary of evolutionary change to Hegel. — Fooloso4

The word 'evolution' was in use before Darwin. From the 1660s it meant a growth to maturity and development of an individual living thing. A process. Unfolding over time.
This would tie in with Hegel's biological analogies.
I think talk of a revolution and leaps is confusing. I think MU makes a similar point:

Such a leap must be understood in terms of process, a coming-to-be, to be made sense of in Hegelian terms, but then the term "leap" is misleading. Hegel's challenge is to describe these occurrences which appear as qualitative leaps, in terms of processes or comings-to-be, "slowly and quietly" ... "reshaping itself", because the leap for him is an illusion. You might call this "qualitative leap" a faulty description.
6 hours ago — Metaphysician Undercover

Also:

Again, it's about development. Things are changing, that's his message. But the new is not refuting or replacing the old, the old is merely developing into the new. As in, the old state of things is a necessary precursor to the new. — WerMaat

With regard to the root meaning of the term in German you provided I am reminded of the parable of the blind men and the elephant. Each can touch a part but since none can grasp the whole, and so none of them understand or comprehend the object. — Fooloso4

Readers each explore the form, shape, substance and nature of the text from their unique perspective.
So, a group affair is more likely to fare well.
Feedback loop leads to improved comprehension. Hopefully.

Hegel uses "begreiflich", from the root greifen: the action of grasping an object with your hand.
With the prefix be- you get begreifen, literally: the action of touching an object repeatedly in order to explore its shape - but usually used in the more abstract sense of understanding or grasping something in your mind — WerMaat

This clarity helps my understanding. Much better than the glossary explanation . Thanks.

Each stage of this new whole no matter how different it is from earlier stages is not a move away from but within itself, adding to to the completion of itself. — Fooloso4

This makes sense to me. There are distinct stages of development of an individual, the core spirit of whom remains intact. It is a becoming.

Hegel is not talking just about the development of some intellectual pursuit, philosophy, or even a science of the whole, but of a new world in its incipience. It is not the study of or reflection on the whole but the whole itself — Fooloso4

Each individual experience, and reflection thereof, adds new ideas to the old.
The effects, more evolutionary than revolutionary ? Leading to an exciting new world.

Is that about right ?

At each step of becoming who you are it is you who is making that determination. — Fooloso4

Not initially, if you are the person being sculpted or moulded by someone else.

Sculpture can involve: carving, modelling, casting, constructing.
Usually, there is a form in mind. We don't always have that. Sometimes, development is more organic. That might be less deterministic and more like free jazz. But yes, you still need to have the basic, core materials. Soft like wax, or hard like marble. Even the latter can portray a softness. The KISS by Rodin.

In 'Becoming', Michelle Obama reflects on the experiences that shaped her. And yes, it is still a process where there are moments of vital decision-making. Choices only we can make, for better or worse. And then there is this...

Or perhaps once something has been removed we must work with what remains. — Fooloso4

Perhaps particularly pertinent to ageing bodies with 'Bits-Falling-Off Syndrome'.

It underscores how philosophy obscures things that are right out in the open. — T Clark

The open sea can get quite rocky :vomit:

:smile:
You do like your bullet points, doncha?
Almost :100: for cuteness and humour.

perhaps we shall see if a designated witch drowns or survives. — Hanover

I Will Survive :starstruck:

I was waiting for that. You didn't disappoint.
But who was Popeye, really ?

Echoing Pindar, Nietzsche exhorts us: "Become who you are". — Fooloso4

And what does that mean ? How does that answer the question of who we are ?
Is it about working out who the 'Real' you is, or might be - and then some kind of self-realisation or actualization?

This doesn't make any sense to me.
Your dynamic body is not the whole of your identity. Your body and mind help make up the personal identity which is one aspect of you within your socio-cultural sphere, online and beyond.

Your dynamic body is under your control, unless something dramatic happens to you.
And then it might become another 'you'. With a different personality, exhibiting different behaviour.

The question of 'Who is the real you ?' becomes of practical and emotional relevance to you and family who will exclaim 'But that's not Terrapin Station !' or whatever your real name is.

Why did you choose the highly individual name: Terrapin Station ? What does it mean to you ?

Still, have a read of the first chapter of this. — StreetlightX

Like :up:

First Circle: “I AM WHAT I AM”

“I AM WHAT I AM.” This is marketing’s latest offering to the world, the final stage in the development of advertising, far beyond all the exhortations to be different, to be oneself and drink Pepsi...

WHAT AM I,” then? Since childhood, I’ve passed through a flow of milk, smells, stories, sounds, emotions, nursery rhymes, substances, gestures, ideas, impressions, gazes, songs, and foods. What am I? Tied in every way to places, sufferings, ancestors, friends, loves, events, languages, memories, to all kinds of things that obviously are not me. Everything that attaches me to the world, all the links that constitute me, all the forces that compose me don’t form an identity, a thing displayable on cue, but a singular, shared, living existence, from which emerges — at certain times and places — that being which says “I.” Our feeling of inconsistency is simply the consequence of this foolish belief in the permanence of the self and of the little care we give to what makes us what we are....
— Comite invisible

In an autobiography, obviously I'm going to focus on actions, events, experiences, etc. It wouldn't be a philosophy text about personal identity. — Terrapin Station

Not all philosophical texts about identity are so reductionist, are they ? You boiled it down to brain function. Is there not something more interesting and expansive - like what is it like to be you ?
What does it mean to be you ? The different senses of you...

My "real me" isn't something that I believe is ultimately under my control, — Terrapin Station

Well if the 'real you' is about dynamic brain function, then why would it not be under your control?

Anyone with any sense. — StreetlightX

Nonsense.

Oh good. There have been few more oppressively onerous ideas than that of the 'real you'. Nice to see it being done away with. — StreetlightX

Says who ?

A complex of different dynamic bodily parts and functions, where for "personal identity," the focus is on a complex of different dynamic brain functions that amount to mentality--thoughts/ideas, desires, concepts, memories, senses of self, etc. — Terrapin Station

So, a pretty pared back bundle of mentality, then ?
Is that what you would write about 'You' in your autobiography ?

Why do people focus on questions as to whether something is real or not? Something about such questions seems very fishy. — Wallows

I guess it's what some philosophical types are interested in. What is it that seems 'very fishy' ?
The underlying issue is about identity. Reasons are given for the claim. An argument is offered.
A fairly typical hook, I would say.

There is no Real you because your personality is simply a compilation of your tastes with your experiences and both of those things are beyond any type of reasonable control. — Filipe

So, if I bite, I might first ask what do you mean by 'Real' ? As opposed to what ? Imaginary ?

My "real me" isn't something that I believe is ultimately under my control, and it's not something that I take to be simply a compilation of my tastes and experiences. — Terrapin Station

So, who are you ? Real or otherwise ?

The way the Hanover award is awarded is I carefully review the prospect's body of work, pretending to critically evaluate it, and then I give it to the guy who is most politically aligned with my views. I won it again this year. — Hanover

I object :down: Most strongly :naughty:
This should be open to a public vote. From a list of 5, compiled by the contributors and readers of this thread. Who can best answer the question 'Who Am I ?' :chin:
Not me. You. Who are you ?

Who Are We ?

Tom Clark, editor of Prospect magazine, reveals:

The three-word question consuming the world’s biggest brains

We have consulted closely with global authorities on economics, history and science about their peers, and considered the books and ideas we can see making waves. The biggest of these waves – by far – are those concerning identity...

What exactly, disparate thinkers are asking, does it mean to be American, Muslim, Indian, female, black or simply human?...

As it happens, the first three names on the list – and they are just alphabetical for now, with a public vote to pick the top 10 open – are all wrestling with identity. Naomi Alderman’s novel Disobedience, about a London rabbi’s bisexual daughter, explores how faith communities can find space for difference; Syrian architect Marwa al-Sabouni explains how deadly walls of misunderstanding in Syria grew up due to a dearth of public spaces; philosopher Kwame Anthony Appiah reconciles the importance of grounded identities with the need to protect vulnerable groups...
— Tom Clark

https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2019/jul/17/three-word-question-world-biggest-brains-survey-intellectuals

Correction/refinement welcome! — tim wood

I appreciate your enthusiasm but I see more distracting poetry than useful clarity in this explication:

The tree again, seed, seedling, sapling, mature tree, finally fallen tree. But the source for a whole new beginning, that future grounded in the rotting tree, but itself not determined by its ground

And the past is archive of the new, being its ground and providing reference points, and without which the "child" both feels and is insecure, lacking the structure and bounds of the old, and not yet establishing its own.

In this inchoate condition, "science" is owned and understood only by the few. But in its logic and the working out of that logic it becomes an offering of participation to all, because as Being itself, it is necessarily accessible to all beings. — tim wood

Some selective pruning required ?

Right now his theory may be a small acorn, and only few can work with it and understand it. But it's supposed to grow into a large tree and be accessible to a broad audience: "Only what is completely determinate is at the same time exoteric, comprehensible, and capable of being learned and possessed by everybody." — WerMaat

I am not there yet. I guess you are one of the few :wink:

The discussion between you and WerMaat is instructive and enjoyable to read.
Reciprocal exchanges and informative interaction.
It is exactly what I appreciate in a book discussion. Especially when I am behind and need a bit of motivation. Thanks :smile:

I haven't reached this point yet. However, your clear thoughts and writing make me want to try and catch up.

Hegel is not entirely unsympathetic to the impulse of those he is criticizing. — Fooloso4

I'm glad about that. It seems to me that his writing style reflects that positive spirit of Erbauung of which WerMaat spoke. The spirit lying in the artful use of metaphors.

For "edify" and "edification" the original text uses "Erbauung".
This word ist usually used to describe a spiritual or moral type of experience. One might find Erbauung in church, in nature, or in art.
Erbauung has positive connotations ( unless you use it in an ironic fashion), as in: it strengstens your personality. But it's usually more intuitive and spiritual, not rational and intellectual.
I believe that Hegel thus connects the word to the romantic "Schwärmereien" he mocks. And when her states that philosophy may not be "erbaulich", he is trying to say that it is a strictly rational enterprise, not a vague spiritual feel-good Type of experience. — WerMaat

I'll be following along with the German original. I'm a German native, so the original text is actually easier for me to read... — WerMaat

How excellent is this. Das ist fantastisch :cool:

It's also important to note that 'Notion' (or concept) is used here (beginning in section 6 iirc) in contrast to 'intuition'. Hegel is critiquing those thinkers, and philosophies, which propose truth can be apprehended in an unmediated way; Via some kind of direct experience. Instead truth is aprehended through a systematic process - which is what hegel regards as 'scientific'. The word begriff itself signifies a grabbing onto. Notion therefore, conveys an image of ascertaining truth through effort, whereas intuition does not. — emancipate

Consider it noted with appreciation for clarity, drawing out the distinction.

From Gardner's Glossary:

CONCEPT ( Begriff ) ...The verb begreifen incorporates greifen, to seize...

INTUITION ( Anschauung)
A term of Kant's, referring to the immediate, non-conceptual presentation of a thing.
Hegel's attitude to the concept of intuition is mostly negative. — Sebastian Gardner

----------

Another element in rejecting Romanticism is that one of the main goals of the book is to show how individual experience is interwoven with developments of ideas that unfold over time.
At the same time, the developments are changes in what is possible for the individual to experience. — Valentinus

Helpful. The unfolding of developing ideas and the effect on individuals.
Good to know one of the main goals of the book.

There is no doubt I would rise to the occasion and delight, but I simply cannot function without my double entendres. — Fooloso4

I Simply Can't Function Without My Sexy Emoticons !
:cool: :kiss: :love: :yum:

I was taught not to magically whisk out what is in my pants at a moment's notice. Such things are frowned upon and can get you in a lot of trouble. — Fooloso4

And here was me thinking you a contermacious rebel who would rise to the occasion. And delight.
Am now in such a major huff :meh: and sad :cry: and disappointed :confused:
Don't leave me this way :groan:

I will gladly take credit if anyone approves, but if you don't then blame Amity. — Fooloso4

I am sure you have plenty more sparklers to magically whisk out of your top hat or psychedelic pants.
At a moment's notice. Just like that :sparkle:
But perhaps you are shy :joke:

That was really cool. That kind of data visualization though is everywhere right now. When you hear 'big data', that's what it involves. That kind of stuff is now the bread and butter of Facebook, Google and so on — StreetlightX

Well, like I said, I thank Fooloso4 for introducing me to it. That was a first for me.
I did wonder how it would have progressed...
What's new in language development ?

Sadly it seems that you misinterpreted a lot of what I said. — leo

It 'seems' or I did ? It is not so very sad, is it?

I don't think you are expressing your personal situation and frustration as honestly or succinctly as you might. It's perhaps easier to generalise about people or the many. Or to block or detach by intellectualisation as per OP.

The words I say do not convey what's in my mind, they convey your idea of what's in my mind based on what the words mean to you. — leo

Say again ?

What's the difference between imagination and reality? You classify some experiences as 'real' and some experiences as 'imaginary', what criteria do you use to make that distinction? — leo

There can be a difference between what I think or imagine is the case and what is actually the case or state of affairs. The gap can be filled with facts and knowledge about the world.

Many people dismiss spiritual experiences as hallucination or imagination, in other words as something that doesn't really exist, because they haven't had them. — leo

Yes. That can be the case. It still doesn't stop people telling their stories or others listening to them.
Sometimes to understand, other times to scoff. We can't directly experience such, only indirectly.
Sometimes we are helped by imagination or empathy.

If your idea of what's 'real' doesn't match the social consensus on what's 'real', then you are deemed to be delusional. People get locked up and forcefully drugged because they are 'delusional' — leo

Has that been your experience ?

Many people believe they have access to the one 'reality' that applies to everyone, to "the way things are" that applies to everyone, and use that as a justification to impose things onto others, to tell others what to believe in and what not to believe in, to ridicule those who believe differently or to label them as mentally ill, to force them to agree with "the way things are" because that's the way things are, no matter what they might say, if they protest and refuse to submit then that's because they're really sick or really stupid, and if they don't agree that they are objectively inferior beings then that's all the more reason to force them into submission, because how can they not see the one reality in front of them? — leo

Is this your experience ? Have you been so labelled ?

I think it's easier to listen when we don't pretend to know what others experience and what they don't, what's real and what isn't. — leo

I think listening comes first. I am not sure that people pretend to know. They are trying to see things from another perspective and that isn't easy. Sometimes it can frustrate when others in an attempt to offer sympathy say ' I know how you feel ' or ' I've been there'. They don't and haven't.

However, they might have experienced something similar. And are only trying to make some kind of a connection. It might be 'sad' or unfortunate if the connection fails...either the sender, the message or the receiver crackles white noise and gets lost in translation...
We can only do our best.

Anyway, I have just experienced deja vu. You know what that's like ? A similar conversation, another time, another place.
I will end it here.

Best wishes.