Philosophy Now Forum

https://www.youtube.com/playlist?list=P ... nkVH2Kweq2

This series by Gregory B. Sadler is truly a marathon going through the book, but I think it's the best explanation you're ever gonna get in either a book or a video or an audio format. He is very careful and spends a lot of time doing things properly. In fact the amount of time he spends doing things detailed is amazing, but this is a piece of work that so many people in history have likely struggled with, because it's a real challenge, but has inspired a lot of people as well.

I recommend it greatly if the book has ever found your interest, because you won't get a better chance at getting a good understanding of the work, in my opinion.

The translation of Geist as 'spirit' is incorrect. It should be 'mind'.

No, it's spirit. Geist as "mind" is wrong. If Hegel meant mind he would've been more explicit about it, what he talks about is more resembling of what Aristotle talked about, which is more encompassing than mind. Mind is actually a very concrete thing even though we can't always define it very well, basically about thoughts and memories. Spirit on the other hand, talking about the philosophical notion of spirit, is more about a movement of things coming from some conscious being, a human being in this instance. Hegel also talked about the World Spirit, and referred to a Zeitgeist (spirit of time). To take it to mean "mind" rarely if ever makes sense, since the properties of mind are not seen detailed in his works, but instead properties we'd associate with "spirit".

The most common use is "spirit", "mind" is an alternative, but misleading, translation.

The Voice of Time wrote:No, it's spirit. Geist as "mind" is wrong. If Hegel meant mind he would've been more explicit about it, what he talks about is more resembling of what Aristotle talked about, which is more encompassing than mind. Mind is actually a very concrete thing even though we can't always define it very well, basically about thoughts and memories. Spirit on the other hand, talking about the philosophical notion of spirit, is more about a movement of things coming from some conscious being, a human being in this instance. Hegel also talked about the World Spirit, and referred to a Zeitgeist (spirit of time). To take it to mean "mind" rarely if ever makes sense, since the properties of mind are not seen detailed in his works, but instead properties we'd associate with "spirit".

The most common use is "spirit", "mind" is an alternative, but misleading, translation.

No, it isn't. 'Spirit' is wrong and will always be wrong. It gives completely misleading connotations. What the hell does 'phenomenology of spirit' even mean? I am a professional translator of German philosophical works, and I speak with some authority here. 'Spirit' is wrong. A translation that does not communicate the proper connotations in context is wrong.

Then you are a real shitty translator and it's a wonder anybody pays you to do shitty work. Because if you've read the work, you should know that "mind" is not an appropriate use for the kind of complex stuff he talks about.

"Phenomenology" is the study of the structures of experience, and "the phenomenology of spirit" would be the study of the structures of experience in consciously moving things. The entire work is about that, if you've read it, you'll see that it's the exact thing he's talking about all the time... the structures of experience in consciously moving things... or, the phenomenology of spirit.

The wiki-article is called "phenomenology of spirit", my Norwegian philosophy book on the subject (and the norwegian language separates "spirit" and "mind" into two words) calls it "the phenomenology of spirit", and to my knowledge most books in English refer to it as "the phenomenology of spirit"... phenomenology of mind is really more of an alternative that the mass of people don't really subscribe to, because the limits of the "mind" can't account for what's written about.

The Voice of Time wrote:Then you are a real shitty translator and it's a wonder anybody pays you to do shitty work. Because if you've read the work, you should know that "mind" is not an appropriate use for the kind of complex stuff he talks about.

"Phenomenology" is the study of the structures of experience, and "the phenomenology of spirit" would be the study of the structures of experience in consciously moving things. The entire work is about that, if you've read it, you'll see that it's the exact thing he's talking about all the time... the structures of experience in consciously moving things... or, the phenomenology of spirit.

The wiki-article is called "phenomenology of spirit", my Norwegian philosophy book on the subject (and the norwegian language separates "spirit" and "mind" into two words) calls it "the phenomenology of spirit", and to my knowledge most books in English refer to it as "the phenomenology of spirit"... phenomenology of mind is really more of an alternative that the mass of people don't really subscribe to, because the limits of the "mind" can't account for what's written about.

Wrong. 'Spirit' does not mean that in English, that's why it is wrong. Are you a native German speaker? 'Spirit' in this context is unqualifiedly, absolutely, utterly wrong.

I see you are in Norway? I take it then that you are not a native speaker of English. That explains it.

Spirit (from dictionary: http://onelook.com/?w=spirit&ls=a):

the vital principle or animating force within living things

and

animation and energy in action or expression

Spirit is used to mean like a dozen different things in ordinary life, and Hegel more likely meant "the movement of conscious beings" when he used the word "Geist", as that's what turns out to make sense in the translated context.

You are forgetting that the author decides how he uses the word. Which means "spirit" is not limited by any dictionary reference or even ordinary language (for fucks sake Hegel barely knows what "ordinary language" means, he's infamous for explaining things very complicatedly), but by how the philosopher chooses to use the word. And if you haven't noticed (have you read any significant amount of philosophy?), philosophers looooove to use words in strange and unordinary ways.

I am not native German, and I don't care if you are so you have no authority there, because what Hegel talks about is "spirit", and definitely not "mind". Even if he really meant mind, which by all likelihood he did not, then he would himself be wrong in which word he used, because the word would be inadequate to describe what he talked about.

The Voice of Time wrote:Spirit (from dictionary: http://onelook.com/?w=spirit&ls=a):

the vital principle or animating force within living things

and

animation and energy in action or expression

Spirit is used to mean like a dozen different things in ordinary life, and Hegel more likely meant "the movement of conscious beings" when he used the word "Geist", as that's what turns out to make sense in the translated context.

You are forgetting that the author decides how he uses the word. Which means "spirit" is not limited by any dictionary reference or even ordinary language (for fucks sake Hegel barely knows what "ordinary language" means, he's infamous for explaining things very complicatedly), but by how the philosopher chooses to use the word. And if you haven't noticed (have you read any significant amount of philosophy?), philosophers looooove to use words in strange and unordinary ways.

I am not native German, and I don't care if you are so you have no authority there, because what Hegel talks about is "spirit", and definitely not "mind". Even if he really meant mind, which by all likelihood he did not, then he would himself be wrong in which word he used, because the word would be inadequate to describe what he talked about.

Repeat after me; the native speaker is always right. Always. I am a native speaker of English, and you are not. I have written extensively on translation and have a degree in philosophy. In short, I am more qualified than you to discuss this issue.

On your assumption that my country of origin impedes me from knowing better than you which word is meant, then I can say little, because it is a mere act of discrimination and malicious diversion in discussion, so I say stick to arguments and not to discrimination.

Melchior wrote:Repeat after me; the native speaker is always right.

Now you're just being an obnoxious sarcastic asshole.

The Voice of Time wrote:

Melchior wrote:Repeat after me; the native speaker is always right.

Now you're just being an obnoxious sarcastic asshole.

"Remember the first law of linguistics: the native speaker is always right."

http://www.angelfire.com/in/turkey/dil01.html

Translating Geist as 'spirit' is almost always wrong outside of religious contexts or certain other contexts where 'spirit' is used metaphorically, such as 'team spirit' or 'spirit of the age'.

Melchior wrote:I have written extensively on translation and have a degree in philosophy. In short, I am more qualified than you to discuss this issue.

Then you should know that you are acting out a fallacy known as "appeal to authority".

The Voice of Time wrote:

Melchior wrote:I have written extensively on translation and have a degree in philosophy. In short, I am more qualified than you to discuss this issue.

Then you should know that you are acting out a fallacy known as "appeal to authority".

The mistake you make there is a common one. The fallacy of 'appeal to authority' is when the 'authority' is not an authority on the topic at hand. It would be like asking an authority on Plato for an opinion about Audi automobile engines.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Argument_from_authority

"Appeal to non-authorities

Fallacious arguments from authority often are the result of citing a non-authority as an authority.[3] First, when the inference refers to an inexpert authority, it is an appeal to inappropriate authority, which occurs when an inference relies upon a person or a group without relevant expertise or knowledge of the subject matter under discussion.[4][9]"

Melchior wrote:Translating Geist as 'spirit' is almost always wrong outside of religious contexts

Hegel refers frequently to God and the spirit of God in the book.

Melchior wrote: or certain other contexts where 'spirit' is used metaphorically, such as 'team spirit' or 'spirit of the age'.

"Spirit of the age" is pretty much the same as "zeitgeist", which was a term derived from Hegel's works (Hegel said "spirit of time" instead of "time-spirit").

The Voice of Time wrote:

Melchior wrote:Translating Geist as 'spirit' is almost always wrong outside of religious contexts

Hegel refers frequently to God and the spirit of God in the book.

But that is not the context we are discussing here.

Melchior wrote: or certain other contexts where 'spirit' is used metaphorically, such as 'team spirit' or 'spirit of the age'.

"Spirit of the age" is pretty much the same as "zeitgeist", which was a term derived from Hegel's works (Hegel said "spirit of time" instead of "time-spirit").

The expression 'spirit of the age' is quite old, and I do not believe it comes from Hegel:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Spirit_of_the_Age