Haz Debates Perspective Philosophy Round 2 Ft President Sunday as Moderator 🚀 Infrared Content Catalog

we are joined once again by has from

infrared and lewis from prospective

philosophy to debate veganism

uh a quick reminder about format and

rules opening statements are eight

minutes long

um who goes first will be determined by

a coin toss i will warn you when you hit

five minutes so you can wrap up because

when you hit eight i will cut you dead

this will be followed by two sets of

alternating five minute responses

followed by 45 minutes of open

discussion and concluding with 20

minutes for question period hold on uh

do you think are you better if we just

do like a full open discussion

i think i think of uh open statements

and then

i i i do insist on opening statements

and at least one exchange of arguments

otherwise it just becomes a [ __ ] show

from go okay okay fine yeah but i'm i'm

happy to cut it short by one five

minutes

louis if it's any consideration i

haven't had a chance to prepare i got in

like

like about like well i thought that we

were starting at half ten so i thought i

was late

so i have had no chance to prepare so

like my streams watched me trying to

type [ __ ] down just to try my goodness

and for whatever reason i thought we

were early so

just uh

all right so we are actually oh so i was

actually late okay yeah you were

unfortunately that sounds about right

all right so this will be followed by

one set of alternating five-minute

responses uh followed by endless open

discussion and when we hit

let's say two and a half hours in we'll

end with audience questions for about 20

minutes if you have questions you need

to ask them in my chat i ask that you

mark them with an asterisk so i can find

them

uh rules of conduct are strict speaking

out of turn will result in 30 more

seconds of speaking time being a lot of

the other party

uh doesn't really matter because we're

going straight into a discussion the use

of slurs or personal abuse will be met

with an immediate ban and this applies

both to the audience and toward debaters

if either participant attempts to talk

over or challenge the moderator being

myself during this debate they will

first be muted and warned then removed i

trust all this has been made clear and

that by participating both guests have

castly agreed to the rules as just laid

out with that out of the way we will

flip a coin to see who goes first for

opening statements lewis your heads taz

your tails

tails has you go first you have eight

minutes sure yeah so i didn't actually

prepare an eight minute opening

statement but i think there's a few

things that i think

i want to cover here that i wasn't able

to cover last time because i was too

tired so the first thing in order is

that i made actually a big mistake

during the last debate because i made a

confusion i made a conflation and i was

overthinking it too much

so when i conceded that animals

thank you shin yi for the raid

appreciate it

um sorry about that

when i conceded that animals are in fact

conscious

for some reason i i was confused and i

was i thought that what he was trying to

say is that

for hegel

animals are attributed with a degree of

um

self uh it's not a sorry not a degree

they are attributed subjectivity and

selfhood and obviously that is the case

in hegel's philosophy of nature

um

he's

organism in general not just plants but

also the earth and plants

have subject uh some kind of subject

hood in relation to their own generality

that's a completely different thing than

subjectivity proper for you know

speaking subject so it's it's i confused

that for some reason with consciousness

and i thought he was trying to say that

um by the criterion that there's some

kind of similarity between um

the division between generality and

individuality that hegel establishes is

uniquely the case for animals as opposed

to plants

with

consciousness and that was a big mistake

on my part

as a matter of fact within the very

opening of hegel's philosophy of nature

it becomes very clear that hegel has a

working distinction between nature and

spirit and that animals actually fall

within

uh the category i guess it's a loaded

term philosophically of nature animals

do not participate

in spirit proper as far as hegel is

concerned now one of the reasons why

this was so confusing is because hegel

also makes it clear

that

the dialectical concept

um

which

uh

which um is interior and which emerges

only in spirit is the very thing that

legi leads the stages of the

philosophy of nature further so for

example beginning from

mathematics to inorganic physics to

organic physics the thing leading these

stages along is the very same

dialectical concept which emerges only

in spirit but that doesn't mean that

it's the same thing as the domain and

sphere of spirit proper and i think one

of the other reasons i had this

confusion because i was thinking more of

the question of the implications this

has in cosmological terms like what does

the implications of the emergence of

spirit have

or

the

fur cause like a cosmology of

spirit which i guess is the work of uh

ilienkov itself like how is it that

nature becomes the thinking

consciousness

um

so i i think i was being too generous

with perspective philosophy and

attributing him with a degree of depth

that wasn't there

um

on because he wasn't talking about that

as a matter of fact

the stage of consciousness um if you can

even call it a stage proper within

hegel's phenomenology of mind is only

meaningful from the perspective of being

an orientation a path to absolute

knowledge

consciousness

and moreover self-consciousness and

other stages

are

for hegel rather than um

necessarily existent stages

within which different kinds of beings

dwell

they are moments of the incomplete there

are moments of not only moments of

absolute knowledge

but they are also incomplete

perspectives on the question of absolute

knowledge within the history of

philosophy

and hegel makes that very clear

even the question of whether

consciousness or self-consciousness

exists as such

is by no means

by no means clear and hegel rather than

just being incomplete uh perspectives in

history philosophy so this idea that

lewis was forwarding like that oh yeah

humans belong to the middle term of

self-consciousness and animals belong to

the german it's a complete absurdity

hegel makes it very clear

also in the philosophy of nature

of the the sphere of humanity and the

sphere of spirit coincide it's one in

the same sphere like spirit begins with

humanity so

consciousness self-consciousness reason

spirit etc these are not things that you

can you know neatly box

these are not um this is not some kind

of like

cosmology within which humans only

occupy one's fear

humans are a part of every single sphere

every single one and the

the question like humans are not just

the middle term as lewis was putting it

that's a complete ridiculous

absurdity humans

uh

there

humans

all of this

phenomenology of mind is describing

humanity proper you can say that three

minutes left yeah you could say that the

different spheres represent like

different relationship

humanity has

um different relations but

to absolute knowledge i mean but

ultimately it's all humanity it's not

just the so-called middle term maybe

what he was trying to say is that

self-consciousness is the extent of

humanity s can be conceived of like as

an individual

uh and moreover not just an individual

but an unreflexive like

non-philosophical individual like the

kind of pre-moral individual of kant

even then that would be very wishy-washy

and very

ambiguous

so

um

let me think is there anything else i

wanted to get to

i have three minutes i can think about

it um

yeah in general i just think lewis

doesn't have any real grasp of hegelian

philosophy i think he's deeply confused

about what he's talking about i think

i'll just include it there

thank you very much

and uh louis you're gonna get eight

minutes

starting now

right that's great i hope you can all

hear us um so

yeah um i think it's quite funny in some

respects to kind of double back on

saying that animals are conscious

considering hegel himself actually says

animals are conscious um in the

phenomenology of spirit um he actually

says i'll find the quote if you like

he says um

what is it uh

where is it um

um

cindy and i am myself external spatial

and temporal as receptive of sensuous

intuitions i receive them from something

which is external to itself an animal

can intuit but the soul of an animal has

for its object not its soul itself but

something external it does he does not

say that animals are soulless without

consciousness who don't act into it the

world no they don't intuit themselves

that is the separation which is why they

never make it to the middle term within

the within the dialectical process which

i thought you know i was hoping you are

starting to understand and but you know

that's essentially the positive um const

the positive uh notion being represented

against nature and this is where we

start producing determinate objects and

identities from which then we can make

meaning and sense of nature and not take

it at its infinite form which seems to

prevent any knowledge of nature itself

but you know like that's that's

essentially the the hegelian dialectic

which reconciles absolute knowing in the

sense of the um well actually i mean

like let's pull up another quote like it

is fundamentally the truth of

consciousness which is being reconciled

within spirit spirit has shown itself as

the unity of soul and consciousness the

the former a simple immediate totality

and the

knowledge which is not limited by any

object and no longer stands in relation

to it but it's knowledge of the simple

neither subjective nor objective

totality spirit originates therefore not

only from its own being and for only

from its own being and relates itself to

its own determinations so spirit is

related only to itself which is the meat

which has annihilated the mediation of

self-consciousness in consciousness

consciousness as spirit no longer needs

self-consciousness it takes reality as

it is it no longer has to propose

determinate objects for example humanity

um

that's unbelievably clear i mean in the

science of logic he says um a beginning

is logical in that it is made to be the

element of a free self-contained thought

in pure knowledge it is mediated for

pure knowledge is the ultimate and

absolute truth of consciousness like i

mean i don't know how many times i have

to say this and he does say that animals

are conscious um he just says that

animals uh don't will themselves so

cannot own themselves he basically says

they are conscious but can't

you know uh contain the own their own

spirit that's just essentially that

they're not self-conscious they're

incapable of ethics so

you know they're not able to sign

contracts which i i don't think many of

us would disagree with but his inability

to reconcile consciousness and

self-consciousness because of his own

ideology is exactly what we need to talk

about

so

now that that's out the way let's move

on to really what we need to consider

within this conversation which is that

previously i outlined the ontological

commitments of hegel as consciousness

and that these commitments also have an

epistemological grounding in which

self-consciousness must reconcile as the

reconcile itself with consciousness as a

reflexive process intellective

purely reflexive on the sensuous data

that it receives from conscious

experience

without such data it would be

meaningless the experience in the world

is what grounds self-consciousness

knowledge

is not knowledge abstract but knowledge

of ourselves which

would without of without which when we

pose something like an abstract notion

of a rational man we reduce the notion

of god in hegelian philosophy to that of

a calculator or worse are still a

kantian the idealization of man has been

tested and it has been and it has

resoundly failed the hegelian position

stands to reconcile the unity of

consciousness and the self

this attempt to

um move us towards an abstract

one-sidedness is in and of itself a a um

a notion of either an unhappy

consciousness or an attempt to express

one's consumption out of fear of um of

meaninglessness so we're either trying

to consume meaninglessly rather or we

are trying to escape that

meaninglessness through an abstract

notion so you can either you can either

pick you're either someone who consumes

animals because you like the taste of

them and you can't then you're scared of

giving up your favorite foods or you do

it because you have some sort of supreme

anthropocentric motion you know you're a

christian you're a muslim or something

like that

this stands really

as a dominant ideology one which

we are supposed to see the world through

where his name could only be said to be

adam we will seek to disavow this

ideology of this uh abstract notion and

instead reconcile ourselves with

consciousness we need to confront the

monstrosity that we see in the eyes of

the animals and our own death drives as

recognizing ourselves as committing an

action of evil and injustice and

no and reconcile ourselves with our own

self-destruction so what must happen

well

so what must happen next is our act of

reconciliation with consciousness itself

the movement to consider the life and

liberty of all sentient beings and

reject abstract notions of right and

unjustified modes of consumption thank

you

thank you very much has you're going to

have five minutes to respond

yep

okay well we can hear you when we can

hear you on my i'm sorry i gotta fix my

stream though i gotta fix it okay no

worries take your time properties

default

hold on

okay i think i got it fixed i got it

fixed okay we're good perfect all right

okay let me just go we got five minutes

you got five minutes yeah okay sure

louis hegel does not say that animals

are conscious you literally just pulled

that out of your ass what you the

relevant passage you just described

proves that animals could not possibly

be conscious because consciousness takes

as its premise the very subject object

distinction which animals are not

capable of uh having

consciousness lewis is not simply um

it doesn't uh it's not simply like

the ability to intuit the ability to

have intuitions or whatever

consciousness specifically refers to

these um what an object is

for another for someone

for hegel it's very clear that animals

do not possess this which is it's

interesting and also that you keep

[ __ ] dodging

the point it's just like as clear as day

it is like so one-sidedly apparent

poor hegel within the very philosophy of

nature you can read the first part of

that philosophy of nature

animals belong to the domain of nature

humans belong to the domain of spirit

hegel like there's no ambiguity

whatsoever as far as that's concerned

now what you're trying to do is make it

seem like

consciousness is some kind of existence

for hegel right but in nowhere does

hegel say consciousness is an existent

consciousness for hegel represents an

incomplete perspective as far as the

quest for absolute knowledge is

concerned hegel for example talks about

the immediate consciousness

sorry of uh sense certainty right and

and the whole thing that is driving this

process along is the quest for absolute

knowledge okay

when hegel talks about consciousness

he's talking about something he's

talking about the inadequacy of

consciousness to exhaust

that's why for hegel there is actually a

moment in which consciousness

necessarily must become

self-consciousness

okay and this follows imminently hegel

doesn't say consciousness becomes

self-consciousness because of some

biological mutation

hegel says consciousness becomes

self-consciousness because the attempt

to arrive at um

the absolute knowledge

by means of uh the immediate

consciousness of objects in the world

ultimately fails and becomes inadequate

so

eventually consciousness itself as

selfhood must become such an object and

this is the stage for hegel of

self-consciousness it is so

fundamentally meaningless to say that

animals are conscious

because animals are not

like caught in this quest for absolute

knowledge whatsoever so no then the

second thing you said that it's very

clear for hegel that you said a lot of

word salad and a lot of mumbo jumbo

about self-consciousness

um hegel yeah it's very clear that

humans are the middle term no it's not

clear whatsoever hegel nowhere does

hegel state that humans are the

so-called middle term for hegel

again

the phenomenology of spirit exhausts

is is about is all humanity it's all

humanity that's participating in all of

these stages

it's all moments of human actually the

young hegelians precisely interpreted it

that way they got rid of the element of

god and we're basically just saying that

it's just a fundamentally human hegel

was secretly just saying that this was

all

man or as mark said

the conclusion of german philosophy is

that man is the highest essence for man

um i mean you could you can get rid of

you can reject that perspective and say

hegel was really talking about god and

so on and so on but animals don't figure

in it whatsoever

um

you're saying that

you're saying

yeah consciousness isn't some kind of

existent premise consciousness is a

stage of inadequacy for hegel and

nothing more now if you're talking about

consciousness as the elementary moment

of the subject object distinction

then yeah obviously consciousness has a

has great importance for hegel

but

what consciousness actually is so far as

its essence is concerned has to be taken

at the end of his philosophy not the

beginning he doesn't establish a

dogmatic premise that he remains

committed to to the very end what

consciousness actually must necessarily

be

is at the end of the phenomenology of

spirit not the beginning

you said that is clear um but nowhere is

i forgot i don't know what you said the

so-called ontological commitment you're

talking about consciousness is just

wrong you're talking out of your ass

um hegel describes the inadequacy of

consciousness and that's the whole point

i already said that now you may oppose

the so-called idealization of man as a

failed enterprise or whatever but hegel

recognizes humanity and man as the

exclusive domain of spirit it is

literally meaningless

incomprehensible and absurd

to think that the animals can belong to

this fear of spirit

all right that's a good one

you're not a hegelian okay that's it

yeah we're on time yeah sorry about that

um and louis five minutes

he just doesn't reconcile them as like

self-conscious which uh provided

evidence for because i actually quoted

herego um the the thing is is that

i think it's quite funny because you say

that hegel see it begins with the

subject object distinction no he begins

with the imminent consciousness which is

the point of self-certainty um which is

just existence itself it's infinite

which is why he starts with the

infinites and which i would like to ask

you if you could name them what are the

three infinites that exist in hegel um

if you could outline what are the

fundamental uh ontological uh

tenets of reality um

which exist within which

self-consciousness must reconcile um

because they are what we begin with

which is the whole movement like if we

already began with the subject object

distinction the movement would have

already pre would have already um

started the dialectic too soon which he

criticizes other philosophy with other

philosophers for doing he starts the

dialectic at the very beginning what

must be the case and where can we reason

from so when you say that he actually

presupposes like a dogmatic notion or

something as the first term that he's

not committed to that's ridiculous hegel

absolutely is committed to the movement

of the dialectic the terms prior were

necessary and we have imminently moved

from them to complete the dialectical

process which is the reconciliation of

the first term and the sec and the

middle terms in spirit it's it's the way

reason works hegel's not like

obstructing a new rational schemata

where he's just totally revolutionizing

the way people think he's actually

taking something which was proposed in

many ways by plato and aristotle and

and renewing it for a modern time and

showing how it actually develops over

time like the notion of consciousness as

as its imminency is stagnant the motion

of the middle terms is

self-consciousness and is infinite and

he says that as much the infinite middle

term which is self-consciousness and

that is on um

um i think on abs in the phenomenology

of spirit and absolute right

um the reality of the situation is like

to say that the ontological commitments

of hegel are not to self or not to

consciousness and purely

self-consciousness totally misses the

value of self-consciousness

self-consciousness is to remove the

negativity that exists that the purely

negative motion that exists in

consciousness in which we are subject to

all of the pains of nature and never

actually able to express our drives we

are we're existing in a way that's

purely impulsive in a way that is

damaging and so seek to free ourselves

it is a is an imminent movement because

we are in pain and that pain drives us

onwards

it's not that we have already started

with the intellectual like the uh

introspective necessary conditions to

work out what we must know because that

would be the kantian position that would

be like all right well we already have

what we need to know uh everything about

absolute knowledge and truth and so we

can just enter it into a calculator into

our boop boop categorical imperative

there we go no that's not how it works

the reality of the situation is that we

are analyzing the drives that are being

mediated through society these drives

are necessary for hegel and they exist

in consciousness and that's what society

is mediating in terms of absolute right

in at the point of absolute right there

is no confliction in the system of

drives now hegel says that as being

purely anthropocentric of course he does

he was writing 300 years ago it is

absolutely odd when people were even

non-racist 300 years ago and you said

you said yourself hegel is you know

fairly conservative as an individual

that that's not surprising but looking

at hegelian philosophy through the lens

of what did hegel think would be

dogmatism and historicism

works you don't go hegel thought um x y

and zed and then seek to prove his

conclusions you take the hegelian method

you take the ways in which he understood

the world and then you apply it to the

problems that we have and that is what

contemporary hergelians do which is why

we don't seem to be reckoning uh trying

to promote some sort of monarchy for

some reason it's almost as if it had

everything to do with him living in

prussia like the the like oh my god like

anyway the

the whole point of this scenario is to

reconcile that consciousness must

reconcile itself with itself that is the

whole that is the mandate in spirit when

spirit has done that then spirit is free

now i give you four quotes i think

there's a four or three quotes

explaining that now

i ask you the question what are the

three infinite tenants which are the

onlogical foundations for hegel the

three infinites

in hegel

all right thank you next time yeah so

okay and uh by request we're gonna move

into open discussion um for the audience

if you want to ask questions um i cannot

see them unless they're in my chat

you're gonna have to come in here and

put them into my chat i ask that you put

an asterisk on both sides of it so i can

identify it quickly and we'll try and go

through as many as possible in the last

20 minutes we're gonna go for about an

hour if we're both okay with that

um so uh

yeah guys take it away

so luis i'm actually not gonna entertain

your like little attempt to quiz me or

whatever because you're not the teacher

in this scenario you're my student as

proven by your actual like cause you

don't know you're avoiding the question

okay so you're randomly going to like

quiz me on random [ __ ]

is

he's allowed to interrupt me like this

because i can interrupt too

i could be way more unpleasant than you

louis we don't want to play this game do

you guys little boy don't play this game

with me louis don't play these gorilla

games with me little boy louis

lewis seconds then lewis go lewis you

failed to actually i have a lot to i

have to respond to a lot of this [ __ ] he

said i might only get 30 seconds

you got 10 seconds until he's allowed to

interrupt okay yeah louis

you you haven't [ __ ] demonstrated the

relevance of the three uh infinites

according to hegel as far as the actual

point under contention was concerned the

point under contention being you talked

about the imminent oh no higgle doesn't

begin with the division of subject of

object well you're just [ __ ] putting

words in my mouth what i'm trying to say

is that consciousness beginning with

consciousness imminent or otherwise

implies some kind of fundamental

division between subject and object

there is no consciousness without that

division now i didn't say hegel my

[ __ ] point was hegel doesn't

establish a dogmatic premise that he

maintains his commitment to

um as far as the ontological commitment

to consciousness is concerned which is

what we're beginning with

the actual content the being of

consciousness is something that hegel

develops through the course of the

phenomenology you do not first establish

the ontological significance of

consciousness and then begin from there

that's not the nature of hegel's uh

thinking and it's not his method and

it's not how his system worked

now your thing about um

nothing uh hegel lived 300 years ago

yeah but here's the difference hegel had

a very rigorous distinction between

nature and spirit and therefore and he

also had a rigorous description of what

he considered animals and the way in

which animals were different from humans

you nothing has changed to justify a

difference as far as

how you can reconcile hegel's underlying

method in his system with the others you

talk a lot about you talk a lot of

gibberish and word salad okay has i'm

going to stop you there louis do you

want to respond

well i mean like to be entirely honest

with you i'm a little bit sad that you

you're not going to answer the question

because i think it is fundamentally

important since it is the ontology from

which hegel's building everything from i

mean i can answer it if you like but

what whatever and if you want to ask me

a question on hegel you you're very

welcome to to be entirely honest with

you you can quizzes

you're the one who needs education here

well i'm happy i'm happy to answer any

question you like but the thing is is

that um

when we look at the determinate objects

at the production of the determinant

objects in hegel um

and that you know in terms of the first

subject object distinction that's not

where he begins the

the phenomenology of spirit it begins at

the imminency of consciousness which is

essentially the end of the season you

know well yeah okay well then i'm just

making it clear

but it implies a subject object

distinction

let him finish this point ten seconds

lewis then he can interrupt go um quite

the opposite it doesn't it doesn't um it

doesn't imply a subject object

distinction it actually implies the

infinite subject that that's the issue

it implies the infinite being until we

start to reconcile ourselves and destroy

nature and replace it with the notion um

or a concept and then the reconciliation

of that notion

and the and reality is the concept

itself when he says the concept or like

spirit um you're right in saying that

the truth of spirit um isn't is not like

in nature it's not like we we don't like

you know we don't have ethical knowledge

like like imbued within us um at least

it's not knowledge in us it's the

grounds for knowledge it's the grounds

for truth which is why hegel points

towards um

um the the the law within me

um as well okay

but he doesn't say it but he doesn't say

that it's like he doesn't say

specifically that the

okay he doesn't say specifically that we

have knowledge in nature or something

inherently can we walk back what you

just said though you just said that

hegel believe it begins with the

imminent consciousness which is infinite

subjectivity okay and then you said uh

it's before we have to destroy nature

wait a second we don't do anything uh

lewis it all follows imminently from the

nature of consciousness itself that the

division between subject and object

so yes consciousness does imply the

division of subject and objectives

but i will say it doesn't if we do

something like i think that you know we

don't do anything voluntarily it's

complete nonsense what are you even

talking about is not a determinist hegel

is not a determinant you're saying that

we begin with the infinite consciousness

and then we voluntarily uh destroy

nature and create the division of the

world

in the words of hegel the substance is

separated through action everything is a

moment of will

like there is but that doesn't make it

voluntary you're here hang on one of the

times

the will it is sorry it is the will the

will figures in his ontology

the will isn't

from whatever finishes

lewis go

um i was just saying that we are the

will that when our when we are acting we

are manifestations of the will the will

is not separate from being

i completely agree which is why when we

are truly free it's in spirit itself

which is the reconciliation of will with

uh with itself but spirit reveals the

truth of consciousness and if it reveals

the truth of consciousness the truth is

that being entails

uh the will the will is part of being

and that therefore the subject object

distinction is implied by consciousness

it's not that the will is part of being

it's that the will is being that all

there is is will like that like it's not

to say that like so when we talk about

what hegel is seeing as the foundation

it's he wouldn't see a consciousness as

something which is in it it's not

non-active okay how does objectivity

arise according to hegel

how does objectivity arise well we would

get it through the through the negative

process of um

well through self-conscious mediation

so uh the master slave dialect okay okay

where does that come from ontologically

ontologically speaking where does that

latent potentiality come from

um is it something outside of being or

is it something imminent to being itself

nothing nothing's outside okay so let's

let's shut the [ __ ] up and stop saying

that hagel doesn't begin with an object

subject distinction implied by

consciousness all right

lewis respond yeah so nothing's outside

of being as becoming i mean that's like

that's obvious that's saying that

there's something outside of existence

the existence it'll be like what's

outside of existence

like non-existence like it doesn't make

sense like the the point of what hegel's

saying

is that the the

the there are a few things actually this

is why

i said what are the three infinites

because it's the three onological

infinites that are the foundations for

this process okay

now you can respond okay oh okay unless

he wants his outline do you want to say

louis it's not relevant because me

saying consciousness implies a subject

object distinction

is 100 correct

it's as simple as that

wait sorry say that again

me saying that consciousness implies a

division between subject and object net

for a being to possess consciousness it

must be able to differentiate it must

participate in a subject object

distinction it must be able to be

cognizant of objects to be conscious of

some kind of content that is 100 percent

true you contested it by talking about a

lot of gibberish and word salad and i

had to reign you in and now it seems

like you're conceding on the point no um

i i would 100 percent say that the

the subject object distinction is

actually a product of language i mean

this isn't even just in hegel we could

go to heidi consciousness is presupposes

language for hegel

consciousness presupposes language

yes a conscious being is a being that

possesses language

yes it does yes

yes implies language and presupposes the

elementary subject object distinction uh

proper to language there is no conscious

being that does not possess language

according to hegel because the necessary

mediation

of um arriving at what an object is for

another for some kind of subject relies

upon and implies language and the

mediation of um their natural world or

whatever the real world by language so

yes consciousness implies language like

i said you don't seem to [ __ ]

understand

as you responded louis you got to

respond now so that's fundamentally

false i mean if you look at where he

says determinate objects come from

because he still he starts with the

infinites in two two respects i mean you

can look at the

um the three infinites which he poses as

um within spirit and then you can look

which you know maps very well onto

notions of them the trinity by the way

um so when you look at like in its

allegorical like another thing

about the three infinites name what's

relevant

wasn't it was relevant

the mediation between the self and the

other is how we understand matter and

and our understanding of the other is

mediated through manner and our

understanding of self is mediated

through both of them like it is a unity

which when separated becomes incapable

of producing knowledge so who was

separating anything why when when did i

separate this uni

this is

use what one because the inconsideration

of otherness within um consciousness

would be the separation there i would

argue what are you talking about i'm the

one you're the one who's trying to say

that consciousness is some kind of

infinite subjectivity and that's all it

is no i never said conscious i said that

consciousness at the at the very

beginning of the dialectic consciousness

is the infinite we begin with and then

we produce determinate objects for

anything how do you produce determinant

objects okay through negation and where

does the

so consciousness does not imply the

negation the negation comes from

something else yeah i know that's what

i'm saying so no there is no way we

could have had language because to have

language is to imply negation to go this

and not that yeah there's a very famous

quote by blonsho where he says for me to

be able to say this woman i must take

her flesh and blood reality away from

her destroy her the whole point of

giving a name to something you are

trying to hang on

finish then has respond go yeah so the

whole point in naming something is to

give a determinate existence to say that

it is not the infinite immediacy of

consciousness but a single entity in

itself and that is an act of language

which is not presupposed in the

imminency of consciousness

that language cannot actually name

particulars so you don't know what

you're talking about in that regard

secondly

like i said you're trying to make it

seem like hegel is trying to say

ontologically speaking consciousness as

the imminent consciousness and infinite

subjectivity that is not imminently

already entangled with the three uh two

other infinites that give rise to the

possibility of objectivity and therefore

subject objects distinction you're

trying to make it seem like hegel is

trying to say the infinite subjectivity

isn't existent and it's not it's just a

useful way

it's just something hegel is sets up

to uh to make it uh

it's something useful for hegel to

expound upon

the relationship between consciousness

and the world but insofar as

consciousness is taken as an existent as

something which beings possess

i think

as something that beings possess it

necessarily implies a distinction

between subject and object how could a

being possess consciousness

without

without that implying a division between

subject and consciousness no determinant

being whatsoever could possess

consciousness the infinite the imminence

i'm going to learn

now lewis the imminent consciousness

you're talking about is not a

determinate being it's not an it doesn't

it's not something that exists in

reality okay lewis respond

so the imminent consciousness is reality

and i think you misspoke then i'll give

you the benefit of the doubt i don't

think you meant um between consciousness

and the world you meant between uh

consciousness and itself because

consciousness is the world right you're

he's an absolute idealist like there is

no separation between consciousness it's

being in like we are design right um

like so like the world we are the world

this is the difference so we have the

world in its determinateness we have the

world in its otherness and we have the

world in itself which is the three

infinites

right okay

listen listen listen otherness

otherness means it's the relationship

between consciousness and it's uh

i don't know if i would say apparent or

it's opposite which is in fact yes for

hegel ultimately a moment of itself but

that's what i'm talking about yeah and

the consciousness of otherness exists in

what

the consciousness of otherness exists in

what

what does it exist in

what are you asking like what does it

present how does it present itself to

consciousness how does it determinate

way

but in

what does what are we presented with

as as the other

what is what is what is being presented

there

what can you get to your point what are

you trying to ask

we are being presented with a

manifestation of will

the the separation between self and self

other and and uh determinateness is that

a rock doesn't have a will but another

individual has the mediation between the

self and the other is what allows us to

construct determinate objects because

they're the only active participants

within within substance a conscious

being

implies a being

cognizant or

participating in a division between

subject and object consciousness implies

the division of subject and object no it

doesn't yes no it doesn't it doesn't it

doesn't do that for hegel and it doesn't

even do that why doesn't it explain

um because hegel doesn't start at the

point of he already starts prior to the

subject what does that have to do with

where he starts consciousness ultimately

implies a division

let him finish his thoughts

because if the chapter starts at

consciousness and then he outlines

consciousness and then outlines how

objects are then formed from

consciousness

later on

he's not saying that we start with a

subject object distinction you you

[ __ ] up the whole thing in hegel's

beginnings yes in the beginning chapter

of consciousness hegel

he does imply the existence of objects

it's just that objects are given they

are given to consciousness

have you even [ __ ] read the book dude

what are you saying you're saying

objects don't exist until the second

chapter let's take it down a bit no no

no i'm not saying that objects don't

exist until the second chapter i'm

saying objects

i'm saying the first movement in hegel

is not um is not the production of the

object subject division it's the

beginning of the immediate infinite okay

which doesn't he doesn't explain how the

division

let him finish his thoughts so we like

have a coherent conversation here keep

going

which is why in the phenomenology of

spirit he describes either being and

nothingness as either a room of bright

white light uh infinitely bright or

infinitely dark there's no difference

because there's no determination there

must be a combination between being and

nothingness which is being reconciled

within consciousness which allows us to

produce determinate objects we are the

production of objects and not we do not

find ourselves

okay okay lewis let has responded

babbling louis it's very simple

he may not arrive at in the first

chapter how precisely the division is

engendered but that is different from

saying the division isn't implied the

division is [ __ ] implied in the first

chapter because objects for hegel are

the

it is the immediate object of

consciousness is objects in the world

that relate to consciousness in an

immediate

uh in an immediate way according to

these uh philosophical perspectives he's

critiquing hegel says obviously that

such an immediate consciousness is not

even possible and he critiques the

possibility of a real immediate

consciousness like i said there's a

reason why chapter one leads to chapter

two because of the inadequacy of chapter

one and being able to actually arrive at

a at the point of real absolute

knowledge but the division between

subject and shut up the division between

object and subject in the first chapter

is [ __ ] implied okay that's if you if

you don't know this you haven't read the

book

okay i don't i don't like what i'll say

is that the first the whole point of the

first chapter is to show that the that

the wills engagement with reality is an

engagement with itself from which it

seeks to satisfy itself it is the

attempt to self-satisfaction which

produces the subject objective

we produce the subject object divide in

an attempt to satisfy ourselves and find

it inadequate so then move to

self-consciousness okay okay guys

hey guys both of you hey i will meet you

let's bring this back to the question at

hand how does this bear on the veganism

debate

okay

he's a fake hegelian i want to press him

on this because

so what that it that this is what

endangers the division between subject

and object for hegel consciousness

implies such a division

consciousness first does not imply such

a division the reason that it's relevant

for the veganism debate is because he's

trying to say that self-consciousness

would be necessary or like the subject

object distinction would be necessary

for the consideration of consciousness

uh simplicity i would have to i'd have

to imply you don't

understand about self-consciousness this

is how the is how heavily elaborate how

the distinction is endangered it doesn't

mean

let him finish his statement and then

you can go

so

the whole point in hegel is the

mediation of the will they attempt to

produce a world from which it can

satisfy itself if the subject object

distinction was already presupposed this

would already imply that they had the

world um in a way which is mediated but

they seek mediation it's the constant

drive for mediation that moves

consciousness to self-consciousness yeah

thank you

no yeah but here's the thing uh louis

it's not such a drive that leads it to

this for hegel the conclusion is already

implied at the premise it's just

developed at the end when you get to the

end of his [ __ ] book all of that is

already there in the beginning that's

what you don't [ __ ] understand that's

why you're not a hegelian and you don't

understand dialectics

yes it is there at the beginning it

develops at the end you learn the truth

of what's at the beginning at the end

that is so elementary to hegelian

dialectics how the [ __ ] do you call

yourself

doesn't begin

with a [ __ ] dogmatic premise and then

builds from the premise

reveals the truth of

the beginning i i completely agree that

it is the reconciliation of

consciousness with itself which i've

been arguing this entire time and that

doesn't imply the subject object

division in hegel and even in the even

in his um successors i mean let's take

someone who is very much inspired by

hegel like heidiger when we take you

know being in the world and the

production of language and determinate

objects is one of the existential

structures of design from which we must

analyze so when we find ourselves in

this throne-ness and find ourselves with

subject-object distinctions when we when

we

in every single sub-section of the first

chapter a subject object distinction is

operative and every single one

objects are given to the immediate

consciousness that is what hagel is

saying hegel is talking about why

consciousness is imminently inadequate

he is not saying consciousness is some

kind of discrete stage he's saying that

consciousness is almost a kind of

perspective philosophers have had which

is ultimately inadequate to satisfy

the um the need for absolute knowledge

which is the whole [ __ ] reason why he

wrote the book in the first place to

actually satisfy what it would mean to

have absolute knowledge and hegel is

saying consciousness

let them finish something you can

respond lewis keep going consciousness

as something um he hego if hegel begins

with consciousness he does it's he's not

saying that this is like the the

structure of creation like this is where

god first created the world and then it

developed like that okay that is not the

structure of his book you're not a real

gun you literally

have such a reason okay hang on okay

okay okay thank you has and lewis can

you reply like like fighting straw man

is really not doing you any any good

mate like i've rec i have outlined my

position time and time again if you

can't understand it then i suggest

either a reader's guide to the

phenomenology of spirit perspective okay

i'll break down your position

let him finish his response and then

i'll let you go but the argument that

i'm making isn't controversial and it's

not something that even struggles to

reconcile itself within spirit the will

is willing itself towards spirit now you

say that like the truth of spirit

already exists in consciousness i mean

yeah in the sense that it's unmediated

and um like without um

without determination but that precisely

is why it's inadequate which is why we

move through like so i don't see why

that's necessarily relevant except for

in relevance to my position which is the

consideration because it implies the

distinctions there from the beginning

try to be concise okay yeah so which is

the consideration of the ontology of

consciousness which exists within

animals as well as humans okay this

first of all first of all before we even

get to that stupid [ __ ] thing you

just said which directly contradicts

hegel's views that it exists in animals

louis i know your posit your position is

crystal clear and you haven't the the

issue here louis is you're not

responding to anything i'm saying in

response to your position like an npc

you just keep saying the same [ __ ] you

said before without addressing what i

the points i'm trying to raise hegel

begins with consciousness he doesn't

actually establish within the first

chapter how the subject object

distinction comes to be maybe but that

distinction is implied by consciousness

itself okay you don't understand the

difference between these two do two

different things there is a difference

between hegel elaborating how the

subject object distinction comes into

being and whether or not it is already

implied and already there from the

beginning hegel is a dialetician he

begins from a perspective of a radical

difference a radical discontinuity a

radical contradiction uh i know some

hegelians take issue with that but

whatever you get the [ __ ] point and

that is always implied from the

beginning

hegel you have a fundamentally

undialectical understanding of the

phenomenology of mind if hegel begins

the writing of the phenomenology of mind

somewhere that doesn't mean he's

actually

beginning ontologically the actual

ontological beginning is revealed at the

end the nature of the the essence of

what was at the beginning is only

revealed at the end okay the essence of

consciousness for example what

consciousness actually is

um as consciousness ontologically that's

something that's revealed at the end of

his book not at the beginning okay the

that is the thing that drives the

process along that you're talking about

is precisely something that was always

already there that's why for hegel

absolute consciousness follows

necessarily

um sorry absolute knowledge follows

necessarily

um

these are all moments in its being

yeah so i'm just going to say that the

subject object distinction is certainly

not implied i mean that's the whole

point of the hegelian schemata i mean

let's be honest like the whole point of

consciousness developing to terminate

objects is an attempt to satisfy you're

an npc npc

so the reason that we move to

self-consciousness is because the the

desire to satisfy ourselves within the

world has been frustrated by the um by

the existence of the other we see

something which is monstrous to us a

will which resists you treated and saw

satisfaction so the negative force which

moves the dialectic is the frustration

of the will itself which yes it is you

read the first chapter has has you had

time lewis finish your thought please

yeah so the negative force of the

dialectic which is moving us from

negation and negation is the frustration

of the will attempting to satisfy itself

in the world and that's why he moves

between hedonistic self-satisfaction and

abstract notions of lewis lewis let me

break it down for you very clearly very

concisely okay at this point if you

don't respond i'm gonna assume you're an

npc let's break it down like this

we're gonna go yes or no in the

beginning the first chapter does hegel

speak of objects for the immediate

consciousness

in the world

doesn't speak about objects

he speaks about objects not for the

immediate consciousness

he does not speak about the givenness of

objects for the immediate consciousness

no he talks about the determination of

con objects which are which are in the

first chapter

yeah we determine so he talks about

objects objects are in the first chapter

he does talk about objects yes in the

first chapter

it's the givenness of objects for the

immediate conscious hegel um

rebukes the view of the given obviously

he shares that with kant but that is

what he talks about in the first chapter

he doesn't actually believe they are

just given

but he's not describing how they

actually come to be and how they're

endangered but hegel speaks about the

fact that in he's talking about the

stages of philosophy in consciousness it

appears to us at the very least it

appears to us that there are objects

given already to consciousness now

the issue

that's what it appears that's what it

appears as it's not the case hegel

taught hegel is trying to explain why

philosophers before him were beginning

from that perspective empiricism and so

on and so on now

what the issue for hegel is not that

the issue is the will

satisfying itself

itself

okay

what it actually is rather than uh these

various objects in the world which hegel

will

obviously elaborate

um

instantiate the will's uh

self for itself

hegel is still saying that at the

beginning

there are objects now how are there

objects is a different question he

elaborates that later but in the

beginning consciousness does imply a

division between subject and object

division okay

we're going to let's respond now okay

louis go

okay that that's actually like look i

can understand why you would make that

mistake but no that the rejection of

send certainty comes precisely from the

lack of sense certainty we can have we

do not have determinants i know lewis

did you listen to what happens

he's wasting time did you listen to what

i [ __ ] said

i did listen to what you said which is

why i'm responding yeah obviously they

don't satisfy actually

right now

okay great so essentially like the way

that self-consciousness works like well

before we move to self-consciousness the

way the consciousness works is

self-satisfaction so the production of

determinate objects it comes as a given

in order to satisfy a one-sided will

it's dogmatic and inadequate but it's

still produced from an action of

consciousness because everything is in

motion remember that

it's not an i it's not like a stagnant

thing where we get presented an object

we produce objects to satisfy ourselves

that's the whole point and it's about

the production of the right objects to

satisfy ourselves how we objectify the

world is the question in hegel am i

unmuted now you are on muted now okay

louis

you just admitted just now that in the

beginning chapter

objects where you're saying they are

produced for consciousness in the

consciousness quest for

self-satisfaction

so consciousness does imply a division

between subject and object

no the consciousness implies a desire

for the division between subject and

object but no that division between

subject and object is established by

consciousness

consciousness establishes it

it's it's something that consciousness

seeks to establish not just it does

establish it it doesn't it's not

that's the whole point because the the

the me the reconciliation of the world

with itself like lewis can you respond i

want to go hang on hang on hang on

let him finish his sentence lewis

finisher thought then has

the reconciliation of the world with

itself is the destruction of the subject

object distinction we no longer need it

the will is purely in tune with the

world around it it understands itself as

the world okay louis thank you

okay perspective philosophy you're

trying to obfuscate the question i'm

gonna get to the meat and potatoes and

just see if you can respond to this okay

just see if you can respond to this

poor hegel hegel obviously says that the

perspective of consciousness is not

enough to actually exhaust how

the subject object distinction

is arrived at we cannot solely through

consciousness arrive at the distinction

between subject and object but despite

the inadequacy of consciousness alone in

being able to arrive at this

it is that distinction is still there

and operative and that is precisely why

consciousness is inadequate the

distinction is there even if

consciousness is inadequate

um to understand it

you have not uh made it clear you have

not proven you have not demonstrated you

actually are aware of this distinction

that i'm trying to [ __ ] point you to

can you please address this point i'm

raising there's a distinction between

the how and the is

okay okay

has no interruption when he responds

this time okay

the is

right which would be being itself and

that's something that happened way

before

hegel by the way this is this goes right

back to paramedics right although hegel

would see this as an as an infinite

negative and not infinite positive

is an infinite nonetheless

it does not have form

the positing of essence

is an action

within consciousness

that's the point

lewis

am i unmuted

you are admitted i'm not muting you

except when you talk over last time or

the last time lewis

consciousness

inadequately

attempts to seek knowledge

of a division already set before it

a fundamental distinction between

subject and object which is implied by

consciousness for hegel because for

hegel consciousness seeks to arrive and

explain

the objects given before it

or that it believes to be given before

it which are not in fact given but in

fact endangered by consciousness itself

yes

hegel makes that very clear

you outlining some one-sided um ontology

which in no way is could possibly be

hegelian because for hegel

there um

the implications of absolute knowledge

are implications for

being in other words for the nature of

being itself from the start hegel

doesn't say we begin from some kind of

um

we begin from some kind of one-sided

being and then voluntarily by means of

philosophy

add add more to it philosophy itself

participates in being for hegel so that

distinction you're drawing is completely

false

or hegel consciousness implies a

division of subject and object even if

consciousness like we're going in

circles do you

can you please demonstrate you even

understand what i'm trying to say

even if consciousness is inadequate the

stage of the so-called stage of

consciousness is inadequate to

comprehend how the division

that is the very object of consciousness

is uh

is possible to know

that division is still there and implied

by consciousness itself because

consciousness implies a radical

contradiction or discontinuity at the

heart of being itself otherwise there

would be no consciousness only a

one-sided being okay has it's on record

now that your charge is that he's a fake

alien i'm going to let lewis respond to

that and then we're going to drop that

charge going forward okay we're just

going to talk about the the subject

matter at hand

lewis please respond

okay so like colin is a fake agent i

think it's just ridiculous i mean like

one not not because i've actually

outlined hegel i would argue in a way

that was more complete than you and you

you won't actually answer my questions

on hegel and i will answer any questions

on hegel and when i do except the ones i

did hang on let them respond and when i

do and so you just find the answer not

your liking and so you did you you know

you get mad but the i mean like look

like even at the start of like um

at the start of uh consciousness like

the the like the beginning

of the of the dialectical process is a

pure here and now it is a universal unit

of experience it is

this

this absolute

presence

that's all it is to go

this and that

is the next movement

right which isn't the next chapter he

does quite a few movements in a chapter

it's and which is my self-consciousness

is a huge bit of the book like

the next movement is at this end of that

it's going you know this is a bottle

that is a microphone that is the object

yeah that's the next movement which is

the proposal of objects against the

subject but prior to that that

distinction does not exist and even

before and he even says yes it does

because of its concrete contents sense

certainty imminently appears as the

richest kind of knowledge indeed a no a

knowledge of infinite wealth for which

no bounds can be found either when we

reach out into space and time which is

dispersed or whether we take this bit of

wealth and the division enter into and

enter into it right okay now

i'm just gonna cut you off i'm just

gonna cut you off there louis because

we're we're running a bit long on that

response um i want to bring this back to

again for the sake of clarity for the

audience and for ourselves um what are

the actual stakes here we're debating

the a particular reading of hegel um ad

nauseam

what are the stakes why does this work

it's about whether animals could be

possibly be conscious according to hegel

which um i would argue i've already

established no you haven't you've quoted

all you do is quote [ __ ] without proving

how it supports your [ __ ] conclusions

i've actually give i'm not disputing no

you didn't your quotation about how

hegel says animals are conscious he

didn't say they're conscious though he

didn't louis respond but

one he does say that animals are

conscious he just show me the [ __ ]

quote show me what he says has let louis

respond okay wait a minute just wait

right there you want us to get some

quotes for for here you go on animals so

no no no i want a quote that proves

hegel thinks animals are conscious

despite what he said in the philosophy

of nature that there's a distinction

between spirit and nature

animals are in possession of themselves

their soul is in possession of their

body but they have no right to life

because they do not will it

hegel does not agree that animals have a

right to life how are they conscious by

that quote

animals are in possession of themselves

their soul is in a possession of their

body it doesn't go rocks are in a

possession of themselves okay but how

does it prove they're conscious all

vegetables of vegetables are in a sense

also

hang on the question hang on has so for

clarification the question originally

concerned whether or not hegel regarded

animals as consciousness but how does

this prove their conscious these are two

separate questions so you can pick one

to ask lewis no no i'm asking him how

does that prove hegel thinks they're

conscious is my question okay so that's

the one go lewis

okay because hegel proposes a soul or a

foundational spirit that exists in the

animal which has not itself as its

object but only its externality it is

only direct relationship with the world

where it seeks satisfaction it's at the

place we start quote the relevant quote

one more time i'm going to show you why

you're wrong

okay um so animals are in possession of

themselves their soul is in possession

of their body

their soul is in possession of their

body does hegel say that animals are in

possession of their soul

um they have no right to life because

they do not will it so they are not in

possession of themselves they are not

okay animals are not in possession of

their soul their soul is in possession

of their body right

yes you think what do you think now

since you know so much about hegel what

would hegel say about vegetables

in regards to the nature of their uh

soul

well actually i can quote that um

um but only because he's uh horribly

sexist

um

at one point um where he says men

correspond to animals while women while

women correspond to plants because their

development is more placid and their

principle and uh underlies a vague unity

of feeling so like the way that he takes

um and this is really a byproduct i

would say i'm not asking you for quotes

i'm asking you what does he how does he

how would hegel how would he because i

know he doesn't how would hegel what he

just described of animals or soul and

possession of their body

would this what would be the case for

plants and uh vegetables

um there would well i think i would

probably say that he would the may

probably make a distinction between

something like life in general and

describe it as vegetative and that would

be a byproduct of a metaphysical um

distinction which originated the

organism

okay

let him finish that sentence and then go

so so yeah so like this um like if you

look at um

hegel's philosophy like the way that

spirit is kind of

uh

you know separated in terms of soul

is very much built off um christian

metaphysical um analysis okay lewis i

might finish the sentence you're already

on the story all right okay i don't know

that's fine that's fine

or it has gone okay lewis you didn't

answer my question you're saying that

hegel thinks animals are consciousness

because the soul is in possession of

their body right

sorry i think that yeah i think animals

are consciousness because their soul is

in possession of their body yes okay

what about plants what about vegetables

um i would say that they don't have a

soil why they do have a soul that it's

why according to hegel would they not

possess a soul well they don't

necessarily not possess a soul they

would they there are distinctions in the

self because we all possess a notion of

self uh at least a notion of

consciousness

are you aware that when hegel is talking

about soul

he's not he's still within the realm of

as far as animals are concerned he's

still within the realm of in itself not

for itself in other words he's he's

giving a description of a thing so when

he's talking about the soul of the

animal it's not the same as the soul in

the human sense yeah there's a there's a

distinction from being in itself and

being for itself which i think is

absolutely the movement between to from

from consciousness to self-consciousness

it's not okay now let me ask you hang on

hang on

let him finish and then reply like i

mean you would have to presuppose that

being for itself exists in consciousness

in consciousness in the first chapter

when he specifically says in the second

chapter that being but the reason for

that is because consciousness is

inadequate so louis here's what you

don't seem to understand for hegel

consciousness does not exist as such it

is just something he refers to to prove

its inadequacy

but

there's there's no use in talking about

the consciousness of animals

no being can just be conscious

consciousness is a moment of spirit okay

no being is consciousness if

consciousness is taken divorced from

being a moment in spirit it is ta you

are precisely reifying

something that hegel is just

establishing to prove its inadequacy

specifically within the history of

philosophy empiricism sense and so on

and so on hegel is trying to say

so consciousness cannot exist outside of

being a moment of spirit or hegel

whatever consciousness is it's a moment

of spirit it's an it's an inadequate

unfinished explication of absolute

knowledge okay good lewis respond well

absolute knowledge contains everything

so everything is a part of spirit that's

the whole point but the ontological

commitment within within

um within uh you keep saying on logical

yeah so this would be like the

commitment to reality which we obtain

the abstract laws of right from like

that that's where before we get into

that wait a minute

has um trust me sunday i'm i'm i'm

saving us time i'm saving i'm trying to

i do not care lewis finish your thought

concisely please and then how's you can

respond yeah absolutely so it is a

hundred percent like consciousness

absolutely is a thing for hegel to say

that is absolutely ridiculous um we said

in the introduction of the phenomenology

of spirit

uh we said that in the introduction of

the phenomenal phenomenology of spirit

is the science of consciousness it's

exposition that consciousness has the

concept of science sure sure so two

things right two things because you just

you let him keep talking it piles up the

[ __ ] two things uh louis the first

thing

hegel begins with the science of

consciousness but the science of

consciousness is not the same thing as

consciousness taken one-sidedly

within the first chapter of the

phenomenology of the spirit of

consciousness consciousness only so for

example the science of consciousness

leads to the conclusion of absolute

knowledge yes

but consciousness

consciousness cannot be taken in a

vacuum one-sidedly within the con what

the essence of consciousness is

especially ontologically cannot be taken

within a vacuum within the first chapter

of the um phenomenology of spirit

because it necessarily follows from

consciousness that there is

self-consciousness and from

self-consciousness that there is spirit

and so on and so on so this is what you

don't seem to understand now you keep

talking about hegel's ontological

commitment to consciousness and i keep

trying to pin you down and you keep

avoiding my question

what is for hegel the being of

consciousness is the being of

consciousness fully exhausted in the

first chapter of the phenomenology or is

the being of consciousness inadequately

and uh

unfinished whatever inadequately uh

described in the first chapter

is the being of consciousness all there

in the first chapter without any further

elaboration

like purely is is what it is purely

there

like it's existence

so for hegel so hegel's ontological

commitment to consciousness what you

mean by that is that hago hegel is until

is committed to the ontological um

he he privileged he the ontological uh

exceptionality of the consciousness that

he describes in the first chapter of the

phenomenology is that what you're trying

to say

what i'm trying to say is that like i

can actually i'll outline this in a

really easy way everything that is

necessarily there to be understood in

hegel is within the immediacy of

consciousness but it is inadequate for

us to will ourselves

so we reconcile ourselves if the

movement of consciousness seeks to

reconcile itself with itself

because if it wasn't already there then

there would be nothing to reason and

there'd be nothing to actually it's a

possibility

let him finish the slide

it's the positing of existence which we

are reasoning out it is the

it is reality itself which is what hegel

is saying is already there that reality

is real that existence exists what is is

it's taught a logical which is why it's

infinite now i got you now i got you

sure i got you now so this reality

according to that is already there for

hegel this hegel fully exhausts already

in the beginning

he sets it up fully in the beginning

everything else is just kind of

ancillary right

well i mean like in the sense that like

he doesn't fully exhaust the like the

the foundations of reality he just says

that we move beyond the immediacy of

self-certainty and move okay now let me

ask you another question the same

question in a different way do we move

beyond this immediate reality or

was there something latent within this

reality that leads to it moving beyond

with regard to itself

quite the opposite actually if you look

at hegel we move back to immediacy but

i'm just quoting you

what do you want to [ __ ] say here i'm

just quoting you to help you guide you

and why you're a [ __ ] idiot yes let

him answer so if you look at hegel we

don't actually move away from the

immediacy of reality we mediate that's

what you said you said we moved away

from it why are you wasting my time

how's your muted lewis finish your

response we move back to the to the

immediacy so we do mediate we do mediate

in the second term but only to make and

reconcile ourselves with ourselves so

it's immediately available um to give

you a quote from this if if it would

maybe

help [ __ ] you [ __ ]

i'll get rag

all right is he still here

no okay let's finish your thought please

concisely and then we're gonna let uh

respond

so the essence so the positive in

essence is actually the movement in

self-consciousness but the the the

grounding of essence is the foundation

in the concrete existence which exists

in consciousness and he says that in

um i think that was the

uh the science of logic okay are you

done okay as you can respond

only languages that the host can

understand please you're literally just

quoting [ __ ] not you're not getting to

the [ __ ] point you're quoting

gibberish saying gibberish to dance

around the way i [ __ ] pinned you

you said you said louis not me that

everything is there in the beginning but

it's not enough so we have to move

beyond is this not enoughness itself a

feature of what is originally there or

not

well yeah but i mean the deficit is one

of knowledge not not of reality

that's where you're a fake [ __ ]

hegelian and a kantian yes it is a

deficit of being itself

it is definitely a deficit of being

itself not just knowledge lewis there is

no one-sided distinction between being

and knowledge that is not actively

suspended in hegel's philosophy hegel

does not simply set up being versus

knowledge and then it ends there being

and knowledge are for hegel thinking and

being for hegel are the same louis

they're the same thing ultimately so

you're a fake [ __ ] hegelian book

okay it would not be thinking just to

clarify or be willing actually says

thinking and being are the same he says

that yeah yeah

it's a will it's i'm talking i'm talking

about you louis you want to interpret it

as a will only lewis and has you're both

muted because you're not listening to me

so i will

i will suffer a lot but not that one of

my participants be accused of being

accompanied so we're gonna move into

audience questions again if anybody has

a question um you may uh

put it in my chat otherwise i won't see

it um i need you to put an asterisk on

either end so i can quickly cycle

through and find them thank you very

much

um let's find some questions here

uh i've got a question for both of you

actually um

we've been talking a lot about whether

or not animals are conscious i want to

know what the stakes are if indeed they

are why does it matter whether or not

animals are conscious

because it first of all a proves he

doesn't know anything about hegel

that b

the all of the even though i already

wrecked him as far as the supposed

necessary conclusions that would follow

from this and even if i were to concede

that animals are conscious which i don't

the conclusion obviously doesn't fall we

established that last time he didn't

even respond to any of my arguments but

first of all you're not even able

to arrive at the conclusions you did in

the first place because your [ __ ]

premise is wrong animals are not

conscious

louis do you want to play that yeah so i

i will say that i think it's quite funny

that he says that it doesn't matter if

uh if uh animals are conscious even

though the whole point of what he's

arguing here is to go i was way too

charitable i shouldn't have almost

conscious because this means that we are

considering animals here's the thing

lewis lewis

lewis lewis the way string yard works is

that if both of you speak at the same

time you both turn into a garbled mess

and nobody can hear so lewis finish your

thought then has you can address it yeah

i just think that he's i just think that

he's backpedaling i think that he's

attempting to undo the debate that he

had because it was that bad oh really

literally

again you always conflate [ __ ] louis

here's what i just said and sunday don't

don't let me say my piece sunday okay

here's what you're doing here's what you

said louis

you said

i said you said that oh you're you're

just trying to it's funny that you're

saying it doesn't matter because that's

the whole point of this debate the whole

point of this debate louis i don't get

it twisted louis i am 100

fully confident in the fact that i

[ __ ] wrecked you last time i just

didn't wreck you as thoroughly as i

wanted to and that's why i'm doing this

with even if i conceded to you that

animals are conscious as i proved last

time you'd still get [ __ ] wrecked but

for the sake of being philosophically

consistent and consistent with my own

beliefs and my own views i want to

clarify that i was wrong to even concede

that in the first place even though it

was it doesn't make a difference as far

as who wins this little encounter

between you and i that's why lewis i

wanted to have this [ __ ] debate and

clear this [ __ ] up because it this

debate not only proves

yet again another victory for me but

that you literally don't know [ __ ] about

hegel and that is something i don't

think i proved well enough last time i

proved it well enough this time

okay question for has from seeking a

independent of hegel if animals are

conscious would this change your view of

veganism

there's no independent of hegel animals

it did the notion of ana i uh understand

my concept of consciousness comes from

german idealism comes from uh this kind

of philosophy so no it's an absurdity to

call [ __ ] animals conscious i will

never accept animals as a so-called

conscious it's completely meaningless

completely stupid to call them that

okay and this is for both of you from

angela marnie i'm gonna let lewis go

first in this one how does consciousness

imply an object's subject distinction is

it baked into the meaning of

consciousness itself

um yeah so it doesn't um that's the

whole point where you start in hegel it

is the infinite experience consciousness

doesn't imply um an object subject

distinction that comes later like that

is the nes that is

the the subject like well not the

subject the consciousness produces the

object subjective distinction as a means

of self-satisfaction which is why if

you're going after hegel and you get to

heidegger and you start learning about

um existential analysis and and so on

you start saying that language is

actually a form of equipment in which we

use to engage with reality so this

production of self-consciousness and

objects uh and determinate objects

actually is a means to self-satisfaction

and not given in our experience which is

exactly why he's critiquing

self-certainty

all right how do you want to reply to

this yes consciousness does in fact

necessarily imply a subject object

distinction otherwise consciousness

could have no determinate content

whatsoever there's absolutely no meaning

to calling something conscious if you

don't have a subject object distinction

it's a pretty pla and i already proved

that through the course of this debate

like an npc he's repeating his original

argument that's fine

okay thank you and uh this is from ga

core above thank you for the five

dollars um prospective philosophy you

say quote unquote will a lot it seems

like you're focused on actualism more

than anything else

are we seeing the triumph of your will

i'm not entirely certain how that

is implying he follows giovantali's

actual idealism

um

what i'm arguing when i the whole point

of bringing up will and hegel is to show

that it's not a stagnant process that

being is not in uh that being is not um

there in itself it's it's actually his

reply to xeno's paradox which explains

that everything must be in motion like

if you if you were to shoot an arrow and

you were to stop time at any moment

zeno's paradox is supposed to say that

the arrow would have to both be there

and not there simultaneously the title

overcomes the distinction you don't know

what you're doing on the questions the

questions for lewis let him finish that

that is exactly what i'm saying um it's

it's a moment of becoming it's not a

moment of being there or not being there

it is both simultaneously

okay just to clarify the idea of pure

will is just as absurd for hegel as pure

being

okay

this is for both of you um from einsley

gonger i have a question why should i

care if animals feel pain or not i can

justify that we have a social contract

between us i take them to meet us humans

but what is the social contract between

me and an animal um

what morally prevents me from harming an

animal uh has would you like to take

that one first

yeah sure um

first of all i i completely doubt

animals have so-called pain as we know

it

i think pain is something we take for

granted there's a lot of things about

pain we take for granted it's not just a

sensation

okay um

like i said the fundamental distinction

you don't even have to talk about this

stuff about a social contract or

whatever

as someone else pointed out that i saw

on twitter which was actually such a

great way of summing up what i was

trying to say before the question of

harming animals or not harming animals

has nothing to do with morality has

nothing to do with ethics it's a

question of normativity okay it's it you

can't you can't um legislate you can't

it's no more relevant to ethics and

morality than aesthetic taste is

so yeah okay lewis

yeah so like the idea of a social

contract like being able to form a

social contract is in and of itself a

bad way to establish ethics hegel

actually points this out he basically

shows that everything that you're doing

in the social contract already must

pre-exist the contract for you to be

able to accept that an individual could

complete the contract that they're

capable of actually signing and

understanding and engaging in a contract

and having it as the end of their of

their will so the whole point is it

presupposes an ethical relationship in

which you already can have a trust

established in order to sign the

contract or even have the capacities

necessary or even the um the uh

fundamental tenants uh set that you

would require for um

to experience to even want to sign a

contract all of that is already

presupposed in social contract theory so

saying that signing a social contract

it's a bad way to do it so looking at an

animal animal's inability to sign a

contract is secondary why is a human

able to sign a contract and why do i

establish contracts with humans so if i

want to sign a contract with a human

it's so that we can facilitate a joint

end in order to satisfy a joint will now

if i already established that this joint

will exists prior to the contract the

foundations of that will exist in

ontology but they're also

epistemologically available to us by

analysis and that exists in an animal i

can see their pain and pleasure as

valuable prior to their ability to sign

a contract because that is exactly the

same pain and pleasure that i would see

as valuable prior to the humans capacity

to sign a contract which i must consider

for has from android 323 what does it

matter what an old man said if science

nowadays proves animals being conscious

because science proves no such [ __ ]

thing simple as that see how i get too

straight to the point and i don't babble

along like perspective philosophy to say

in so many words where you can sum up in

like two seconds

okay

uh for perspective philosophy from king

of based do you deny the labor

aristocracy

um

i don't i don't really know um

i i can't i like to be entirely honest

with you i don't think i could give like

a definite answer because i can't really

remember what the i don't even know what

the labor aristocracy is off the top we

had to be entirely honest with you i'm

just going to like i'm willing to admit

me ignorance here

um

in terms of the terminology fair enough

for angelo morney and i take this to be

for both of you is absolute knowing the

final and necessary development of

consciousness will animals ever achieve

quote unquote absolute knowing according

to lewis yes they will they're on their

way so the cow uprising is imminent

uh

that's not actually what i think cows

don't uh establish absolute annoying

humans

it's it's true yeah but

for hegel consciousness implies the

inevitability of absolute knowing it's

because it's inadequate

no no it doesn't uh really but the thing

is it requires an intellect of capacity

which is what is called animal

consciousness has let him finish his

response but the the reconciliation of

spirit and consciousness is the you know

the movement from being an immediate

consciousness to a reconciled

self-consciousness that's not to say

that animals are going to be um you that

can be present in spirit in the sense

that it is consciousness is

reconciliation with itself but it is

mediated not by their actions but by our

actions and our consideration of their

actions so like they they engage with us

and communicate with us and we can

recognize what is valuable within them

and that is recognizing this literally

proves veganism is fascist like you're

describing a volunteeristic actual

idealist reading of hegel according to

which everything is just some kind of

like subjective actual intervention in

reality rather than the fact that

absolute knowledge literally follows

imminently from consciousness it's

literally

consciousness

consciousness is imminently inadequate

with regard to itself it can't exist by

itself

it's so ironic that you would accuse

veganism as being fascist when you are

hitler was a vegan promotion which is

ideologically an abstract where you're

presupposing some idealized version of

man

and seeing it as a sublime object of

ideology from which we look i think the

nazis were humanistic

and then say and then um and then uh

satisfy our desires the nazis the nazis

venerated vegetarianism

you're the one engaging in what is an

abstract moment of right that is being

justified by what the hegemony of man

when did i say that

you don't even know my [ __ ] views

you're putting words in my mouth talking

out of your [ __ ] ass just like your

pretend pretended knowledge of hegel

it's clear that the nazis were

pro-vegetarian the nazis were

pro-vegetarian that's a fact of history

the used methods to kill the jews that

were ex were taken from slaughterhouses

why did nazis demonize

why did nazis demonize kosher slaughter

because they hated the jews

what was the explanation they gave that

it was cruel toward animals that's why

they said the jews were being cruel

toward animals and nazis thought animals

have more rights than jewish people just

like vegans

it's not like we love animals it's like

we hate the jews the jews are worse than

us everything there was a vegetarian

himself hitler wasn't a vegetarian

that's a myth and it was a way to

propagandize himself in respect to being

comparable to gandhi who was popular at

the time but you know whatever you know

[ __ ] history right

all right next question from thoughtbat

for has are you permissive of animal

abuse if not why not

no i'm not because i don't believe that

our relationship to the world comes from

thin air we we it's established by

president custom moors and common sense

why would you want to be abusive toward

an animal if not

the fact that you're projecting upon

that animal human qualities and

characteristics and you want just like

you want to use the animal as a way to

vent your own misanthropy so no i don't

believe in intentionally abusing animals

but if animals like are not being

treated up to the standards of what

vegans think as an incidental fact of

our already existing fundamental

relationship to them then i don't give a

[ __ ] i obviously think sadism is [ __ ]

up

but no i don't give a [ __ ] [ __ ] about

animals

okay uh louis this is from forehead who

has asked this question now four times

um are cars vegan

um yeah cars can't be vegan anyway not

all cars like

um

like the reality is is that we can

engage in modes of consumption which

unfortunately will lead to states of

tragedy which we should reconcile um but

only ones that are

really

considering everyone but then attempting

to minimize harm so like the the for

example look at it like this um i have

an obligation to other humans but if i

drive a car i have a risk of running

them over it's not that i'm going to

kill some i i want to kill someone but

that there is an aspect of our being

which necessitates our driving the car i

have to drive a car to get to work i

need to satisfy my own

needs and drives so having a call is not

an inherently unethical okay this is

from ga coraba for five dollars per

second perspective philosophy you sound

more like a neo hegelian how is this

concept of hegel anything but a

precursor to the worst ideas in human

history um well i am a hegelian um i

don't think it's a precursor to the

um ideas like the worst ideas in history

i i don't see how you could say that i

mean what are you considering the worst

ideas in history are you relating this

to perhaps like

um like i don't know like movements from

the like the moxie inside of things um

which i don't think were necessarily the

worst ideas in history but i'd say that

a lot of the negative uh within the

marxist leninist movement come from the

rejection of the negation of negation

within hegel which meant that they

started pre-supposing that like uh

essentially notions of right without um

that's not true so first of all the

rejection of the negation of the

negation has nothing to do with the

rejection of uh reconciliation it's

rather a point of i'm gonna quickly just

sum this up

reconciliation re-emerges from the

dialectical materialist perspective in

the form of material being material

being is what reconciles um and leads to

a so it's not that they reject the

negation of the negation as as

reconciliation they do accept that the

negation is ultimately negated it's just

negated by positive material being it's

a very important distinction uh they do

not reject hegelian reconciliation they

reject the view that the negation of the

negation uh as a metaphysical view which

which leads to a kind of um

still negation of negation does not

arrive at positive being that's the

issue

i'm going to modify this question from

uh seeking a because it's kind of

quickly odd just please

mao actually certainly does reject the

negation of negation

he says that there are basically points

towards particulars and that everything

can be infinitely divested into um

smaller and smaller units and

in society and he points to any points

that towards that so like he definitely

doesn't say that it can be reconciled he

says that there is the constant unity of

opposites yes

lenin finishes a lot and then you can

respond go but then they're never

reconciled that's the point like the

contradiction must exist in in a form of

contradiction that is never um

reconciled okay okay in the mouth

i'm very quickly i just want to clear no

please go for it

it is it is actually reconciled it's

just that you don't understand the

chinese tradition mao is coming from mao

is ontologizing contradiction itself as

a form of positive being so it is

reconciled in the form of this material

positive being which for hegel is the

very unity of opposites itself the

content of the material object for mao

is the unity of opposites which is he is

inheriting from the chinese philosophy

the chinese tradition and it's also

something this

orientation towards being

itself

a positive being as opposed to the

negativity of

thought is something that distinguishes

eastern philosophy and thinking from

western in general so to say that he

doesn't accept a reconciliation is wrong

he accepts a reconciliation it's just

that this is a reconciliation in reality

itself in the form of the very being of

the unity of opposites itself

thank you i'm gonna i'm gonna cut you

off there uh lewis because we're gonna

get to the next question um this is from

nimrod's fall to has

um has how do you differentiate between

uh your view and the view that some

scientists used to have that non-whites

lacked consciousness and pain vis-a-vis

animals because

your comparison of non-whites to [ __ ]

animals is this precisely why veganism

is a white supremacist ideology that is

the enemy of mankind

okay so just you call cube you just

that's just how you're gonna respond to

that

yeah because i get straight to the point

instead of wasting people's time like

you a point that's a too cool cue that's

that's a logical fallacy what do you

criticize criticism with a criticism

what

you're like like someone's just went um

oh like how would like they've asked you

a question and then you went you're a

white supremacist yeah the reason it's

different louis is because there's a

fundamental because non-white people are

still [ __ ] human i don't know is that

is that enough for you i i didn't take

the question to be making that

implication i thought the point was that

um it's it's not it's the equivocation

goes in the other direction whether or

not animals should be raised up to the

general status of having equal value to

human beings that's that's how i

interpret that question it didn't have

the negative connotation at all that's

just me

what i'm saying is that the reason why

you can't compare it is because there's

a fundamental difference between

humans and animals and that non-white

people

uh the difference between non-whites and

whites is not the same as the difference

between humans and animals that's how i

would respond jesus christ that's what

they want you to establish what is the

difference

okay well that's a different question if

he wants to know what precisely a

different question your question is what

precisely is the difference between

humans and animals

ethical inconsistencies are you are you

asking me that question what's the

difference between humans and animals

yeah justifical in consideration yeah

sure you know what my answer to you is

what reid hegel

ah that was terrible just read hegel he

talks about it he'll laugh

pretty well okay okay

next next question insecure

all right uh there's a premise to this

one are either of you aware of meta

modernism or post-post-modernism

i'm aware of it i know very little about

it to be entirely honest with you um i i

i need to read into it somebody sent us

this on um one of me prior uh streams

but i can't say i know very much about

it to be entirely honest with you i

don't remember i remember encountering

it and my i remember what i thought when

i read up on an encounters that i wasn't

impressed by it and i thought it was a

bunch of [ __ ] but i don't remember

specifically why but that's my memory

yeah i have no knowledge of this

whatsoever um this is from seeking a i'm

gonna modify this slightly if you were

pressed how would you salvage the

position of your opponent

um house do you want to go first or

lewis i'll let you choose amongst

yourselves um

if i if lewis was an intelligent person

then they would come at this from the

perspective of a cosmology he wouldn't

try to collapse the distinction between

nature and spirit which is antithetical

to the hegelian enterprise he would try

to actually reconcile them from the

perspective of cosmology similar to uh

evol ilenko's his cosmology of spirit

about but this is a necessarily

materialist enterprise though and he

would from this cosmology try to

establish how

animals figure into the ultimate

development of um spirit from the

perspective of

the development of spirit as something

that arises out of nature and how spirit

is in fact part of nature and so on and

so on so if he was smart he would come

at it from that perspective it's just

he's not smart enough to do that so he

has to lie about hegel and pull [ __ ] out

of his ass

lewis

um it depends what you mean by salvage

do you mean like as in make a steel man

of the argument or do you mean to the

best of your ability perhaps you regard

the position as unsalvageable but if you

to the extent that you can

right so i would say that he's position

perhaps could argue if he was being like

justified about it would be to accept

that animals were conscious

um but then say that um and then try to

do i think to be honest his argument in

the first bit was stronger than his

argument in this one although still

terrible he um essentially tried to

argue an epistemological difference in

that one which um

meant that animals couldn't be

considered because we cannot demonstrate

the resistance in their will which would

lead us to a discussion of whether we

can they have no will

haven't uh haven't um

like interests which we can consider

that would be the um that would be the

best argument that he could make but i

still think a very poor one

all right this is from ga korobov again

for five dollars uh again to prospective

philosophy by nia hegelian i meant

gentilly uh perspective philosophy are

you aware of some of the abstractive

concepts you introduce uh are you aware

these seem a lot like actualism

um i'm not really i've never i've never

really encountered this so much to be

entirely honest with you um

but i'm not really introducing an

abstract concept i'm not saying that

there is um

anything that necessarily must be

accepted as pure abstract essence but

rather that we need to reconcile what is

a pure abstract essence um with the the

fundamental concrete reality which is

fundamentally what does that have to do

with actualism

i just said i've never encountered

actualism and i don't know so you don't

know what he's talking he's not taught

he's not saying you have an abstract

concept he's saying that your

interpretation of hegel is pretty much

the same as giovanni gentile's actual

idealism

well

giovanni is the um

he's the founder of intellectual founder

of italian fascism yeah italian fashion

i never haven't read his work yet i was

going to read it in to respond to uh

fascists but i haven't met a fascist

again yet because i think that's died i

think i've just met one today which is i

met one last week which is you

that's absolutely dumb like like let's

be honest like what i'm arguing you're

not you're not a fascist i wouldn't call

you a fascist but like philosophically i

think you are

i don't think that's i don't think

that's the case at all considering that

i'm arguing for a mediation of the self

with the self in a way that reconciles

us from in and out groups to a unified

individual so like nothing to do with

fascism fascism fascism requires an us

versus them notion in which we can posit

a single identity against the against

the other not necessarily fascists for

example can have a view of like world

conquest like hitler where there's going

to reconcile all beings with but it's

going to be in like a determinate

hierarchy with germans at the top just

like animals would figure in the

hierarchy but the higher the races

i mean the hierarchy in and of itself i

think in a hegelian stance would be

absolutely unjustified why we have a

higher you admit we need a hierarchy

with animals or you don't admit that

no i don't think that we should hire