Are philosophers jealous lovers about reality?

[vulcanlogician]

I recently listened to a 5 minute clip of a lecture on my favorite YouTube channel. As someone who appreciates epistemology, I find the argument suspect, but still.... it's rather interesting to ponder. The lecturer suggests that we devote 17 or 18 seconds to thinking about it.

In summary:

It is a criticism of epistemology, aimed at its roots. Hegel posits that we ought not "stand back" and ask "how we know" something. When we look for epistemic justifications for things, we may think we are being thorough, but Hegel wonders if we aren't just being suspicious.

Let's say you are really into a lover. And she is, in fact, faithful to you. But let's say that (for a moment) you stand back and wonder "Is she really faithful?" When you do that, Hegel says that-- while you may think you are examining things in more detail-- and thus getting to the heart of them, you are, in fact, making your personal reality a separate object from yourself. You think you are examining truth, but you are, in fact, seperating yourself from it. That's a fairly bastardized explanation. Watch the video for a better summary.

***

IDK. I like epistemology. I wonder if it isn't just epistemic hubris. But I'm not all that familiar with Hegel. Maybe he goes on to give more satisfying support.

But it's an interesting criticism/ thought experiment/ skepticism of epistemology nonetheless. A bit heady, though. Might not be everyone's cup of tea.

I'm reminded somewhat of William James's notion that avoiding error is only half of what we should be doing when trying to obtain knowledge. If we only try to avoid error, we become rigid skeptics who miss out on a great deal of genuine knowledge that is available to us.

Anyway, what do you think? Any and all criticism, as well as sarcasm and snark, is welcome.

[BrianSoddingBoru4]

Seems like a very involved, convoluted way to say, 'What you don't know won't hurt you.' My gran told me this when I was five years old. Pretty sure she'd never read Hegel.

Boru

[Mister Agenda]

I think that if you're going to delve into 'are they REALLY faithful' absent a particular cause or causes for suspicion, you're diving down a rabbit hole of teasing apart every action they take for evidence of unfaithfulness. Like a conspiracy theorist, if you look that hard at seemingly innocent actions, you're like to find things that increase your suspicion for psychological reasons. You can always find discrepancies if you look hard enough because no one is perfect.

[BrianSoddingBoru4]

I think that if you're going to delve into 'are they REALLY faithful' absent a particular cause or causes for suspicion, you're diving down a rabbit hole of teasing apart every action they take for evidence of unfaithfulness. Like a conspiracy theorist, if you look that hard at seemingly innocent actions, you're like to find things that increase your suspicion for psychological reasons. You can always find discrepancies if you look hard enough because no one is perfect.

On a larger scale, I think Hegel may have been warning against unlimited skepticism, or investigations without value.

A good example from these boards is the are-we-living-in-a-simulation debate. While it may be a fun intellectual exercise (for some), trying to prove or disprove it is - ultimately - a pointless endeavour.

Boru

[Disagreeable]

Will watch the video before commenting on this if I have time to watch it.

Sounds interesting based on what I read in the OP, though. Although—despite not knowing much about Hegel yet—I am very much, speaking of suspiciousness, suspicious of Hegel before I even look into him. Perhaps this is bad because perhaps Schopenhauer has poisoned the well. However, I do think that if Schopenhauer strongly distrusts something or somebody he's usually right and usually has very good reasons. And since time is precious I have opted to study other philosophers instead of Hegel up until now at least.

Perhaps the only philosopher who was ever wiser than Schopenhauer was Epicurus, in my experience, but that is, of course, debatable.