Prof. Bonevac is either a virtuoso lecturer who can work random environmental sounds and wasp invasions into his line of explanation or a talented video editor. Either way, a joy to listen to. I also never heard any talk about Heidegger's philosophy before that wasn't clouded by his horrible choices and how they relate to his ideas.
i think that his videos can be very help- and meaningful to people who aren't privileged enough to enjoy a formal philosophical education. I also appreciate his respect for Heidegger, even though I am not sure what to make of that figure personally, because I do believe that he indeed was an obscurantist and I find many of his few arguments less than convincing.
Great stab at it professor. I've never read the "Contributions" in its entirety, only in snippets. Though I have read "Being And Time" in its entirety many times, and poured over that book and studied it for years. B&T, for all its difficulty, is a clear-cut, systematic work of philosophy compared to "Contributions." I think you're right that, by that point, Heidegger felt that traditional use of language & thinking were, in some sense, just not up to the task -- that something would always be left out in the end. I know Heidegger tends to catch some flack, especially in "analytic" circles, for his obscure and almost mystical-sounding language in some of the later works. But when one considers that those were the writings of the same man who wrote "Being and Time" & "Basic Problems..", I feel that we owe it to Heidegger to at least attempt to follow his thinking and take it seriously. I'm an early Heidegger fan myself, though I still intend to take the dive one of these days into the later corpus, for better or worse! I think Being & Time is one of the richest, most brilliant works of philosophy ever produced. So I have to think there must be some value to be gleaned from the "Contributions." Just a matter of really wrestling with the text to gain the reward! Thanks for being brave enough and willing to not only take these writings seriously, but to openly discuss them and share your thoughts with the rest of us. Cheers to you Professor Bonevac!🍻
Ereignis means something like occurrence, appropriation would be Aneignung. These are the meanings as commonly used in German, but the connotations are quite different than they are in English. I could see how Ereignen could be used to express Aneignen which is probably where the interpretation comes from. The root of both words is eigen, meaning self or own, like proprius in appropriation. The pronunciation of Ereignis is actually different. Since 'er' is just the prefix, it is one syllable followed by a glottal stop followed by the stressed syllable 'eig': er-'EIGnis.
Appropriation is also a word with a history, in that it was used by Marxist theorists back in the day. I think it is too much a Gesellschaft word. I think translators might as well stick with Ereignis in German, and footnote the possible meanings and renderings.
I agree with Atman, either God provides final meaning, or we reach the end of human resources and find they are incapable of ultimate validation. Did Heidegger ever stop being a theologian? Brilliant as ever from DB, thanks for taking your break to make these videos about Heidegger. There's so much use of the German language in Heidegger that translation can't carry. Thanks again DB.
> either God provides final meaning, or we reach the end of human resources Have you considered focusing your mind instead of passively waiting to be told what to do?
Having read an english translation, and asking my german teacher to give a few possibilities for meaning in contested translations, I really appreciate the extra contextual info. It's an interesting thought exercise to view Contributions from the "event" and "appropriation" frames of reference. The self actualization required to "be" in the event reference makes sense, one's own interpretation of the psychical world requires self reference over time and action requires the ability to use those experiences in the present. However, the "appropriation" reference frame makes the implications of this self referential necessity very dark. The meaning breaks down, in my opinion, because there are networks of meaning that produce truth, but these are merely emergent properties of a larger system that cannot coraltated by locality. I could eventually write the dictionary by parsing full english words from random pages in the library of babel, if it truly contains every combination of letters,numbers, ect. The locality comes from the event and meaning emerges along with logical operators like true and false. Simply adding the ability to compare two logical operators creates the conditions necessary for modern computers.
my comment about "The locality comes from the event and meaning emerges" is my philosophical interpretation of Dr.Steven Wolfram concept of a "single thread of time" required for human consciousness.
Prof. Bonevac, you have a very solid understanding of logic (I love your book "deduction"), so I was wondering how someone with this kind of analytic background comes to grips with philosophers that are (to my layman's mind) so lacking in clarity when it comes to providing definitions and argumentative steps. Do you try to reconstruct their arguments using your analytical toolkit, or do you put this toolkit aside and use a different approach to understand them?
Good question! I always try to read first to see how the philosopher I'm reading is seeing the world. I want to encounter their thought on their terms first. Then I try to reflect and use analytical tools. In Heidegger's case, after reading him, I was struck by his single-minded pursuit of what is fundamental based on the use of Kant's transcendental method. He's constantly applying transcendental arguments, and each stage of his thinking applies a transcendental argument to what he reached at the previous stage. Once I saw that, the rest, which had seemed obscure at first, seemed much clearer.
Thank you Professor! It took an analytical philospher to make some sense out of Heidegger's unintelligible continental prose. Funny how the conclusion is that the german SOAB came to nothing in the end...
Here's a question: how is this sense of interpretation, or sense-making, different from (relatively) contemporary Kantians like Cassirer, who make a turn into linguistics in order to talk about pre-conditions for understanding? How is Heidegger's sense-making different from Kant's synthetic judgements? The reason that I ask is that I'm very sure that Heidegger's sense-making is something more than simply Kant's synthetic judgement...but I'm not sure why.
In quantum mechanics, whose apparati, their operation, and utilization I am unfamiliar with, there is this ambiguity in the "framework of meaning". There is this conflation of being and becoming. Physicists measuring the position and momentum of particles like electrons tell us about indistinguishability.They cannot tell one electron from another: no physicist has ever measured the same electron twice. If they have they could not tell you. This begs the question how do they know its an electron. Usually measuring apparatus tells you a propert of the thing being measured, it doesn't tell you what the thing is. A scale tells you 5000 pounds, it doesnt tell you if its an elephant or a car. How do they know they aren't being fooled every time by something interacting with their equipment? Something acting like an electron but isn't. Is that a wasp flying by, or a bee 🐝, or a fly, or a gnat, or a dragonfly, or a beetle, or a ladybug or a...? Paradoxes are seeming contradictions. Seeming because of literal translation. They can be "solved", however, by adding context. Not just meaning but meaning in a situation. "When you get to a fork in the road, take it." The brain is an organ of time, it tells us the situation. The stomach is an organ of meaning, so is the tongue, ear, nose, skin, eye. Consciousness, however, is the final context: the source of being and becoming. Nature the source of every situation. The soul the connection between Nature and consciousness. The mind the connection between brain and consciousness. The heart the connection between the body and Nature.
Cant help thinking that Heidegger in his concrete actuality ,actualised the incapacity revealed in his philosophy . He sold himself to a bad cause in Nazi Germany ,even when it was to have been subsequently seen fit to absolve him of any culpability . Free choice of conceptual scheme , conceptual scheme chosen in the urgency of maintaining social relationships in a local community .Then this as precondition of referring to particulars in a changing life world. Without sign equipment to support reference then no meaning - or perhaps instability, or inscrutability? . Heidegger in the concrete actuality of all this must necessarily become hopelesy lost as he tries to orient himself and yes...he indeed accounts for this in his work by importing his idea of thrownness or entgeworfenheit. But he is lost in the first place with , so to speak , the local tail of particularity by virtue of method, conceptually wagging the entire dog of absolute conceptual scheme needed for certainty?
@@PhiloofAlexandria German? It's hard to translate words that are more notions than anything. For instance the word information, today, has computer science as a context. Does jabberwocky mean dragon or monster?
Not entirely true when it comes to the continuity of visual perception. We can only differentiate visual difference below around 60 fps, so our perception is, much like a film, a stream of still images. The same is true for all our sensory mechanisms, which, to me, demonstrates that we are simply biological machines along with all other flora and fauna.
I would like to hear how you come to think that, assuming you don't hold this belief just from dogma. As I see it, there are many different metaphysics to start from if you would like to tackle transcendental questions such as what the nessessary conditions for the possibility of something are. There is of course the monotheistic tradition. But there are other religious traditions as well which postulate multiple gods up to a sheer infinity of gods like in Shintoism where any lake or stone may have a kami. There are even spiritual traditions not postulating any god but rather first principles such as karma for the Buddhists. Thus, even if you only look inside the religious sphere, there are many possible ways of tackling transcendental questions starting from the religion's respective metaphysics. I do not see any problem in using any other starting point which might or might not include god(s) to discuss transcendental questions. What do you think?
Prof. Bonevac is either a virtuoso lecturer who can work random environmental sounds and wasp invasions into his line of explanation or a talented video editor. Either way, a joy to listen to. I also never heard any talk about Heidegger's philosophy before that wasn't clouded by his horrible choices and how they relate to his ideas.
What "horrible choices" are you referring too?
@@Laotzu.Goldbug he supported a certain 1930s German party.
i think that his videos can be very help- and meaningful to people who aren't privileged enough to enjoy a formal philosophical education.
I also appreciate his respect for Heidegger, even though I am not sure what to make of that figure personally, because I do believe that he indeed was an obscurantist and I find many of his few arguments less than convincing.
Great stab at it professor. I've never read the "Contributions" in its entirety, only in snippets. Though I have read "Being And Time" in its entirety many times, and poured over that book and studied it for years. B&T, for all its difficulty, is a clear-cut, systematic work of philosophy compared to "Contributions." I think you're right that, by that point, Heidegger felt that traditional use of language & thinking were, in some sense, just not up to the task -- that something would always be left out in the end. I know Heidegger tends to catch some flack, especially in "analytic" circles, for his obscure and almost mystical-sounding language in some of the later works. But when one considers that those were the writings of the same man who wrote "Being and Time" & "Basic Problems..", I feel that we owe it to Heidegger to at least attempt to follow his thinking and take it seriously. I'm an early Heidegger fan myself, though I still intend to take the dive one of these days into the later corpus, for better or worse! I think Being & Time is one of the richest, most brilliant works of philosophy ever produced. So I have to think there must be some value to be gleaned from the "Contributions." Just a matter of really wrestling with the text to gain the reward! Thanks for being brave enough and willing to not only take these writings seriously, but to openly discuss them and share your thoughts with the rest of us. Cheers to you Professor Bonevac!🍻
I’m currently getting my undergraduate in philosophy and I want to study with professor Bonevac for my graduate degree
Thank you, Professor! This video has inspired me to study Heidegger more carefully; I admit that I had somewhat written him off before.
Fantastic, thank you
Thanks so much for sharing!
Thanks for sharing knowledge always
Professor - what you are talking about is "participation," a favorite topic of Owen Barfield, who has been called "British Heidegger"
Thank you. :-) I am thrilled by the similarities I hear to ideas of Carl Gustav Jung (who formed, indeed, much of my own local network of meaning).
Kindly do a similar mini series on Bertrand Russell professor
Great idea!
Ereignis means something like occurrence, appropriation would be Aneignung. These are the meanings as commonly used in German, but the connotations are quite different than they are in English.
I could see how Ereignen could be used to express Aneignen which is probably where the interpretation comes from. The root of both words is eigen, meaning self or own, like proprius in appropriation.
The pronunciation of Ereignis is actually different. Since 'er' is just the prefix, it is one syllable followed by a glottal stop followed by the stressed syllable 'eig': er-'EIGnis.
Appropriation is also a word with a history, in that it was used by Marxist theorists back in the day. I think it is too much a Gesellschaft word. I think translators might as well stick with Ereignis in German, and footnote the possible meanings and renderings.
thank you. this seems very applicable to the current american political situation
I agree with Atman, either God provides final meaning, or we reach the end of human resources and find they are incapable of ultimate validation. Did Heidegger ever stop being a theologian? Brilliant as ever from DB, thanks for taking your break to make these videos about Heidegger. There's so much use of the German language in Heidegger that translation can't carry. Thanks again DB.
> either God provides final meaning, or we reach the end of human resources
Have you considered focusing your mind instead of passively waiting to be told what to do?
@@TeaParty1776 Do I wait for Vladimir Putin or Donald Trump to tell me what to do??
@@nicholasjagger6557 I, personally, follow the wit and wisdom of Keith Richards.
Having read an english translation, and asking my german teacher to give a few possibilities for meaning in contested translations, I really appreciate the extra contextual info. It's an interesting thought exercise to view Contributions from the "event" and "appropriation" frames of reference. The self actualization required to "be" in the event reference makes sense, one's own interpretation of the psychical world requires self reference over time and action requires the ability to use those experiences in the present. However, the "appropriation" reference frame makes the implications of this self referential necessity very dark. The meaning breaks down, in my opinion, because there are networks of meaning that produce truth, but these are merely emergent properties of a larger system that cannot coraltated by locality. I could eventually write the dictionary by parsing full english words from random pages in the library of babel, if it truly contains every combination of letters,numbers, ect. The locality comes from the event and meaning emerges along with logical operators like true and false. Simply adding the ability to compare two logical operators creates the conditions necessary for modern computers.
my comment about "The locality comes from the event and meaning emerges" is my philosophical interpretation of Dr.Steven Wolfram concept of a "single thread of time" required for human consciousness.
Prof. Bonevac, you have a very solid understanding of logic (I love your book "deduction"), so I was wondering how someone with this kind of analytic background comes to grips with philosophers that are (to my layman's mind) so lacking in clarity when it comes to providing definitions and argumentative steps. Do you try to reconstruct their arguments using your analytical toolkit, or do you put this toolkit aside and use a different approach to understand them?
Good question! I always try to read first to see how the philosopher I'm reading is seeing the world. I want to encounter their thought on their terms first. Then I try to reflect and use analytical tools. In Heidegger's case, after reading him, I was struck by his single-minded pursuit of what is fundamental based on the use of Kant's transcendental method. He's constantly applying transcendental arguments, and each stage of his thinking applies a transcendental argument to what he reached at the previous stage. Once I saw that, the rest, which had seemed obscure at first, seemed much clearer.
@@PhiloofAlexandria That makes sense, thank you for your reply!
How do we ascribe meaning to dreams? What is the grounded foundation by which one interprets dreams? Totally experiential?
@Daniel Bonevac, where to go from here? have any philosophers tried to pick up where heidegger left off?
The birds have much to say.
Dude I think someone's trying to steal your car.
Haha! It’s an particularly insistent bird who clearly doesn’t care for Heidegger and wants to disrupt the Professor’s talk.
Thank you Professor! It took an analytical philospher to make some sense out of Heidegger's unintelligible continental prose. Funny how the conclusion is that the german SOAB came to nothing in the end...
Here's a question: how is this sense of interpretation, or sense-making, different from (relatively) contemporary Kantians like Cassirer, who make a turn into linguistics in order to talk about pre-conditions for understanding? How is Heidegger's sense-making different from Kant's synthetic judgements?
The reason that I ask is that I'm very sure that Heidegger's sense-making is something more than simply Kant's synthetic judgement...but I'm not sure why.
try explicating why you think they're similar and the answer will reveal itself
@@ProfEllisandTheStudents I think I'm reducing sense-making to the mere formulation of apophantic assertions.
In quantum mechanics, whose apparati, their operation, and utilization I am unfamiliar with, there is this ambiguity in the "framework of meaning". There is this conflation of being and becoming.
Physicists measuring the position and momentum of particles like electrons tell us about indistinguishability.They cannot tell one electron from another: no physicist has ever measured the same electron twice. If they have they could not tell you. This begs the question how do they know its an electron. Usually measuring apparatus tells you a propert of the thing being measured, it doesn't tell you what the thing is. A scale tells you 5000 pounds, it doesnt tell you if its an elephant or a car. How do they know they aren't being fooled every time by something interacting with their equipment? Something acting like an electron but isn't. Is that a wasp flying by, or a bee 🐝, or a fly, or a gnat, or a dragonfly, or a beetle, or a ladybug or a...?
Paradoxes are seeming contradictions. Seeming because of literal translation. They can be "solved", however, by adding context. Not just meaning but meaning in a situation. "When you get to a fork in the road, take it."
The brain is an organ of time, it tells us the situation. The stomach is an organ of meaning, so is the tongue, ear, nose, skin, eye. Consciousness, however, is the final context: the source of being and becoming. Nature the source of every situation. The soul the connection between Nature and consciousness. The mind the connection between brain and consciousness. The heart the connection between the body and Nature.
3:41 can anyone tell me what the German word he uses here is?
Ereignis.
@@PhiloofAlexandria thank you sir
Listening to this I start to think that philosophy will give way to cognitive neuroscience.
Some hear in colors. Synesthesia.
Yes! I couldn't remember the name of the condition, but I've known someone like that.
Cant help thinking that Heidegger in his concrete actuality ,actualised the incapacity revealed in his philosophy . He sold himself to a bad cause in Nazi Germany ,even when it was to have been subsequently seen fit to absolve him of any culpability .
Free choice of conceptual scheme , conceptual scheme chosen in the urgency of maintaining social relationships in a local community .Then this as precondition of referring to particulars in a changing life world. Without sign equipment to support reference then no meaning - or perhaps instability, or inscrutability? .
Heidegger in the concrete actuality of all this must necessarily become hopelesy lost as he tries to orient himself and yes...he indeed accounts for this in his work by importing his idea of thrownness or entgeworfenheit. But he is lost in the first place with , so to speak , the local tail of particularity by virtue of method, conceptually wagging the entire dog of absolute conceptual scheme needed for certainty?
Enonay? Is an English word?
‘Enowning.’ And, no, it’s not, which is why I prefer ‘appropriation.’
@@PhiloofAlexandria German? It's hard to translate words that are more notions than anything. For instance the word information, today, has computer science as a context. Does jabberwocky mean dragon or monster?
Not entirely true when it comes to the continuity of visual perception. We can only differentiate visual difference below around 60 fps, so our perception is, much like a film, a stream of still images. The same is true for all our sensory mechanisms, which, to me, demonstrates that we are simply biological machines along with all other flora and fauna.
Once you give up on God, transcendental questions can't be answered. And even asking them is folly.
I would like to hear how you come to think that, assuming you don't hold this belief just from dogma.
As I see it, there are many different metaphysics to start from if you would like to tackle transcendental questions such as what the nessessary conditions for the possibility of something are. There is of course the monotheistic tradition. But there are other religious traditions as well which postulate multiple gods up to a sheer infinity of gods like in Shintoism where any lake or stone may have a kami. There are even spiritual traditions not postulating any god but rather first principles such as karma for the Buddhists. Thus, even if you only look inside the religious sphere, there are many possible ways of tackling transcendental questions starting from the religion's respective metaphysics. I do not see any problem in using any other starting point which might or might not include god(s) to discuss transcendental questions. What do you think?
... were none.
Gottem
The dang bird was all I could hear . You don’t have a room you could make these videos in or is annoying your audience part of your goal?