Going Deep on Heidegger, Heraclitus, and the Philosophy of Nature
Вставка
- Опубліковано 1 жов 2024
- Join Michael Michaelides in a profound exploration of Martin Heidegger's philosophy and its connection to the ancient wisdom of Heraclitus. In this episode of Ancient Greece Revisited, Michael delves into the depths of philosophical thought, discussing the intricate ideas of nature, hiddenness, and the eternal flow of existence. Inspired by Heidegger's interpretations and the timeless teachings of Heraclitus, this episode invites you to ponder the mysteries that lie beneath the surface of reality. Don't miss this enlightening journey into the depths of philosophical inquiry.
Support Ancient Greece Revisited:
🌐 Patreon: Support us here / ancientgreecerevisited
📺 Become a UA-cam member for exclusive content.
Join this channel
/ @ancientgreecerevisited
🔔 Subscribe Now:
/ @ancientgreecerevisited
Click to Subscribe and never miss an episode!
Join Our Community: Dive into discussions, share your thoughts, and become part of the 'Ancient Greece Revisited' family in the comments below!
Team:
📝 Presenter: Michalis Michailidis
🎬 Director and Editor: Adam Petritsis
#AncientGreeceRevisited #Philosophy #Heidegger #Heraclitus #DeepThoughts
In fact, the river cannot be stepped into, even once. I think Zeno, with his paradoxes, went deeper even than Heraclitus.
"I have read in Livy a hundred things that another man has not read in him. Plutarch has read in him a hundred besides the ones I could read, and perhaps besides what the author had put in."
- Montaigne
"Every true secret must, of itself, exclude the profane; whoever understands it is, of himself, by rights, an initiate."
- Novalis
Millerman is great
And a great teacher.
I am in love with your channel! Heraclitus is my favorite philosopher and you have helped me to dive deeper and one has found pearls and rubies of wisdom.
A genius is a man who has his madness,
but whose madness does not have him.
As I delved into physics, or the idea of physics, I realized that perception is all that I have. I cannot see the entire spectrum of what exists only what I perceive to exist. Even assisted by analog devices, I am limited in my perceptions. Space, matter and "dark matter" are constructs of my perceptions. Biological organisms likewise are limited by my perceptions. Each of us are conglomerate communities of organisms and biochemical interactions, our mind or life force governing our totality until we die. Life can be experienced, but never completely comprehended. For me that is enough.
Nicely put, however, the mystery that Heidegger is trying to convey is not about what is hidden FROM PERCEPTION, but what is hidden “while being revealed.” It’s a difficult one, for sure, but that’s what we need to apprehend.
Great work my friend. Thank you
I’ve only ever heard the name Heidegger when learning philosophy, such a complex and intense topic just in this conversation alone. When I was young I would pick out books from my mother’s shelf regarding topics specific to zen Buddhist philosophy among others, mostly because I liked the cover art. She would tell me “those are a bit heavy for you at this time” and I would try and read them anyway out of interest. She was right of course, but that didn’t mean I wasn’t left with deeper impressions that kept with me as I grew older. Lighting a small spark in someone, chances are that hearth for knowledge grows. Thanks for another great video ❤
Thanks for the little breakdown! You always re-stir my interest in philosophy
Re-kindling the fire more like it.
@@AncientGreeceRevisitedyes rekindle is the word, I later realized I should have used it… I find have to come back and rewatch these from time to time ;)
I am constructing a biographical documentary on Heraclitus, and this video just helped me a lot. Definitely going to reference this video on my sources. Way better than many "academic essays" I've read on the topic. Thanks for the insights.
Thanks, we live for comments like this one ;-) Send us a link when you have something ready!
@@AncientGreeceRevisited ua-cam.com/video/taU51yZVOjk/v-deo.htmlsi=O1mBq0HMrj5jKP7w
I think a more intuitive way I've found to describe why platonic forms might be incorrect (which is what you're doing with the DNA example I think) is to propose a thought experiment about humans. If you put a group of humans on a spaceship and sent them to a planet with different conditions, gave them 1 million years, and then put them on a spaceship and brought them back to Earth, which group of people would reflect the form of the human? Changes would have occurred in both populations over that amount of time, maybe massive ones depending on the pressures involved. They're both human and not the same, so there is no form of the human, it's the form of everything to change...panta rei
But you are falling in the same vicious circle that I am exposing here. Through what measure would these people.still be human? Why would they - like apes turning into men through evolution - not have morphed into something non-human? What would be the measure to judge one from the other? It would presuppose that you, the writer of this comment, KNOWS what is essential to the Human. The TRUE FORM of the human if you will, for otherwise there would be no way of telling whether the people you described have remained (kept the form) of evolved away from (changed the form) human beings. See what is happening here?
@@AncientGreeceRevisited Yes I suppose I am imagining some third perspective that knew both of these groups used to be one. But from each of the two groups perspectives they would never cease to be human because they would use the word to reference themselves to some image of themselves. So there is some kind of platonic form in there in the sense that the word needs reference, but to what? The problem with reference occurs when both groups get together, if both have kept using the term human to reference themselves in accordance to some image, and find that the image of the other does not match theirs. So what did the word ever actually reference? Maybe a concept? An idol? A vision?
The point is that it references something that is obvious when perceived. We have no problem identifying a human, but when asked to define just what that is, we are filled with doubts.
An much simpler example - rather than your alien-evolved humans - is actual human evolution. At which point, exactly, did the ape become man? What was that one genetic trait that when gained, moved the needle, so to speak, into another species? I mean, you can even think of a simpler example: boldness (or fatness, or shortness etc.) Which one hair was it, that once it fell, it rendered the head “bold?” And if we were to put it back, would the person stop being so?? It’s nearly impossible to tell, but we have no problem conceiving of the concept of a “bold head” or a “fat body.” We may argue on whether this concept applies to THIS particular head, but we know what we mean by “bold” (which does not mean a total absence of hair by the way). That is a FORM. Forms are not just shapes, you have to remember that. In fact, Plato used a different word than we do: είδος, which means “kind” or “species,” like a species of animal. Bravery, Love, Justice, Friendship, are all είδη, they are “kinds” of things that exist, just like squares and circles are. So once you broaden the concept of Forms to include something like “boldness” you can see the riddle that sparks Plato’s imagination.
"You are a puppet,
but in the hands of the infinite,
which may be your own."
- Antonio Porchia
looking forward to this one!
Excellent video and introduction to Heidegger.
Thank you!
Thanks for another interesting video. I would be thrilled if, one of these days, you told us what you think of defenders of free-market capitalism such as Adam Smith and Friedrich Hayek. (You and Hayek have at least one thing in common: you are both strongly opposed to scientism.)
Could I use part of this video in one of my own videos? I would set up a link to this video and your channel. Your ideas on 'light' are very interesting!
By all means, as far as you link back to us,
great video!!
Thank you!
👏👏👏🥰✨
Beautiful, visuals helped me contemplate and imagine the concepts together with the beautiful metaphors. The scientific references where unneeded and mentally distracting.
Thank you
You speak from the perspective of those already converted (to philosophy). The scientific references are exactly what is typically thrown back at us when suggesting that philosophy has still a seat on the table for understanding nature. Trust me, they are there for those who would smirk and dismiss Heidegger as “doesn’t get science!”