Why you gotta ruin a stoner's delusions of actually attending a lecture, and all the dynamics that come with it. With these lectures, i always envision myself sitting on the 4th row, at the very end, so i can slip away when the going gets rough! The Wittgenstein and Heidegger ones always pissed me off, and i speak german fluently! But i always come back to them!
A certain poem for you: We cannot know his legendary head with eyes like ripening fruit. And yet his torso is still suffused with brilliance from inside, like a lamp, in which his gaze, now turned to low, gleams in all its power. Otherwise the curved breast could not dazzle you so, nor could a smile run through the placid hips and thighs to that dark center where procreation flared. Otherwise this stone would seem defaced beneath the translucent cascade of the shoulders and would not glisten like a wild beast's fur: would not, from all the borders of itself, burst like a star: for here there is no place that does not see you. You must change your life. -Rilke, *Archaic Torso of Apollo*
Thanks Tao. I remember downloading and listening to all of these lectures in 2008 or 2009, and it was a wonderful experience. Made me love Bert as if I was his student (I did email him with a couple of questions and he replied!). It's lovely to see him like this.
Damn this was randomly recommended to me and I realized I was actually in that class that day. I forgot I even took Heidegger with Dreyfus, I thought I took some other course.
Reading division I without taking into account division II is silly and leads to the perception of Heidegger as an "existentialist." Everything in Division I must be rei-interpreted in terms of temporality (the task of division II). This is why division I is explicitly called by Heidegger "preliminary." Scholarship on Heidegger's S&Z has improved greatly since Dreyfus.
Page 309 depict = (T) 1 to represent by drawing sculpture, painting, etc.; delineate; portray. 2 to represent in words; describe. [C17: from L depingere, from pingere to paint]
Dreyfus seems not to know about the poll conducted amongst professional philosophers in 1999 about which philosophical work was the most important in the 20th.c. Wittgenstein's Philosophical Investigations came top, followed by Heidegger's Being and Time. Many of the features Dreyfus describes as outstanding in Heidegger are also found in Wittgenstein, who worked in the analytic tradition. Contrary to Heidegger, Wittgenstein never lost his ethical compass. Lee Braver's book (2014) Groundless Grounds: a study of Wittgenstein and Heidegger, MIT Press, Cambridge, Ma.
I don't know what you mean when you say "Wittgenstein worked in the analytic tradition" as "analytic philosophy" was not a codified practice, tradition or method at that time and the dubious "analytic/continental" distinction was not (and never has been) a meaningful way of distinguishing genres of philosophy. At a very basic level, both Heidegger and Wittgenstein, as are most early 20th c. thinkers, are reacting to Kant. On the one hand, the logical and linguistic analysis developed in Wittgenstein's Tractatus is in service of a transcendental (in the Kantian sense) account of the limits of meaning -- both a development of and significant break from the Kantian transcendental account of the limits of knowledge. On the other, Heidegger's phenomenological method analyzes the practical and embedded contexts of Dasein to reveal the transcendental conditions of those modes of its experience. These are obviously distinct projects and more significantly, each marks an important development in the Kantian aftermath that is modern philosophy. You cannot simply say one is "more important" than the other because of some stupid poll and suggest that Dreyfus or anyone interested in Heidegger is wasting his time.
@@caleb7980 The projects are distinct, but if you read Lee Braver's book (2014) Groundless Grounds: a study of Wittgenstein and Heidegger, MIT Press, Cambridge, Ma., you will find a lot of complementary and overlapping themes in their work. I didn't state that one was more important than the other, but simply reported on a poll carried out in 1999 with US professional philosophers. I referred to the poll to balance Dreyfus' somewhat individualistic opinion about Heidegger's supreme status. Furthermore, I never stated that Dreyfus or anyone else was wasting their time with Heidegger. On the contrary, I am very appreciative of his work and have emails from him. 1 Tao Ruspoli
But nature or physis ( φύσης) is said to be perpetual, as the tree produces what has the potency to be a tree. The purpose of what is made by man is in the man that made it, i.e. what is the purpose of David-it's found in the formal cause that MachelAngelo made from the material cause and the purpose was in Machel Angelo, just as the purpose of the comment is in me. The bed that the carpenter makes is not perpetual as from the bed there arises vegetation, plant or another tree and not another bed. The "Artificial Intelligence" is Artificial but not "intelligent" as Intelligence predicated of that which possess Intellect alone, by which it knows what kind of a thing it is, for eg. "Socrates is intelligent", "Philo is intelligent", etc. Also, isn't it obvious that "visson" predicated of a camera, for eg. "computer vission" is no more vission than the "smartness" attributed to "phone" in "smart phone", "eros" attributed to a "video"( as in the case with pornography). Few mistake the art or immitation to be that which it is the immitation of. Your missing 19th cen. men of logic like Boole, Mill, Frege, etc. and drawing hasty conclusions from Aristotle to "artificial intelligence" logic like grammar differs from thinker to thinker and a kind of logic emerged in 19th cen. different from ancient and even in ancient times the Stoics had some kind of logic differing again from the logic Aristotle.
When does the lecture begin? Ah about min. 20. Then there is gossip about different philosophers about Heidegger. I think Heidegger is highliy overestimated and his book "Sein und Zeit" is almost unreadable also for a German speaker. To be hardly understandable is the spleen of Heidegger. Of course he was a natsi, see his inaugural speech as dean of the university of Freiburg 1933 "Die Selbstbehauptung der deutschen Universität" (the self-assertation of the German University. You find the full English text on the internet.
Yea because I'm sure you speak for all Germans in your analysis of Heidegger. This is the most reductionist analysis I have seen and it is clear that his phenomenology can be understood independent of a Nazi framework.
The master worker becomes "one" with his work; thus he or she is not "using" anything, but is "a part of everything." So, for me, I am not "apart from" life or others or nature or God. I am "a part of" this so-called "creation." If you should find yourself seriously depressed, and hence "apart from," lots of help is available nowadays, for example, therapists, certain excellent new drugs, getting a job, meditating, jogging, going to church. Lots of options. As John Lennon sings/shouts, "Join the human race!" (I beleive that was in "Instant Karma."
@@danieldanchambliss8616 their use of American psychological or psychiatric language to explain Heideggerian terminology like anxiety etc. Completely wrong and makes sense coming from the artificial consumerist plastic American mind
For the proverbial floor sitters of UA-cam: the lecture proper starts at about the 20 minute mark.
20:06 "Here we go"
@@bart-v lol came here to drop 20:06
Thanks!!!
20 minutes of self-complacency
Why you gotta ruin a stoner's delusions of actually attending a lecture, and all the dynamics that come with it.
With these lectures, i always envision myself sitting on the 4th row, at the very end, so i can slip away when the going gets rough!
The Wittgenstein and Heidegger ones always pissed me off, and i speak german fluently! But i always come back to them!
"The whole structure of Foucault is the same as the structure of Heidegger." And, "Nietzsche won out in the end." Absolutely fascinating.
You can just skip to 20:06 where the actual lecture/talk begins...
Thanks so much for this, Tao. Dreyfus’ lectures on B&T changed my life. It’s so cool to have the video to go along with the audio.
A certain poem for you:
We cannot know his legendary head
with eyes like ripening fruit. And yet his torso
is still suffused with brilliance from inside,
like a lamp, in which his gaze, now turned to low,
gleams in all its power. Otherwise
the curved breast could not dazzle you so, nor could
a smile run through the placid hips and thighs
to that dark center where procreation flared.
Otherwise this stone would seem defaced
beneath the translucent cascade of the shoulders
and would not glisten like a wild beast's fur:
would not, from all the borders of itself,
burst like a star: for here there is no place
that does not see you. You must change your life.
-Rilke, *Archaic Torso of Apollo*
Thanks - you saved me 20 minutes I’ll never have to not get back
Thank you for posting these. I miss him. Unlike most Heidegger scholars, he was willing to share.
I ended up doing an MA in philosophy bc of his lectures on UA-cam
can I find the audio as a podcast?
at 15:14 begin ... before that is just housekeeping
this is a great treat! 😃😄
thank you for the upload
This is a real gift, very grateful.
I'm shocked at how people came to his lecture without reading. Thank you Tao for giving us this opportunity.
So grateful to be able to see Bert in action after yrs of listening constantly 👂
Thanks for watching!
Thanks Tao. I remember downloading and listening to all of these lectures in 2008 or 2009, and it was a wonderful experience. Made me love Bert as if I was his student (I did email him with a couple of questions and he replied!). It's lovely to see him like this.
This is so amazing Tao. I'm used to just the podcast audio of the lectures. What a great gift 🎁.
Where do I find the complete lessons?
Thank you so much for this, Tao! This is really electrifying and has inspired me after a slump to continue doing philosophy :) Shoutout from Singapore
Thanks for watching!
Thank you.
Thanks for watching!
Damn this was randomly recommended to me and I realized I was actually in that class that day. I forgot I even took Heidegger with Dreyfus, I thought I took some other course.
that's amazing!
how could you forget that ?
@@cmo5150 wasn’t the most reliable student
Reading division I without taking into account division II is silly and leads to the perception of Heidegger as an "existentialist." Everything in Division I must be rei-interpreted in terms of temporality (the task of division II). This is why division I is explicitly called by Heidegger "preliminary." Scholarship on Heidegger's S&Z has improved greatly since Dreyfus.
Thanks for this. Do you have the rest of these lectures?
the nitty gritty starts about 26:00
Page 309
depict = (T) 1 to represent by drawing sculpture, painting, etc.; delineate; portray. 2 to represent in words; describe. [C17: from L depingere, from pingere to paint]
We had one of those TA and he sat by the door for one day then he just walked
Dreyfus seems not to know about the poll conducted amongst professional philosophers in 1999 about which philosophical work was the most important in the 20th.c. Wittgenstein's Philosophical Investigations came top, followed by Heidegger's Being and Time. Many of the features Dreyfus describes as outstanding in Heidegger are also found in Wittgenstein, who worked in the analytic tradition. Contrary to Heidegger, Wittgenstein never lost his ethical compass. Lee Braver's book (2014) Groundless Grounds: a study of Wittgenstein and Heidegger, MIT Press, Cambridge, Ma.
I don't know what you mean when you say "Wittgenstein worked in the analytic tradition" as "analytic philosophy" was not a codified practice, tradition or method at that time and the dubious "analytic/continental" distinction was not (and never has been) a meaningful way of distinguishing genres of philosophy. At a very basic level, both Heidegger and Wittgenstein, as are most early 20th c. thinkers, are reacting to Kant. On the one hand, the logical and linguistic analysis developed in Wittgenstein's Tractatus is in service of a transcendental (in the Kantian sense) account of the limits of meaning -- both a development of and significant break from the Kantian transcendental account of the limits of knowledge. On the other, Heidegger's phenomenological method analyzes the practical and embedded contexts of Dasein to reveal the transcendental conditions of those modes of its experience. These are obviously distinct projects and more significantly, each marks an important development in the Kantian aftermath that is modern philosophy. You cannot simply say one is "more important" than the other because of some stupid poll and suggest that Dreyfus or anyone interested in Heidegger is wasting his time.
@@caleb7980 The projects are distinct, but if you read Lee Braver's book (2014) Groundless Grounds: a study of Wittgenstein and Heidegger, MIT Press, Cambridge, Ma., you will find a lot of complementary and overlapping themes in their work.
I didn't state that one was more important than the other, but simply reported on a poll carried out in 1999 with US professional philosophers. I referred to the poll to balance Dreyfus' somewhat individualistic opinion about Heidegger's supreme status. Furthermore, I never stated that Dreyfus or anyone else was wasting their time with Heidegger. On the contrary, I am very appreciative of his work and have emails from him.
1
Tao Ruspoli
It really starts on minute 26
Please, sir…may I have some more?
Uploading more now:) Thanks for watching
@@ruspoli Thanks for uploading these! Such a treasure to not just listen to him giving these lectures.
28 mins is the start of H.
20:05 Why Heidegger is so impotant?
But nature or physis ( φύσης) is said to be perpetual, as the tree produces what has the potency to be a tree. The purpose of what is made by man is in the man that made it, i.e. what is the purpose of David-it's found in the formal cause that MachelAngelo made from the material cause and the purpose was in Machel Angelo, just as the purpose of the comment is in me.
The bed that the carpenter makes is not perpetual as from the bed there arises vegetation, plant or another tree and not another bed. The "Artificial Intelligence" is Artificial but not "intelligent" as Intelligence predicated of that which possess Intellect alone, by which it knows what kind of a thing it is, for eg. "Socrates is intelligent", "Philo is intelligent", etc.
Also, isn't it obvious that "visson" predicated of a camera, for eg. "computer vission" is no more vission than the "smartness" attributed to "phone" in "smart phone", "eros" attributed to a "video"( as in the case with pornography).
Few mistake the art or immitation to be that which it is the immitation of. Your missing 19th cen. men of logic like Boole, Mill, Frege, etc. and drawing hasty conclusions from Aristotle to "artificial intelligence" logic like grammar differs from thinker to thinker and a kind of logic emerged in 19th cen. different from ancient and even in ancient times the Stoics had some kind of logic differing again from the logic Aristotle.
Really starts at 27:07. All preceding is preliminary jockeying.
When does the lecture begin? Ah about min. 20. Then there is gossip about different philosophers about Heidegger. I think Heidegger is highliy overestimated and his book "Sein und Zeit" is almost unreadable also for a German speaker. To be hardly understandable is the spleen of Heidegger. Of course he was a natsi, see his inaugural speech as dean of the university of Freiburg 1933 "Die Selbstbehauptung der deutschen Universität" (the self-assertation of the German University. You find the full English text on the internet.
When I'm 70. If they let me come get me and pay me. And they wanna make it a movie.
Yea because I'm sure you speak for all Germans in your analysis of Heidegger. This is the most reductionist analysis I have seen and it is clear that his phenomenology can be understood independent of a Nazi framework.
The master worker becomes "one" with his work; thus he or she is not "using" anything, but is "a part of everything." So, for me, I am not "apart from" life or others or nature or God. I am "a part of" this so-called "creation." If you should find yourself seriously depressed, and hence "apart from," lots of help is available nowadays, for example, therapists, certain excellent new drugs, getting a job, meditating, jogging, going to church. Lots of options. As John Lennon sings/shouts, "Join the human race!" (I beleive that was in "Instant Karma."
Dreyfus and the American perspective got it all wrong
Briefly, how? Even one sentence would be helpful...
@@danieldanchambliss8616 their use of American psychological or psychiatric language to explain Heideggerian terminology like anxiety etc. Completely wrong and makes sense coming from the artificial consumerist plastic American mind
@@TheDavddd thank you!
20 minutes into this and he has not got into the material yet. Wasted a lot of time.