28:49 James mentions a passage from one of Heidegger’s lectures in 1950’s distinguishing between the god of the philosophers and the God people pray to… can you provide a citation for that quote? I’m fascinated.
"This ground itself needs to be properly accounted for by that for which it accounts, that is, by the causation through the supremely original matter - and that is the cause as causa sui. This is the right name for the god of philosophy. Man can neither pray nor sacrifice to this god. Before the causa sui, man can neither fall to his knees in awe nor can he play music and dance before this god." - Quote by Martin Heidegger
Fascinating. Though I think that the "analogy of being" can easily be a way of covering over the fact that, as per much post-Heideggerian thought, the conclusion of cosmological arguments has not been soundly demonstrated to be transcendent of physical being, let alone the Biblical personal God.
@@JohannesNiederhauser Cosmological arguments make the jump to metaphysics which Heidegger has shown is unjustified. How do we get from meaning within the environment of the human to that outside of it? Frankly the need for an absolute (e.g. the Contingency Argument’s premise, “something, like a cosmos, made of contingent things is contingent”) was never properly justified. Moreover, as this discussion made even clearer through Heidegger, such an absolute Prime Mover seems at best a stripped down version of the God of the People of Israel. One cannot simply use the Analogia Entis to jump either of those gaps as, in this video, Dr Orr implies is possible - though I realise it was a brief discussion.
I never thought that I'd be so close to faith in the "existence" of God. This was an incredible conversation. Thank you!
One of the very best on UA-cam!
Stunningly lucid and productive conversation. Please continue your work🙏🙏
Really enjoyed Orr’s take on Heidegger. Nice job of not interrupting, Johannes! (Speaks volumes about your own genuine commitment to knowledge.)
Thank you very much indeed!
Erudite conversation, the best of its kind. Very informing and entertaining
Birds singing in the background is both ironically and most beautifully corresponding to your topics. Thank you!
Great conversation thanks Johannes.
Just starting to read and appreciate Heidegger. Really enjoy conversations like this.
Dr Orr's profile is refreshing reading!
28:49 James mentions a passage from one of Heidegger’s lectures in 1950’s distinguishing between the god of the philosophers and the God people pray to… can you provide a citation for that quote? I’m fascinated.
"This ground itself needs to be properly accounted for by that for which it accounts, that is, by the causation through the supremely original matter - and that is the cause as causa sui. This is the right name for the god of philosophy. Man can neither pray nor sacrifice to this god. Before the causa sui, man can neither fall to his knees in awe nor can he play music and dance before this god."
- Quote by Martin Heidegger
Whats the Name of the lecture ?
Fascinating. Though I think that the "analogy of being" can easily be a way of covering over the fact that, as per much post-Heideggerian thought, the conclusion of cosmological arguments has not been soundly demonstrated to be transcendent of physical being, let alone the Biblical personal God.
Say more please
@@JohannesNiederhauser Cosmological arguments make the jump to metaphysics which Heidegger has shown is unjustified. How do we get from meaning within the environment of the human to that outside of it? Frankly the need for an absolute (e.g. the Contingency Argument’s premise, “something, like a cosmos, made of contingent things is contingent”) was never properly justified.
Moreover, as this discussion made even clearer through Heidegger, such an absolute Prime Mover seems at best a stripped down version of the God of the People of Israel.
One cannot simply use the Analogia Entis to jump either of those gaps as, in this video, Dr Orr implies is possible - though I realise it was a brief discussion.
How necessary is it to read Husserl first?
Not necessary
What would Heidegger think about the concept of the 'soul?'
You will find answers in his “Contributions to Philosophy”
@@JohannesNiederhauser
My thanks!