Have you ever read any David Bentley Hart? He has an interesting paper on Heidegger called "The Offering of Names: Metaphysics, Nihilism, and Analogy" in which he argues that Heidegger fails to understand the ontological difference between Being and beings. For Heidegger, Being discloses beings as beings and the nothing discloses to us that beings are beings. Hence, Being and the nothing are essentially polar opposites for him. But Being can have no opposite if it is truly ontologically different from all beings; it stands over against neither existence nor non-existence within finite reality, but is the "is" both of "it is" and "it is not," and so the difference of one from the other is something utterly distinct from the difference of being from both.
Dr. Sadler, I've had a lot of people invest their time into me. Many of them were only allowed to hang around a few years of my life. I have a hard time keeping hold of the memories, but I feel their contributions in the empty spaces...I never lose meaning. Many of my memories have been lost somewhere along the way, but, when I sink into myself, I don't feel alone. Where do the lost memories go? Maybe I can see them down in the deep on clearer days. All of us have a deep end. Why do forgotten memories (i.e. dreams/daydreams/impressions of people) sometimes materialize next to us? He is down there still, and I feel that I owe. I owe others for what you have given to me. You changed my life. You're intelligent but still sensitive enough to laugh. This is a message for God to pick up at the end of time. I'm only a solitude in the making. Have you ever listened to Trent Reznor's scores? I'm listening to "The Girl with the Dragon Tattoo". It's existential, bro. I feel like I'm learning new feelings.
Thank you for this clear lecture. I am going to reflect on the intellects ability to negate, that the scope of negation is set by the type of object that is negated, and the priority of nicht to the intellects power of negation ( the logic process of negation does not create either a concept of nothing, or nothing but rather, the possibility of nothing is the condition of the intellects process of negation).
Great lecture. I see now where Sartre got his formulations on nothingness, as this lecture came from 1929 and Being and Nothingness some ten years later. I always thought Sartre as an improvement on Heidegger, so I wonder what he did improve upon. He mentions him a lot in the book. Also, I wonder what amount of credit Heidegger gives to Husserl on his explorations of science. And what credit he gives to Parmenides. I'm guessing all received a fair share. I am also guessing that Sartre's improvements would be the understanding of the total system he offers in Being and Nothingness vs. whatever Heidegger failed to complete or fully understand. Still, I am really shocked how in this 1929 lecture you analyzed, that there is a pretty complete view here of the somethingness of nothingness.
Excellent video from an excellent teacher. I apologize if this is a bit off topic, but where do I begin to read Heidegger, or anyone else in the phenomenological school of thought? From what my philosophy professor told me, Being and Time is pretty dense and he didn't recommend I begin with that. What say you Dr. Sadler?
Great video thanks. Just an unrelated question, do you think postmodernism the philosophy by Foucault and Derrida and such was a scam? In the way it is being used by universities and feminism.
I think that anyone who reads Foucault and Derrida will realize that they have quite different projects, and that most of the people who talk about "post-modernism", for and against, have little idea what that term would mean, or whether Foucault and Derrida fit into it or not
No response needed here, just a fun thought I had decades ago. I remember thinking if we put nothing at one end of a line and everything at another in 2 infinite directions (like absolute zero and the speed of light) and then think that if you could contain the idea of everything all at once, it would blur into something like a static grayness tv screen...and that would be the same as nothing...so absolute everything would become the same as nothing. There needs to be separation of things in order for anything to exist. But any 'thing' has the background of nothingness or everythingness. I think I was studying the idea of "Ein Sof Aur" coming into 'Malkhut' in Kabbalah when I thought that. It's all fun stuff. Rock on philosophy friends.
Can't resist to reply as i'm in middle of processing this thing: I've been wondering around with Aristotelian categories (by Thomas Aquinas) and comparing them to Hegel's universal and particular. Aquinas says that we see things simply first and then start to add things up as they are revealed to us, so first we see very generic the 'Thing" and start to apply layers of categories over it. For Hegel it's almost polar opposite, first we see everything and then we start to particularize, so first we see the 'Thing' and then we start to strip it from layers until we find whatever we find. And when i started to think about it i'm not sure if they even are different: for Aquinas the 'Thing' is next to nothing, and for Hegel the 'Thing' is next to everything... So, are nothing and everything the same? I'm not expert on Kabbalah (have studied it thou as part of my gnostic/hermetic/alchemical path) But i don't think it's just Kabbalah: For some gnostic systems Abraxas (the Greatest God) is giving potential, God (the Sun) is using this potential for positive (=Life, everything, Good) while Devil (the Moon) is using it for negative (=Death, nothing, Evil). We humans stand as battleground between these two, sort of sucking in both everything and nothing and producing something out of it. But it all stems out from Abraxas and this is why nothing and everything seems to be the same. I've also seen in Kabbalah the idea that there is negative/dark/bad Tree of Life bellow 'Malkhut', which sort of plays with this same idea. I must admit that mystic inside me is very intrigued.
As an autodidact trying to read primary sources, I can't even begin to tell you how much I appreciate these videos.
Glad to read it!
thank you for your hard work, these videos help a lot in making sense of this reality .
You're very welcome
a trick : you can watch movies at Flixzone. I've been using them for watching loads of movies during the lockdown.
@Dwayne Issac yup, I've been watching on Flixzone for since december myself :)
@Dwayne Issac Definitely, been using flixzone for since november myself =)
Brilliant series! Thank you.
You're very welcome!
Thank you for your contribution Dr. Sadler. May it serve the purpose you intended for it.
You're welcome!
Have you ever read any David Bentley Hart? He has an interesting paper on Heidegger called "The Offering of Names: Metaphysics, Nihilism, and Analogy" in which he argues that Heidegger fails to understand the ontological difference between Being and beings. For Heidegger, Being discloses beings as beings and the nothing discloses to us that beings are beings. Hence, Being and the nothing are essentially polar opposites for him. But Being can have no opposite if it is truly ontologically different from all beings; it stands over against neither existence nor non-existence within finite reality, but is the "is" both of "it is" and "it is not," and so the difference of one from the other is something utterly distinct from the difference of being from both.
I've read Hart, yes
Dr. Sadler,
I've had a lot of people invest their time into me. Many of them were only allowed to hang around a few years of my life. I have a hard time keeping hold of the memories, but I feel their contributions in the empty spaces...I never lose meaning. Many of my memories have been lost somewhere along the way, but, when I sink into myself, I don't feel alone. Where do the lost memories go? Maybe I can see them down in the deep on clearer days. All of us have a deep end. Why do forgotten memories (i.e. dreams/daydreams/impressions of people) sometimes materialize next to us? He is down there still, and I feel that I owe. I owe others for what you have given to me. You changed my life. You're intelligent but still sensitive enough to laugh. This is a message for God to pick up at the end of time. I'm only a solitude in the making. Have you ever listened to Trent Reznor's scores? I'm listening to "The Girl with the Dragon Tattoo". It's existential, bro. I feel like I'm learning new feelings.
Yes - even when we owe, it's typically not just that person who we have in mind who we owe. . . .
Thank you for this clear lecture. I am going to reflect on the intellects ability to negate, that the scope of negation is set by the type of object that is negated, and the priority of nicht to the intellects power of negation ( the logic process of negation does not create either a concept of nothing, or nothing but rather, the possibility of nothing is the condition of the intellects process of negation).
You're welcome! More coming in a few further videos about that
Thank you Dr. Sadler.
You're very welcome!
Great lecture. I see now where Sartre got his formulations on nothingness, as this lecture came from 1929 and Being and Nothingness some ten years later. I always thought Sartre as an improvement on Heidegger, so I wonder what he did improve upon. He mentions him a lot in the book. Also, I wonder what amount of credit Heidegger gives to Husserl on his explorations of science. And what credit he gives to Parmenides. I'm guessing all received a fair share. I am also guessing that Sartre's improvements would be the understanding of the total system he offers in Being and Nothingness vs. whatever Heidegger failed to complete or fully understand. Still, I am really shocked how in this 1929 lecture you analyzed, that there is a pretty complete view here of the somethingness of nothingness.
Yes - you'll find Sartre's reinterpretation of nothing early on in Being and Nothingness
Funny, entertaining, educational, thought-provoking.
Thanks, Dr. Sadler
You're welcome!
Excellent video from an excellent teacher. I apologize if this is a bit off topic, but where do I begin to read Heidegger, or anyone else in the phenomenological school of thought? From what my philosophy professor told me, Being and Time is pretty dense and he didn't recommend I begin with that. What say you Dr. Sadler?
I'd start with this very essay. That's why I'm creating these videos on it
Gregory B. Sadler thank you sir!
Great video thanks.
Just an unrelated question, do you think postmodernism the philosophy by Foucault and Derrida and such was a scam? In the way it is being used by universities and feminism.
I think that anyone who reads Foucault and Derrida will realize that they have quite different projects, and that most of the people who talk about "post-modernism", for and against, have little idea what that term would mean, or whether Foucault and Derrida fit into it or not
yer awsome
Thanks Matth!
Have you taken some German lessons? When your speaking German words it sounds pretty good, just like hochdeutsch.
I was stationed in Germany, not far from Nuremberg
No response needed here, just a fun thought I had decades ago. I remember thinking if we put nothing at one end of a line and everything at another in 2 infinite directions (like absolute zero and the speed of light) and then think that if you could contain the idea of everything all at once, it would blur into something like a static grayness tv screen...and that would be the same as nothing...so absolute everything would become the same as nothing. There needs to be separation of things in order for anything to exist. But any 'thing' has the background of nothingness or everythingness. I think I was studying the idea of "Ein Sof Aur" coming into 'Malkhut' in Kabbalah when I thought that. It's all fun stuff. Rock on philosophy friends.
Can't resist to reply as i'm in middle of processing this thing: I've been wondering around with Aristotelian categories (by Thomas Aquinas) and comparing them to Hegel's universal and particular. Aquinas says that we see things simply first and then start to add things up as they are revealed to us, so first we see very generic the 'Thing" and start to apply layers of categories over it. For Hegel it's almost polar opposite, first we see everything and then we start to particularize, so first we see the 'Thing' and then we start to strip it from layers until we find whatever we find.
And when i started to think about it i'm not sure if they even are different: for Aquinas the 'Thing' is next to nothing, and for Hegel the 'Thing' is next to everything... So, are nothing and everything the same?
I'm not expert on Kabbalah (have studied it thou as part of my gnostic/hermetic/alchemical path) But i don't think it's just Kabbalah: For some gnostic systems Abraxas (the Greatest God) is giving potential, God (the Sun) is using this potential for positive (=Life, everything, Good) while Devil (the Moon) is using it for negative (=Death, nothing, Evil). We humans stand as battleground between these two, sort of sucking in both everything and nothing and producing something out of it. But it all stems out from Abraxas and this is why nothing and everything seems to be the same.
I've also seen in Kabbalah the idea that there is negative/dark/bad Tree of Life bellow 'Malkhut', which sort of plays with this same idea.
I must admit that mystic inside me is very intrigued.