"Only a God Can Save Us" | Martin Heidegger & Nazism | A Film by Jeffrey Van Davis
Вставка
- Опубліковано 28 гру 2022
- Martin Heidegger is considered to be the most profound thinker of the Twentieth century. His magnum opus, Being and Time was published in 1927 and had the equivalent impact on philosophy that Einstein's theory of relativity, published in 1906, had on physics and Freud's theory of personality, published in 1902, had on the field of psychology.
In May 1933, Heidegger, Germany's most famous philosopher, joined the Nazi Party and became the first Nazi Rector of a German University.
In an interview in Der Spiegel in 1976, Heidegger reiterated his distaste for democratic society and modernity. His final words of despair: Only a God Can Save Us.
Timestamps:
01:41 Memorial and recollections
07:00 Messkirch
10:55 Early life
14:04 World War I
23:12 Being and Time
36:10 The Rectorship
45:37 Kristallnacht
51:55 Edith Stein
56:18 Hiding from the French
1:01:26 Denazification
1:11:23 Hannah Arendt
1:13:38 Paul Celan
1:19:00 Epilogue
1:22:42 Shame and Guilt
We would especially like to thank Jeffrey Van Davis for allowing us to show his film on our channel.
Other links:
Website: www.stephenhicks.org/
Facebook: / srchicks
Twitter: / srchicks
Instagram: / stephenhicksphilosophy
![Rick Roderick on Heidegger - The Rejection of Humanism [full length]](http://i.ytimg.com/vi/sDqDJJcJAOg/mqdefault.jpg)
![Rick Roderick on Heidegger - The Rejection of Humanism [full length]](/img/tr.png)
"Hannah Arendt is again (!) being manipulated by Heidegger." Well, I am not sure if the filmmaker should say such phrases without any kind of evidence or even let Arendt spoke here.
It's also flawed to dismiss Arendt's concept of the banality of evil as a banal statement. It is a profound insight into an aspect of human nature.
they are lovers.
@@rolandayers6726 Its really not though. Her thesis took Eichmann’s sob story at face value and sanitized him of actual agency. She’s also extremely biased, having been taught in all the same schools as the N@zi ruling elite. Its safe to say that she wouldve been alongside Heidegger working for the N@zi party were she not J&w&sh. She was in all of the same circles as he and the other intellectuals who supported the regime, and sure enough, was still friends with many of these folks after their reputations were rehabilitated after the war. Its exactly what happened in other industries with folks like Alan Dulles bringing N@zi intelligencia over via ‘Operation Paperclip”.
The concept of “the banality of evil” is not exactly a universal insight, its the subjective opinion of an extremely biased and compromised individual who had an incentive to rehabilitate colleagues such as Heidegger in the eyes of the public. To this end, she wrote an uncritical account of how Eichmann was supposedly lacking agency of choice in his crimes, and how he was almost a victim of his circumstances more than he was responsible for his choices and his actions.
Well , the same universities that churned out N@zi intellectuals such as Heidegger churned out her as well. They were in the same classes together before the N@zi period. So its not surprising that she would write an acclaimed rehabilitation of the N@zi intelligencia by explicitly framing them as ‘not monsters’. Whats telling is that Arendts philosophical rationale obviously does not apply universally to all murderers, just the ones who chose to take part in the industrial h@l@c@ust. The regular murderers are absolutely still responsible for their actions, whereas people like Eichmann are literally ‘uber mensch’ and are above the simplistic morality of the commoners.
In reality Arendt has popular and best selling works, but they are so compromised by her biases that it makes them closer to personal literature than anything approaching social theory.
@@ultravioletiris6241 Congrats. This is the most idiotic thing I have read all year long, just unbelievably stupid, they should give you a prize for it, perhaps forced education, many years.
It also seems like a stretch to accuse Arendt of antisemitism.
Thanks for uploading the entire film. I've been aware of this film for some years, and I'd seen the first 20 minutes or so that was online. Thanks for making the whole thing available.
Thank you for uploading this film.
I enjoyed the interview Jeffrey Van Davis did on Stephen Hicks' UA-cam channel. Dr. Hicks is a fantastic interviewer who asks insightful questions, and hearing Mr. Davis discuss the film gave me a deeper appreciation for his effort in making it.
I do have one comment about the film. At 35:30 to 35:50 or so, the speaker discusses how Heidegger's thought is an appeal to a "heathen" or pagan conception of a temporal, mutable God. I think this is evidence that Heidegger is a Process thinker. That's a claim I've made for years, but Heideggerians with whom I've tried to discuss this have been offended at the suggestion. I've never been able to sort out why it's such a contentious claim.
Calvin Schrag wrote a paper that I think relates to this in Dialectica Vol. 13, No. 1 in March of 1959, but I've no access to JSTOR and can't seem to find it elsewhere.
Decades ago, I remember an LSD experience leading me to a sense that the incidents and phenomena of life that we normally take for granted seemed so arbitrary, absurd--but more, that my encounters with them were taking place against the background of an unseen, deeper fountain of existence from which they poured forth. This perception strikes me as having a lot in common with Heidegger's ideas of beings and Being.
Hari
There is a wise saying from India: a wise man can also learn from a fool, if he happen to say something tangible.
The diagnosis of western civilization is right by Nietzsche: nihilism has taken over (and doing it more and more, see postmodernism, the ugly naked pure fom of nihilism).
The question "Was ist Sein" or greek "ai on) is the same in Veda of India: (athatha) brahma jijnasa - now, therefore, being a human being (Dasein) it is time to ask about Brahman, the "Being" "Ultimate reality"
To point out this is essential, whether the person is this or that.
If all persons' contribution of thoughts are invalidated because of their opinion and behaviour, then we have cancel theory where it is up to mighty of the current to accept or cancel people.
Give credit where credit is due. Heidegger gave a diagnosis, like Nietzsche and Husserl and others, and pointed on an essential point missing: the quest for truth and reality.
Not doing that and claiming it is irrelevant, that is nihilism. And nihilism means "might makes right".
Nazism, yes, terrible, but who questions the communism which caused killing 30 -50 million of own population in USSR and 50-80 million in China and great percentage in Kambodja. Who question all those leaning to postcommunistic ideas?
Why Heidegger gets so much attention and gets targetted so much? Maybe he challenged the relativism and nihilism of the western civilization and that is not appreciated.
And of course Sartre gets all sorts of honours even though he professed communism without consequences to their eben greater terror- but one is not shown that in Hollywood or msm - and sarthe practically just took up Heidiggers ideas of authenticity as if they were his own.
Not to mention the the lies of the holocaust that are farcical if one looked into that. But announcing the truth will get one jailed.
If you're looking for leftists to apologize, don't bother.
Just look at their art.
The numbers you gave for communist excess death has been debunked. Check out J Arch Getty or Kotkin.
Yes atrocities happened but not in the ballpark of what you are saying, which makes nazis look better than they were.
To answer your question about who questions the communism which killed millions of people: EVERYONE! Pay attention.
Great documentary!
This did randomly pop- up !! I am a student of history and the Bible !! This is very educational !! It hit me how this type of thinking still applies today to parts of the world today!! This is a lesson and warning ⚠️ for all of us!!
I can assure you, it did not randomly pop up, my friend.
What do you thin of this? ua-cam.com/video/ck4ZJFXYzaM/v-deo.html
I think Heidegger's silence is, among other things, a necessary strategy for sustaining an ideological ambivalence which he sees as a necessary implication of the core idea of his middle and later work - i.e. at the end of metaphysics, at the end of first beginning and the opening towards the other beginning, every thinking - and this means fascist thinking, capitalist thinking, communist thinking, etc, is a ge-stell thinking. And it's not exactly an a-political position, because it's clear that ge-stell has an absolutely destructive character. We might find it particularly off-putting the way Heidegger equivocates between the treatment of Jews in the Holocaust and the treatment of Germans in the Eastern territories by the Red Army, or by the comparison between mechanized agriculture and the death camps (these are two moments when Heidegger did, for what it's worth, address the holocaust directly - it's weird that they're constantly forgotten, even in a film such as this), but this is the kind of equivocation at the level of the ethical that Heidegger thinks needs to be made in order to get at the ontological process. This is why Heidegger repeatedly says things to the effect of "the war decides nothing" - at the ontological level, the war is but an effect, an emanation of the resonance of beyng.
Today it's clear that ge-stell i.e. a relationship with the world in which man challenges forth the world by representation, by ordering, and by production, is driving humanity towards undermining the basic environmental conditions of its existence. And almost all of our "solutions" to this problem are also framed in terms of ge-stell. The capacity of any ideological system grounded in ge-stell to annihilate millions of human beings, and to conceive of this annihilation as something to be ordered and secured, is clear. The mechanisms may be different, and there may be substantial moral differences between these mechanisms, but the upshot of Heidegger's approach is to reveal the inadequacy of moral thinking in the face of the crisis of the end of the first beginning aka the culmination of metaphysics aka modernity and the industrial revolution. I'll send off with a quote from near the end of "Evening Conversation: In a Prisoner of War Camp in Russia", published as part of the "Country Path Conversations" book:
"Younger Man: No matter what content they may want to teach, all “worldviews,” according to their essence, belong to the age of, and in the dominion of, the devastation."
When was this film made?
Yes! Thanks for the pleasure!
"He stands above it all with his thinking." Pretty much sums it up. Tom Rockmore: "If philosophy has bad consequences, then there is something bad about the philosophy." Exactly. "Being and Time" was a brilliant and influential book. But if the writer of that book joined the Nazi party, there is something deeply wrong with those ideas. In a nutshell, Existentialism is a philosophical dead-end. It's a radical subjectivism that leads to an ethical relativism. Heidegger can argue all he wants that he is not an Existentialist, and that he has gone deeper than the subject-object split into "Being itself" - it shows a brilliant attempt at thinking that leads into a dead-end.
WW2 radically changed the Global balance; it was a fission reaction at the very heart of Western Thought itself. So, not a dead-end. Colonialism declined, post colonial eastern world in vogue.
@@ravi26ishable I'm not disagreeing with you, put you are talking about politics, and I am talking about philosophy: Existentialism, which is a philosophy that was popularized by Heidegger and Sartre. That's the dead end.
Sou do Brasil. Mas gostaria de saber. Como eles escrevem com muito rigor filosofia será que isso se dá pela linguagem.. ou pela linguagem de razão? Obrigado pelo vidio.
See also the episode on Martin Heidegger's "What Is Metaphysics?", in the *Philosophers, Explained* series:
ua-cam.com/video/ecpVO5MnAaU/v-deo.html
Thank you, whoever you are, for uploading this and making it available. In short, we just have to take the whole package: the ugliness of the entanglement with Nazism, the Nazis that he was a human being with plenty of shortcomings, big and small, no different from the rest of us; along with the depth, richness and invitation (to the perceptive) that come from his philosophical work. Some might want to exclusively focus on the mingling of his thought with antisemitism, perhaps even precepts of National Socialism. Yes, there is that. We have to acknowledge that. But Heidegger, his thought are not only his personal shortcomings and his at a time Nazism and antisemitism.
Well said and especially from the understanding that there is only a human mind instead of a an individual mind just as there is a human consciousness which explains why the death of a man whatever their position does not dim the idea. The idea lingers on until it finds a channel to manifest in and repeat what was started. We are all, the universe.
@@winniethuo9736 For me, there is a very rich vein to be struck in Heidegger as far as science and technology are concerned. I am not a Heideggerian by any understanding of this title. But what Heidegger has left behind on technology and science (and which of course are far from isolated, cut off, from the rest of his thinking) are even more *relevant* in our times of biotechnology, of AI and of information technology than when he extensively wrote about die Technik and Wissenschaft in the 1940s, '50s and '60s. I regret to say, I am increasingly sharing his concerns more now than when I first encountered Heidegger's thoughts on science and technology. Gadamer, did, too.
@@ktheodor3968 Thanks. You may find something too in Jiddu Krishnamurti on the human mind instead of the 'I' mind.
@@winniethuo9736 Thank you, I will look into this. I have a particular interest in the so-called mind-body problem/Hard Problem of consciousness. In my reading of Heidegger, I have not found anything addressing head-on and convincingly the issue of consciousness (subjective experience) and its relation to the wet meat (brain)/neural activity. Still, all input from all directions welcome. I am a being in the world, but there is still this first-person experience and the mystery about it. The redness of the red.. :)
Thanks for the documentary
I would surmise he considered himself a vessel, a sexton of great thought, an astronomer of great and distant stars; and such mundane things as human activities, the suffering of humans were at best transitory -- even a horrible war. In an interview he spoke of Von Kleist's vision of an Übermensch in some distant future. He must have convinced Ahrent of this viewpoint -- eben, of the mundanity of human _Getue_ in contrast with the great and eternal halls of thought. Don't go soft. Don't get distracted. There's a story about Gödel where he was hearing a physicist explain his research, but finally Gödel interrupted him saying, I'm only interested in _a priori_ science. This attitude, of course, seems almost endearing in the case of Gödel, but almost monstrous in the case of Heidegger. From another angle, he might have calculated that as the Nazi's "house philosopher" he would wield great power and influence, possibly more than anyone else. Either way, disdain and monomania are the common threads.
Could you say a bit more on _a_ _priori_ science?
@@markcounseling The physicist would have come from the empirical side of science, i.e., come up with a theory, a formulation, then test it in the real world for validity. A priori in this context means deductive reasoning, i.e., knowledge derived by reasoning alone. Gödel was a mathematical logician.
@@vonBottorff I'm really just learning about Heidegger and in general I'm ignorant of Western philosophy, but I do have some background in Indian, mainly Buddhist, philosophy, so that's sort of a template through which I naturally make sense of Western thinkers. In that philosophy there is the well-known distinction between the relative and the Absolute. This is perhaps something like your _Getue_ vs the Eternal _Hallen_ . The great challenge always is to see them in relationship or in union with one another, so that somehow, one stays soft while at the same time, remains undistracted. This is an exceedingly difficult spiritual challenge and it seems people progress by failing in various ways and then moving forward by recovering.
So perhaps Gödel went mad because he was unbalanced, too much in favor of the Absolute. He had great glasses, this we must grant him.
One looks at pictures of Heidegger and it is easy to project the Nazi on him, but his flirting with that was actually in a quite early period, no? Was he really such a monster? Arendt seems to have loved him ... could she really be a fool? No doubt he was probably overly heady and cool. He probably would have benefited from being headslapped by a good Zen yogi.
I am hoping, at least at this point, to hold out the possibility that his calculation to become the Nazi house philosopher was based more on naivete than thirst for power. It seems to have failed rather quickly when he encountered others with powerful political motivations.
I haven't read what he said about this period. I will of course look for the disdain, I hope I won't find much of it. Monomania for periods of time is very easy to forgive, I think.
@@markcounseling The Nazis took a wrecking ball approach to the dilemma of the modern world. The mod-world has lots about it to annoy, frighten, irritate, repulse nearly anyone, but when a group using fascist tactics seizes power and starts "cleaning house," yeah, lots of people want a piece of that -- because they've got issues they'd like to see in one fell swoop removed. I think some of the Nazis (e.g. Himmler) actually thought they could invoke magical powers -- and as I believe, anyone who becomes obsessed with magic will behave completely out of control. It's the ultimate lust for power. I think Heidegger fell into this "quick solutions" mindset the Nazis were pushing. He just had a serious blind side on this issue.
@@vonBottorff I think you bring up an excellent point here. The pristine rarified quality of the Absolute as many understand it, or it dawns for them, can give them the false idea that evolution or development can be circumvented, and some sort of quickfix to life is possible. I think where we might differ is that, although very definitely some political types will be motivated by lust for power or glory, others (maybe Heidegger, maybe not) suffer more from a lack of patience, naivete about the possibility of a transformation, and just in general floating too high in the clouds. More of a blindness from ideals than a degenerate lust. But again, don't really know.
I would tend to trust Arendt on Heidegger over lesser thinkers.
'over lesser thinkers' - implying other thinkers are inferior.
@@hazelwray4184 Inferior thinkers, yes. I certainly don't hold all persons' opinions as equally informed or close to the truth. Most of us jump to quick conclusions based on limited information, we are very biased, we opine about what we know little about, etc. In Arendt we have a world-reknowned ethical thinker who knew and loved Heidegger, and resumed a relationship with him after his Nazi connections. To me that counts for something. Not for you? Regardless, even if people don't think well, they are entirely loveable and not inferior.
@@markcounseling Well that was elitist as hell.
@@ultravioletiris6241 Which part? That I value some opinions over others? I don't think I'm saying anything particularly unusual, though it seems to be coming across that way for some. Maybe it's the word "lesser"?
@@markcounseling Well you offered nothing to buttress why these are lesser thinkers other than the fact that they arent as pop-famous as Arendt. By your own admission, this fact alone is what you offer to suggest that Arendt is beyond reproach by these “lesser” thinkers. But this is essentially an attack against reputation rather than the actual arguments laid out or historical facts presented. You actually ignored all of these other things in favor of appealing to the mere fame and popularity of the person in question (which by the way is a very basic logical fallacy).
Additionally, this closeness and love for Heidegger would be seen under most circumstances as a disqualifying bias. One would have to suspend their sense of disbelief to ignore such a blatant and obvious bias. Especially considering the evidence present in the “black notebooks”.
So all you offered is a logical fallacy as an appeal to why the arguments here shouldnt be considered, while acting as though a compromising bias is a virtue. So why then should your concept of “lesser thinkers” be seen as anything other than elitist? Its not even based upon argumentative veracity or witness statements or historical fact. Its based on a loose elitism for highly influential cultural figures above and beyond the actual facts at hand. It also begs the question of who exactly is a “lesser thinker” in the eyes of someone who cant even avoid such a basic argumentative fallacy. It really makes all your talk about “most of us jump to quick conclusions… we are very biased” sound like self-descriptive projection.
Interesting film. Does this and the black notebooks really change what we know of Heidegger? Many people were (and are) enchanted by his thought. He appears to have been more of a Nazi than previously thought. Anything else? It is singular that philosophers continue arouse such passion and soul searching in Europe. Across the pond most Americans would be hard pressed to name any philosopher of note.
"Pantheism is the essence of paganism" - proffesor Yechzkel Koifman, regarding the philoshophy of Spinoza
6:30 that's partially Desinformation. Heidegger and Müller had a very frequent and friendly correspondence between 1947 and 1974. In dozens of letters.
So pleased to stumble across this documentary of a great thinker but flawed human being.
Can you point out a human that is not flawed for me?
Mas como Nietzsche pode escrever com muito rigor? Ele é um gênio.....
I have no idea what you said or even in what language you said it , But I'm in complete agreeance and couldn't have said it better myself .
@@vicschauberger2737😂
Portuguese sounds like a Russian speaking spanish hahaha love it
Not one of these commentators, interviewed here, poses the fundamental question: is Heidegger worth reading? "The task of pure reason is God, freedom and immortality." Immanuel Kant.
The problem with Heidegger is that he cannot distinguish between philosophy and his own bad fiction.
Not worth. A philosophy disaster.
@@chungchihsu2000 mystification
What?! He was the most brilliant and original philosopher of the last century. Accept it
@@BrunoCardoso-dp3bd who says so? The most brilliant philosopher of the Las century was Sigmund Freud. Do you understand the difference between truth and drivel?
Hate never brings nothing good
I have the opposite meaning: Hate ALWAYS brings nothing good!
TELL IT TO THE MARINES. Or the Ukies ....
Sein und Zeit und Metaphysik des Seins sind großartige Werke. Wer die Phänomenologie verinnerlicht hat lässt sich nicht mehr an der Nase herumführen vom herrschenden Zeitgeist.
Apart the greatest INDIAN PHILOSOPHERS HE IS ONE OF FEW IN THE WEST CAPABLE OF A SOTERIOLIOGICAL AND LOGICAL THOUGHT
The comments toward the end on Hannah Arendt's "banality of evil" do not do that concept justice, and rather trivialize it. Her thinking on that aligns with those of Nicholas Berdyaev, and also in fact of Buddhism, which sees active ignoring (Sanskrit:avidya / Tibetan:marigpa) as the root of evil. This is important to recognize how evil _today_ can spread widely through otherwise basically good people, like you and me.
Thanks for this. I am only a layman, sometime student of philosophy, but I consider myself a "deep thinker", that is someone who probably spends too much time pondering the meaning and/ or reason of my existence, and too little time just living and enjoying life. It isn't something I believe will ever change. I withhold judgement on what people did or didn't do during the N period, as I wasn't there and don't know what I would have done either.
You can't spend too much time in pondering such a question until you come to the awareness that we were created for fellowship with the God who made us in His image, and that this fellowship is possible only if you believe in the God/man, The Lord Jesus Christ.
After you come to faith, which I pray you will, you won't have enough time in the rest of your life to marvel at this, or to make much progress in sanctification. But don't be afraid. God knows our frame. He remembers that we are dust.
Eternity, the abolition of time, is what we are all destined for. One will know it either with God, or in condemnation. John 11:25, 26; Romans 1:18 - 32.
@@bobtaylor170 you’re obviously not a deep thinker. You wouldn’t understand bobby boy. You’ve limited yourself to a novel.
@@a.nelprober-rl5cf , wow, you're so brilliant you've annihilated my faith. Thank you, sir. May I be allowed to clip your toenails someday? N.B. It's always impressive to insult a man by calling him a boy. You win a lot of adherents that way. Keep doing it!
@@a.nelprober-rl5cf , do you ever consider what it will be like to stand before the Ground of all being? I mean, you're so smart, and all.
@@bobtaylor170 Bobby replied back in 2 separate comments! Poor guy. 😂😂😂
Jordan Peterson likes to cite Heidegger. Gosh, I wonder why.
35:00 Gott/God/Chod/Khode is a indogermanic-indoaryan Word. It means literally translated "selbst sein/self being" "herbeirufen. It's part of a metaphysical thinking based on nature and cosmos. Wir sind Seiende im Sein. Die Sprache ist unser Haus des Seins.
Obscure.
I once read a published account of Heidegger's attempted suicide after the war, I haven't been able to find it again, I believe it was in a psychoanalytic volume. If anyone knows of this piece, please share the details.
i am curious .... who are the heideggerians today , ie . who are proponents of his thinking ... and 2 . where did he stand regarding the Socialsim in Nat'l Socialism ...............?
Jason Reza Jorjani is one
On the post liberal side, Alexander Dugin and I suppose, his translator Michael Millerman
If I could be bother😢I could explain how H emerged from Catholicism but I will leave that to Foucault
@@Caligula138 wow i didnt know that. What do you think about him?
Arendt wasn't manipulated by Heidegger. Also I think that her point re Eichmann is that all the world was tending toward what happened in Germany. Racism was and is everywhere. Colonialism was kind of 'slow holocaust'. Heidegger was clearly a Nazi supporter and never stopped but his approach to philosophy is fascinating. He would, no one will, 'solve' the nature of Being. I think this is as he avoids sufficient epistemology. In his later works he talks about Holderlin and Trakl (another great poet who Wittgenstein tried to meet in WWI but Trakl committed suicide). Celan's case was tragic of course. But evil IS banal. In fact we cannot even show that there is any such thing as evil. Who is responsible? Human beings are. But this is a great documentary. I can read more of Heidegger but not be enthusiastic about his politics. The kind of abstract thinking about phenomenology and ontology perhaps is associated with the way he became not just intimidated into the Nazi movement but an active supporter. Or it can be. I think that the Inquisition and the years from say (at least 2000 BC to now have seen more horror and destruction by Homo Sapiens than the Nazis could dream about. The American Wars in the Phillipines, Korea, Vietnam and the continuing wars and so on. Sapiens wiping out (possibly by extermination) 'inferior' human species etc etc. Heidegger should have kept to his Being, avoided politics....but I think this picture of him is still too simplistic. Read his books. People do everything except read the primary texts by Philosophers or writers....they'll to to a movie, and miraculously know all about a writer or someone, but to actually read the primary texts seems to be the last thing. Fischer the ex World Champion of chess had a Jewish mother and father but became a rabid anti-Semite...in the end though, his last words were: 'The greatest thing is human touch.' Human beings are complex. Life is also.
Well thought out comment
Yeah human life is complex and history is a collective endeavour of us human .. there is no other
Loved the documentary. But, I think they presented Hannah Arendt s banality of evil in a biased way. She wasn't omitting the abismal evil, or "radical evil", of nazis.
This film is an intellectual treasure. Jeffrey Van Davis has created perhaps
the deepest documentary analysis of philosophy. Film is a relatively new technology, but philosophy has been around for more than two thousand years. We need more excellent films like this one about philosophy.
Academic philosophy of the kind we now take for granted has only been around since the early 1700s.
@@OllieBakker OK, so the "philosophy of the kind that we now take for granted" is one thing, but the discipline of philosophy has been with us for two thousand years, so what exactly is it you are trying to say here?
Virtue must precede philosophy. Through virtue the soul becomes transparent to God and only then do we really know.
man is a dying being. to define the being means to make it relative to itself. it is the same as saying "being is death," or at best a concept of human thought, so nothing in itself. that's all we can say as humans about being rationalistic.
man is himself a question, but he claims to be the answer. in Christianity man mirrors God, man's being becomes central to all existence. once the mirror is broken ("God is dead"), man remains ontologically deficient and with the claim to be god himself. but he cannot escape the vicious circle... he is a dying being. this is the meaning of God's incarnation (in Orthodox Christianity).
For example, in the New Testament, the letter to the Colossians talks about this. in Christ man and God are united.
And?
Only a God can save us? Well, gee whiz, then, aren't we just up Shit Creek without a paddle? Best to get that notion out of our heads, because such a thing as divine intervention is not forthcoming, and it is entirely up to us to save ourselves.
Wow. Certainly it is a style of the times but the guy resembles Einstein a bit in some of those pictures
Miss U Martin.
It's easy to yap about righteousness when the majority is on your side. Indeed, the evil is banal.
Haha love the Was ist Sein song😂😂
Die Sprache ist das Haus des Seins.
I tango alone.
ist gläubigkeit von religion/ philosophie/weltanschauung nicht ein form von abgängigkeit, wie von drogen? is trustfullnes to religion/philosophie/ ideologie not a form of addiction to drugs?
If his philosophy led him to this non thinking, then I would be inclined to think he was not a thinker, but a sheep. His being is a sepulcher. Tragic.
Thanks for posting this. Intellectually I want to think someone can fail morally but write great philosophy, but my gut reaction is antisemitism is an intellectual failure too and isn’t there a good chance that same bad thinking is in his philosophy? I assume this has been studied immensely and should look into it. Also, maybe I missed it, but couldn’t crass careerism explain some of Heidegger‘s actions? If Arendt is right that he was silly, banal careerism could be part of the mix also.
There's a reason everyone hated them throughout history
Grooooobur
Heidegger...was a pretty sharp philosopher, I guess...but Bonhoeffer was...ah, well, it's not fair to compare small things with great.
The devil may be a gentleman, but he is anything but a gentleman.
I love that quote. Is it from something?
An eye-opener. ( Thinks: Could Existentialism itself be a pile of horse-shit? ) 🤔
yep
@@MrJwgh Thanks, man! I tried to get through it many years ago but couldn't find a big enough shovel.
PS: You might enjoy my "Green Fire: Tommy & Ruthie's Blues" @Amazon 😉
Heidegger acted in bad faith.
He was a narcissist!
@@vincentanguoni8938 But he gave us “the banality of Hannah Arendt”
Perhaps. Or he acted in good faith according to his philosophy which entailed collaboration with the Nazi regime and silence on its crimes and his own role.
His turn after the “Night of the Long Knives” indicates his naive illusions in Nazism were shattered. He was at least a fellow traveller with the Nazi regime and after the war his vanity meant silence to protect his reputation and legacy from scrutiny. His students have tried cover for him but one of them, Farias, has done the world a great service by laying out the record.
But more than that, it shows his own philosophy was pure scholasticism and unfit for the problems of Being in the modern world.
No wonder he concluded “Only God can save us.” This is an admission that his philosophy cannot.
Because philosophy is not a science it is a thought.
In western countries only !
So is Science. Thought and imagination . Einstein thought experiments...
.
Which God?
Good laugh... thank you.
On a more series note, Which god?
@crispnhollow7300 the one who bothers you the most. We all know which one? ;)
@@BrunoCardoso-dp3bd The one that will eventually be nothing but a memory just as so many Gods before if you need a reward to be a good person then you are not a Good person what reward does an Atheist get for being a Good person nothing why not try to be Good and kind just for the sake of it if everyone did that what would the world be like
The question is, could Heidegger have thought out his contributions to human knowledge without being a Nazi? Of course he could ! what we have here is a powerful mind in a weak man, finding excuses for him is BS.
Sure. Believe the what they told you about them, but did it really happened the way they're showing to you in schools? They're using your emotions to distract you, and you're not aware of it because you're too emotional and gullible...
When he was a nazi living under Hitler did he think that the Nazi regime could save Germany or could God?
Why is he weak? Because he was a member NSDAP in the few years after they took power? I guess Germany should've just surrendered to communism. This whole post war view of interwar fascism is utterly childish. It doesn't seem to look at the nuances of European politics of this epoch.
Only for non nuanced mind
@@ZackEdwards1234Itd a very Semitic way of looking at things, a “good guy/bad guy” sense of history is the complete wrong way to look at it.
“Without Me you can do nothing.” - JESUS CHRIST
You are misquoting JC.
Haidgger e Nietzsche os maiores filósofos do mundo..
estas loco... Nietzschie simplemente fue una manifestacion de sus tiempos un brillante traductor y comunicador en terminos de ser un puente entre el pasado y el presente de su era.. la cual tiene resonancia aun por que si en realidad vez el ambito politico y la participacion intelectual en el mundo entero; lo que se puede sugerir no que vivimos en el futuro que creemos estar viviendo "la apariencia de todo proposito" si no estamos aun viviendo los estragos de la revolucion religiosa que tomo lugar en alemania centurias atras, estamos aun en los anos de la reformacion. Estamos llegano a su culminacion, es por eso que hay tanto caos.
Sim Nietzsche é um gênio. Minha monografia foi em seus pensamentos na área da filosofia. O eterno retorno e o niilismo em Nietzsche..
ja, ik ben het met je eens.
@@galapagoensis and?
@@WiseOwl_1408 just weep by the horses ear that’s all..
Say your prayers
And the other alternative was the Eoviet Communist
For how smart these people think they are no one can the audio to a place where it's listenable
This guy was Genius,he was the Greatest fillosofer of modern times, he was a head of his times .
just some mystic nationalist extremist, nothing more. The only reason some people on the very left also like him, especially in France, is that those are also disconnected from reality.
@@ekesandras1481 Good point.
Heidegger introduced nazism into philosophy. This is his legacy...
God bless him.
I will nvr. -god
"Martin Heidegger is considered to be the most profound thinker of the Twentieth century." Oh, really?
Of course
We listen to Wagner, so we should study Heidegger. The politics is a monkey game, it's biology. The true philosophy is like music, it's above the banality of the mortal world.
Quite interesting but spoilt at times by the Neo-liberal worldview of it's creators and their little fits of moral finger wagging.
if
Martin Heidegger thinking to himself How banal would it be to apologize something elemental about history? He might be "right" though, as terrible as THAT might sound or - be. But that is also the inevitable fate of of philosophy and a true philosopher, at least since certain Mr. Nietzsche. So, right or coherent he might indeed have been in his stubborn silence of not regretting "post ex facto" about the atrocities of an era and its wicked men including his part in the grand scheme of things. But that cannot fairly be said of Hannah Arendt who was simply wrong and dumb in her ridiculous notion of "banality of evil". Adolf Eichmann only playing the dumb, Mr. Know-Nothing Loyal Clerk and Servant behind his shiny new desk. And she went and swallowed the bait with the hook and all not unlike she swallowed Heidegger and his come and all, oh boy. That is the lesson to be drawn here about history, wise men, a thing called love, lust or vanity, politics and philosophy.
Well said.
@@ultravioletiris6241 Thank you, Violet Iris. Thank you.
@@jackquinn9535 ive been researching this topic more since making that comment, and your comment here still jumps out at me. It actually makes my blood boil how many people accepted Eichmann’s own thesis of himself, laundered via Arendt. This is really one of the worst (famous) works of social theory or philosophy ive ever come across.
This man is a good example of why people shouldn't worship others based on one exceptional characteristic like strength or intelligence. Those things aren't virtues in and of themselves, they're just tools and he chose to use his to support one of the most evil governments in human history.
besides that I would also doubt if his was really "Intelligence"?...
The Germans...
I would like to imagine a world didn't produce the Germans, but I'm not that creative.
god? The USA saved the world at this slice of time ...
"God is dead." ~Nietzsche, 1886
"Nietzsche is dead." ~God, 1900
The greatest philosopher of all times.
"Father of philosophy" for modernity.
The greatest philosopher of all time is Spinoza.
@@christopher6767 he couldn't tie Platos sandals
@@christopher6767 الإثنان معا
@@christopher6767 Spinoza still trapped in metaphysics.
How many philosophers were killed for no reason other than not being 'politically correct' under the Bolshevik movement whether by Leninism or Stalinism? You could also question this in the velvet revolution?
A hit-piece done by someone who obviously has no relation to philosophy.
A good documentary but very one sided against H. Americans British. Russians ect committed many crimes and atrocities throughout and after the war. There is guilt everywhere
Too much emphasis on the Jewish obsession with the Nazis. Not a major aspect of his life or thought.
I guess I’ll have to read some this Heidegger.
People hate being wrong.
They resist it.
Deny it.
I call it “sucker psychology”.
lol
Heidegger has no civil courage. He was not really an open human being. Unfortunately!
It is preposterous to claim that Abraham St. Klara was antisemitic, since that would imply that St. Klara preached against the Jews for other than spiritual reasons; it is a typical attempt of the Jews to distort the truth and attack the Holy Church for their hate for Christ and His Church know no limitations in them.
Grotesque diffamation
Heidegger is pretty much garbage.... as is a large portion of so called western philosophy. Just listening to people explain his Being and Time always cracks me up.
The chirping of birds.... much more profound... and far less annoying imo.
This program is pure propaganda
Where is it incorrect about the facts?
Facts ? They are MISUNDERSTOOD
@@adamchristing3032 and it is often INTENTIONAL
Heidegger was the most fraud and pseudo philosopher one can think of. The so-called ‘being-of-being and so many other quite vacuous expressions, it’s quite amazing and amusing that so many went for this. In Yvonne Sherrit’s book, “the Nazi Philosophers” Heidegger has a chapter. Well deserved and correct.
YOU MEAN quasi - ... (?).
Why so interested in having Heidegger confess? Yes, he was a university professor and philosopher, but he didn't commit war crimes, crimes against the peace, nor crimes against humanity. He supported Hitler and the Nazis like nearly every German. This was the 1930's, the Nazis won because they had the support of the country.
"like nearly every German" except that he saw himself & is still seen by masses in "philosophy" not as "every"!....