Thank you to: Owen Pitcairn Robert Moore and Peter Tschann-Grimm For sponsoring this video on Patreon with pledges of $10+ It's a huge help and is the only way I can make this videos, so thank you!
Excellent video, the quality is highly appreciated. I haven't seen part 2 yet, but I must say, It's so intellectually lazy and simple for us in 2018 to assume, "If I was Heidegger, and my intellect produced, "Being and Time" there is no possible way I would entangle myself with National Socialism during the meteoric rise of The 3rd Reich." What undeserved hubris we grant to ourselves to make such a flippant assumption.
Wasn't he trying to influence Hitler to build the German empire to more closely resemble Japan? (Jews as second class citizens who could bec German. Japan basically works that way with foreigners today.) I always thought Heidegger saw his responsibility as influencing the best outcome for the German people. Winning the war would have been the result of incorporating the other into the system most likely. Running death camps took a lot of labor and those people could have been earning citizenship on the front lines.
For non-philosophers, the most basic & important thing to understand about Heidegger (in order to not see his statements as obvious and useless) is that his starting point is to forget about all the modern world notions of a separation between the outside "real" world and the inside subjective world of perception (comonly viewed as less real). His phenomenological approach is to re-think human existence as it presents itself now, as the phenomena of being and being in the world, not as a third-person type analysis of the human object, but the feeling of being alive, only then you'll understand that his theory is genius and not irrelevent like Carnap does, because Carnap thinks he's trying to study human being as a third-person analysis and not as a phenomenological analysis that forgets about all the preconceived notions of "objectivity", "subjectivity" and so on... Just like Husserl said, "let's go back to the things themselves and forget about all your preconceived notions".
That's not a "modern world notion", that's the default view of all of humanity, with the exception of a handful influenced by Buddhist philosophy or Husserl or perhaps Hume, etc
Thank you for this post. It makes me understand his approach a bit more. However, I still fail to see how it isn't obvious, when in fact explaining subjective experience of the world is the rendering of a fact more obvious than description from a third person aspect? I'm trying to understand what exactly his contribution was other than his memento mori motto of existentialism, since he's obviously very influential.
Yeah Buddhists and Taoists have been saying and practicing this for centuries. Heidegger is not unique in his findings, but rather how he frames them. Heidegger was far from a genius.@@MrCmon113
Thanks for posting this. I'm just beginning to study Heidegger and this has been a big help in helping me see why is considered such a prominent philosopher. Cheers!
My favorite point made in this segment was, on how the essence of an animal (it's being) is purely instinctual, and how the essence and or "being" of a human is completely different. Now the next logical furthermore intriguing question is Heidegger's "what is it like to exist"? "Being", "Dasein", states of mind and the like. An amazingly complex and beautifully insightful question. This was another amazing video. Keeo pushing forward in promoting Philosophy. The most intricate, complex and fascinating discipline of all of the intellectual arts!
I disagree that the essence of an animal is any different to the essence of a human - because humans are animals. The mental capacity & groundwork are different, but many animals are highly intelligent - so for you to say that the raw essence of a human being is completely different to that of an animal is nonsense.
@@r3dux It isn't about "intelligence" or "cognition." It is that a human being's existence and mode of Being is a matter of concern to it; that human beings can engage in a hermeneutic to uncover who they are; and that (within the constraints of the World into which they have been thrown), they have the ability to change what kind of a being they are and how they will receive other beings -- and a few can even bring into being a new World (through the creation of a work of art, for example), in which entirely new possibilities are opened up. Now, some of my best friends are dogs, and they are often more intelligent (unfortunately) than some human beings. But they simply do not have the same relation to Being as humans do -- in all the ways I mentioned above. And animals do not "die" in the way that Heidegger says that Dasein does: in that their Being is not shaped by their awareness of their own finitude. (Note that Heidegger avoids the term "human being" all together. It is possible, I guess, that there *might* be other entities on Earth that are Dasein; it is almost certain that there are other non-human Dasein elsewhere in the cosmos)
@@rdgoulding Thank you for your reply, and thank you for your attempt to teach me and point out issues and aspects I might not be aware of so that I might consider them in a different light. My knowledge of philosophy is minimal, and I clearly recognize this discussion for what it is - in my field, it would equate to a junior programmer on their first day debating with a senior programmer of 20 years. Your first point is spot on - in that no other animals have a "hermeneutic" to discover who they are. That was a new word to me - and to anyone else who hadn't encountered the word it means essentially "a book you can read about something". Non-human animals don't have written language, so while we can and DO read books (how to cook, how to change a tire, how to be a good person etc.) - no other animal on planet Earth has this capacity, e.g., dogs can't read a book about how to be the best doggo, aardvarks don't bone up on aardvarking before they start their illustrious aardvaarking career etc. However, while hermeneutics are not available to other animals here, I still believe that (some) animals are aware of death and of their own mortality. For example, Elephants (I believe) mourn their dead and accept that death occurred, while dogs might mourn loss / absence but not understand why. With 'life' in mind, to put humans on a special pedestal that says "Only WE are special - only WE recognize that life is finite - only WE try to improve ourselves" is somewhat self-aggrandizing. If Elephants (or animals of similar mental capacity) can know that Elephants die, then they are likely aware of their own finitude. And canines / primates are fully aware that their behaviour affects their position and acceptance in the pack. As such they are able to "change what kind of being they are and how they will receive other beings" to quote your reply. I don't have an axe to grind or any "truth" I'm trying to push - this is all just conversation. Cheers!
@@r3dux Montaigne in the sixteenth century also wanted to insist that humans and animals were not all that different - and also argued that some (such as elephants) were aware of their own death. So it's a good argument - and certainly has some value! Hermeneutic can mean the intepretation of a written text. But Heidegger does not mean it that way, when he applies it to Dasein. What he is saying is that Dasein has no fixed nature of its own; rather, it *makes* its nature through a process of self-interpretation. Or, to put it another way, Dasein is involved constantly with the construction of meaning. And (he thinks) it is unique in that. Things might have significance to animals (something is a source of food, for example); but they don't construct systems of meaning, which also give themselves meaning. The ultimate example, in Being and Time, is that there is something in this universe that raises the very first of all questions: "What is Being?" (another version of this "question of Being" is "Why is there something rather than nothing"). All of Heidegger's work is concerned with this question. And he attempts his answer by turning it round: who is this thing that thinks to ask this question? The answer to the question will be discovered by understanding why there is a thing that asks it, and what that thing is. And I think we can at least agree with Heidegger that animals do not ask this first of all questions. Only humans do -- so, in our world, it seems that only humans are Dasein.
@@rdgoulding Thanks for taking the time to explain, it's very much appreciated and you make a compelling argument. I can understand that most animals do not ask "Why do I exist?" but as animal intelligence increases across the spectrum towards us, can you absolutely rule it out? Has a dolphin or an elephant never once thought "What am I doing here?" or "Why do I exist?". While it's impossible to prove without language (or record), it still feels very odd to me to definitively single out humans as being the only animals (and we very much are animals) capable of self-consideration - perhaps because I am unable to "put myself in their (lack-of) shoes". From a computer science perspective, it's very likely that animal "minds" will be mapped in the future via their neurons, and will be capable of "execution" (i.e., you will be able to "run" an ant like any other software program). Although at present science is at the low end of the scale (we can't simulate an ant w/ ~250K neurons), I don't believe this will be the case for long - and if you look towards the bottom of this list you'll see that Humans aren't even the animals with the most neurons, so potentially the most complex minds (a type of Dolphin and 3 types of Whales are ahead of us): en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_animals_by_number_of_neurons Anyways, It's definitely food for thought, and thank you again for your time.
Such a different way of looking at Heidegger, to me his Being and Time illustrate the very impossibly of describing ( in having to use signs, language) the condition of being a being that knows it is.
The irony of using words to describe how words don't describe things properly...I feel like we are overlooking just how much all things are built by language...we cannot crack the code..by not looking at the code
I greatly appreciate and value phenomenology, and not just the specific form or method of it that exists in the western philosophical tradition, but phenomenology in its broadest sense: namely, how we experience the world and ourselves. In my opinion, how we experience being and living is the most fundamental question there is, for the greatest value comes in our experiences and not in our representations or theories of experience. It is a scientific truth that the earth is a round sphere that revolves around the sun, and that's all well and good. But it is a phenomenological truth that the earth is flat and that the sun rises in the morning and sets in the evening. When I go out for a walk in the early morning I feel my feet walking across a flat surface and I see an orange/yellow ball rise from beneath the earth and increasingly rise higher as the atmosphere becomes brighter and warmer. In this experience of walking I am living life and taking in all of the colors and shapes and textures and sensations that arise outside of me and within me. Theorizing about the nature of reality and the rotation of the planets (etc.) is also a wonderful experience. But the key word is "experience". Discovering a new planet through a telescope or a new sub-atomic particle through a microscope is undoubtedly a rich and rewarding and spellbinding experience. Yes, these scientific discoveries also bring with them the ability to create and invent new technologies and new ways of living that help humanity, and so they have great utility. But the experience is the most valuable of all of the riches that help humanity, and not the "things" in themselves. Camus once said (paraphrasing) "whether the earth or the sun revolve around the other is of a profound indifference, but whether to commit suicide or not is the most important question". The western world has long been obsessed with trying to understand nature, map it out, and manipulate it to create new toys. And once again, that is all well and good (I'm only able to type this out because of the technologies that the scientific method has helped bring about, so I am by no means ungrateful for it). But no amount of awesome technologies like this keyboard that I am using to talk to you guys over the internet internet is quite as valuable as the experiences themselves. New technologies and maps of the world allow for enhanced experiences of being, but the highest value is precisely in the experience of being, and not in the technologies or maps themselves.
That is just a lot of nonsense as far as I can see. It doesnt tell us anything about the world or what it is to be a human. Yes, the experience of the world is what matter to us as individuals. New technology helps us a lot. You and I experience the earth as flat even though it is round. What else is new?
I am an athlete and I only really love and experience life when I am in the moment in my sport. It's difficult to explain. As soon as I am not exercising I feel I am in the Psychological fake and mental world.
Hari I took my exam on Heidegger in Bergen, Norway 1979. And have studied also eastern Vedanta philosophy for many years (Heidegger took part in dialoges with eastern thinkers). After all these years of study my assessment is that Heidegger was and is a fundamental philisopher because he ask THE question of philosophy: Was ist Sein? In greek: ai on (on - tology). AND: the same is the base question in Vedanta: brahma jijnasa - what is Being? Along with that question comes: What is the Self? - Which is also asked in Vedanta. Without asking these questions there is no more philosophy, but mere nihilism, which is the dominant underlying conception of existence today in a postmodernistic culture with no standards of truth, and nothing else directive than ever changing political correctness, controlled by some few. In Vedanta nihilism - sunyavada - is not considered philosophy, since there is no truth to search for. Within thinking nihilism is therefore considered irrelevant. Heidegger, like Nietzsche, warned about the developement of nihilism followed by death of metaphysics and philosophy in Europe, leaving everything to cybernetics, today developed into a life in digital sphere. Philosophy today is mere history of ideas and the basic questions and search after truth slaughtered in the educational systems. But then the human is not any longer animal rational, but merely animal. Technology the animals also have as they need. The famous interview with Spiegel 1966 to be released after his death was headlined: "Nur ein Gott kann uns retten" - "only a God can save us" - when being asked what philosoohy and science can do to save the world. This was the conclusion of the last classical philosopher in Europe trying his best to emphasize the need to ask the base question of philosophy of all times, west as east: "What is Being? What is Truth? Who am I? Why is there suffering? If these questiln are not asked, then it is no longer human life, but sophisticated animal life, preparing for robot existence.
You're completely lost in confusion and magical thinking. Pure conceptualization and no attention to your direct experience. You think you are better than an "animal" or a "robot", because you are a mythical creature to yourself. If you had an ounce of attention, that delusion would be shattered.
He asked profound questions but he didn't have profound answers. He was basically a glorified motivational speaker. "Only God save us." What idiocy. Sartre also took up religion at the end of his life after a lifetime of being an atheist. He rejected everything he believed -- and I shall do the same with his philosophy which even he didn't really believe.
Great video. I'm about to start reading Being and Time. Interesting point about his support for the Nazi party (although I heard he later stopped supporting them). I think that if anything it's a testament of the power of nationalism and the unwillingness of most people to criticize their 'own' institution, since belonging to a larger group serves as an extension of one's ego and a great source of psychological security. Once you form a nationalistic allegiance your sense of morality is necessarily compromised; you abandon reason for faith.
People supported Nazism for various countless reasons not necessarily nationalism. For many it was a careerist move. For others it was philosophical. Others it was indeed patriotism but there were many other patriotic parties. One thing about the nazis is they streamlined Germany and created an enormous energy and drive and focus in the country. All Germans felt united around a single goal, to make their country better. As such its easy to see how many Germans supported the nazi party. Something to keep in mind is the oppression and camps was really not something Germans noticed until ww2. During the war the nazis really clamped down on civil liberties which changed the attitude of Germans. By 1945, a majority of Germans had a negative opinion of the nazi party.
He asked profound questions, such as what is being, but he didn't have profound answers. Basically, he was a glorified motivational speaker or self-help guru who was flim-flamming with jargon and terminology. What an incredible snow job that impresses those who are beguiled by jargon and obscure rhetoric.
Martin Heiddegar: The big questions on coexistence, obviously we are beings who need to work Together. On the other hand Renee desacarte begs the question on Reason. As we do so we need to use our minds as to whom, how we may coexist. " I think therefore I am." Time is to Think.
Do you mean Discourse as in speech or discourse as opposed to harmony? Edit: My bad, I confused Discourse as Discord. Been listening to Silmarillion :P
You mentioned that his philosophy asks for the meaning of Being (Sein), yet you only focus on Dasein. This seems like an existenzial bending of his work.
Thanks for the video. Which book or references do you recommend for learning about Heidegger and specifically Being and Time? I have just started reading the book (Being and Time) but it is difficult for me as a beginner to understand the meaning of Heidegger language, so I am looking for a reliable study guide.
The heroic creative romantic notion of individual does not exist in Being and Time. Even H's notion of authenticity is something much more primordial and doesnt necessarily individuate in that R romantic sense. It has more to do with phenomenological immediacy and uncoverdness.
How come that you consider the background sound to be more important than your speach? It is pretty hard, and calls for much concentration, to isolate the speach......
I would say the idea of discourse here is a little misleading, as, in B+T, "discourse" is presented as something extraneous to circumspection, a form of "communication" that can only restate what is circumspectly held to be true by Dasein on a pre-ontological level.
So existence precedes essence. Something has to exist before it can become something and that something is relational. Sounds like existentialism to me.
It sounds like existentialism because existentialism was directly inspired by it. Sartre based his own book, Being and Nothingness, directly on Being and Time (hence the similarity in the names). Heidegger disavowed the label of existentialism, saying that Sartre had not understood him. But originally, he was introduced to America under that label.
Science talks about what is there, epistemological. But Heidegger tries to talk about how a “there” became, ontological. A there came for us, and a self in a sense, when language came to us. Language is the house of Being. knowing the rules of syntax,or semantics is epistemological, knowing that language is the house of Being is ontological.
*¡Martin Heidegger (1889 - 1976) was a loyal German Nazi philosopher!* - 8:26 am Pacific Standard Time on Saturday, 12 March 2022 Common Era or CE formerly known as Ano Domini or AD
@@ThenNow I really love your videos, they really motivate me to learn more and I'm already reading the second part of Ser y Tiempo, greetings from Chile
Oops - you mentioned 'the prominent Heideggerian Richard Dreyfus - now, he's a fine actor, but as far as I'm aware his knowledge of Heidegger is poor. Hubert, I trust you meant. Still, a small error in what is for the most part a good video.
His nazism makes sense in that his sense of being was interdependent or relationally defined . I think his philosophy in the reverse was just a projection of his own weakness
Felix Constant-Hynes right , everything exist and is defined by its relation to everything else . Distinction is only defined by surroundings. But what I find is that philosophers and teachers and people in general are most familiar with their own weaknesses and teach others about the strengths they lack in their own lives. And in fact you can probably guess the personal lives of philosophers by reversing the philosophy they actually teach
@@FelixConstant Of course there is. Maybe there wouldn't have been given a different evolutionary history. But as things are, people's belief in self goes on even when they're alone, not thinking about others, completely unafraid of being confronted by anyone. At the same time you can be very much engaged in thinking about others and the self is completely gone, such as reading a novel.
Thanks for your explanation! ... Regarding how can one considered a 'genius' turn to fascism... A lot of people who were at the US Capitol on 6 Jan 2021 to 'stop the steal' were intelligent fascists (I know at least two of them personally, embarrassed to say). One of my favorite authors, HP Lovecraft, was a fascist, and it comes out occasionally in his stories via descriptions of Others. I think it might be a combination of fanaticism, feelings of alienation combined with a perverted need for a sense of belonging, or possibly even fanatic or (Eric Hoffer's) true believer personality types...I am interested to see your analysis in part two! I have not read Heidegger, but I wonder if the fascism creeps into his writings as well, as it dis for Lovecraft. Thanks!
Why do you think Lovecraft was a fascist? I don't detect fascism in the writings either. Xenophobia is quite noticable and often even integral to the horror, but I don't see anything fascist.
It might be that they are spared of all this suffering, of the guilt, of the burden of responsibility, of the anxiety, of the disorientation that comes from having one's identity perpetually in question, of the dread of never feeling like we are finished, like we've become what we are supposed to be, that we humans have to deal with on a daily basis. You might feel happy for the cats. It's human existence that should be pitied.
@@Deantrey I have absolutely no clue what you're talking about and I bet you are just parroting others instead of genuinely reflecting your experience. A cat has all of the problems you have in slightly different form.
@@MrCmon113 Dumbed down version for you: cat's don't have human problems and don't experience existential anxiety (anxiety over one's existence or identity rather than about external things like whether an animal is going to eat you), so really they have it better than we do. I don't think that what you say is true. Does a cat ever feel that it's life is meaningless? does it ever feel gender dysphoria? does it ever feel insecure about it's body? does it ever feel like it can't live up to it's father's expectations? does it ever doubt God? does it regret what it has made of its life? I think projecting human traits onto cats is fun (it's why animated movies are so fun) but it doesn't help us understand or relate to them. By the way, this is called anthropomorphism, and it's generally seen as a logical fallacy.
I think you have the question of National Socialism backwards, as does everyone. If you don't see the genuine desire for Nazi ideology, that's because you have never understood it. It's the same with Communism - both are protected from mass empathy through the lens of death, but this doesn't speak to their weakness, but their profound power. The most ardent ideas are always protected against in foundation myths and fear.
the genuine desire for the very similar ideologies of nazism and communism back then and partly still nowadays is hardly based on their myth and fear or death, that's only the very weak and unstable who would fall for that, but on their anticapitalist approach of justice through equality. we know that both systems annihilated what they didn't accept or saw as a danger to their definition of being "equal" but we shouldn't forget that capitalism annihilates just through its existence of wealth built up on the back of the poor. there might come a day again, in a non-capitalist world, when capitalism will be depicted again with "death and fear" and it would hardly be less reasonable. it's just a question of zeitgeist and perspective. you might not be aware of it but millions of people around the globe have been victims of the capitalist system.
@@nightwish1000 nazism and 'communism' are not similar. Communism describes the original state of nature of man (utopia) in a classless society. Communism can only be reached through socialism which shares elements with Nazism but the two remain separate from one another. Nazism incorporates elements of neo-liberal free market economics to encourage innovation, but with massive state funding to back it up (hence the Nazis technological edge In some areas). Socialism is complete collectivisation of all private property. The two are similar in that state power is entirely centralised but that is where the similarities end. Other than they are both awful systems that inevitably lead to innumerable suffering. God bless and have a great weekend :).
@@m1nty99 I never stated that they were kind of the same but i underlined the parallels. nazism only incorporates elements of free market as long as it serves the state which is not a neoliberal but rather a socialist approach (along with the state fundings), a bit like in communist-capitalist china. the nazis could shut down any factory when they wanted or change the production line to their needs - which they did. the benefit of the collective as highest goal is a similarity between both systems which distinguishes them from neoliberalism.
@@nightwish1000 your conflation of socialist economics and state intervention in times of war is a bit flawed. I know what you mean but the Nazis were definitely not socialist.
@@m1nty99 what do you think "gleichschaltung" or the coordination of all parts of society is if not an aspect of socialism. the nazis were socialists with the restraint that they didn't aim for international socialism, therefore "national socialism". economy was never free in the third reich also not prior to the war. they used lots of different tools to control and strengthen economy to their needs and that of the people so that it became kind of a planified economy,
Why do we pretend that only individuals can be creative? I'd like to see Hendrix play guitar without society farming and providing him with food. I'd like to see the scientist have time to research without the pay and labs of a university. What a ridiculous notion. Humans are social creatures, we literally die when we're alone too long usually after going insane. Yes we can be lost in a "they" but that doesn't mean we can truly be individual or without the "they". Did you really only use two sources apart from the text itself?
Heidegger says exactly what you've just described. There are lots of other sources I've read. But that's what I referred to in creating this video - I might add more when I have the time
Wish I could double-like this comment. Our civilization, our engine of productivity is a complex machine with billions of moving parts, built on a foundation of a hundred billion dead, their labor, their innovation.
Yeah how is it possible to square the most technologically sophisticated and smartest nation at that time and Heidegger, it's a mystery I hope someone comes along in 2000 years to explain it to us.
Great video and great channel, but your way of speaking seems overdone. I know you are aiming for a smooth and soothing, calm way of talking to do the ideas credit and let them speak for themselves, but you're laying it on pretty thickly, achieving the opposite in some instances. Maybe experiment with different narration techniques in the future, for long-form vids or short-form vids? Again, I have nothing against what you say, but the way you say it.
Good videa, but C'mon.. the most original philosopher in 2000 years? That's not only not true, but simply just a weird claim to make about a philosopher; doing and studying philosophy ecompasses all human endeavours, there will never be one "greatest philosopher".
Was the "2000 years" claim attempting to reference Plato? Because Kant's noumena, or things-in-themselves, seems to have a lot in common with Heidegger's notion of being.
@@chidedneck I think I don't entirely get your question, but I would disagree that Kant's idea of noumena is similar to Heidegger's notion of being. Can you rephrase?
Dreyfus provided one of the most failed and truncated presentations of Heidegger that has plagued western understanding of continental philosophy. His book and, unfortunately, your presentation, of Being and Time fails to accept being and ignores the notion of time.
How was one of the greatest minds in history a Nazi? Maybe he was onto something good? A true philosopher isn't so dogmatic and dismissive. Just saying.
Will Heyward or maybe you don't understand Nazism enough. Not saying that I understand it but you can't just say that "how can this brilliant philosopher be into something so dumb as nazism?"
What should it tell us then that Nazism can claim adherents in at most two great thinkers, Heidegger and Schmitt, while Marxism can claim dozens if not a hundred or more first rate 20th century thinkers? It’s a bad measure, either way. The reality is that the reason Heidegger still gets so much acceptance and respect is because his philosophical systems seems to bare no relationship to Nazism. In other words Heideggerian Philosophy cannot be meaningfully describes as “Nazi philosophy”.
@BeGood 2Me Words don't mean nothing unless we give and maintain clear definitions for them. If we look at what socialism means according to the dictionary then Nazism (NAZIonal Sozialismus) and Communism had NOTHING to do with socialism. Both Nazism and Communism were fascist regimes that painted themselves as being ''for the people and by the people'' which was off course propagandistic bullshit.
I wish the author could understand the real history, not the one written by the winners, and this would drive the video editing to a quite different shape when mentioning Germany. The Massman is actually the western force vector which created the Allied mob and its actions to destroy Germany, and not the other way round as presented in the video and the conformist history of today. Understanding the real history you will find that the German people lived an authentic experience, and will answer why Heidegger was part of the National-Social party and never renounce its membership. Otherwise the video is really good.
Thank you to:
Owen Pitcairn
Robert Moore
and Peter Tschann-Grimm
For sponsoring this video on Patreon with pledges of $10+
It's a huge help and is the only way I can make this videos, so thank you!
Why did you start off with "HEIDEGGER THE NAZI!"
Are you familiar with the logical falocy of poisoning the well?
Excellent video, the quality is highly appreciated.
I haven't seen part 2 yet, but I must say, It's so intellectually lazy and simple for us in 2018 to assume, "If I was Heidegger, and my intellect produced, "Being and Time" there is no possible way I would entangle myself with National Socialism during the meteoric rise of The 3rd Reich."
What undeserved hubris we grant to ourselves to make such a flippant assumption.
@@puppetperception7861 well said.
@@puppetperception7861 yo chill
Wasn't he trying to influence Hitler to build the German empire to more closely resemble Japan? (Jews as second class citizens who could bec German. Japan basically works that way with foreigners today.) I always thought Heidegger saw his responsibility as influencing the best outcome for the German people. Winning the war would have been the result of incorporating the other into the system most likely. Running death camps took a lot of labor and those people could have been earning citizenship on the front lines.
For non-philosophers, the most basic & important thing to understand about Heidegger (in order to not see his statements as obvious and useless) is that his starting point is to forget about all the modern world notions of a separation between the outside "real" world and the inside subjective world of perception (comonly viewed as less real). His phenomenological approach is to re-think human existence as it presents itself now, as the phenomena of being and being in the world, not as a third-person type analysis of the human object, but the feeling of being alive, only then you'll understand that his theory is genius and not irrelevent like Carnap does, because Carnap thinks he's trying to study human being as a third-person analysis and not as a phenomenological analysis that forgets about all the preconceived notions of "objectivity", "subjectivity" and so on... Just like Husserl said, "let's go back to the things themselves and forget about all your preconceived notions".
That's not a "modern world notion", that's the default view of all of humanity, with the exception of a handful influenced by Buddhist philosophy or Husserl or perhaps Hume, etc
Thank you, and my hat goes off to you, reading heidegger is so tough!
Thank you for this post. It makes me understand his approach a bit more. However, I still fail to see how it isn't obvious, when in fact explaining subjective experience of the world is the rendering of a fact more obvious than description from a third person aspect? I'm trying to understand what exactly his contribution was other than his memento mori motto of existentialism, since he's obviously very influential.
To be human is to be a philosopher.
Yeah Buddhists and Taoists have been saying and practicing this for centuries. Heidegger is not unique in his findings, but rather how he frames them. Heidegger was far from a genius.@@MrCmon113
This channel has the best stock footage on the internet
ua-cam.com/video/t2rT-b2xfRc/v-deo.html
Truly!
Never expected anyone can simplify the each building block of his monumental concepts that too in a 11 minutes vedio . Greatly benefited.
Thanks for posting this. I'm just beginning to study Heidegger and this has been a big help in helping me see why is considered such a prominent philosopher. Cheers!
Excellent video. Philochrony is the theory that describes the nature of time and demonstrates its existence. Time is magnitive.
My favorite point made in this segment was, on how the essence of an animal (it's being) is purely instinctual, and how the essence and or "being" of a human is completely different. Now the next logical furthermore intriguing question is Heidegger's "what is it like to exist"? "Being", "Dasein", states of mind and the like. An amazingly complex and beautifully insightful question. This was another amazing video. Keeo pushing forward in promoting Philosophy. The most intricate, complex and fascinating discipline of all of the intellectual arts!
I disagree that the essence of an animal is any different to the essence of a human - because humans are animals. The mental capacity & groundwork are different, but many animals are highly intelligent - so for you to say that the raw essence of a human being is completely different to that of an animal is nonsense.
@@r3dux It isn't about "intelligence" or "cognition." It is that a human being's existence and mode of Being is a matter of concern to it; that human beings can engage in a hermeneutic to uncover who they are; and that (within the constraints of the World into which they have been thrown), they have the ability to change what kind of a being they are and how they will receive other beings -- and a few can even bring into being a new World (through the creation of a work of art, for example), in which entirely new possibilities are opened up. Now, some of my best friends are dogs, and they are often more intelligent (unfortunately) than some human beings. But they simply do not have the same relation to Being as humans do -- in all the ways I mentioned above. And animals do not "die" in the way that Heidegger says that Dasein does: in that their Being is not shaped by their awareness of their own finitude.
(Note that Heidegger avoids the term "human being" all together. It is possible, I guess, that there *might* be other entities on Earth that are Dasein; it is almost certain that there are other non-human Dasein elsewhere in the cosmos)
@@rdgoulding Thank you for your reply, and thank you for your attempt to teach me and point out issues and aspects I might not be aware of so that I might consider them in a different light. My knowledge of philosophy is minimal, and I clearly recognize this discussion for what it is - in my field, it would equate to a junior programmer on their first day debating with a senior programmer of 20 years.
Your first point is spot on - in that no other animals have a "hermeneutic" to discover who they are. That was a new word to me - and to anyone else who hadn't encountered the word it means essentially "a book you can read about something". Non-human animals don't have written language, so while we can and DO read books (how to cook, how to change a tire, how to be a good person etc.) - no other animal on planet Earth has this capacity, e.g., dogs can't read a book about how to be the best doggo, aardvarks don't bone up on aardvarking before they start their illustrious aardvaarking career etc.
However, while hermeneutics are not available to other animals here, I still believe that (some) animals are aware of death and of their own mortality. For example, Elephants (I believe) mourn their dead and accept that death occurred, while dogs might mourn loss / absence but not understand why. With 'life' in mind, to put humans on a special pedestal that says "Only WE are special - only WE recognize that life is finite - only WE try to improve ourselves" is somewhat self-aggrandizing. If Elephants (or animals of similar mental capacity) can know that Elephants die, then they are likely aware of their own finitude. And canines / primates are fully aware that their behaviour affects their position and acceptance in the pack. As such they are able to "change what kind of being they are and how they will receive other beings" to quote your reply.
I don't have an axe to grind or any "truth" I'm trying to push - this is all just conversation. Cheers!
@@r3dux Montaigne in the sixteenth century also wanted to insist that humans and animals were not all that different - and also argued that some (such as elephants) were aware of their own death. So it's a good argument - and certainly has some value!
Hermeneutic can mean the intepretation of a written text. But Heidegger does not mean it that way, when he applies it to Dasein. What he is saying is that Dasein has no fixed nature of its own; rather, it *makes* its nature through a process of self-interpretation. Or, to put it another way, Dasein is involved constantly with the construction of meaning. And (he thinks) it is unique in that. Things might have significance to animals (something is a source of food, for example); but they don't construct systems of meaning, which also give themselves meaning.
The ultimate example, in Being and Time, is that there is something in this universe that raises the very first of all questions: "What is Being?" (another version of this "question of Being" is "Why is there something rather than nothing"). All of Heidegger's work is concerned with this question. And he attempts his answer by turning it round: who is this thing that thinks to ask this question? The answer to the question will be discovered by understanding why there is a thing that asks it, and what that thing is.
And I think we can at least agree with Heidegger that animals do not ask this first of all questions. Only humans do -- so, in our world, it seems that only humans are Dasein.
@@rdgoulding Thanks for taking the time to explain, it's very much appreciated and you make a compelling argument. I can understand that most animals do not ask "Why do I exist?" but as animal intelligence increases across the spectrum towards us, can you absolutely rule it out? Has a dolphin or an elephant never once thought "What am I doing here?" or "Why do I exist?". While it's impossible to prove without language (or record), it still feels very odd to me to definitively single out humans as being the only animals (and we very much are animals) capable of self-consideration - perhaps because I am unable to "put myself in their (lack-of) shoes".
From a computer science perspective, it's very likely that animal "minds" will be mapped in the future via their neurons, and will be capable of "execution" (i.e., you will be able to "run" an ant like any other software program). Although at present science is at the low end of the scale (we can't simulate an ant w/ ~250K neurons), I don't believe this will be the case for long - and if you look towards the bottom of this list you'll see that Humans aren't even the animals with the most neurons, so potentially the most complex minds (a type of Dolphin and 3 types of Whales are ahead of us): en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_animals_by_number_of_neurons
Anyways, It's definitely food for thought, and thank you again for your time.
Such a different way of looking at Heidegger, to me his Being and Time illustrate the very impossibly of describing ( in having to use signs, language) the condition of being a being that knows it is.
The irony of using words to describe how words don't describe things properly...I feel like we are overlooking just how much all things are built by language...we cannot crack the code..by not looking at the code
How to you know you're a "being that knows"? At best you know that there is knowing.
I greatly appreciate and value phenomenology, and not just the specific form or method of it that exists in the western philosophical tradition, but phenomenology in its broadest sense: namely, how we experience the world and ourselves. In my opinion, how we experience being and living is the most fundamental question there is, for the greatest value comes in our experiences and not in our representations or theories of experience. It is a scientific truth that the earth is a round sphere that revolves around the sun, and that's all well and good. But it is a phenomenological truth that the earth is flat and that the sun rises in the morning and sets in the evening. When I go out for a walk in the early morning I feel my feet walking across a flat surface and I see an orange/yellow ball rise from beneath the earth and increasingly rise higher as the atmosphere becomes brighter and warmer. In this experience of walking I am living life and taking in all of the colors and shapes and textures and sensations that arise outside of me and within me. Theorizing about the nature of reality and the rotation of the planets (etc.) is also a wonderful experience. But the key word is "experience". Discovering a new planet through a telescope or a new sub-atomic particle through a microscope is undoubtedly a rich and rewarding and spellbinding experience. Yes, these scientific discoveries also bring with them the ability to create and invent new technologies and new ways of living that help humanity, and so they have great utility. But the experience is the most valuable of all of the riches that help humanity, and not the "things" in themselves. Camus once said (paraphrasing) "whether the earth or the sun revolve around the other is of a profound indifference, but whether to commit suicide or not is the most important question". The western world has long been obsessed with trying to understand nature, map it out, and manipulate it to create new toys. And once again, that is all well and good (I'm only able to type this out because of the technologies that the scientific method has helped bring about, so I am by no means ungrateful for it). But no amount of awesome technologies like this keyboard that I am using to talk to you guys over the internet internet is quite as valuable as the experiences themselves. New technologies and maps of the world allow for enhanced experiences of being, but the highest value is precisely in the experience of being, and not in the technologies or maps themselves.
You get "it".
That is just a lot of nonsense as far as I can see. It doesnt tell us anything about the world or what it is to be a human. Yes, the experience of the world is what matter to us as individuals. New technology helps us a lot. You and I experience the earth as flat even though it is round. What else is new?
I am an athlete and I only really love and experience life when I am in the moment in my sport. It's difficult to explain. As soon as I am not exercising I feel I am in the Psychological fake and mental world.
What If there were no ukrainian nazi bots, and they have a bunch of nazi bots, oh look 800 years
this channel like a treasure that keeps giving. Thank you
Fantastic job. Having read B&T I find this to be a highly cogent refresher.
Hari
I took my exam on Heidegger in Bergen, Norway 1979. And have studied also eastern Vedanta philosophy for many years (Heidegger took part in dialoges with eastern thinkers).
After all these years of study my assessment is that Heidegger was and is a fundamental philisopher because he ask THE question of philosophy: Was ist Sein? In greek: ai on (on - tology). AND: the same is the base question in Vedanta: brahma jijnasa - what is Being?
Along with that question comes: What is the Self? - Which is also asked in Vedanta.
Without asking these questions there is no more philosophy, but mere nihilism, which is the dominant underlying conception of existence today in a postmodernistic culture with no standards of truth, and nothing else directive than ever changing political correctness, controlled by some few.
In Vedanta nihilism - sunyavada - is not considered philosophy, since there is no truth to search for. Within thinking nihilism is therefore considered irrelevant.
Heidegger, like Nietzsche, warned about the developement of nihilism followed by death of metaphysics and philosophy in Europe, leaving everything to cybernetics, today developed into a life in digital sphere.
Philosophy today is mere history of ideas and the basic questions and search after truth slaughtered in the educational systems.
But then the human is not any longer animal rational, but merely animal. Technology the animals also have as they need.
The famous interview with Spiegel 1966 to be released after his death was headlined: "Nur ein Gott kann uns retten" - "only a God can save us" - when being asked what philosoohy and science can do to save the world. This was the conclusion of the last classical philosopher in Europe trying his best to emphasize the need to ask the base question of philosophy of all times, west as east: "What is Being? What is Truth? Who am I? Why is there suffering?
If these questiln are not asked, then it is no longer human life, but sophisticated animal life, preparing for robot existence.
What is being?
What is Self?
What is Truth?
Who am I?
But....
'Who' is asking these questions???
@@elusiveeagle8597 A human being. That is the higher intelligence of humans, to be able to question.
@@Tapas08
Human
Being
What else, can Being be?!
You're completely lost in confusion and magical thinking. Pure conceptualization and no attention to your direct experience.
You think you are better than an "animal" or a "robot", because you are a mythical creature to yourself. If you had an ounce of attention, that delusion would be shattered.
He asked profound questions but he didn't have profound answers. He was basically a glorified motivational speaker. "Only God save us." What idiocy. Sartre also took up religion at the end of his life after a lifetime of being an atheist. He rejected everything he believed -- and I shall do the same with his philosophy which even he didn't really believe.
Fantastically, simple and well presented. Thank you
Thank you!
Philosophy major
Thanks
Such a clear intro to his thought.
Does anyone know where I can get a summary of his philosophies, having trouble understanding what point he is trying to get across
i just got the book. can't wait to read it :D
Best of DASMAN..
How are you?
this is my favourite UA-cam video
I subscribed to this channel, simply it provides sophisticated and accuate academic references. Keep up the good work!
great lecture your lecturing method is best
Great video. I'm about to start reading Being and Time. Interesting point about his support for the Nazi party (although I heard he later stopped supporting them). I think that if anything it's a testament of the power of nationalism and the unwillingness of most people to criticize their 'own' institution, since belonging to a larger group serves as an extension of one's ego and a great source of psychological security. Once you form a nationalistic allegiance your sense of morality is necessarily compromised; you abandon reason for faith.
People supported Nazism for various countless reasons not necessarily nationalism. For many it was a careerist move. For others it was philosophical. Others it was indeed patriotism but there were many other patriotic parties. One thing about the nazis is they streamlined Germany and created an enormous energy and drive and focus in the country. All Germans felt united around a single goal, to make their country better. As such its easy to see how many Germans supported the nazi party. Something to keep in mind is the oppression and camps was really not something Germans noticed until ww2. During the war the nazis really clamped down on civil liberties which changed the attitude of Germans. By 1945, a majority of Germans had a negative opinion of the nazi party.
Truly amazing channel; Keep that up!
Thank you! It's much appreciated :)
He asked profound questions, such as what is being, but he didn't have profound answers. Basically, he was a glorified motivational speaker or self-help guru who was flim-flamming with jargon and terminology. What an incredible snow job that impresses those who are beguiled by jargon and obscure rhetoric.
9:03 "The prominent Heideggerian RICHARD Dreyfus" LOL! I made that same error in conversation yesterday.
I maintain that Hubert should change his name :P
Ya was wondering the same 😂
This is helpful to those who read Being and Time, for those who didnt read the book you mightrather keep your ideas to yourself.
This is soooo good!! Easily understandable. Keep up the good work!
nice introduction.
Nobody can understand the evil of the 21st century without understanding the continental philosophy
5:59 what is he saying?
''..the more unveildly is it encountered as that which it is as equipment.''
Do the models of time ‘Chronos’ and ‘Kairos’, connect in anyway to Martin Heidegger’s philosophy?
Martin Heiddegar: The big questions on coexistence, obviously we are beings who need to work Together. On the other hand Renee desacarte begs the question on Reason. As we do so we need to use our minds as to whom, how we may coexist. " I think therefore I am." Time is to Think.
Do you mean Discourse as in speech or discourse as opposed to harmony?
Edit: My bad, I confused Discourse as Discord. Been listening to Silmarillion :P
You mean hubert Dreyfus?? Not Richard??
9:04, did you mean Hubert Dreyfus? LOL
I did! Not the actor from Jaws! That's the second mistake someone's pointed out in this video - thank you!
hahaha i had to double check because i make the exact same mistake all the time
LOL I was for a second over here like "wait, is Richard Dreyfuss a prominent academic voice, the foremost respected authority on Heidegger!?"
This is a really helpful video - can you do one on Foucault's 'later' works on ascetic practices of freedom?
Thanks!
Thank you! Would like to at some point - will probably do something on Discipline and Punish first
The Descartes example of the wax as existence: optimal transport and energy ✌️
But Descartes still remains a great philosopher and a mathematician. Hobbes criticised Descartes's Cogito etc....Sartre does also...
You mentioned that his philosophy asks for the meaning of Being (Sein), yet you only focus on Dasein. This seems like an existenzial bending of his work.
Thanks for the video. Which book or references do you recommend for learning about Heidegger and specifically Being and Time? I have just started reading the book (Being and Time) but it is difficult for me as a beginner to understand the meaning of Heidegger language, so I am looking for a reliable study guide.
Thank you for this 💜
This was a boring video about this guy. Try the much better and shorter video by The School of Life.
its pretty basic.
All choices are based on either love or fear. Love is the self and fear is the EGO. WHich do you choose more every day?
At 9:06, you say Richard Dreyfuss. That is a musician. I think you meant Hubert Dreyfus, the philosopher.
The heroic creative romantic notion of individual does not exist in Being and Time. Even H's notion of authenticity is something much more primordial and doesnt necessarily individuate in that R
romantic sense. It has more to do with phenomenological immediacy and uncoverdness.
Exactly! It's all about the phenomena of being, going back to the things themselves.
09:04 I believe you ment Herbert Dreyfus
now the name is right, still was a great video!!
Thank you for pointing it out! Was in two minds whether to reupload - was too much of a glaring mistake in the first few seconds not to!
Very lucid. Thank you.
8:58 *What does he say* ??? "We must step away from the *BAY* / *DAY* " ?
Bay
AClassOldie Thanks. Do you know if it's the bay as in port, something near the ocean? Or a diff. bay?
"They".
The They is the concept which Heidegger develops.
This is quite good Great job!
Their is no they and their is no individual. How would one differentiate the two??
How come that you consider the background sound to be more important than your speach?
It is pretty hard, and calls for much concentration, to isolate the speach......
Please please please correct the "prominent Heideggerian Richard Dreyfus" line. It's Hubert.
@@akiva7774 LOL. Clearly!
I would say the idea of discourse here is a little misleading, as, in B+T, "discourse" is presented as something extraneous to circumspection, a form of "communication" that can only restate what is circumspectly held to be true by Dasein on a pre-ontological level.
So existence precedes essence. Something has to exist before it can become something and that something is relational. Sounds like existentialism to me.
It sounds like existentialism because existentialism was directly inspired by it. Sartre based his own book, Being and Nothingness, directly on Being and Time (hence the similarity in the names). Heidegger disavowed the label of existentialism, saying that Sartre had not understood him. But originally, he was introduced to America under that label.
What about the TIME part of this book
I think the notion of dasein is just the implication of 1 individual and 2 organising idea (Nietzsche ).
I am struggling with "in authenticity" as opposed to "authenticity"
He meant “inauthenticity”, as in, the opposition to “authenticity”.
Did you reupload or am I missing something?
Still great vid the second time
I reuploaded because of quite a large mistake in the first few seconds! Thank you for watching again :)
Then & Now Ooh, so that's why.
Science talks about what is there, epistemological. But Heidegger tries to talk about how a “there” became, ontological. A there came for us, and a self in a sense, when language came to us. Language is the house of Being. knowing the rules of syntax,or semantics is epistemological, knowing that language is the house of Being is ontological.
State of mind = Eckhart tolle presence?
Hmmm.... I understand some of these words.
*¡Martin Heidegger (1889 - 1976) was a loyal German Nazi philosopher!* - 8:26 am Pacific Standard Time on Saturday, 12 March 2022 Common Era or CE formerly known as Ano Domini or AD
Excellent
hey where are you from
I am from Somerset, UK
@@ThenNow I really love your videos, they really motivate me to learn more and I'm already reading the second part of Ser y Tiempo, greetings from Chile
That this video uses footage of jazz musicians to extrapolate on "authenticity" is fascinating in every possible way. I'm not surprised, but... Hmmm.
Will the Black Notebooks be mentioned in Part 2?
I will... I'm going to do a few different videos in between though before I come back to it - need to do it justice
I like your videos :) I’m probs gonna like this one
Loved it haha
Glad to hear! Thank you!
Heidegger was a philosopher not a contemporary historian. Hence mistakes were allowed.
the cop of philosophy
Surrounding of a person form his being and time.
No.
Oops - you mentioned 'the prominent Heideggerian Richard Dreyfus - now, he's a fine actor, but as far as I'm aware his knowledge of Heidegger is poor. Hubert, I trust you meant. Still, a small error in what is for the most part a good video.
His nazism makes sense in that his sense of being was interdependent or relationally defined . I think his philosophy in the reverse was just a projection of his own weakness
I'm not defending Nazism or his choice to be a Nazi, but your comment got me interested: There is no sense of self without other, wouldn't you agree?
Felix Constant-Hynes right , everything exist and is defined by its relation to everything else . Distinction is only defined by surroundings. But what I find is that philosophers and teachers and people in general are most familiar with their own weaknesses and teach others about the strengths they lack in their own lives. And in fact you can probably guess the personal lives of philosophers by reversing the philosophy they actually teach
@@MrSanford65 I like that idea yeah, it makes sense
@@FelixConstant
Of course there is. Maybe there wouldn't have been given a different evolutionary history. But as things are, people's belief in self goes on even when they're alone, not thinking about others, completely unafraid of being confronted by anyone. At the same time you can be very much engaged in thinking about others and the self is completely gone, such as reading a novel.
Heidegger reminds me of Mike Myers' Dieter
Music is distracting
Garcia Edward Lee Jason Martinez Daniel
Oh my, how is it possible for someone to be super smart AND think or feel differently from the rest of the world! Hahahaha...
Thanks for your explanation! ... Regarding how can one considered a 'genius' turn to fascism... A lot of people who were at the US Capitol on 6 Jan 2021 to 'stop the steal' were intelligent fascists (I know at least two of them personally, embarrassed to say). One of my favorite authors, HP Lovecraft, was a fascist, and it comes out occasionally in his stories via descriptions of Others. I think it might be a combination of fanaticism, feelings of alienation combined with a perverted need for a sense of belonging, or possibly even fanatic or (Eric Hoffer's) true believer personality types...I am interested to see your analysis in part two! I have not read Heidegger, but I wonder if the fascism creeps into his writings as well, as it dis for Lovecraft. Thanks!
Why do you think Lovecraft was a fascist? I don't detect fascism in the writings either. Xenophobia is quite noticable and often even integral to the horror, but I don't see anything fascist.
i appreciate the text . it isquite accurate . but not reallj the images . u might know how images trick our thoughts .
TY , anjwaj .
Saying cats don't experience anything "existential" is just sad.
It might be that they are spared of all this suffering, of the guilt, of the burden of responsibility, of the anxiety, of the disorientation that comes from having one's identity perpetually in question, of the dread of never feeling like we are finished, like we've become what we are supposed to be, that we humans have to deal with on a daily basis.
You might feel happy for the cats. It's human existence that should be pitied.
@@Deantrey How can we know that they are spared from all this, though?
@@hopebringer2348 I admit that we cannot. At least, mine give me absolutely no indication that they experience anything like this.
@@Deantrey
I have absolutely no clue what you're talking about and I bet you are just parroting others instead of genuinely reflecting your experience.
A cat has all of the problems you have in slightly different form.
@@MrCmon113 Dumbed down version for you: cat's don't have human problems and don't experience existential anxiety (anxiety over one's existence or identity rather than about external things like whether an animal is going to eat you), so really they have it better than we do.
I don't think that what you say is true. Does a cat ever feel that it's life is meaningless? does it ever feel gender dysphoria? does it ever feel insecure about it's body? does it ever feel like it can't live up to it's father's expectations? does it ever doubt God? does it regret what it has made of its life? I think projecting human traits onto cats is fun (it's why animated movies are so fun) but it doesn't help us understand or relate to them. By the way, this is called anthropomorphism, and it's generally seen as a logical fallacy.
I think you have the question of National Socialism backwards, as does everyone. If you don't see the genuine desire for Nazi ideology, that's because you have never understood it. It's the same with Communism - both are protected from mass empathy through the lens of death, but this doesn't speak to their weakness, but their profound power. The most ardent ideas are always protected against in foundation myths and fear.
the genuine desire for the very similar ideologies of nazism and communism back then and partly still nowadays is hardly based on their myth and fear or death, that's only the very weak and unstable who would fall for that, but on their anticapitalist approach of justice through equality. we know that both systems annihilated what they didn't accept or saw as a danger to their definition of being "equal" but we shouldn't forget that capitalism annihilates just through its existence of wealth built up on the back of the poor. there might come a day again, in a non-capitalist world, when capitalism will be depicted again with "death and fear" and it would hardly be less reasonable. it's just a question of zeitgeist and perspective. you might not be aware of it but millions of people around the globe have been victims of the capitalist system.
@@nightwish1000 nazism and 'communism' are not similar. Communism describes the original state of nature of man (utopia) in a classless society. Communism can only be reached through socialism which shares elements with Nazism but the two remain separate from one another. Nazism incorporates elements of neo-liberal free market economics to encourage innovation, but with massive state funding to back it up (hence the Nazis technological edge In some areas). Socialism is complete collectivisation of all private property. The two are similar in that state power is entirely centralised but that is where the similarities end. Other than they are both awful systems that inevitably lead to innumerable suffering. God bless and have a great weekend :).
@@m1nty99 I never stated that they were kind of the same but i underlined the parallels. nazism only incorporates elements of free market as long as it serves the state which is not a neoliberal but rather a socialist approach (along with the state fundings), a bit like in communist-capitalist china. the nazis could shut down any factory when they wanted or change the production line to their needs - which they did. the benefit of the collective as highest goal is a similarity between both systems which distinguishes them from neoliberalism.
@@nightwish1000 your conflation of socialist economics and state intervention in times of war is a bit flawed. I know what you mean but the Nazis were definitely not socialist.
@@m1nty99 what do you think "gleichschaltung" or the coordination of all parts of society is if not an aspect of socialism. the nazis were socialists with the restraint that they didn't aim for international socialism, therefore "national socialism". economy was never free in the third reich also not prior to the war. they used lots of different tools to control and strengthen economy to their needs and that of the people so that it became kind of a planified economy,
Why do we pretend that only individuals can be creative? I'd like to see Hendrix play guitar without society farming and providing him with food. I'd like to see the scientist have time to research without the pay and labs of a university. What a ridiculous notion. Humans are social creatures, we literally die when we're alone too long usually after going insane.
Yes we can be lost in a "they" but that doesn't mean we can truly be individual or without the "they".
Did you really only use two sources apart from the text itself?
Heidegger says exactly what you've just described.
There are lots of other sources I've read. But that's what I referred to in creating this video - I might add more when I have the time
Wish I could double-like this comment.
Our civilization, our engine of productivity is a complex machine with billions of moving parts, built on a foundation of a hundred billion dead, their labor, their innovation.
Rather than a ten minute youtube video, you'd actually have to read Being in Time. He addresses that exactly
Terrible truism. pseud.
"we literally die after we're alone too long usually after going insane" have you ever heard of a buddhist monk?
thanks for posting. the sound, though, does not help to understand you.
Be careful of his idea which occupied the war period. Being and Time under the Freedom surrounding could be different.
I have an even more important question; How do you turn off this f"""""""g music??
I've got the feeling that I'm going to have a love hate relationship with this channel.
"Being in Time" is a great book to "ready at hand" in the toilet.
Great people have great flaws
2:30
Goof stuff ☺
So, did Heidegger belive that we human have a free will in the same way Sarte did?
Yes. In fact, Heidegger was THE major influence on Sartre.
Jean Paul Sartre was an immature thinker, with prejudices.
Yeah how is it possible to square the most technologically sophisticated and smartest nation at that time and Heidegger, it's a mystery I hope someone comes along in 2000 years to explain it to us.
Great video and great channel, but your way of speaking seems overdone. I know you are aiming for a smooth and soothing, calm way of talking to do the ideas credit and let them speak for themselves, but you're laying it on pretty thickly, achieving the opposite in some instances. Maybe experiment with different narration techniques in the future, for long-form vids or short-form vids? Again, I have nothing against what you say, but the way you say it.
Good videa, but C'mon.. the most original philosopher in 2000 years? That's not only not true, but simply just a weird claim to make about a philosopher; doing and studying philosophy ecompasses all human endeavours, there will never be one "greatest philosopher".
Was the "2000 years" claim attempting to reference Plato? Because Kant's noumena, or things-in-themselves, seems to have a lot in common with Heidegger's notion of being.
@@chidedneck I think I don't entirely get your question, but I would disagree that Kant's idea of noumena is similar to Heidegger's notion of being. Can you rephrase?
Dreyfus provided one of the most failed and truncated presentations of Heidegger that has plagued western understanding of continental philosophy. His book and, unfortunately, your presentation, of Being and Time fails to accept being and ignores the notion of time.
The music was recorded off a pun ball machine? So irritating. Had to stop listening.
yo he wasn't a nazi, he abandoned it before his death
Who cares if he was a Nazi or not? As if that has to do with the truth or falsehood of someone's ideas.
@@JustinHerchel it does.
@@2nd_snideelf144 2+2=4 whether you're a Nazi or a Jew.
How was one of the greatest minds in history a Nazi? Maybe he was onto something good? A true philosopher isn't so dogmatic and dismissive. Just saying.
Will Heyward or maybe you don't understand Nazism enough. Not saying that I understand it but you can't just say that "how can this brilliant philosopher be into something so dumb as nazism?"
I don't think you understood my comment, I never said Nazism was dumb.
What should it tell us then that Nazism can claim adherents in at most two great thinkers, Heidegger and Schmitt, while Marxism can claim dozens if not a hundred or more first rate 20th century thinkers?
It’s a bad measure, either way.
The reality is that the reason Heidegger still gets so much acceptance and respect is because his philosophical systems seems to bare no relationship to Nazism. In other words Heideggerian Philosophy cannot be meaningfully describes as “Nazi philosophy”.
@@johnfinch6057 Thank you for your clear and succinct thoughts.
@BeGood 2Me Words don't mean nothing unless we give and maintain clear definitions for them. If we look at what socialism means according to the dictionary then Nazism (NAZIonal Sozialismus) and Communism had NOTHING to do with socialism. Both Nazism and Communism were fascist regimes that painted themselves as being ''for the people and by the people'' which was off course propagandistic bullshit.
the nazi stuff in this vid might be why all your stuff got demonitized
I wish the author could understand the real history, not the one written by the winners, and this would drive the video editing to a quite different shape when mentioning Germany. The Massman is actually the western force vector which created the Allied mob and its actions to destroy Germany, and not the other way round as presented in the video and the conformist history of today. Understanding the real history you will find that the German people lived an authentic experience, and will answer why Heidegger was part of the National-Social party and never renounce its membership. Otherwise the video is really good.
He wasn’t really a Nazi.
Let me rewrite your introduction: Martin Heidegger, a nazi who stole some of "his" best ideas from The Book of Tea by Okakura Kakuzō...