Glad to see you talk about this book. It’s unfortunate, however, to see so many clear misunderstandings and misrepresentations of it. First, Heidegger is not trying to “solve” the “problem” of being. He is only trying to reawaken the question of being. And questioning is not just a simple seeking but a “restrained seeking” that almost resembles critique. The point of his inquiry then is not to grasp after an answer (since the grasping would be predetermined by the understanding of being that we always already operate under). The point is, rather, to withhold understanding and to release being from our predetermined forms of understanding. This is perhaps the most important distinction that needs to be made when trying to understand the book. If you get this then it becomes clear that he is not doing metaphysics. He’s actually trying to overcome metaphysics! And he is definitely not trying to escape language. Language is the house of being! That’s why he positions discourse as one of the basic structural moments of care. This also makes clear that the book is not “incomplete” because it didn’t go where he projected at the beginning but that he was successful in withholding his own understanding.
While it is true that Heidegger isn't trying to answer the "problem" of being but rather making the question clear (explicitation), the "destruction" of metaphysics he's trying to operate is ultimately unsuccessful because he uses categories that are, willingly or not, metaphysically loaded - Being and Time is incomplete because Heidegger fails to articulate the distinction between the time of being and the temporality of Dasein without relapsing in either metaphysical subjectivism or acknowledging the "independence" of being from our presupposed immediate understanding of it); the restrained seeking is a result of his application of Husserl's epoché on an existential register: he still operates under the guise of phenomenology, and tries to overcome the supposedly deficient intra-conscious noesis/noema distinction by suggesting the ontic/ontological difference and a whole new framework that rejects the subject-object dualism typical of the metaphysics of presence. But if we are to take Kant seriously, the dualism itself is possible only because there is a subject. The "question of being" is still predicated upon a more indirect form of subjectivity, because the rejection of the subject/object dichotomy in favor of a ontic-ontological one - only by the virtue that Dasein itself is a particular mode-of-being that is capable of a immediate, pre-ontological (inexplicit) understanding of being - does not do away with apperception which is constitutive of subjectivity; Heidegger is critiquing the Cartesian dichotomy, which sees matter and mind as separate substances, not the Kantian one where the subject is in fact, not substance. Heidegger just substitutes apperception with "ownness" (Dasein is that which is in each and every case "my own"). Derrida makes this clear: one cannot simply destroy metaphysics using metaphysical categories - you either create more and more complex edifices of conceptual abstraction and metaphor that border on the ridicule (or the poetic) by seeking and co-constituting the conditions for the conditions... (and so on to the nth power) of access to a determinate "category" or "intuition" of being itself (Jean-Luc Marion and Merelau-Ponty come to mind), once again at the risk of relapsing into mere idealism - or you circumvent it by taking the written (metaphysical) word as a simple material inscription that defies signification (which is what Derrida, Laruelle and Reiner Schurmann do in their own various ways). Heidegger's own delving into hermeneutics after the "failure" of B&T points at the fact that language - specifically, indoeuropean languages due to the ambiguous nature of the copula, and this becomes even clearer with Derrida (and even Foucault to a certain extent) - precludes any kind of explicitation because there is no hidden sense of being that has to be rescued from words _and_ concepts, insofar as signifiers are material denotations that point to concepts... and being seems to be anything but a concept according to Heidegger (but not only him). It's just that Heidegger's obsession with the greeks and Seinsverlassenheit makes him buy into the whole rethoric of parmenidean aletheia. This is just one of many other attempts at overcoming the decadent nihilism that plagued Europe since the beginning and spreading of modernity in collective consciousness.
@@tagthorpe5920 Sadly, that would require careful reading, generosity, and time on the part of the reader. But yes, go ahead and feel slighted when someone disagrees with your reading. That will help.
man like a month ago you were like “hey guys, i might not have enough time because i finished my phd and started teaching :3” and now you decided to start an 8 part series on heidegger of all things
So so glad you're doing this deep dive into Heidegger. I had so much trouble reading the guy, as well as many others of the more modern big brains. I can dig Kant because he makes up new terms for things and I can grok; but when they re-frame words already in my parlance to their context I get brain derp on it with either: obvious (proly my missing the point being made because why state the obvious without applying it as a given) or obfuscating (when the nuances of their chosen terms conflict with where they're trying to lead us with the term keeps leading me personally to: 'so, did this term resonate differently back in duders day and age which has grown differently since then into meaning what I think it means instead of what duders trying to say because it just don't jive hipcat'.) Edit: notwithstanding, their terms are often translations from a whole diff language and set of cultural associations to their chosen terminology. Grrrr, just give me a specific phrase to plug into juggling and synthesizing what I know with what you're trying to expand that with ya ding dang riddlers.
Ayyyyy, well, let's go! While I own Being and Time, I only really bought it to get Heidegger's understanding of the sign. Derrida is streets ahead, but there are people who claim that you need to understand Heidegger to understand Hegel. So I am here. For. This.
Oh, and I ended up writing a whole goddamn essay because of your "what do you guys think" of Benjamin's Concept of History. Ended up being the longest thing I've written on a single piece. I don't think I'll ever do such a delve into a work again, but hey, his "messianic time" is *non-empty* for me. I am either able to "fill" it, or produce its understanding insofar that I can complete what it takes to represent as sign.
Just as a heads up, the reason the book is so long is because Heidegger's dissertation committee basically said the first half of the book wasn't enough so he was forced to write the second half. It wasn't his choice to have such a long book.
4:00 the repeating, is to be repetitious on purpose so that it cemented itself the concept of different aspects and in different angles. This is a classic writing style for philosophy. Same applies for Stalin. And Lenin.
omg , going in big time with the big H ... i'm into a lot of german idealism, prob my main focus, and a lot of stuff on Johannes Niederhauser's channel regarding such topics ... GREAT STUFF !!
Do you plan to do Adorno's Jargon der Eigentlichkeit (Negative Dialektik) after that? It would be interesting since it's more or less a direct answer to Heidegger.
It’s funny because when I ask, what does it mean to be? My answer would be, to be content. In the search for being we’re discontenting ourselves. To ‘be’ is to allow yourself to be contained in the present moment as part of its contents.
Once you address the preliminaries and describe Being and Time as akin to a detective novel-where “you don’t really know what’s happening until the very end”-you immediately bring up the obligatory ‘elephant in the room.’ This suggests it must be significant; otherwise, why mention it so prominently? However, since you fail to clarify the necessary connection between this ‘elephant’ and Being and Time, you force the audience to watch the entire series (perhaps yet another detective in the ongoing mystery of the novel!) to discern whether the connection is necessary (structural) or incidental. If the connection is structural, you have a responsibility to highlight this. If it is incidental, why bring it up at all? Clarifying this would either resolve a long-standing debate about the relationship (as explored by figures such as Emmanuel Levinas, Emmanuel Faye, Richard Wolin, Hubert Dreyfus, and Thomas Sheehan) or expose an unnecessary digression. If the connection is necessary, you could be making a groundbreaking contribution. If it’s incidental, however, what purpose does mentioning it serve? Virtue signalling? By the way, if you're looking for a balanced presentation of this issue, I recommend watching the first few minutes of Jade Vine's lectures on Being and Time. Unlike you, he doesn’t attempt to subtly (or rather, not so subtly) think on behalf of his audience.
Thanks for this one. Brings to mind a question what do we think about people who made major contributions to art or science but were terrible people? I’ve never been able to answer this satisfactorily maybe because of my own superstitions. I’m not sure we can ever completely separate the man from his work, I once tried to read being and time and didn’t have technical reading ability at the time. I appreciate these podcasts and maybe will give it another shot.
We are all #1. Oh, goodie! This will be doubleplusgood. Yes I understand that Kerouac, Pound, and Céline were the vilest antisemites but their Jewish peers stood up for their art.
Love Heidegger, and I am a Descendant of Slaves and I like you live on the Spiritual Grave of a Great People. You should think very hard about these people, but like most people here you will not. We are exactly no better than the Germans and Do Not Think some how you are morally superior to Heidegger. Thank You for Videos.
Glad to see you talk about this book. It’s unfortunate, however, to see so many clear misunderstandings and misrepresentations of it.
First, Heidegger is not trying to “solve” the “problem” of being. He is only trying to reawaken the question of being. And questioning is not just a simple seeking but a “restrained seeking” that almost resembles critique. The point of his inquiry then is not to grasp after an answer (since the grasping would be predetermined by the understanding of being that we always already operate under). The point is, rather, to withhold understanding and to release being from our predetermined forms of understanding. This is perhaps the most important distinction that needs to be made when trying to understand the book. If you get this then it becomes clear that he is not doing metaphysics. He’s actually trying to overcome metaphysics! And he is definitely not trying to escape language. Language is the house of being! That’s why he positions discourse as one of the basic structural moments of care. This also makes clear that the book is not “incomplete” because it didn’t go where he projected at the beginning but that he was successful in withholding his own understanding.
While it is true that Heidegger isn't trying to answer the "problem" of being but rather making the question clear (explicitation), the "destruction" of metaphysics he's trying to operate is ultimately unsuccessful because he uses categories that are, willingly or not, metaphysically loaded - Being and Time is incomplete because Heidegger fails to articulate the distinction between the time of being and the temporality of Dasein without relapsing in either metaphysical subjectivism or acknowledging the "independence" of being from our presupposed immediate understanding of it); the restrained seeking is a result of his application of Husserl's epoché on an existential register: he still operates under the guise of phenomenology, and tries to overcome the supposedly deficient intra-conscious noesis/noema distinction by suggesting the ontic/ontological difference and a whole new framework that rejects the subject-object dualism typical of the metaphysics of presence. But if we are to take Kant seriously, the dualism itself is possible only because there is a subject. The "question of being" is still predicated upon a more indirect form of subjectivity, because the rejection of the subject/object dichotomy in favor of a ontic-ontological one - only by the virtue that Dasein itself is a particular mode-of-being that is capable of a immediate, pre-ontological (inexplicit) understanding of being - does not do away with apperception which is constitutive of subjectivity; Heidegger is critiquing the Cartesian dichotomy, which sees matter and mind as separate substances, not the Kantian one where the subject is in fact, not substance. Heidegger just substitutes apperception with "ownness" (Dasein is that which is in each and every case "my own"). Derrida makes this clear: one cannot simply destroy metaphysics using metaphysical categories - you either create more and more complex edifices of conceptual abstraction and metaphor that border on the ridicule (or the poetic) by seeking and co-constituting the conditions for the conditions... (and so on to the nth power) of access to a determinate "category" or "intuition" of being itself (Jean-Luc Marion and Merelau-Ponty come to mind), once again at the risk of relapsing into mere idealism - or you circumvent it by taking the written (metaphysical) word as a simple material inscription that defies signification (which is what Derrida, Laruelle and Reiner Schurmann do in their own various ways). Heidegger's own delving into hermeneutics after the "failure" of B&T points at the fact that language - specifically, indoeuropean languages due to the ambiguous nature of the copula, and this becomes even clearer with Derrida (and even Foucault to a certain extent) - precludes any kind of explicitation because there is no hidden sense of being that has to be rescued from words _and_ concepts, insofar as signifiers are material denotations that point to concepts... and being seems to be anything but a concept according to Heidegger (but not only him). It's just that Heidegger's obsession with the greeks and Seinsverlassenheit makes him buy into the whole rethoric of parmenidean aletheia. This is just one of many other attempts at overcoming the decadent nihilism that plagued Europe since the beginning and spreading of modernity in collective consciousness.
@scriabinismydog2439 what do you call an alligator in a vest? An investigator, they just don't want to pay for it.
Then you clearly have "solved" the "problem" of everyone else's inadequate understanding. Congrats.
@@tagthorpe5920 Sadly, that would require careful reading, generosity, and time on the part of the reader. But yes, go ahead and feel slighted when someone disagrees with your reading. That will help.
man like a month ago you were like “hey guys, i might not have enough time because i finished my phd and started teaching :3” and now you decided to start an 8 part series on heidegger of all things
Your content is so comforting thanks
Very calming speech. Appreciate the low intensity
So so glad you're doing this deep dive into Heidegger. I had so much trouble reading the guy, as well as many others of the more modern big brains. I can dig Kant because he makes up new terms for things and I can grok; but when they re-frame words already in my parlance to their context I get brain derp on it with either: obvious (proly my missing the point being made because why state the obvious without applying it as a given) or obfuscating (when the nuances of their chosen terms conflict with where they're trying to lead us with the term keeps leading me personally to: 'so, did this term resonate differently back in duders day and age which has grown differently since then into meaning what I think it means instead of what duders trying to say because it just don't jive hipcat'.)
Edit: notwithstanding, their terms are often translations from a whole diff language and set of cultural associations to their chosen terminology. Grrrr, just give me a specific phrase to plug into juggling and synthesizing what I know with what you're trying to expand that with ya ding dang riddlers.
Ayyyyy, well, let's go! While I own Being and Time, I only really bought it to get Heidegger's understanding of the sign. Derrida is streets ahead, but there are people who claim that you need to understand Heidegger to understand Hegel. So I am here. For. This.
Oh, and I ended up writing a whole goddamn essay because of your "what do you guys think" of Benjamin's Concept of History. Ended up being the longest thing I've written on a single piece. I don't think I'll ever do such a delve into a work again, but hey, his "messianic time" is *non-empty* for me. I am either able to "fill" it, or produce its understanding insofar that I can complete what it takes to represent as sign.
Fairly new here; first time seeing one of your podcast-like videos. Looking forward to the rest of the series ❤️
Yas. Gods' blessed me. I was hopelessly trying to read Being and Time.
Just as a heads up, the reason the book is so long is because Heidegger's dissertation committee basically said the first half of the book wasn't enough so he was forced to write the second half. It wasn't his choice to have such a long book.
I will definitely listen to all of them
Thanks again David
4:00 the repeating, is to be repetitious on purpose so that it cemented itself the concept of different aspects and in different angles. This is a classic writing style for philosophy. Same applies for Stalin. And Lenin.
omg , going in big time with the big H ... i'm into a lot of german idealism, prob my main focus, and a lot of stuff on Johannes Niederhauser's channel regarding such topics ... GREAT STUFF !!
Finally! Love B&T!!
Thank you❤
Just started to follow these episodes. Made me wonder if there's any analysis on das sollen instead?
Do you plan to do Adorno's Jargon der Eigentlichkeit (Negative Dialektik) after that? It would be interesting since it's more or less a direct answer to Heidegger.
Oh my goodness, it is time ;)
Thanks
Once one understands Zen Buddhism and Heidegger POV is easy to be understood
Isn't the hyphen the key to heidegger's being and time?
The hyphen plus the make-believe-word-such-as-this
Yayyyy ❤
It’s funny because when I ask, what does it mean to be? My answer would be, to be content. In the search for being we’re discontenting ourselves. To ‘be’ is to allow yourself to be contained in the present moment as part of its contents.
Once you address the preliminaries and describe Being and Time as akin to a detective novel-where “you don’t really know what’s happening until the very end”-you immediately bring up the obligatory ‘elephant in the room.’ This suggests it must be significant; otherwise, why mention it so prominently? However, since you fail to clarify the necessary connection between this ‘elephant’ and Being and Time, you force the audience to watch the entire series (perhaps yet another detective in the ongoing mystery of the novel!) to discern whether the connection is necessary (structural) or incidental.
If the connection is structural, you have a responsibility to highlight this. If it is incidental, why bring it up at all? Clarifying this would either resolve a long-standing debate about the relationship (as explored by figures such as Emmanuel Levinas, Emmanuel Faye, Richard Wolin, Hubert Dreyfus, and Thomas Sheehan) or expose an unnecessary digression. If the connection is necessary, you could be making a groundbreaking contribution. If it’s incidental, however, what purpose does mentioning it serve? Virtue signalling?
By the way, if you're looking for a balanced presentation of this issue, I recommend watching the first few minutes of Jade Vine's lectures on Being and Time. Unlike you, he doesn’t attempt to subtly (or rather, not so subtly) think on behalf of his audience.
Thanks for this one. Brings to mind a question what do we think about people who made major contributions to art or science but were terrible people? I’ve never been able to answer this satisfactorily maybe because of my own superstitions. I’m not sure we can ever completely separate the man from his work, I once tried to read being and time and didn’t have technical reading ability at the time. I appreciate these podcasts and maybe will give it another shot.
We are all #1. Oh, goodie! This will be doubleplusgood.
Yes I understand that Kerouac, Pound, and Céline were the vilest antisemites but their Jewish peers stood up for their art.
Love Heidegger, and I am a Descendant of Slaves and I like you live on the Spiritual Grave of a Great People. You should think very hard about these people, but like most people here you will not. We are exactly no better than the Germans and Do Not Think some how you are morally superior to Heidegger. Thank You for Videos.
Huh?
wow hecking problematic