Professor Bonevac, thank you so much for this interesting video! Heidegger’s thoughts about human’s realisation of his place in the world reminded me of play “Rosencrantz and Guildenstern Are Dead” by Tom Stoppard. Main heroes of that play can’t remember anything about their previous life and are obliged to follow their roles, which aren’t understandable to them. It seems to me to be a metaphor of typical human’s life. There is memorable dialogue in this work: GUIL (the nursemaid): There!... and we'll soon be home and dry... and high and dry... (Rapidly.) Has it ever happened to you that all of a sudden and for no reason at all you haven't the faintest idea how to spell the word - "wife" - or "house" - because when you write it down you just can't remember ever having seen those letters in that order before...? ROS: I remember... GUIL: Yes? ROS: I remember there were no questions. GUIL: There were always questions. To exchange one set for another is no great matter. ROS: Answers, yes. There were answers to everything. GUIL: You've forgotten. ROS (flaring): I haven't forgotten - how I used to remember my own name - and yours, oh ): I haven't forgotten - how I used to remember my own name - and yours, oh yes! There were answers everywhere you looked. There was no question about it - people knew who I was and if they didn't they asked and I told them. GUIL: You did, the trouble is each of them is... plausible, without being instinctive. All your life you live so close to truth, it becomes a permanent blur in the corner of your eye, and when something nudges it into outline it is like being ambushed by a grotesque. A man standing in his saddle in the half-lit half-alive dawn banged on the shutters and called two names. He was just a hat and the cloak levitating in the grey plume of his own breath, but when he called we came. That much is certain - we came. ROS: Well I can tell you I'm sick to death of it. I don't care one way or another, so why don't you make up your mind. GUIL: We can't afford anything quite so arbitrary. Nor did we come all this way for a christening. All that - preceded us. But we are comparatively fortunate; we might have been left to sift the whole field of human nomenclature, like two blind men looting a bazaar for their own portraits... At least we are presented with alternatives. ROS: Well as from now - GUIL: - But not choice. ROS: You made me look ridiculous in there. GUIL: I looked as ridiculous as you did. ROS (an anguished cry): Consistency is all I ask! GUIL (low, wry rhetoric): Give us this day our daily mask. ROS (a dying fall): I want to go home. (Moves.) Which way did we come in? I've lost my sense of direction. GUIL: The only beginning is birth and the only end is death - if you can't count on that, what can you count on? (They connect again.) ROS: We don't owe anything to anyone. GUIL: We've been caught up. Your smallest action sets off another somewhere else, and is set off by it. Keep an eye open, an ear cocked. Tread warily, follow instructions. We'll be all right. ROS: For how long? GUIL: Till events have played themselves out. There's a logic at work - it's all done for you, don't worry. Enjoy it. Relax. To be taken in hand and led, like being a child again, even without the innocence, a child - It's like being given a prize, an extra slice of childhood when you least expect it, as a prize for being good, or a compensation for never having had one... Do I contradict myself? ROS: I don't remember. What have we got to go on?
Thank you professor 🙏 Heidegger has made me digest the proverb “homo sum; humani nihil a me alienum puto". Neither his ideology nor his knowledge is alien to me! Both are humane (which is not necesserily “good” nor “evil”).
Being and Time was the most influential book in my life, it helped that my professor was one of the best Heidegger scholars in the world and a whole semester was devoted to the book
Who was your professor? I know a few Heidegger scholars. I had found Heidegger difficult when I was a student, but reading some of the scholarly work on him in the past few years made me realize that he’s worth reading and taking seriously.
It's a presumption that we didn't choose to be here. It's also a presumption that we had nothing to do with the circumstances of the world we find ourselves in
Heidegger is not trying to build some “firm” foundation from which we deduce all (other) truths. Some assumptions are pretty darn safe, and those are two of them.
@@insearchoflostthought8135 No, he is trying to create a firm foundation. He follows in Husserl’s footsteps in response to the relativity below the sciences, but Heidegger focuses on the relativity behind our understanding of being. Hence an existential phenomenology. I agree though, it is safe to say that we did not choose to be here. Jungle Jarred, did you choose to be able to make silly youtube comments? Continuing on, double J might be confused on the “throwness” in Heidegger’s project (and the subsequent existential thinkers). They do not deny participation, nor is it a claim against free will. They refer to your entrance, how you enter, where, and when. They don’t deny that from there you can participate in the world, actually, continental philosophy as a whole encourages this participation.
I would like to understand more the difference between revolting against the Da, versus caring for the Da in a way that can spark change for the better. One example of something I’d like to change is humanities education at all school levels. Harold Bloom, Patrick Deneen, Camille Paglia, et al, have spoken at lengths about the destruction of the liberal arts in schools, colleges, and universities by post-structuralists and post-modernists who are careerists through and through. How do we go about caring for education in this current Da where the opportunity to understand the Great Conversation has been severely diminished for so many willing and eager lovers of knowledge?
Professor Bonevac: I don’t know if you noticed that the three-fold structure of “care” described in ‘Being and Time’ aligns perfectly with the “Three Temptations” story told in Mathew 4:1-11 hinting possibly that the two descriptions are lifted from the same greek source? Clearly, Professor Heidegger steals the authenticity part of the description from Aristotle’s Logic and the Transcendentals, but I haven’t heard a description of his source for the “care” structure. If you have a source, I’d love to hear about it. I have a funny story. Roughly six years ago by chance I was re-reading ‘Being and Time” and ‘The Brothers Karamazov’ at the same time, when I paused reading, to research Dostoyevsky’s statement about “The Temptations”(see below), and found the very helpful “Lecture 3, Dostoevsky and Nietzsche, of UGS 303” ua-cam.com/video/Fz_srDeCNTQ/v-deo.html which includes a partially developed description of Dostoyevsky understanding of “The Three Temptations”. Thanks. --- “If it were possible to imagine simply for the sake of argument that those three questions of the dread spirit had perished utterly from the books, and that we [pg 277] had to restore them and to invent them anew, and to do so had gathered together all the wise men of the earth-rulers, chief priests, learned men, philosophers, poets-and had set them the task to invent three questions, such as would not only fit the occasion, but express in three words, three human phrases, the whole future history of the world and of humanity-dost Thou believe that all the wisdom of the earth united could have invented anything in depth and force equal to the three questions which were actually put to Thee then by the wise and mighty spirit in the wilderness? From those questions alone, from the miracle of their statement, we can see that we have here to do not with the fleeting human intelligence, but with the absolute and eternal. For in those three questions the whole subsequent history of mankind is, as it were, brought together into one whole, and foretold, and in them are united all the unsolved historical contradictions of human nature.” Excerpt From The Brothers Karamazov Fyodor Dostoyevsky books.apple.com/us/book/the-brothers-karamazov/id395688080 This material may be protected by copyright.
Heidegger was *the* philosopher who accepted Nietzsche’s project. He sought out to make a genealogy of the entirety of philosophy, in Nietzsche’s footsteps. Equally he mimics amor fati.
It seems pretty obvious Heidegger made the wrong choice by never apologizing for being a Nazi. I'm sure he had some knowledge of the atrocities so it is ironic how he embraced the concept of "caring" . Maybe his positive thoughts in regards to being "thrown" into a particular time and place had something to do with it? Thanks for the great clips, I always liked philosophy.
Heidegger did not care if Hitler was correct or wrong. The famous story goes that he acknowledges Hitler’s wrongs (everything he stood for) and his party’s wrongs too, but at the end says: “but did you see his hands!” Heidegger was caught up in the significance of the man, not in his goodness or definite and indubitable wrongness. He was a Nazi because he saw history happening in front of him. He is a true Nietzschean scholar on this front.
It seems the modern dasein is concerned with a weak, modern, social order based primarily on wage labor. As opposed to ancient daseins which seemed to have stronger social order based on their subsistence on Nature and their closer relationship to its dangers. The dasein of Star Trek gives the impression of a social order based on individual purpose as opposed to wage labor. A purpose driven life seems like a good thing, but is it? That dasein requires certain societal prerequisites in order to function well. In Star Trek there is fusion which gives unlimited, clean, energy and there is no wage labor and there are replicators; which provide food and parts. Being in the world in a certain way has prerequisites. The prerequisites to living in a city is different than being in the military or being a mountain man or being a farmer. If the prerequisites fail then migration was the usual solution, but in a modern world with increasing social, political and scientific upheaval there are less stable prerequisites to rely on and dasein becomes problematic.
Thanks for another good one, Professor. Although we are not in the same room or same present, I am happy we inhabit this world together. #mitdasein
Excellent
Professor Bonevac, thank you so much for this interesting video! Heidegger’s thoughts about human’s realisation of his place in the world reminded me of play “Rosencrantz and Guildenstern Are Dead” by Tom Stoppard. Main heroes of that play can’t remember anything about their previous life and are obliged to follow their roles, which aren’t understandable to them. It seems to me to be a metaphor of typical human’s life. There is memorable dialogue in this work:
GUIL (the nursemaid): There!... and we'll soon be home and dry... and high and dry... (Rapidly.) Has it ever
happened to you that all of a sudden and for no reason at all you haven't the faintest idea how to spell the word
- "wife" - or "house" - because when you write it down you just can't remember ever having seen those letters in that order before...?
ROS: I remember...
GUIL: Yes?
ROS: I remember there were no questions.
GUIL: There were always questions. To exchange one set for another is no great matter. ROS: Answers, yes. There were answers to everything.
GUIL: You've forgotten.
ROS (flaring): I haven't forgotten - how I used to remember my own name - and yours, oh ): I haven't forgotten - how I used to remember my own name - and yours, oh yes! There were answers everywhere you looked. There was no question about it - people knew who I was and if they didn't they asked and I told them.
GUIL: You did, the trouble is each of them is... plausible, without being instinctive. All your life you live so close to truth, it becomes a permanent blur in the corner of your eye, and when something nudges it into
outline it is like being ambushed by a grotesque. A man standing in his saddle in the half-lit half-alive dawn banged on the shutters and called two names. He was just a hat and the cloak levitating in the grey plume of his own breath, but when he called we came. That much is certain - we came. ROS: Well I can tell you I'm sick to death of it. I don't care one way or another, so why don't you make up your mind.
GUIL: We can't afford anything quite so arbitrary. Nor did we come all this way for a christening. All that - preceded us. But we are comparatively fortunate; we might have been left to sift the whole field of human nomenclature, like two blind men looting a bazaar for their own portraits... At least we are presented with alternatives.
ROS: Well as from now -
GUIL: - But not choice.
ROS: You made me look ridiculous in there.
GUIL: I looked as ridiculous as you did.
ROS (an anguished cry): Consistency is all I ask!
GUIL (low, wry rhetoric): Give us this day our daily mask.
ROS (a dying fall): I want to go home. (Moves.) Which way did we come in? I've lost my sense of direction. GUIL: The only beginning is birth and the only end is death - if you can't count on that, what can you count on? (They connect again.)
ROS: We don't owe anything to anyone.
GUIL: We've been caught up. Your smallest action sets off another somewhere else, and is set off by it. Keep
an eye open, an ear cocked. Tread warily, follow instructions. We'll be all right.
ROS: For how long?
GUIL: Till events have played themselves out. There's a logic at work - it's all done for you, don't worry. Enjoy it.
Relax. To be taken in hand and led, like being a child again, even without the innocence, a child - It's
like being given a prize, an extra slice of childhood when you least expect it, as a prize for being good, or a compensation for never having had one... Do I contradict myself?
ROS: I don't remember. What have we got to go on?
Thank you professor 🙏
Heidegger has made me digest the proverb “homo sum; humani nihil a me alienum puto". Neither his ideology nor his knowledge is alien to me! Both are humane (which is not necesserily “good” nor “evil”).
Being and Time was the most influential book in my life, it helped that my professor was one of the best Heidegger scholars in the world and a whole semester was devoted to the book
Sounds so legit!!
Who was your professor? I know a few Heidegger scholars. I had found Heidegger difficult when I was a student, but reading some of the scholarly work on him in the past few years made me realize that he’s worth reading and taking seriously.
@@PhiloofAlexandria Is he being taken more seriously these days, outside the Continental philosophers?
Thank you for tackling such complex topics by these great philosophers!
It's a presumption that we didn't choose to be here. It's also a presumption that we had nothing to do with the circumstances of the world we find ourselves in
Heidegger is not trying to build some “firm” foundation from which we deduce all (other) truths. Some assumptions are pretty darn safe, and those are two of them.
@@insearchoflostthought8135 No, he is trying to create a firm foundation. He follows in Husserl’s footsteps in response to the relativity below the sciences, but Heidegger focuses on the relativity behind our understanding of being. Hence an existential phenomenology. I agree though, it is safe to say that we did not choose to be here. Jungle Jarred, did you choose to be able to make silly youtube comments? Continuing on, double J might be confused on the “throwness” in Heidegger’s project (and the subsequent existential thinkers). They do not deny participation, nor is it a claim against free will. They refer to your entrance, how you enter, where, and when. They don’t deny that from there you can participate in the world, actually, continental philosophy as a whole encourages this participation.
Just shared this on Snapchat as a resource for youngsters!
An excellent example of how even those we might think of as repugnant can make cogent points. So good to see your uploads again!
Just.. amazing.. thank you so much 💓
Glad you liked it!
I love and appreciate what you are doing in this channel. Thank you
Glad you enjoy it!
im happy to see that you are being well, professor. thank you for your knowledge
You are very welcome!
I would like to understand more the difference between revolting against the Da, versus caring for the Da in a way that can spark change for the better.
One example of something I’d like to change is humanities education at all school levels. Harold Bloom, Patrick Deneen, Camille Paglia, et al, have spoken at lengths about the destruction of the liberal arts in schools, colleges, and universities by post-structuralists and post-modernists who are careerists through and through.
How do we go about caring for education in this current Da where the opportunity to understand the Great Conversation has been severely diminished for so many willing and eager lovers of knowledge?
Being And Weinerschnitzel
How would ego play into Heidegger's first form of care that establishes dependency without the prospect of founding future independence?
Professor Bonevac:
I don’t know if you noticed that the three-fold structure of “care” described in ‘Being and Time’ aligns perfectly with the “Three Temptations” story told in Mathew 4:1-11 hinting possibly that the two descriptions are lifted from the same greek source? Clearly, Professor Heidegger steals the authenticity part of the description from Aristotle’s Logic and the Transcendentals, but I haven’t heard a description of his source for the “care” structure. If you have a source, I’d love to hear about it.
I have a funny story. Roughly six years ago by chance I was re-reading ‘Being and Time” and ‘The Brothers Karamazov’ at the same time, when I paused reading, to research Dostoyevsky’s statement about “The Temptations”(see below), and found the very helpful “Lecture 3, Dostoevsky and Nietzsche, of UGS 303” ua-cam.com/video/Fz_srDeCNTQ/v-deo.html which includes a partially developed description of Dostoyevsky understanding of “The Three Temptations”. Thanks.
---
“If it were possible to imagine simply for the sake of argument that those three questions of the dread spirit had perished utterly from the books, and that we [pg 277] had to restore them and to invent them anew, and to do so had gathered together all the wise men of the earth-rulers, chief priests, learned men, philosophers, poets-and had set them the task to invent three questions, such as would not only fit the occasion, but express in three words, three human phrases, the whole future history of the world and of humanity-dost Thou believe that all the wisdom of the earth united could have invented anything in depth and force equal to the three questions which were actually put to Thee then by the wise and mighty spirit in the wilderness? From those questions alone, from the miracle of their statement, we can see that we have here to do not with the fleeting human intelligence, but with the absolute and eternal. For in those three questions the whole subsequent history of mankind is, as it were, brought together into one whole, and foretold, and in them are united all the unsolved historical contradictions of human nature.”
Excerpt From
The Brothers Karamazov
Fyodor Dostoyevsky
books.apple.com/us/book/the-brothers-karamazov/id395688080
This material may be protected by copyright.
Thanks a lot. What do you think about difficulties in translating Heidegger? Some say that it is better to read his work in German.
I didn`t know that Heidegger was a life affirming philosopher.
like philosophers like Nietzsche and Camus
Heidegger was *the* philosopher who accepted Nietzsche’s project. He sought out to make a genealogy of the entirety of philosophy, in Nietzsche’s footsteps. Equally he mimics amor fati.
It seems pretty obvious Heidegger made the wrong choice by never apologizing for being a Nazi. I'm sure he had some knowledge of the atrocities so it is ironic how he embraced the concept of "caring" . Maybe his positive thoughts in regards to being "thrown" into a particular time and place had something to do with it? Thanks for the great clips, I always liked philosophy.
Heidegger did not care if Hitler was correct or wrong. The famous story goes that he acknowledges Hitler’s wrongs (everything he stood for) and his party’s wrongs too, but at the end says: “but did you see his hands!”
Heidegger was caught up in the significance of the man, not in his goodness or definite and indubitable wrongness. He was a Nazi because he saw history happening in front of him. He is a true Nietzschean scholar on this front.
Bro you look like you’re about to fall in the pool.
I was-I had to be careful not to lean back!
Bad faith seems to be a popular way of being today. Perhaps it has always been.
It seems the modern dasein is concerned with a weak, modern, social order based primarily on wage labor. As opposed to ancient daseins which seemed to have stronger social order based on their subsistence on Nature and their closer relationship to its dangers.
The dasein of Star Trek gives the impression of a social order based on individual purpose as opposed to wage labor.
A purpose driven life seems like a good thing, but is it? That dasein requires certain societal prerequisites in order to function well. In Star Trek there is fusion which gives unlimited, clean, energy and there is no wage labor and there are replicators; which provide food and parts.
Being in the world in a certain way has prerequisites. The prerequisites to living in a city is different than being in the military or being a mountain man or being a farmer.
If the prerequisites fail then migration was the usual solution, but in a modern world with increasing social, political and scientific upheaval there are less stable prerequisites to rely on and dasein becomes problematic.
You're raising an interesting point-we should not assume that there is any uniform, universal answer to the question Heidegger is raising.
@@PhiloofAlexandria that's IS how his student Gadamer would answer the question, wouldn't he?
Well its not good for us why can't we just sit around, do nothing and do stuff as needed, why not?
Why do I get the idea that all of these philosophers just need to go GET MANUAL LABOR JOBS and it would solve a lot of this "philosophizing"
wrong