Heidegger & Modern Existentialism - Bryan Magee & William Barrett (1977)
Вставка
- Опубліковано 31 бер 2022
- In this program, William Barrett discusses Martin Heidegger and Modern Existentialism with Bryan Magee. This is from a 1977 series on Modern Philosophy called Men of Ideas.
Martin Heidegger was a 20th-century German philosopher, best known for his contributions to phenomenology and existentialism. Existentialists take human existence and the human condition to be a fundamental issue. They tend to be radical individualists who privilege our lived experience and choice. They focus on themes such as: freedom, authenticity, the individual, meaning, anxiety, alienation, death, dread, the absurd, contingency, and nihilism. They are often also suspicious of any fixed, pre-determined human nature, objective/universal values, and abstract philosophical systems. Some of the most important existentialist thinkers (or at least thinkers associated with existentialism) include Jean-Paul Sartre, Martin Heidegger, Søren Kierkegaard, Friedrich Nietzsche, Dostoyevsky, Albert Camus, Karl Jaspers, and Simone de Beauvoir. (My Description)
#Philosophy #Existentialism #BryanMagee
One has to ask why programmes of this quality of discussion no longer happen on tv? This series is a really invaluable introduction to the canon of western philosophy. Thank you for posting them. I am genuinely enthralled and grateful.
The answer to your no doubt rhetorical question is the capture and debasement of all forms of culture and education by NeoLib / NeoCon inspired zealots- in short - the marketisation of all aspects of our lived-in environment and the experiences we endure subsequently
Because they can no longer find couches like the one which they are sitting on...
To answer your question without resorting to political slandering, I think the answer is that we had to develop this kind platform (UA-cam) in order to share this type of content and rendering its broadcast somewhat profitable.
kapital
Exactly you put the nail on the head, people watching reality TV nowadays. That's how thrash humanity is now.
Barrett is very impressive and very likeable. I'd love to have been taught by him. And Magee, as usual, is excellent at drawing him out.
I am a huge fan of Magee. He had such insightful philosophical abilities across nearly the entire spectrum of philosophy and philosophers.
Barrett was a remarkable teacher and writer. Such a pleasure to see him here.
Maybe good writer but at least in this video cant articulate the points as a master should
Bryan Magee, what a contribution he made to accessibility of philosophy.
“Every Frenchman is a Cartesian when pushed far enough” lmao
That’s hilarious. I’d hate to see what everyone German or Brit is…
@@RogueTheologyHumean and Kantian?
I bought Irrational Man in about 1962. It was a delight to see and hear its author, and I'd highly recommend the book which may be available online if not in print.
I just recently got hold of a printed edition from 1962 and am ever so eager to start reading it.
Bryan Magee is excellent
I met Wm Barrett at Orville Moore's in Denver Colorado, in 1975 - a few years before this British interview . A genuine mensch, not a hint of superiority or patronising airs about him. Only later did I learn that he had edited for D T Suziki's work in Zen. I would have liked to have talked more about Zen with him - had I only known! A great lesser known book by Barrett is Death of the Soul, accesible and deep going despite the off-putting title.
Thank you so much for this
Greetings from Germany, I really enjoyed this conversation about Heideggers philosophy. It's really worth it to read "Heideggers being and time" and his critical thoughts about the technical thinking and the materialistic division of subject and object. Read his phenomenological writings and understand his analysis of words and you will never fall again into a trap of propaganda, framing, wording and twisted meanings and you will ask the right questions. Seinsverständnis
Great philosophy but it's odd that he succumbed himself to propaganda when he joined the Nazi party
@@MFateh2000 he wasn't part of the propaganda Ministerium but He was born into his time and was driven by a deep philosophy based on phenomenology, etymology and the understanding of Being /ontology and that's worth to be understood.
@@Larrypint I see. Do you have suggestions for books that talk about modern philosophy including Heidegger's? I would appreciate that since I only know so little of it.
@@MFateh2000 I wouldn't recommend to read 2nd source summarize about philosophs or philosophical epochs. I would always recommend to find the original source Read the primary sources of a specific philosoph directly without any comments or interpretation, and then come to your own conclusions about the words you read . From Heidegger you can find original audio lectures here on UA-cam but it's in German. And from his books I would recommend "being and time" and his technic critical essays and his critic about humanism as a one-sided perspective as the "animal rational".
I generally agree. I read Kant in English (you need a good translation if you can’t read German (unfortunately I Kant 😉) But he was extremely difficult to understand. I read a commentary on his Critiques and that helped a lot! Then I read Kant’s books AGAIN. I think “re-reading” is essential.
Excellent exposition and wonderful dialogue.
What a presentation and clarity.
Brilliant!
Heidegger is really the first notable philosophy to say that the West's fixation with knowledge (or theories of knowledge) is a colossal misdirection. He asks instead what does it mean to be, and to be here, specifically. Whatever here means.
Nietzsche too. Sorta the first wave of postmodernism, since most of Modern Philosophy from Descartes through Kant were fixated on epistemology.
Priceless ❤️
This was very clear and accurate. Barrett is brilliant in this. Bryan Magee is also humble and willing to learn, authentic. Accordingly, it allows those new to philosophy, to see it being practiced by their example in this video. Thank you!!
Exactly. Magee is such an exceptional interlocutor because he is not only knowledgeable and impressive, but receptive and open to challenge. If only all interviews were conducted in this manner.
@@jon780249 I agree. I have so much admiration for Magee. He is so engaging too as well as being knowledgeable and articulate. You can tell he is genuinely interested and listens well even though he knows more than some of his guests, nevertheless he always lets them shine.
What’s a wonderful channel
Give description of reality in which we find ourselves
A description of being, existence, what there is - human existence
It’s the familiar that usually eludes us in life
Some philosophers attempt to articulate the way things are. Other philosophers attempt to articulate what it feels like to be in the world. Phenomenology/Existentialism is in the second mode.
Perfectly said
Right.
Agreed. 🤘
Phenomenology is the way to understand ourself in this world.
Die Sprache ist das Haus des Seins.
"Language is the house of being."
Death is not a possibility, but a certainty. I would, if I may, define death as the certainty that will end all uncertainties (the future).
But the fact that you *could* die tomorrow is _the place of emphasis_ here, it's not at all certain you *will* die tomorrow. That you'll *certainly at some point in the future* die isn't at odds with *possibilities you die tomorrow, the day after, a month from now etc.*
This discussion, in my opinion, takes a more measured and reasonable-and more illuminating-view of Sartre than the Heidegger episode in the later series “The Great Philosophers”.
Sartre is a fool. That’s why he looks and sounds like a fool.
The guest is very patient!
Throwness of Human Existence
Always the task of creating ourselves
Man is ongoing creature
We construct the notion of clock time
I wish Ernest Becker (author of 'The Denial of Death') was interviewed like this.
‘We are together, we are unified!’
This should be much longer - although I've enjoyed it, they have barely scratched the surface of Heidegger's ontology.
Magee is really good in recapitulation. I enjoyed Barrett's The Irrational Man, but in this interview it seems to me as if the Magee is the Professor questioning his student who's not finding the proper words to articulate what he obviously knows and understand.
That’s not mu impression. Magee seems to me the one taking the role of the student here. Of course, Magee has to guide the discussion to ensure that it conforms to constraints of time and salient subject matter. It’s pointless to lament that the program “should [have been] much longer”. It realistically could not have been much longer. If you want more, read Heidegger.
I must say you captured the impression I got from this interview perfectly. It felt as if Barrett, while perhaps knowing the subject matter well when thinking of it in his own terms, had not thought about the subject from a laymans perpective at all (or at least not in a long time), and so he fumbles and stumbles through the conversation with Magee trying to nudge him along. The image of the professor questioning his somewhat lost student is very apt.
I was totally captivated by the knowledge and communicative ability of Professor Barrett. His points were to me exceptional and clear and it was evident that he enjoyed his subject matter, that his grasp was vast and that he was personable and modest in expressing it. Magee, whom I admire for his preparation-as a student of philosophy and formidable interviewer-at times interjects himself unnecessarily and I think he did so here on a few occasions, which were distracting rather than compelling. Professor Barrett was I think very prepared, very articulate, very personable and a joy to listen to.
Agree completely. Barrett is so amorphous and rambling in his discussion that Magee is absolutely essential to extracting information but also to clarify the flow of the discussion by unblocking jargon (eg stopping to define epistemology which Barrett mentions in passing). Magee also drives the discussion of the “everyday” - which then Barrett goes off with an irrelevant comparison with Wittgenstein. Barrett sadly does not have a smooth and lucid articulation which is evident the moment Magee starts to speak.
A pity that Magee couldn’t get Prof Michael Inwood for this discussion.
This is how I saw this. Magee's approach is useful in trying to get him to state accurately what Heidegger actually says. Slightly frustrating.
Oh wow - updated leather/plastic(?) upholstery on the sofa this time. The BBC must have thought they were onto a winner with this follow-up series. A bigger budget; a somewhat lighter shade of beige. Not sure about the verticality of the wallpaper. A less geometric shape might have worked out better? (But then again... ) I guess that's the philosophy business for ya!
I think you'll find that the sofa is "leatherette", that is, if the sofa exists
@@keepitsimpleXOX - it exists in my mind as an ideal sofa - sofa so good!
Mr Barrett,;and Mr Magee..Great stuff..P.S. did they call you mr magoo at school? because, you've done it again!
"Riders on the storm...Into this world we're thrown, like a dog without a bone...Riders on the storm"
The possibility which cancels all my possibilities
Since there is death, what meaning does my life have?
No recipes
All philosophy is response to question of death
Man wouldn’t philosophize if he didn’t have to face death
Knowledge of Death induces Anxiety
Anxiety in the face of finitude or mortality
Alienation - we avert our eyes from the stark reality of our own existence
Lose our self in the impersonal social self
"WHATS BEFORE OUR NOSE IS WHAT WE SEE LAST."
22:11 - 'no recipes' - lol yep that's about the size of it
We don't experience death, we only experience the fear/anxiety of death ??? (a thought)
Philosophy is not a problem until or unless two different philosophies come into contact (to share?!) or two opposite philosophies come into conflict.
At 22 mins 4 seconds the narrator says that it's a problem that our lives are finite . I think that the opposite is true as he says we are flung into the world . I say we don't recall our own creation or nativity . We don't experience our own death and therefore from the perspective of our own consciousness life is infinite .
I think Heidegger's point is that, while we live "as if there was no tomorrow", only when we face death as the real limit to life we can truly begin to understand existence. To exist only has meaning when it is related to an "end", in "eternity" nothing matters. In this way we are forced to give meaning to our actions. Thus, I believe there's an "ethics" in Heidegger: what he calls "authenticity".
@@DoomAnarchy sounds like a bunch of GOBBLEDEGOOK
What it is to be? What it is to exist?
I never realised quite how much of a Noo Yoiker Barrett was!
Interesting.
no it isn't
I would say that Neoplatonism already has the idea of us in the world as beings in a body
I always thought Cartesian duality was the mind/body split. Here the duality seems to be self vs. world. Or maybe the term "duality "applies to both cases. (I'm a philisophical dilletante, BTW. I can't even understand source material like Kant or Heidegger. What little I know is from simplified explanations like this.)
To me, it seems, its both
Mind visavis body-personality-world continuum. You are right. Keep your innocence and check out Culture and Value by Wittgenstein. In Tractatus he shows that 'mind' is I, which is not an object. Descartes was hobbled by the theology of his day. The I of Descartes is the I of Wittgenstein. The subject I as the limit of the body-world continuum. It was a nondual dualism whence the need of Zen to pick up where binary logic leaves off.
watch all Magees stuff..more than once..unless you're a genius, it takes time and repetition to absorb/get the hang of, this kinda stuff...!
Mind = self. Body = world. "world" includes "body" as within a continuum from the first person (phenomenological) point of view or frame of reference. So that the "I" stands apart from the "world" i.e., that which also includes the sense of one's own body and physical emotional personality etc. That "I" is what the perennial philosophy (Zen, Vedanta etc) and Hegel - Schopenhauer - Wittgenstein refer to as godhead, truth be told. Or at least the portal to understanding that all of this world is "mind" - in physicist Max Planck's sense of universal consciousness. Much more simple in the end than the complexity of our language will allow for, with its emphasis on, again, the mind - body split.
Soul/nature, mind/body, subject/object, self/world... All of those seem to be the same split, or the same formal dichotomous distinction seen through different lenses. Soul/nature being scholastic, mind/body being Cartesian, subject/object being modern/Kantian, self/world being contemporary. Obviously they don't agree on every little detail (eg. The Cartesian mind is immortal thus immaterial and rational since it's established through the Cogito, whereas the contemporary self is mortal thus material and not necessarily rational, like recent emphasis on feelings and emotions, and how to take care of them goes against the somewhat cold-hearted nature of the Cartesian mind), but they are all forms of dualism
I could have the disastrous effect of enabling & encouraging the populous to think clearly & critically
…and that would never do*
When Magee says he had to go to school to learn to about the difference between the observer and the observed, the subject nd the object, he is either a liar or a fool. It's one of the very first things every living thing learns.
Dualism is as old as philosophy; it isn't an invention or discovery of Descartes. It's nothing more than the idea that living things are constituted of body and soul, and this belief is as old as we can trace back.
23:59!! 1978!!
Barrett is described as having written a brilliant book. Well, his book is anthology of the writings of others. All Barrett did was write the introduction.
19:36 or you can face up to it [your own death] and ask yourself the question "who am I?" Who am I who is supposed to die?
Surely, the dichotomous cosmology is there in Plato, in Christianity, in Hinduism, its offshoot Buddhism, Taoism, in fact, almost all traditions - the separation of the motive from the moved. What makes Descartes so different?
Perhaps he meant the focus on the "I", the mind, or the consciousness as the foundation of reality? The subject-object dichotomy (without going into the essence of it), this framework marks the philosophical trend dominant in the modern age starting with Descartes
I've yet to really study Sartre--he has a brilliant essay on Faulkner's "Sound and Fury.".... A very relevant essay in the current "First Things" on Bill Gates and this "de-personalization" of humans in our time. The author trashes Gates, however, in a way that I do not think is fair.
Yes, it is the human condition that must be faced. That's it. What else? There is NO solution to DEATH itself and therefore there is no value nor any meaningful meaning. The only meaning there is that you are here and you must go through it until an absolute silence.
43:11 The late Heidegger and his prolonged attack on the will to power, a criticism of the urge to power ? How to square this with his Nazism? Is that after WWII? He only died in the 1970s.
Interesting ex-post fact to this discussion about death is that both participants are now dead.
Someone gotta get Barrett a glass of water
Heidegger is pure bs. Thanks to this polite and intelligent discussion I realized it.
An American speaking his natural tongue: The Kings English. You can run but you cannot hide!😊
Saying that Being and Time is not an easy book to read is an inadequate statement: it's impossible to read. The book makes no sense at all, and those that believe that it does are either fooling themselves or are charlatans.
You couldn’t make sense of it, therefore no one can! And this is a claim of neither a fool or a charlatan.
Heidegger threw Husserl under the bus. My assessmennt of him is that he worshipped Being instead of seeing Dasein as a judge of Being. Husserl went on to address Heidgeer's philosophy with his idea of "the lifeworld". He also had a second prize student: Eugen Fink who did not betray him. We need to go "back" to late Husserl (after his "Cartesian Meditations") to go forward. Read his essay (free on the internet) "Philosophy and the crisis of European humanity". I ask: Was Martin Heidegger a das Man?
The crux of philosophy is a decision between monad versus emergence. It is obvious that we are not a material bundle but that we use a material bundle as our vehicle through life. At one time in this universe, I was a single cell organism. I have trillions of cells in me know. They all have life cycles, and I can say that not a single cell that was in me when I was born stays in me today. Materialism: Whatever answer to the problem of existence materialism offers, it will have to be based on a material unit, a monad. That could be a photon, for instance, a pack of energy with no mass that is me. Now we understand how one single cell makes an entire human being. Maybe one day we will understand how a photon or another tangible monad, our proper self, makes a human being.
Emergence (something new, not material but relational, in the universe). Dualists have no problem accepting the material world. The material human being is a vehicle that carries the self but is not the self. The self emerges out of interactions between the individual and the rest of creation. Self, like mathematics, has no material basis, it does not obey the second law of thermodynamics, therefore will not be found using material hypothesis. All the events of your life form sets of events in which you are an agent, and the rest is the context of your actions. If time is the measure, then the events will have variable lengths according to the content of the event. In each of those events, you chose according to your consciousness. Your consciousness, your very self, is the axiom of choice of the events in your life. Not a material thing with attributes but a relational thing with the property of relations.
Prof Barret sure does fidget a lot when he talks. Magee was great at explaining the things Barrett spoke about... I'm not frightened of death never have been and I don't know why... The thought of living through old age is much more frightening for me! I think this is because our society culture (western) treats old people terrible! Gilad Atzmon wrote an interesting book entitled 'Being in Time' based on Heidegger's book title :)
It’s difficult for me to take anyone anyone seriously as a thinker who professes not to fear death. For that matter, it’s difficult for me even to believe anyone who professes not to fear death. It’s death that makes us mortal and fear of death that makes us human. Old age is a thing that occurs gradually, by degrees, and one accustoms himself to it gradually by degrees. Stabs of anxiety often occur along the way-middle-age crises, and so on-but essentially fear of age is a transient state, particular to the young.
@@jeffryphillipsburns Well we all have our individual difficulties and beliefs...Thank goodness! "It's death that makes us mortal..." Genius! "Old age is a thing that occurs gradually, by degrees" Who would have thought that! You really ought to write a book on all of this, you're a great thinker and have something profound to teach...Thankfully, you won't take this seriously.
@@jeffryphillipsburns As you sent me the same message two days on the trot, I will respond to your comment twice. There are many people who have feared life and chose death, whats your insight on this? Socrates drank the poison, he must have overcame this 'natural' fear you speak of...Or perhaps you don't believe he was a thinker?
To certitude of death poses the question of the meaning of life. Either with an afterlife, or without, the meaning of life must be a narrative involving you and the context in which you have lived, the narrative of your life. If there is a God, He will look at that narrative. If there is no God, people in that context will compose the meaning of your life. As the Greeks said, immortality resides in the lips of men. If Poincaré's Eternal Recurrence governs the cosmos, then you will repeat your life infinitely many times. Take advantage of your degrees of freedom while here, your agency, and live a life worth living again.
So bringing someone to this world who would be aware of his death and his suffering and his pain they say is a good thing and people strive to passing on their genetic material to the next generation and on top of that people want to be a life after death in some form, again. Someone is aware of his non existence at some point! Our awareness is a curse not a blissfully thing due to this absurd fact, fact of death.
No, I haven't. I reached this conclusion or observation on my own. I always struggle with this problem.
The Greeks spoke explicitly about the soul - that's the split between body and soul. These 2 guys are completely detached from reality.
Die Sprache ist das Haus des Seins.
Sad that there is no time to discuss the importance of Karl Jaspers (1883-1969) in this otherwise important dialogue.
who knew Winnie the Pooh was so interested in Philosophy.
Peter Robinsons hero.
@8:14 that's bonkers. The subject/object "split" has always been present. Cartesian dualism (of some variety) and the subject/object division are natural. The latter is just a definition. The former is logical (unless you believe everything has mind, aka. panpsychism). Panpsychism is not a natural concept, it's highly implausible. (I respect those who seek a rational foundation for panpsychism, like William Seager, but I think they are barking mad nonetheless. But, you know, people would've considered Einstein mad had he spouted his ideas in the 1500's.)
If you read Descartes carefully, his word "substance" is not what we mean by "tangiblle stuff". He uses the word "substance" (in the ENG translation at least) to mean "existence" not "stuff". So it is an undefined concept. Since it is undefined there is no trouble in coming up with all sorts of ways the "mind" can interact with the physical world. Physics is nomically closed (probably) but not causally closed, since the universe has boundary/initial conditions --- even in the Hawking--Hartle "No Boundary" conjecture, since all that refers to is within time, it proposes a Euclidean 4-space pre-inflation phase, but that still has a boundary if embedded in higher dimensions. The Hawking--Hartle universe has no initial boundary _in time_ but atemporally, or at spacelike infinity, it still has a boundary. Similar thing in Gauge/Gravity holographic cosmology, all the physics takes place on the boundary, the bulk spacetime is closed nomically, but not information theoretically, since the boundary has to be specified.
None of this is "proof" a kind of dualism is the case, it just tells you dualism (of some variety) is possible, if what influences the boundary conditions is non-physical. (You can call it "physics" if you can identify what it is, but Descartes is just saying maybe you cannot, so let's agree to call the external influences "immaterial", it's just a definition.)
As Feynman often said, the _interesting thing_ is not what you call things, but the difference between things.
Good effort, but the moment you started "rubbishing Panpsychism", and playing with "what substance meant by Descartes", you began giving your roadmap without hinging on any justification why you took that roadmap. The characteristic of a good critic is to justify who so, if not, why and not to meddle with the standard widely held definition of a word. Once you bring your own definition the critic becomes redundant since you have replaced the whole foundation itself, therefore, creating your concept which I believe you are not credible to do unless you are an authority in that subject.
youtube is the elephant, with us as the blind, describing it. "like a rope" (tail), "like leather" (ears)... Heiddiger, in other words, is not what we think of when we think of youtube
I would have hoped to hear if Heidegger's thoughts were influenced by his official membership to the nazi movement
Too bad no mention of Heidegger support of Hitler
its irrelevant to the discussion
All these dialectics, all in subdivisions on a death drive, they ain't good enough, ancient, natural and form assemblages in subdivisions that define ontic emergent systems of transcdental reality forms in ethical distinctions of subject-object relations. Learn English. And we just want to in the everyday. Some were reversed by metaphysics then conquered by others.
I put philosophy on the same level as chess. It's a nice mind game, without any other use or importance to the world than a board game has. One can make it as complex as ones brains allow, but it will never be anything more than entertainment and a way to baffle the world with ones superior intellect.
Time and again philosophical ideas frame the broader cultural, scientific, artistic, political and economical discussions in the world. The ideas en vogue in each epoch often influence and trickle down towards the way people view and interact with the world. Of course some of the discussions become so technical and about minutiae that are disconnected to the world that it might seem like they will have no effect in reality. But it is really near-sighted to reduce all philosophy to mind games with no real impact.
@@DanielFranch I don't buy into the " influence and trickle down" part. not for the good, not for the bad. at least not in the way you mean. People have their own agenda's and use anything they can to make sure things go their way. religion and perhaps even philosophy included. and in the end, bottom line, all it comes down to is the futile fear of and fight against death, mortality.
@@henrifischer1119 "futile fear of and fight against death" is itself a philosophical perspective. One that can de iure be put in question. That's how "superflouous" it is.
Yes, one could call it entertainment, a language game as Wittgenstein likes to call it. However a part of what we mean by "culture". As is Religion, Art, Literature, Fashion... According to Nietzsche all culture is the attempt to gloss over, to embellish, to make us forget, to distract us from the crude basic facts of our existence. Nietzsche: We have art not to be destroyed by the truth. Very profound also Mark Twain: Protect your illusions. The most important asset of your live. So, yes, finally its all just blabla. And it exists because there is a huge demand for it...
I am 60. I began philosophy with his book IRRATIONAL MAN.(Age 16) After going through NIHILISM, through Sartre, I have evolved. Through theology via Hans Kung( who got me out of atheism). However, at 60, I ended up in Vedanta. Reincarnation is true. And, that is why we are born in such circumstances. Having been born to a single mother in the Bronx in the 1960's? I like how I see we both speak English with the same accent. Anywho, best book about why we are here I have found is : Journey of Souls, by Dr. Michael Newton, free on you tube. Luck, Friends
r..Sartre did not consider himself a philosopher
‘Hitherto philosophers have attempted to describe the world. The point, however, is to change it’.
He wound up being a Nazi... I question his philosophy from this.
It looks like philosophy is dead. Now we only have physicists talking BS and that is the inky philosophy we have now
The textbook definition of overplaying your hand. POV=Subject. Orientation to goal/attention point=object. You’re welcome. This is psychology or anthropology not philosophy.
The English are more eloquent than Americans, builders and bankers.
They both show they are ATHEISTS. Answer: VEDANTA HINDU PHILOSOPHY
What a genteel person he is.
Disturbing to watch people wrestling with so-called deep think of a man committed to mass murder. But you cannot embarrass philosophers. They are the worst.
Yes! Yes! Yes! Beeing in the world was celebrated in Ausschwitz and Bergen-Belsen!
Seperate politics from a man's philosophy. Two different subjects (unless they are purposely related)
It is amazing how narcissistic the west is
Parmenides monistic philosophy has existed in the east for ever, but there is no interest in it.Heidegger supposedly learnt from Zen Buddhist Japanese fellow but the arrogance was too much the study of the self has been given to the theocrats , no questions asked. Now that Heidegger wanted to go back to “ Being” he does not want to go back to Parmenides but to Aristotle. The visceral philosopher Who eliminated due diligence in Philosophy and honored Doxa , or prejudiced opinion. Philosophy is dying in American Universities , there is no quest for ontology , you have default sociologists like Martha Nussbaum claiming to be philosophers with no penchant for ontological reduction running the roost. Prof Richard Roederick once fecitiously claimed that he did not know why the endeavor called philosophy could have any right to exist after 2500 years of failure. Right he was. Philosophy betrayed Socrates by rejecting the dialectic and the dialog, it became interested in linear thinking and monologue
If it's such a waste, what are you doing on a philosophy channel? Go live your enlightened life, oh sage of UA-cam.
@@alaron5698 nithing like arrogance young man my critique is if the restriction of paradigm
by Aristotle that has caged philosophy i have no problem with Heraclitus Parmenides snd Plato the limitation of ontological reduction thst phenomenology tried to reintroduce is not possible if one csn not get beyond Aristotle a philosopher who despised due diligence you are a one paradigm person
the subject is deadwood for you
yes phenomenology tried to find brim wua being but within Aristotelian paradigm
and that is the joke
like a judeo christisn preacher you pontificate and attack me ad homrnirm
sorry i pressed send before editing
look at the arrogance . I never mentioned enlightened life Yes i di my PhD in Pjilosophy in 1981 defending Adornonin his critique of Heidegger but in the end the arrogance of Adorno got me down snd I chose another profession many years after my dissertation i csme reslize the the sttingihild of Aristotle that has made western philosophy dogmatic snd justifies its imperislism
by the way my dissertation
“ The role of the critic and the logic of criticism in Hegel, Bruno Bauer and the Frankfurt School “ The American University dept of Philosophy is the continued acceptance
of Aristotelian dogmatism but i did not realize it then
arc was correct in sath thst philosophy is a mere interpretation with prejudic snd thst us not a problem with me but the fact that the likes of Hegel and Heidegger play God is oblivious to themselves
you think that you are an erudite philosopher when you have rejected the Platonic Dislectic snd accepted Aristotelian doxa as the summun bonum of philosophy
@@arunjetli7909 You speak of my "arrogance" while denigrating the entire West as narcissistic and looking down on large swaths of philosophers both ancient and modern, then you accuse me of ad hominem attacks while calling me a "one paradigm person" (among other things) and equating me to a Christian "pontificating', all after writing several long, ranting messages professing what is wrong with the West, me, and others, and how we need to correct our ways. Perhaps you might take a glance in the mirror someday.
BORRRRRINGGGGGGGG
One of the weaker discussions in this series.
The talk with Hubert Dreyfus from the later series is quite a bit better, I think.
@@samharper5881 I disagree. The later discussion is much more superficial.
in what way?
Yeah Bryan doesn't ask very insightful questions. Though from the talk it seemed like he didn't know much about Heidegger or existentialism, so that's probably why.
I thought this one had only a few bright spots. The discussion with Dreyfus was more directed and structured. You could've taken a clean set of notes in the later discussion as from a lecture; here youd be scribbling down random quotes.
It's hard to believe that these fools are actually paid for spouting this nonsense. But even more remarkable is the fact that other people will pay to hear this foolishness.