It is the seemingly impossible ABSOLUTE point of view from which philosophy takes place. This is what will always baffle ordinary thinking - and science is ordinary thinking decked out in fine colours, masquerading as wisdom. It never for one moment questions the objectivity of the object, nor does it bother to ask how subject and object relate to each other, let alone ON WHAT BASIS - which is really the important question. The a priori is for it something unworthy of thought.
"Objectivity" : the most overrated, vague concept of all time ! Objectivity is in every case objective only for a subject - and hence never really objective to begin with, because it is still dependent on the subject. The only way objectivity could be purely and independently achieved would be by destroying the subject - but in doing so the object would also be destroyed because there wouldn't be anything for it to be an object for !
ALL questions are contained within this question. There is not a single question you can think of which does not boil down to this one fundamental question. It is the question which places even itself in question, since questioning itself is something and not nothing. ALL so-called "science" owes its very lifeblood to the very fact that this question was once asked and still can be asked. Genuine questioning questions ITSELF too and is not merely "objective", i.e. "scientific".
The experience of ONE question alone is the key to philosophy : the question which asks why anything is being at all rather than nothing. This is the only important question and the only question which can truly evoke WONDER. If you fall short of this question then you may be a clever so-and-so but you are certainly not a philosopher and certainly not destined for knowledge. All "other" mysteries pale in comparison. In truth there are no other mysteries.
Metaphysics is based in a certain experience of Being, not merely in intellectual training. Formal logic is not everything - in truth it is worthless once it has become detached from genuine ontology. The rules on the basis of which formal logic is practised are themselves based on a particular metaphysics, namely Plato's. But if this ontological view does not hold good, then neither does formal logic.
If thinking is to think the thought of Being then it must transcend even thought, since thought is not purely nothing. Nothing is nothing - and nothing else. The question which addresses Nothing goes beyond all things - i.e. is meta-physical. ONLY this question is metaphysical. But if to enter into metaphysics is (via thought) to go beyond thought, then it must culminate in something other than thought. "Dread reveals Nothing".
If "there is" a God then God will surely always appear as "Nothing" to the intellect. This has been acknowledged by philosophers since the beginning. The a priori, making thinking itself possible, eludes thinking. "The whole is more than the sum of the parts" means : the whole precedes the parts and cannot be reached by adding the parts together. Everything "exists" as a whole already, prior to any "thing". And so we must ask about the whole. This is clearly not a possibility for science.
If, as Heidegger claims in What Is Metaphysics ?, every being (insofar as it is a being) is made out of Nothing, then the notion of the world as an object crumbles - together with the scientific viewpoint. But science is merely what philosophy became. The roots of the degeneration of philosophy (metaphysics) into science lie in philosophy itself.
Every genuine philosophic insight is impossible to "demonstrate". Or rather, it is possible to demonstrate it only to those who already know it. Philosophy is unteachable, as Plato himself said over two millennia ago. In the moment of discovery, "publicity" dies. Only in solitude is there philosophy. Science understands only the drive to establish an "objective" viewpoint. But if the world is fundamentally not an object then that drive is misguided from the outset.
It is a thoughtless mantra today that any suggestion that "mere feeling" is more fundamental than so-called "thought" is tantamount to insanity, delusion, "irrationalism" or a "poetic adornment" to good, solid "objective" ("scientific") thought. Heidegger contends the opposite : feeling lies prior to and guides thought. But he takes care to avoid the arbitrariness of mere irrationalism and identifies a fundamental feeling (mood) : dread (Angst). He says, "Dread reveals Nothing".
So, what is meta-physical ? The answer is immediately clear and obvious : nothing. Only when we ask the question which Heidegger rightly identifies as the fundamental question of philosophy can there be any chance of divining the essential difference between physics and metaphysics. But of course "nothing" does not present itself to either the mind or the senses. Perhaps, then, it lies prior to both, making them possible ?
It's really is so much simpler - yet more profound - than so many people seem to think. The meta-physical transcends the physical and the physical (from the Greek "physis") names, quite simply, the totality of beings (i.e. what science would call "the universe"). For sure, the original Greek meaning of physis is more profound, but "the universe" suffices for the purpose of illustrating the contrast between science (physics) and philosophy (metaphysics).
"Metaphysics" is profoundly ambiguous. Heidegger is responsible for this ambiguity. Scientists can stop dreaming about glory : you are very inadequate thinkers. You don't even understand your own foundations.
But science is what metaphysics BECAME and since we have not yet escaped metaphysics, science will rule the world for a long time yet. Except for certain individuals, whose influence will be almost imperceptible.
It is just as likely that alienation will occur in rural areas as it is that will occur in the city. That is a load of rubbish and yet another attempt to make Heidegger's thought look like something that it isn't.
Alienation is almost universal. In fact we can say that it IS universal. It stems from metaphysics. But the word "metaphysics" is ambiguous. There is nothing straightforward in philosophy.
It is very strange to come across a person who does not wonder why (or how) she or he came to be and why (and how) he (or she) is absolutely bound to die, having once come into being. Very strange but all too common. Is modern philosophy a bit like modern politics ? Is it all just "economics" ? Are we all just nihilists really ? Do we already "know" everything ? Have we really understood Nietzsche ? Might we have misinterpreted his thoughts ? Are we capable of self-criticism ? (???)
@zarakhast read my blog hermeneutics. blogspot.com, the key to philosophy is to reveal physical truths to social physics which is all economic, that is the link to despotism and the key to the loss of human liberty, to know this one must understand the roots to economics which is the physical mediums of human extensions. This is also portrayed in the Adam Eve parable... But hey what am I but a simple man and hill billy.
@zarakhast Its all just economics in capitalism measures in perception in judgment looking up and down and all around across and side ways in comparison, its what makes the world go round, philosphy is about defining physical truths because symbolism blinds the minds eye; Hermeneutics is about the exercise of comprehension seeing in thinking, truth and method of all things being a form of science or explanation, conscience the word science is there for a reason, language is a form of physics..
@MegaFargone Yes we have all been reduced to the status of economic units. This is why I hate politicians ! But if you think that physics is the answer then you are way off track. The most capable thinkers these days are scientists and not philosophers - but this is a disaster ! There is too much cleverness around today and not enough depth. By the way, in regard to this video, Heidegger never says ANYTHING about the prevalence of alienation in the "big city".
@zarakhast Here lies the issue who or what is in control when there is no understanding to what we are doing physically, social physics is not the answer it is only an explanation that does not yet exist because no one has ever written it down properly in a metaphysical language, that said, I am not as superficial as a person but simply being real, alienation of the big city is all about social containment and social containment is all about the isolations of material occupation, there is more
@MegaFargone The constitution was poorly written and was not based upon the depths to economic evolution which is the physical mediums of human extension which forms the bongage to sustenance occupation, as familiarity itself leads to consumption which is by and large due to the existential attachment of human duality, its a friggen mind orgy to write it all down, hermeneutics is "seeing and thinking" what exists when and where you cant know all all at once
To key to the meaning of all words (and of life) is the meaning of the word which unites them all : Being. This is not hard to understand. If the meaning of Being changes, the meaning of everything changes. But Being is not merely a word. It "is" everything. Even language needs to be understood in terms of Being. So Being lies, necessarily, beyond language, granting it. The origin of language lies in silence. Miguel de Beistegui talks rot, does not understand. He is Sartre's mouthpiece.
@zarakhast The key is hermeneutics taking the time in relfection to define physical truths which come based upon what we are ready to see. The process of edifying pretended knowledge being replaced through sound reasoning knowing what you know; its not what you know but how you know anything...
@waypor1 Yes but what about the question of Nothing ? You make me despair, you supposed advocates of Heidegger. You love to display your knowledge of his works, and even venture to teach others something, but you never show any signs of having understood the very first steps into philosophy, which Heidegger very clearly demonstrates in his Introduction to Metaphysics. Heidegger students are the worst of all .... Merry Christmas, by the way.
@waypor1 Why don't you directly confront the question of Nothing rather than chickening out or admitting that you don't understand the question ? Read Heidegger's Introduction to Metaphysics or better still his essay, What Is Metaphysics ? I can honestly and humbly tell you that unless you have understood and become involved in the question he asks in that essay you have not yet entered into "philosophy".
@ x1n933k Yes, to gather something as we listen. By means of words and the roots of words (their original meanings). This is what Heidegger ceaselessly tries to do : to keep us in touch with our roots. The modern world has abandoned these roots, believing that it can get along not only fine but even better than before. And so it has plunged us into an abyss. Words mean nothing any more. The first and key word is "Being" ? What does it mean ?
If you yourself have had a great insight then good for you. Perhaps you are finding it hard to accept ? Tell me about it - I'm 17 years older than you and I read Heidegger when I was 18 !
Newness of perceptions / questions ? I agree. Jamais vu vs. Deja vu. The problem is though that the fundamental questions remain the same. The Nothing-question is FOREVER the one true question (of metaphysics).
He first of all tried to remind us of what metaphysics is, by raising a definite question, namely, What Is Metaphysics ? This question necessarily involves confronting Nothing, as the possibility which (apparently) never came to prevail.
After this question, assuming that we have heard what he has to say, we may move on to ask about the meaning of Being - but not until we have heard it.
Okay, less of the "spamming" which you find so irritating (understandably).
I have often thought of myself as one of the "last men" (i.e. Nietzsche's modern, spiritless coward). Perhaps we are all such men ? Presumably we are not all ubermenschen just yet ? What about you ?
I've already said to you that I am interested first in bridging the gap between science and metaphysics (not in proceeding straightaway to Heideggerian thought), so why your objections ?
But since you replied to me in your many comments here I can only say that you're not thinking, your not philosophizing, and your experience is not yours to speak of. I see examples that point to you being Nietzche's 'lastman'. Zen buddhism has an interesting take, in that we must be NEW every time we attempt something. The attention and letting go of what we hold on to so we can be open to learning. Do me a favor though, stop replying to this video with my name. It's spamming my email ;)
And I cannot show you, but the way you are asking and answering is a common way, or a scientific way. You hold the words in it's definition of language(or as beings), but if you read through Heidegger's work you may learn where this etymology or linguistics leads. He was clever in his use of language so that we might gather something as we listened. I'll follow Derrida's example: even reading my words now I see they are not mine or yours, but gather them and you might hear the call.
This documentary is SO SUPERFICIAL an interpretation of Heidegger's thought. We are dealing with ETERNITY here. In philosophy we always were dealing with eternity and we always will be, so long as there is philosophy. It is incredible - and not very admirable - how the narrators and their conspirators manage to relegate philosophical questions by subtle steps to modern, scientific, mundane ones. Once again the "intellect" fails to understand. Once again a lack of depth manifests itself.
@zarakhast The document is meant to stir an interest. Since you seem to know Heidegger's work through reading then you can see what is terrible but, in the first video they say that Heidegger's work will change you. At least if you're open to following him. As for the rest, I didn't really meant to a comment on his work or how either of us may have followed it. I might have made the mistake of just seeing the post at the top of the video and considered you another basement philosopher.
@x1n933k I object to the following things in particular :
1. People playing politics with philosophy. Philosophy is above politics.
2. The widespread view that "science" has somehow superseded philosophy, according to which we may now patronisingly look upon the ancients as primitive individuals who would be amazed by and immediately embrace the modern view. This is not the case at all.
3. Mere intellectualism. But really, this is covered by point no.2.
This documentary attempts to analyse Heidegger from a modern point of view - a view which is still doing the rounds today, and which Heidegger himself took to task many times : the same "psychological-biologistic" interpretation which modern (and contemporary) commentators have applied to the case of Nietzsche. This is modern science once again rearing its ugly, boring, big-mouthed and uninspiring head. You cannot judge a philosopher by these mundane standards.
It is both possible and correct to assert the following : the universe never came into being. There prevails and will always prevail - NOTHING.But it is equally possible and correct to assert the opposite : the universe has always existed and always will exist. There has never been NOTHING. This is not something which "formal logic" or the prosaic mind in general can get its head around. BOTH these assertions are "true". "Truth" is ambiguous.
@zarakhast But your paragraph reveals nothing. How is any of what you said possible if you don't know what you're talking about? What is the Universe compared to being? How is truth in being? How is ambiguous? How is existence not related to Being? You're talking about beings, yes, but you haven't investigated what any of what you said that means.
@x1n933k Too many questions - all good ones and very much in the spirit of Heideggerian thought, I think - to answer via YouTube. Yes, it is the question of the MEANING of Being which has been neglected by metaphysics. However, in order to make the transition to THIS question we must remind ourselves in this modern, scientific age of what metaphysics (as opposed to science) is. In other words, we must first read "What Is Metaphysics ?" and face the question about Nothing.
@x1n933k Both Plato and Aristotle asserted that philosophy (i.e. metaphysics) is (or was) born in wonder. Wonder, according to Heidegger, is not merely a rare "psychological" phenomenon but (as he says in What Is Metaphysics ?) "the revelation of Nothing". In order to even begin philosophy we must experience this revelation of Nothing. This is patently NOT the basic experience of the philosophy student nowadays.
@x1n933k Your question, "How is existence not related to Being ?" is not immediately comprehensible to me. By "existence" do you mean "the totality of beings" or are you using the word "existence" in the Heideggerian sense (in which man alone truly "exists") ?
@x1n933k Having experienced wonder, and having experienced it AS the revelation of Nothing - then and only then may we embark on the question which Heidegger pursues in Being And Time : the question of the meaning of Being. But time and again throughout his career he had to reiterate the Nothing-question. This was no bad thing, since it is the fundamental question of metaphysics. But Heidegger asserted that metaphysics, with Nietzsche, had been completed.
@x1n933k If we no longer even understand the difference between ordinary ("scientific") thinking and metaphysics proper, then what hope do we have of understanding the question which Heidegger poses (remembers) in Being And Time : What Does Being Mean ?
@x1n933k The fundamental question of metaphysics is "merely preparatory" to the question proper : the question of the meaning of Being. However, we cannot simply omit it. We have strayed so far from the Greek way of thinking and experiencing that we need to remind ourselves of it, via "The Event" (Ereignis). This is the experience of wonder, the UNDERSTANDING of which is first properly secured and articulated by Heidegger, though others (e.g. Kierkegaard) certainly already touched on it.
How could Nothing have prevailed ? If Nothing was at the beginning then in order to prevail it would have had to continue. But if it had continued it would not have continued inasmuch as Nothing, by its very nature, can never continue - can never admit of "time". But perhaps it continued - i.e. prevailed - precisely BY not continuing ? Perhaps Nothing IS (itself) precisely by NOT BEING (itself) ? This is the riddle which must be understood.
When approaching the taboo subject of death we immediately need to face up to the fact that we are going to have to ask about the possibility of Nothing. Whether we are enjoying our lives and never want to die or we hate our lives and wish we had never been born, death is going to be (or not going to be) "the end". So, is Nothing possible ? Could Nothing ever have been, assuming that it does not prevail right now ?
The philosopher respects ALL beings. That does not mean that he belittles or hates or enslaves humanity. It also doesn't mean that he hates or belittles or enslaves animals. He doesn't hate or belittle or enslave ANYTHING. He also understands the meaning of "power" and its origin in POWERLESSNESS. You and I are going to die. There is nothing we can do about this. It is a fait accompli. Death renders us all powerless from the outset, from pauper to prince.
Being, as the origin of both animality and reason, contains the possibility of both. It IS both if we think of isness as "making possible" - which is exactly Aristotle's definition of Being.
But how should we seek out Being ? Being is not "a" being, it is the Being of all beings. It is somehow given in advance, so that we may even speak of beings at all.
The Nothing-question is obviously the only way into philosophy proper. Only by contrasting beings with what they are NOT can we hope ..
@zarakhast to encounter this "other" which Being perpetually IS.
It is incredible how many people still think in terms of "rationalism" or "irrationalism" even after having "read" either Heidegger or Nietzsche. There has never been a single great thinker who has thought in these terms.
The human being understood as a mere animal : this is what Heidegger wants to avoid, no less than Plato wanted to avoid the same thing.
Is that an insult to animals or to life ? NO ! But it does constitute an attempt to make human beings pluck up some courage to discover what they really are and to stop belittling themselves. The "animal rationale" definition of humanity is equally destructive whether it is interpreted from the side of animality or reason.
Heidegger once said that anyone who wants to read Nietzsche should first of all go and study Aristotle for ten years. Ten years without even laying an eye on the philosophy of Nietzsche ! What did he mean by this ?
Aristotle is supremely logical. He was, after all, the one who formulated the laws of thought. There is no doubt that Heidegger admired Aristotle.
Secondly, however, H. saw in A. the nearest thing to N. in the ancient world.
Sadly, there are no good translations of Aristotle.
I can't help but notice that the scholars/ writers speaking in this interview know really little about Heidegger's work. They have such a blurry idea of what Heidegger is talking about. An adequate understanding of Heidegger is impossible without a solid knowledge of Aristotle. In fact Heidegger IS almost totally about ancient philosophy. Also I suggest to those who study Heidegger not to read SEIN UND ZEIT first but instead those lectures he gave about Aristotle and Plato.
@tametataphysika Wise words. I don't necessarily agree that you have to read his lectures on Plato and Aristotle first, but equally, why not ?
Like so much secondary literature on Heidegger this is : a) tendentious claptrap, b) shallow misinterpretation , c) nasty defamation of character.
The ancients, particularly, the thinkers who came before Socrates, are his almost constant concern. His work is full of admiration, awe, wonder, profundity. Politics never even enters into it.
You can say that Nietzsche "lords" but you need to truly understand him first, and that requires achieving (in the true spirit of metaphysics) a standpoint which lies BEYOND his thought. Is this possible ? Yes, for Nietzsche only managed to envision the overturning of Platonism from within Platonism - and so he still remained essentially a Platonist. Only Heidegger saw this. Nietzsche's thought of eternal return pointed beyond Platonism but he himself remained mired in Platonism.
Everyone who is reading this comment, please click on my username for my videos I made about the The Truth of the World. I have found out what the truth of life is, the truth of the world, and the truth of God. Please, I really want people to watch and listen what I have to say. No more living in false reality, no more living in illusions, no more thinking there is no way out......its time to lead your life into The Truth of the World!!!!!!!!!
I must confess to saying while I have not read "Being and Time" and do not plan to any time soon (I ADORE philosophy, even write myself, and while I enjoy nearly all sorts of philosophers the Existentialists, Nietzsche and Kierkegaard chief among them, Plato, and Hobbees remain my favorites... however, also being of Jewish heritage, reading what may well have been a philosophy Nazi-inspired in some way does not seem attractive with so many options) thus far his point seems not bold, but obvious.
You "adore" philosophy yet you are not capable of making the difference between a man's work and his personal life.
The very fact that you "adore" philosophy shows how far away you are from understanding what thinking and being a thinker is. Philosophy is not a ground for worshippers.
Its nice that you claim to "ADORE" philosophy. But if thats the extent to which you go in philosophy, adoration alone, then unfortunately you may be depriving yourself of some very good healthy thinking for the mind. We all may not agree with the ideas presented by particular thinkers, but that doesnt mean we cant listen. At the very least, you learn another perspective of thoughts and ideas which very well may help/inspire/strengthen your own philosophy of life.
Oh, to both of you, I WILL read Heidegger EVENTUALLY...
But as I have limited funds, and many OTHER philosophers to read right now before I'd even be logically set up for Heidegger (I've read 2 Nietzsches and hope to read the rest of his works, 2 Platos, Locke's 2nd Treatiese, and now Mill and Hume, so a plenty of folks left before Heidegger's even logically set up) I'll hold off on him for now.
But I do think, if that's an accurate description of his work, Nietzsche's the original genius.
@obiwanobiwan13 divide your readings in three categories.. enlightenment thinkers, modern thinkers and then post-modern thinkers.... cover all philosophers and thoughts in each of the three categories.. quite fun and useful..it's the best way..
I am not opposes your thoughts here, rather I was merely outlining an easy transition for those embedded within the analytic tradition attempting to make the leap into realer issues haunting philosophy. Nonetheless, if you would like to really engage into the issues, I would be glad to. Take care, I appreciate the spirit of your zeal.
Thanks. But I would not describe myself as "zealous". Ambivalent would be a better word. I KNOW that Heidegger's philosophy is the greatest but I struggle to accept it : not only the intellect is involved in attempting to "accept" what Heidegger is saying.
The "analytic" tradition is the slave of logic. But faith in logic is illogical ! Thought belongs to the Absolute : it cannot dictate to it or decide it.
PS - Heidegger and Sartre = chalk and cheese. Not both "existentialists".
While I will agree that a moving away from the analytic is definitely desireable and the existential mode of thought should clearly be given more of the voice than it it has been allowed in the English-speaking countries (the States here included, if not especially) I would argue that not only does analytic thought remain useful and needed, if for nothing else than as a reference, but also I would heatedly contest there is no "greatest" philosopher, and certainly not Heidegger. NIETZSCHE lords
Scientists need to realize that their questions are not fundamental. And to be honest it's pretty obvious that they're not. Metaphysicians for their part need to look at the FORM of any metaphysical question, because the truth is that this form not only stymies metaphysics, it actually gives rise to science, which then attempts to supersede philosophy - completely unaware that is forever the child of philosophy and can never become independent of it.
I feel as though my last comment will be misconstrued; I simply meant to say your comments pertaining to Nietzsche's importance (not your interpretation which I find accurate). Also by asserting this is not our task, I meant debating over superficial distinctions opposed to the search for truth.
"Nothing" is not only not anything we might care to imagine - though it is certainly that : it is so utterly not that it is not even itself. The "not" is the essence of Nothing. Nothing is essentially always "other". It is Protean : chaos. It is perpetually "going beyond" : transcendence pure and simple. And Heidegger also calls "Da-sein" (which is sometimes equated with human-being) transcendence pure and simple. This must first be EXPERIENCED - and only then "understood".
The birth of metaphysics (i.e. of philosophy) lies in a fundamental experience - NOT in a "thought", and certainly not in a mere logic classroom. The very conception and formulation of "logic" would have been impossible had it not been for this experience. This is what the Greeks meant by "wonder".
What Heidegger says (in the essay, What Is Metaphysics ?) about the Latin principle upon which logic is based - but which itself is a principle based on a misunderstanding of ancient ontology - namely, "ex nihilo nihil fit" (nothing can come from nothing) is absolutely decisive. This principle is taken to mean that we must always look for "something" as a cause. But that's not what it says if we examine it more closely. It says that nothing "comes from" nothing. "Nothing" BECOMES. Inevitably !
This essential self-becoming of Nothing is expressed in Heidegger by the term "nihilation". Much scorn has been poured on Heidegger's assertion that "Nothing nihilates of itself". But in truth this is the key to Heidegger's thinking and a failure to experience it will lead to a failure to penetrate into his thought. Kierkegaard would certainly have known the meaning of nihilation. Nothing cancels EVEN ITSELF out - and so remains, while not remaining, itself. Not being itself it is itself.
When both Plato and Aristotle name "wonder" as the "mother of philosophy" they mean (although they themselves do not go so far as to analyse this phenomenon) : the "revelation of nothing". Metaphysics consists in waking up from the complacency which takes "existence" for granted ; but this can only happen if and when the opposite possibilty (of there never having been any beings) has been envisaged. This realization is essential to metaphysics as such.
Being a philosophy professor and being a philosopher are two very different things. Look at how badly Nietzsche understood, for instance, Hegel and Aristotle. That didn't stop him from being perhaps the greatest thinker since Plato. Nietzsche himself - and still more often Heidegger- pour scorn on the "professional philosopher". Heraclitus and Socrates are perfect examples of the genuine philosopher.
This is all so subtle that it would be impossible throw any light on it over the internet ! The best thing is to read Heidegger's lectures on Nietzsche - with an OPEN MIND.
Heidegger, in What Is Metaphysics ?, distinguishes metaphysics from science by introducing the theme of "Nothing". What he is trying to do here is to lead the reader on to the path of metaphysics. Genuine metaphysics is rare. But no sooner than metaphysics has been entered into, Heidegger tells us that it is over !
The appearance of the thought of eternal return in Nietzsche career is remarkable precisely because it is the same thought which occurred to the great pre-socratics. It is thus a pre-metaphysical thought. Metaphysics is viewed by Heidegger as decline : as a "history of the oblivion of Being". Man is not responsible for this decline : Being is. When Nietzsche thinks the thought of eternal return, however, he does not escape the labyrinth of metaphysics. He does not think it pre-socratically.
What hope is there of any advances in knowledge when metaphysics, which has in the meantime (i.e. over a century ago) been completed, if it isn't even possible to get philosophy teachers and their students to the point where they understand what metaphysics IS ? Heidegger makes this VERY clear in both Introduction to Metaphysics and What Is Metaphysics ? These works really ought to be standard reading. But there seems to be little hope of that.
Metaphysics must INEVITABLY confront what Heidegger calls "the Nothing" (das Nichts). It is not possible to question the world (i.e. the totality of beings : the universe) unless we contrast it with this absolute counter-possibilty. Philosophy simply CANNOT occur without this counter-possibilty having first been envisaged. This occurs in a flash. Heidegger calls it an "Event". This is where man and philosophy AS SUCH begin ...
On top of all this, Heidegger tells us that metaphysics has been "completed". The answer has been found, or : the entire range of possible metaphysical positions has been exhausted. The final position was Nietzsche's. Nietzsche's metaphysics is characterized as a "reversal of Platonism". According to Heidegger it yet remains Platonism insofar as it VALUES. It merely reverses the Platonic valuation and puts the body first. However, along the way Nietzsche utters the thought of eternal return.
In Heidegger's view, this utterance of Parmenides, is the most profound since Western history began. But to moderns it says nothing. We have utterly forgotten the QUESTION of Being. We don't even acknowledge that philosophy is metaphysics and that metaphysics is inquiry into Being (i.e. ontology). We call metaphysics a mere "branch" of philosophy, whereas it is CLEARLY the whole of philosophy. It's no wonder that philosophical debates lead nowhere any more.
Also, a good grasp of core analytic themes and logic would be wise -- look into cross figures like Rorty or Cavell. Heidegger supporters in serious academia, though strong and rising today (thanks to developments in cog sci) are a minority -- so do not make the folly of many existential followers and simply divulge into the romanticism, but take seriously the philosophy.
I'm not interested in Rorty, Cavell et al. Also, it doesn't matter how "well-supported" a thinker is ; it matters only whether he speaks the truth. It is also unimportant, in searching for the truth, to be "well read" in philosophy - unless you merely want to display your superior learning. You only need to know a handful of authors. In truth only a few thinkers are worth reading. Nietzsche is certainly one of them. I also wouldn't regard Heidegger as an "existentialist".
It is highly unfortunate that you waste such breath vehemently protesting every comment placed on this video, so allow me to make a few points
1) You are wasting time with these needless extrapolations, the majority of people watching this video are most likely indifferent and/or naive as to the real implications in Heidegger's thought, etc
Heidegger on Sartre's "Sein und Zeit": "That dreck!"
It might be more productive to address zarakhast's ideas, rather than expect him to conform to the "coffee table" discursivities characteristic of the more even-handed proselytisers of current doxa that you seem to valorise. Ad hominem nitpicking, and appeals to the "majority", are not good arguments. Is it a "waste of time" to engage in activity not sanctioned by the tyrannies of the demos, to speak otherwise, than doxa?
A police service is a public force empowered to enforce the law and provide security through the legitimized use of force. Polity (shrewd or crafty management of public affairs) "we was innocent of stratagems and polity" Latin juxta put side by side Latin = near.
2) Heidegger is an existentialist. You do not want to speak in definitions, fine, well his contribution to existential thought is profound. If we regard the term informally, there is no disputing
3) Your narrow-mindedness and trivializing of other philosophers is both unsubstantiated and naive. This has nothing to do with superior knowledge, but a matured view on philosophical development which is absolutely necessary to make any judgment that isn't frivolous.
Heidegger explicitly denied being an "existentialist". There's a huge difference between the thought of say, Sartre, and the thought of Heidegger. Sartre believed that he had understood Heidegger but he couldn't have been more wrong. "Existentialism" is very poorly defined. It has been defined according to Sartre's formula : "existence precedes essence". Sartre meant by this simply atheism, and his was a shallow interpretation of Heidegger. Heidegger didn't mean that.
Call it narrow-mindedness if you like. What I'm saying is that it isn't only philosophy professors and university students - I was one myself - who possess the ability to philosophize. It is not necessary to know the entire history of philosophy in order to be able to philosophize : it is already given to you, in advance, as a human being. If you haven't picked that up from the greats then what have you picked up ?
4) Moreover, your claim on Nietzsche (though I appreciate his thought) is so horrifically debatable.
Conclusion:
I see where you are coming from but your brashness is unnecessary and furthermore falling on dead ears; this is not our task as philosophers. Good luck with your further studies in philosophy.
well that's just a shame -- clearly It is pointless to communicate anything on this site -- If you failed to pick up what I am trying to say, which is irrelevant to your aforementioned points, quite frankly you are just too caught up in your own bend; this is pointless. Good day
I'm not sure what you were trying to say, though you were very diplomatic in saying it ( a plus point ). But Heidegger was not an existentialist - that's a fact ! So you've got that wrong for a start. Sorry if that's "brash" - it's also true.
The search for truth is not scientific because scientific questions do not go deep enough. Meta-physics asks the question about Nothing : why it isn't. It transcends science utterly.
I'm sorry you feel like that. You're right that it's impossible to communicate philosophically over the internet. I didn't fail to pick up what you were trying to say - I've heard it all before ! If you had understood Heidegger you would realize the unlikelihood of meeting a kindred spirit. And if you'd reacted to his thought as I did then you might not even want to meet such a person. You're a diplomatic type, but I doubt that you could understand.
Do you know what I mean by a "reaction" to an encounter with Heidegger's thought - specifically the essay, What Is Metaphysics ? Have you experienced the terror of realizing that you are nothing - and that nothing can never be destroyed ? It's pretty obvious what follows from this. Socrates taught the immortality of the soul.
What is there left to think about ? The truth is simple and terrible. I can't find any comfort even in the beauty of tragedy. I have no "task".
Modern science is so full of wonderful discoveries that it is impossible to do anything but praise it for the work that it does. But the original, genuinely philosophical questions, still remain unanswered by it. At least for those who haven't carefully read Heidegger. If the whole world is made of atoms then what are atoms ?
?
Science doesn't go deep enough. It stops just where genuine questioning really ought to begin. The answer is in YOU.
Genuine philosophy is actually very simple. There are these days too many "clever" interpretations of what it is. My suggestion to anyone who really wants to know what philosophy is would be to first of all read Plato. Heidegger, too, often opens his enquiries into the essence of this or that in a Platonic manner. Nothing has changed : if several things "are" then we need to know what we mean by "being" (i.e. to be), and so on. This method is sound.
It may be as well to remember that the PreSocratics had never read Plato or Heidegger, and that Heidegger wanted to "return" to them, there to start afresh.
"It is not what you think, but THAT you think that is the source of all things" Zen saying
Do not forget the pre-socratics. It was Parmenides who posed the first question pertaining to Being; nonetheless, if anyone is serious about Heidegger or figures within the 'continental' tradition they best be advised to have a strong knowledge of the history of philosophy (not taking for granted figures and readings often past or ignored., i.e Nietzsche, Hegel...et cetera).
I studied Greek philosophy, including the pre-socratics, in my time at university. As you'll know, Heidegger's interpretation of Parmenides, Heraclitus and Anaximander is not much like that which students get taught in the first year. He also thinks that we moderns understand nothing of Aristotle. We trivialize these thinkers, believing modern "philosophy" to have superseded their thinking. Nothing could be further from the truth. The beginning (of Western thought) was supreme.
An "atom"is the asymptotic idealisation of the quest to control through ever increasing divisibility (which enables reconstitution according to the "controller's desire"). It is the pursuit of a religious belief in physical magnitudes.
"Science"is a devotional discipline that notarizes observations as "acceptable" and
"reliable" for the "community", adjusting common epistemologies according to social
"needs".It can be an honourable task, but is often compromised by ignorance of various sorts.
derritrane, I'm sure you could word your ideas / questions / general points in less academic / esoteric terms.
As regards science vs. philosophy, the contrast is simple :
Science deals with beings - and nothing more. Philosophy (as meta-physics) goes beyond beings in order to try to understand them AS SUCH (i.e. AS "beings"). Philosophy therefore deals with that which is never a being : Nothing. Only Nothing is metaphysical.
Akademeia, the garden, outside Athens, where Plato taught.
Academy, Plato's school of philosophy.
Do not be too sure about science's neglect of "nothingness", there's always quantum physics, virtual quantum fluctuations in the void, etc., all the usual gingerbread that's been bandied around for decades- 80 years
According to Heidegger, questioning is "the piety of thought".
"Being" (or "life", if you like) DOES require an answer. Moreover, it is not "man" who asks the question : it is Being itself. The question "of" Being is not merely the question, asked by man, concerning Being, but the question posed THROUGH man, by Being, to itself.
Whenever the question of Being arises, i.e. whenever philosophy IS, it is Being that asks - not "man".
Equally though, if we follow Heidegger's train of thought, "man" qua man IS only when he is appropriated by Being in the Event. In other words, man only comes to himself and is himself when Being "uses" him to question itself.
The question of Being is, always was and always will be, the greatest question not only for philosophy or for man ; it is always the true "endgame" of Being itself.
And the answer ? It is the question ! But along the way lies tragic wisdom ...
"Tragic wisdom" may well be the experience of a thwarted Eurocentric-Hell(enic) power drive, but it is not necessarily the experience of the yogi. After disconnecting from "Being" in order to violently plunder it, the power-drive returns, self-mutilated, sulkily declaring platitudes about tragedy, the tragic character of this or that, anything but the tragic character of it's own avoidable stupidity.
"Rather than not will, it wills nothing (destruction) at all" Heidegger
Nietzsche actually says that the will would rather will nothing than not will (at all). What he says here is that Will (to-power) is fundamental and indeed eternal. Ultimately it is not even in the power of Will to renounce itself. Will is imperishable : eternal. This is what is both terrible and awe-inspiring about Nietzsche's metaphysics. Philosophy has always been about the Absolute ; and this has always meant the eternal and imperishable - which, however, is always perishing by its nature.
The "of" here is to be understood in a double sense : "concerning" (i.e. about) and "belonging to". The question "of" Being is a self-questioning. Man is not some third-party bystander in all of this. He belongs to Being, as does everything else.
What if, through man, Being were trying to get back to itself ? What if this were not a simple matter ? What if this task were full of "fear and trembling" - not to be rushed, but not to be abandoned ?
"Man against the world" : this is the implicit "philosophy" of modern science.
Question to modern science : what if you not only are a part of the world but are its very dispenser, its arranger ? What if the whole fate of the universe depended on how man comports himself towards it ? But with this crucial proviso : that he first realize that he is subordinate to Being, which he really ought to be seeking ?
The "categories" of Aristotle weren't invented by him . They were (are) A PRIORI.
When a question is asked we arrogantly assume that "we" (i.e. human beings, and even individuals) are doing the asking. Actually, life (or Being, or the world) is asking ITSELF these questions. It is ludicrous of mankind to separate himself from the whole of reality. But this is exactly what he does when he engages in "science". Buddhism, I believe, knows this already. Heidegger also knew this very clearly, as did Nietzsche, but modernity misinterprets them.
Humans have an insatiable thirst for creating hierarchies and heroes to look up to and idolise. Words are just holes in the air, the chirping of birds. We are simply engaged in playing games to while away the time pending the final irreversible annihilation that awaits each of us. Philosophy is useless, as life is.
Words, verbalised, are mod-u-lay-shuns (sic) in air pressure. Birdsong is a kindred phenomenon. Game-playing? see Heraclitus. A Buddhist might say that there is no reality, being, self, or object, ultimately, to undergo(e?) anthropocentric dramas of annihilation. Philo-sophia, "the love of wisdom", is beyond the limited scope of mere utilitarian justification. Since when did "life" ever require to be 'used'? By what? By the creative imagination, perhaps? A divine power, perhaps?
It is a "game in which everything is at stake". Heidegger says that somewhere.
I love the Buddhistic interpretation : things do not have the names we give to them - not really. Words are indeed nothing more (and often less) than birdsong. If that's what you meant ... Utilitarianism is both a far too serious and a far too flippant outlook.
"The will to a system is a lack of integrity" - Nietzsche.
What the "divine" means is to be decided by the divine itself.
Yes, good zarakhast, the game of seriousness is not so easy to avoid. I would also add that each and every "word" is a mystery, so too the evaluations and interpretations (often orientated around forms of utilitarian bias) placed on them. This includes the implicit devaluation of avine audio productions in 6p9's comment.
The history of semantic attributions does not exhaust the potential of future recontextualisations, of any "word" or "idea". A Buddhist theory of language that i am aware of is the "apoha" theory, a 'differential' theory which bears similarities to Saussure's theory. "A cow is not a non-cow." - Apoha. "In language, there are no positive terms, only differences." - Saussure.
So, linguistic meaning is considered as a 'production' of a differential system. A Mahayana Buddhist might say that a "meaning", or any-thing at all, has no "own-being", that it is "dependently-originated". Hence the correlations between Nagarjuna and Derrida, 15-20 years ago.
You're talking about writers I know nothing about, and also in terms of a theory which I'm not acquanited with. But if we're talking about the irreducible mysteriousness of all things and the impossibility of pinning things down - which is the tyrannical demand of modern science - then I'm with you. Having said that, I wouldn't do away with science contemptuously. Science lacks true depth. Buddhism doesn't. Neither do the philosophies of Heidegger and Nietzsche.
Justified to WHOM though ? Or to WHAT ? The "world" creates this whole spectacle for itself and it is both too arrogant and too humble of us (human beings) to imagine that we are excluded from this process ...
"the joy a circle feels towards itself...what is this... a light...?...a name...?...intrepid, midnightly men...this world is the will-to-power...and nothing besides..." even
Nietzsche, via the petty vehicle of a colloquialism, acknowledges... "Nothing"...
That is a very Buddhistic take on what is perhaps the very same interpretation of reality as Heidegger's ?
Heidegger admitted the futility of his project, but still stressed its necessity.
Nietzsche : "the value of the totality cannot be evaluated". (Inaccurate paraphrase. Apologies).
The world itself can have no meaning, since there is nothing outside it. But it can contain meaning. Meaning is always "mine", i.e. there is no universal meaning for all, but there can be a meaning for me.
According to Heidegger, Nietzsche "completed" metaphysics - though he also confers this honour on Marx. In order that metaphysics henceforth be "overcome" (i.e. incorporated and transcended) it first of all needs to be experienced fundamentally. Nietzsche's thought of the eternal return is, for H., the thought of the "now that bends back into itself". But this is nothing other than the thought of the Nothing, which "nihilates of itself" and brings forth beings perpetually and invisibly.
"What Is Metaphysics ?" is perhaps the key to all of Heidegger's other writings. In order to "overcome" (in the Nietzschean sense, i.e. to incorporate) metaphysics it will be necessary to first of all enter into metaphysics in the most fundamental way possible. This necessitates asking the question about Nothing ; for only "nothing" is truly metaphysical. The question is posed again, and not accidentally, at the beginning of Introduction to Metaphysics.
Kierkegaard also took the phenomenon of dread seriously. In "The Concept of Dread" he describes it as "a sympathetic antipathy and an antipathetic sympathy".
Heidegger says in What Is Metaphysics ? that it is of the nature of nothing to repel. He describes in metaphysical terms what Kierkegaard describes in psychological terms.
If Nothing is essential to all beings then obviously neither the senses nor the intellect will be able to access it, though it controls and informs both.
I did not say that nothing was a product of the human intellect, indeed, i would not necessarily valorise the concept of "human intellect" at all. Firstly, the words "human" and "intellect" are of Latin derivation and carry the burden of all sorts of presuppositions.
Perhaps more productive here to see "human intellect" as a concomitant moment within a general field of concepts, ideas, language, "Language speaks through Man.", "Architext", etc.. Secondly, one can see all concepts as
half-baked abbreviations, mutually confirming approximations, that attempt ______.
This includes "Nothingness". One doesn't transcend the combinatorial banalities (Arendt?) of metaphysics through selecting one of its terms, arbitrarily projecting it 'behind' all the 'others...' as yet another ultimate urgrund, and decorating it with existential-emotional baggage, no matter how profound and relevant it might seem to our deepest sentiments.
The Absolute cannot be distinguished from Nothing. It IS Nothing. Or rather, Nothing "is" (transitive) everything. We cannot (obviously) encounter Nothing via the senses. But if it is fundamental (if it IS us) then it must reside within us.
"Dread reveals nothing".
"Wonder is the revelation of nothing".
Nevertheless, Heidegger's and Nietzsche philosophies are the most "religious" philosophies of modern times, by a long way.
Buddhism understands this, though it is not the same.
This was part of my prior comment, but Youtube did not accept it-
I'm not saying it shouldn't be done, just that it's insufficient in and of itself. What is metaphysics 'really'? A distinction created by Aristotle between his love of phusis, and his loyalty to Plato? lol -Nagarjuna's work might be pertinent here. Also, negative theology, which Heidegger was probably more than familiar with. Could say a lot more, but this will do for now.
Maybe we are talking about the 'same', dare i say 'it', 'thing'! lol Never underestimate distinctions, though, for the more distinguished philosophies. They enrich the understanding, The rage for the Absolute, applied with thoughtless haste, can lead to distorted and inferior forms of ecstasy. Such inadequate subsumptions of identity? self? dasein? document the horrific rather than the beatific.
If nothingness is so 'fundamental', then we are encountering 'it' all the time, in the 'sensory' realm, too. The fact that people have a fixation on the cult of objectivity and its interpretative mode or path and thus commit the error of half-thinking, as it were, equating sensory experience only with the categorical jargon of objects, is a matter of social politics.
Between Being and Nothing, is and is not, presence and absence, etc., is the difference that gives both: the most radical, neti neti, sunyata. (*T*H*A*T*!*) which orientates you, me, these words ... ? This quest ion, i on, I, On This Quest Ion traverses the realms of the Particular, a Self as Particulate ego, s(witched)ed ON?, to the networks of IS plc,ltd. This loco-motive, this "I", spellbound by "Being", rushes on and on and on... and Ariston...
Heidegger quotes this saying in What Is Metaphysics ? and judges it to be "correct". That which "is" is not the opposite of Nothing - it is precisely Nothing.
Beings are all in Being ; but the Being in which they are - is it a being ? No ! Heidegger makes this point time and time again, indeed right at the beginning of Being And Time. Being is not a being ....
I don't know what insights you might personally have gained but nonetheless that seems to be mere academic-speak to me.
The crucial point is that Nothing is not a human product - not a product of negation. It is not a product of reason. it is not a product at all. How could Nothing be produced ? There is nothing of nothing to be produced !
What Heidegger says in the essay I mentioned is that Nothing itself produces - produces beings. The essence of nothing is nihilation.
Heidegger's thought is never actuated by polemical aims. He criticizes (polemicizes !) Nietzsche for writing in precisely this manner, while in other respects praising his thought to the heavens.
Heidegger attempts to retrace the history of Western thought back to its beginnings in - and indeed prior to - pre-Socratic thought. The task is to first of all RECOVER the pre-Socratic experience of Being and then to transcend it.
But the weight of the tradition, as he has assimilated it, slows him down. He draws
on Hegel and, in an interesting way, upon a particular characterisation of
psychological experience, but, he does not "think the things themselves" radically enough. He is still thinking about and around. Best to be simple. What is the 'thing' in No(thing)?
Human reasoning cannot create nothing by a negation of all things : how could "nothing" ever be "created" seeing that there is nothing of it to create. You cannot create the uncreated (the increate).
It is rather the case that all beings "are" "not-nothing". The "not" derives from nothing itself ("Nothing nihilates OF ITSELF") , not from human reason - which would be impossible. This is Heidegger's most fundamental essay in my opinion.
Wars why ohhh why ohhh why I hate wars so
jazzaste123 6 months ago
Slip of the tongue 6:29 !
QuasarKnight 8 months ago
Comment removed
QuasarKnight 8 months ago
Comment removed
QuasarKnight 8 months ago
"Has there ever been a thought not created by language?" Do you think when you play chess? Or the saxophone?
chasbo2chasbo2 8 months ago
wtf I dont give a fuck about this guys life story. I have to do homework and just want to know his philosophical views. Fuck
merral1 10 months ago
@merral1 lmao!
doctord185 9 months ago
@merral1 watch flame0430's video on Heidegger if you want his views.
TheDavid2222 1 month ago
oh, jebus!
more language based philosophy.
UrcoolDNTchng 1 year ago
@UrcoolDNTchng Has there ever been a thought not created by language?
CrimsonToast 1 year ago
It is the seemingly impossible ABSOLUTE point of view from which philosophy takes place. This is what will always baffle ordinary thinking - and science is ordinary thinking decked out in fine colours, masquerading as wisdom. It never for one moment questions the objectivity of the object, nor does it bother to ask how subject and object relate to each other, let alone ON WHAT BASIS - which is really the important question. The a priori is for it something unworthy of thought.
zarakhast 1 year ago
"Objectivity" : the most overrated, vague concept of all time ! Objectivity is in every case objective only for a subject - and hence never really objective to begin with, because it is still dependent on the subject. The only way objectivity could be purely and independently achieved would be by destroying the subject - but in doing so the object would also be destroyed because there wouldn't be anything for it to be an object for !
zarakhast 1 year ago
ALL questions are contained within this question. There is not a single question you can think of which does not boil down to this one fundamental question. It is the question which places even itself in question, since questioning itself is something and not nothing. ALL so-called "science" owes its very lifeblood to the very fact that this question was once asked and still can be asked. Genuine questioning questions ITSELF too and is not merely "objective", i.e. "scientific".
zarakhast 1 year ago
The experience of ONE question alone is the key to philosophy : the question which asks why anything is being at all rather than nothing. This is the only important question and the only question which can truly evoke WONDER. If you fall short of this question then you may be a clever so-and-so but you are certainly not a philosopher and certainly not destined for knowledge. All "other" mysteries pale in comparison. In truth there are no other mysteries.
zarakhast 1 year ago
Metaphysics is based in a certain experience of Being, not merely in intellectual training. Formal logic is not everything - in truth it is worthless once it has become detached from genuine ontology. The rules on the basis of which formal logic is practised are themselves based on a particular metaphysics, namely Plato's. But if this ontological view does not hold good, then neither does formal logic.
zarakhast 1 year ago
If thinking is to think the thought of Being then it must transcend even thought, since thought is not purely nothing. Nothing is nothing - and nothing else. The question which addresses Nothing goes beyond all things - i.e. is meta-physical. ONLY this question is metaphysical. But if to enter into metaphysics is (via thought) to go beyond thought, then it must culminate in something other than thought. "Dread reveals Nothing".
zarakhast 1 year ago
If "there is" a God then God will surely always appear as "Nothing" to the intellect. This has been acknowledged by philosophers since the beginning. The a priori, making thinking itself possible, eludes thinking. "The whole is more than the sum of the parts" means : the whole precedes the parts and cannot be reached by adding the parts together. Everything "exists" as a whole already, prior to any "thing". And so we must ask about the whole. This is clearly not a possibility for science.
zarakhast 1 year ago
If, as Heidegger claims in What Is Metaphysics ?, every being (insofar as it is a being) is made out of Nothing, then the notion of the world as an object crumbles - together with the scientific viewpoint. But science is merely what philosophy became. The roots of the degeneration of philosophy (metaphysics) into science lie in philosophy itself.
zarakhast 1 year ago
Every genuine philosophic insight is impossible to "demonstrate". Or rather, it is possible to demonstrate it only to those who already know it. Philosophy is unteachable, as Plato himself said over two millennia ago. In the moment of discovery, "publicity" dies. Only in solitude is there philosophy. Science understands only the drive to establish an "objective" viewpoint. But if the world is fundamentally not an object then that drive is misguided from the outset.
zarakhast 1 year ago
It is a thoughtless mantra today that any suggestion that "mere feeling" is more fundamental than so-called "thought" is tantamount to insanity, delusion, "irrationalism" or a "poetic adornment" to good, solid "objective" ("scientific") thought. Heidegger contends the opposite : feeling lies prior to and guides thought. But he takes care to avoid the arbitrariness of mere irrationalism and identifies a fundamental feeling (mood) : dread (Angst). He says, "Dread reveals Nothing".
zarakhast 1 year ago
So, what is meta-physical ? The answer is immediately clear and obvious : nothing. Only when we ask the question which Heidegger rightly identifies as the fundamental question of philosophy can there be any chance of divining the essential difference between physics and metaphysics. But of course "nothing" does not present itself to either the mind or the senses. Perhaps, then, it lies prior to both, making them possible ?
zarakhast 1 year ago
It's really is so much simpler - yet more profound - than so many people seem to think. The meta-physical transcends the physical and the physical (from the Greek "physis") names, quite simply, the totality of beings (i.e. what science would call "the universe"). For sure, the original Greek meaning of physis is more profound, but "the universe" suffices for the purpose of illustrating the contrast between science (physics) and philosophy (metaphysics).
zarakhast 1 year ago
"Metaphysics" is profoundly ambiguous. Heidegger is responsible for this ambiguity. Scientists can stop dreaming about glory : you are very inadequate thinkers. You don't even understand your own foundations.
But science is what metaphysics BECAME and since we have not yet escaped metaphysics, science will rule the world for a long time yet. Except for certain individuals, whose influence will be almost imperceptible.
zarakhast 1 year ago
It is just as likely that alienation will occur in rural areas as it is that will occur in the city. That is a load of rubbish and yet another attempt to make Heidegger's thought look like something that it isn't.
Alienation is almost universal. In fact we can say that it IS universal. It stems from metaphysics. But the word "metaphysics" is ambiguous. There is nothing straightforward in philosophy.
zarakhast 1 year ago
It is very strange to come across a person who does not wonder why (or how) she or he came to be and why (and how) he (or she) is absolutely bound to die, having once come into being. Very strange but all too common. Is modern philosophy a bit like modern politics ? Is it all just "economics" ? Are we all just nihilists really ? Do we already "know" everything ? Have we really understood Nietzsche ? Might we have misinterpreted his thoughts ? Are we capable of self-criticism ? (???)
zarakhast 1 year ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@zarakhast read my blog hermeneutics. blogspot.com, the key to philosophy is to reveal physical truths to social physics which is all economic, that is the link to despotism and the key to the loss of human liberty, to know this one must understand the roots to economics which is the physical mediums of human extensions. This is also portrayed in the Adam Eve parable... But hey what am I but a simple man and hill billy.
MegaFargone 1 year ago
@zarakhast Its all just economics in capitalism measures in perception in judgment looking up and down and all around across and side ways in comparison, its what makes the world go round, philosphy is about defining physical truths because symbolism blinds the minds eye; Hermeneutics is about the exercise of comprehension seeing in thinking, truth and method of all things being a form of science or explanation, conscience the word science is there for a reason, language is a form of physics..
MegaFargone 1 year ago
@MegaFargone Yes we have all been reduced to the status of economic units. This is why I hate politicians ! But if you think that physics is the answer then you are way off track. The most capable thinkers these days are scientists and not philosophers - but this is a disaster ! There is too much cleverness around today and not enough depth. By the way, in regard to this video, Heidegger never says ANYTHING about the prevalence of alienation in the "big city".
zarakhast 1 year ago
@zarakhast Here lies the issue who or what is in control when there is no understanding to what we are doing physically, social physics is not the answer it is only an explanation that does not yet exist because no one has ever written it down properly in a metaphysical language, that said, I am not as superficial as a person but simply being real, alienation of the big city is all about social containment and social containment is all about the isolations of material occupation, there is more
MegaFargone 1 year ago
@MegaFargone The constitution was poorly written and was not based upon the depths to economic evolution which is the physical mediums of human extension which forms the bongage to sustenance occupation, as familiarity itself leads to consumption which is by and large due to the existential attachment of human duality, its a friggen mind orgy to write it all down, hermeneutics is "seeing and thinking" what exists when and where you cant know all all at once
MegaFargone 1 year ago
To key to the meaning of all words (and of life) is the meaning of the word which unites them all : Being. This is not hard to understand. If the meaning of Being changes, the meaning of everything changes. But Being is not merely a word. It "is" everything. Even language needs to be understood in terms of Being. So Being lies, necessarily, beyond language, granting it. The origin of language lies in silence. Miguel de Beistegui talks rot, does not understand. He is Sartre's mouthpiece.
zarakhast 1 year ago
@zarakhast *The key*
zarakhast 1 year ago
@zarakhast The key is hermeneutics taking the time in relfection to define physical truths which come based upon what we are ready to see. The process of edifying pretended knowledge being replaced through sound reasoning knowing what you know; its not what you know but how you know anything...
waypor1 1 year ago
@waypor1 Yes but what about the question of Nothing ? You make me despair, you supposed advocates of Heidegger. You love to display your knowledge of his works, and even venture to teach others something, but you never show any signs of having understood the very first steps into philosophy, which Heidegger very clearly demonstrates in his Introduction to Metaphysics. Heidegger students are the worst of all .... Merry Christmas, by the way.
zarakhast 1 year ago
@waypor1 Why don't you directly confront the question of Nothing rather than chickening out or admitting that you don't understand the question ? Read Heidegger's Introduction to Metaphysics or better still his essay, What Is Metaphysics ? I can honestly and humbly tell you that unless you have understood and become involved in the question he asks in that essay you have not yet entered into "philosophy".
zarakhast 1 year ago
@ x1n933k Yes, to gather something as we listen. By means of words and the roots of words (their original meanings). This is what Heidegger ceaselessly tries to do : to keep us in touch with our roots. The modern world has abandoned these roots, believing that it can get along not only fine but even better than before. And so it has plunged us into an abyss. Words mean nothing any more. The first and key word is "Being" ? What does it mean ?
zarakhast 1 year ago
If you yourself have had a great insight then good for you. Perhaps you are finding it hard to accept ? Tell me about it - I'm 17 years older than you and I read Heidegger when I was 18 !
Newness of perceptions / questions ? I agree. Jamais vu vs. Deja vu. The problem is though that the fundamental questions remain the same. The Nothing-question is FOREVER the one true question (of metaphysics).
zarakhast 1 year ago
This is what Heidegger did, Mr.x1n933k :
He first of all tried to remind us of what metaphysics is, by raising a definite question, namely, What Is Metaphysics ? This question necessarily involves confronting Nothing, as the possibility which (apparently) never came to prevail.
After this question, assuming that we have heard what he has to say, we may move on to ask about the meaning of Being - but not until we have heard it.
zarakhast 1 year ago
Okay, less of the "spamming" which you find so irritating (understandably).
I have often thought of myself as one of the "last men" (i.e. Nietzsche's modern, spiritless coward). Perhaps we are all such men ? Presumably we are not all ubermenschen just yet ? What about you ?
I've already said to you that I am interested first in bridging the gap between science and metaphysics (not in proceeding straightaway to Heideggerian thought), so why your objections ?
I sometimes
zarakhast 1 year ago
But since you replied to me in your many comments here I can only say that you're not thinking, your not philosophizing, and your experience is not yours to speak of. I see examples that point to you being Nietzche's 'lastman'. Zen buddhism has an interesting take, in that we must be NEW every time we attempt something. The attention and letting go of what we hold on to so we can be open to learning. Do me a favor though, stop replying to this video with my name. It's spamming my email ;)
x1n933k 1 year ago
And I cannot show you, but the way you are asking and answering is a common way, or a scientific way. You hold the words in it's definition of language(or as beings), but if you read through Heidegger's work you may learn where this etymology or linguistics leads. He was clever in his use of language so that we might gather something as we listened. I'll follow Derrida's example: even reading my words now I see they are not mine or yours, but gather them and you might hear the call.
x1n933k 1 year ago
This documentary is SO SUPERFICIAL an interpretation of Heidegger's thought. We are dealing with ETERNITY here. In philosophy we always were dealing with eternity and we always will be, so long as there is philosophy. It is incredible - and not very admirable - how the narrators and their conspirators manage to relegate philosophical questions by subtle steps to modern, scientific, mundane ones. Once again the "intellect" fails to understand. Once again a lack of depth manifests itself.
zarakhast 1 year ago
@zarakhast The document is meant to stir an interest. Since you seem to know Heidegger's work through reading then you can see what is terrible but, in the first video they say that Heidegger's work will change you. At least if you're open to following him. As for the rest, I didn't really meant to a comment on his work or how either of us may have followed it. I might have made the mistake of just seeing the post at the top of the video and considered you another basement philosopher.
x1n933k 1 year ago
@x1n933k I object to the following things in particular :
1. People playing politics with philosophy. Philosophy is above politics.
2. The widespread view that "science" has somehow superseded philosophy, according to which we may now patronisingly look upon the ancients as primitive individuals who would be amazed by and immediately embrace the modern view. This is not the case at all.
3. Mere intellectualism. But really, this is covered by point no.2.
zarakhast 1 year ago
This documentary attempts to analyse Heidegger from a modern point of view - a view which is still doing the rounds today, and which Heidegger himself took to task many times : the same "psychological-biologistic" interpretation which modern (and contemporary) commentators have applied to the case of Nietzsche. This is modern science once again rearing its ugly, boring, big-mouthed and uninspiring head. You cannot judge a philosopher by these mundane standards.
zarakhast 1 year ago
It is both possible and correct to assert the following : the universe never came into being. There prevails and will always prevail - NOTHING.But it is equally possible and correct to assert the opposite : the universe has always existed and always will exist. There has never been NOTHING. This is not something which "formal logic" or the prosaic mind in general can get its head around. BOTH these assertions are "true". "Truth" is ambiguous.
zarakhast 1 year ago
@zarakhast But your paragraph reveals nothing. How is any of what you said possible if you don't know what you're talking about? What is the Universe compared to being? How is truth in being? How is ambiguous? How is existence not related to Being? You're talking about beings, yes, but you haven't investigated what any of what you said that means.
x1n933k 1 year ago
@x1n933k Too many questions - all good ones and very much in the spirit of Heideggerian thought, I think - to answer via YouTube. Yes, it is the question of the MEANING of Being which has been neglected by metaphysics. However, in order to make the transition to THIS question we must remind ourselves in this modern, scientific age of what metaphysics (as opposed to science) is. In other words, we must first read "What Is Metaphysics ?" and face the question about Nothing.
zarakhast 1 year ago
@x1n933k Both Plato and Aristotle asserted that philosophy (i.e. metaphysics) is (or was) born in wonder. Wonder, according to Heidegger, is not merely a rare "psychological" phenomenon but (as he says in What Is Metaphysics ?) "the revelation of Nothing". In order to even begin philosophy we must experience this revelation of Nothing. This is patently NOT the basic experience of the philosophy student nowadays.
zarakhast 1 year ago
@x1n933k Reading your first sentence again it occurs to me that you must know Heidegger's thought - or at least his texts - well.
zarakhast 1 year ago
@x1n933k Your question, "How is existence not related to Being ?" is not immediately comprehensible to me. By "existence" do you mean "the totality of beings" or are you using the word "existence" in the Heideggerian sense (in which man alone truly "exists") ?
zarakhast 1 year ago
@x1n933k Having experienced wonder, and having experienced it AS the revelation of Nothing - then and only then may we embark on the question which Heidegger pursues in Being And Time : the question of the meaning of Being. But time and again throughout his career he had to reiterate the Nothing-question. This was no bad thing, since it is the fundamental question of metaphysics. But Heidegger asserted that metaphysics, with Nietzsche, had been completed.
zarakhast 1 year ago
@x1n933k If we no longer even understand the difference between ordinary ("scientific") thinking and metaphysics proper, then what hope do we have of understanding the question which Heidegger poses (remembers) in Being And Time : What Does Being Mean ?
zarakhast 1 year ago
@x1n933k The fundamental question of metaphysics is "merely preparatory" to the question proper : the question of the meaning of Being. However, we cannot simply omit it. We have strayed so far from the Greek way of thinking and experiencing that we need to remind ourselves of it, via "The Event" (Ereignis). This is the experience of wonder, the UNDERSTANDING of which is first properly secured and articulated by Heidegger, though others (e.g. Kierkegaard) certainly already touched on it.
zarakhast 1 year ago
How could Nothing have prevailed ? If Nothing was at the beginning then in order to prevail it would have had to continue. But if it had continued it would not have continued inasmuch as Nothing, by its very nature, can never continue - can never admit of "time". But perhaps it continued - i.e. prevailed - precisely BY not continuing ? Perhaps Nothing IS (itself) precisely by NOT BEING (itself) ? This is the riddle which must be understood.
zarakhast 1 year ago
When approaching the taboo subject of death we immediately need to face up to the fact that we are going to have to ask about the possibility of Nothing. Whether we are enjoying our lives and never want to die or we hate our lives and wish we had never been born, death is going to be (or not going to be) "the end". So, is Nothing possible ? Could Nothing ever have been, assuming that it does not prevail right now ?
zarakhast 1 year ago
The philosopher respects ALL beings. That does not mean that he belittles or hates or enslaves humanity. It also doesn't mean that he hates or belittles or enslaves animals. He doesn't hate or belittle or enslave ANYTHING. He also understands the meaning of "power" and its origin in POWERLESSNESS. You and I are going to die. There is nothing we can do about this. It is a fait accompli. Death renders us all powerless from the outset, from pauper to prince.
zarakhast 1 year ago
Being, as the origin of both animality and reason, contains the possibility of both. It IS both if we think of isness as "making possible" - which is exactly Aristotle's definition of Being.
But how should we seek out Being ? Being is not "a" being, it is the Being of all beings. It is somehow given in advance, so that we may even speak of beings at all.
The Nothing-question is obviously the only way into philosophy proper. Only by contrasting beings with what they are NOT can we hope ..
zarakhast 1 year ago
@zarakhast to encounter this "other" which Being perpetually IS.
It is incredible how many people still think in terms of "rationalism" or "irrationalism" even after having "read" either Heidegger or Nietzsche. There has never been a single great thinker who has thought in these terms.
zarakhast 1 year ago
The human being understood as a mere animal : this is what Heidegger wants to avoid, no less than Plato wanted to avoid the same thing.
Is that an insult to animals or to life ? NO ! But it does constitute an attempt to make human beings pluck up some courage to discover what they really are and to stop belittling themselves. The "animal rationale" definition of humanity is equally destructive whether it is interpreted from the side of animality or reason.
The unifying force is BEING.
zarakhast 1 year ago
This video is appalling propaganda, made by people whose will-to-power outweighs their power-to-think.
zarakhast 1 year ago
Heidegger once said that anyone who wants to read Nietzsche should first of all go and study Aristotle for ten years. Ten years without even laying an eye on the philosophy of Nietzsche ! What did he mean by this ?
Aristotle is supremely logical. He was, after all, the one who formulated the laws of thought. There is no doubt that Heidegger admired Aristotle.
Secondly, however, H. saw in A. the nearest thing to N. in the ancient world.
Sadly, there are no good translations of Aristotle.
zarakhast 1 year ago
I can't help but notice that the scholars/ writers speaking in this interview know really little about Heidegger's work. They have such a blurry idea of what Heidegger is talking about. An adequate understanding of Heidegger is impossible without a solid knowledge of Aristotle. In fact Heidegger IS almost totally about ancient philosophy. Also I suggest to those who study Heidegger not to read SEIN UND ZEIT first but instead those lectures he gave about Aristotle and Plato.
tametataphysika 1 year ago
@tametataphysika Wise words. I don't necessarily agree that you have to read his lectures on Plato and Aristotle first, but equally, why not ?
Like so much secondary literature on Heidegger this is : a) tendentious claptrap, b) shallow misinterpretation , c) nasty defamation of character.
The ancients, particularly, the thinkers who came before Socrates, are his almost constant concern. His work is full of admiration, awe, wonder, profundity. Politics never even enters into it.
zarakhast 1 year ago
Comment removed
tametataphysika 1 year ago
You can say that Nietzsche "lords" but you need to truly understand him first, and that requires achieving (in the true spirit of metaphysics) a standpoint which lies BEYOND his thought. Is this possible ? Yes, for Nietzsche only managed to envision the overturning of Platonism from within Platonism - and so he still remained essentially a Platonist. Only Heidegger saw this. Nietzsche's thought of eternal return pointed beyond Platonism but he himself remained mired in Platonism.
zarakhast 1 year ago
Comment removed
alkaline71 1 year ago
This has been flagged as spam show
Hello Youtube,
Everyone who is reading this comment, please click on my username for my videos I made about the The Truth of the World. I have found out what the truth of life is, the truth of the world, and the truth of God. Please, I really want people to watch and listen what I have to say. No more living in false reality, no more living in illusions, no more thinking there is no way out......its time to lead your life into The Truth of the World!!!!!!!!!
I love our Lord!!! God bless!!
theseeker2k5 1 year ago
I must confess to saying while I have not read "Being and Time" and do not plan to any time soon (I ADORE philosophy, even write myself, and while I enjoy nearly all sorts of philosophers the Existentialists, Nietzsche and Kierkegaard chief among them, Plato, and Hobbees remain my favorites... however, also being of Jewish heritage, reading what may well have been a philosophy Nazi-inspired in some way does not seem attractive with so many options) thus far his point seems not bold, but obvious.
obiwanobiwan13 2 years ago
You "adore" philosophy yet you are not capable of making the difference between a man's work and his personal life.
The very fact that you "adore" philosophy shows how far away you are from understanding what thinking and being a thinker is. Philosophy is not a ground for worshippers.
evpreversespeaking 2 years ago 2
Its nice that you claim to "ADORE" philosophy. But if thats the extent to which you go in philosophy, adoration alone, then unfortunately you may be depriving yourself of some very good healthy thinking for the mind. We all may not agree with the ideas presented by particular thinkers, but that doesnt mean we cant listen. At the very least, you learn another perspective of thoughts and ideas which very well may help/inspire/strengthen your own philosophy of life.
Scotti3Pipp3n 1 year ago
Oh, to both of you, I WILL read Heidegger EVENTUALLY...
But as I have limited funds, and many OTHER philosophers to read right now before I'd even be logically set up for Heidegger (I've read 2 Nietzsches and hope to read the rest of his works, 2 Platos, Locke's 2nd Treatiese, and now Mill and Hume, so a plenty of folks left before Heidegger's even logically set up) I'll hold off on him for now.
But I do think, if that's an accurate description of his work, Nietzsche's the original genius.
obiwanobiwan13 1 year ago
@obiwanobiwan13 divide your readings in three categories.. enlightenment thinkers, modern thinkers and then post-modern thinkers.... cover all philosophers and thoughts in each of the three categories.. quite fun and useful..it's the best way..
mavishill 1 year ago
@mavishill peace and all good!!! My friend can u help me doing my thesis on HEidegger
TheMarkgregorio 1 year ago
@obiwanobiwan13 Wat is ur school? I am reading Heidegger now
TheMarkgregorio 1 year ago
I am not opposes your thoughts here, rather I was merely outlining an easy transition for those embedded within the analytic tradition attempting to make the leap into realer issues haunting philosophy. Nonetheless, if you would like to really engage into the issues, I would be glad to. Take care, I appreciate the spirit of your zeal.
Juxtapolice 2 years ago
Thanks. But I would not describe myself as "zealous". Ambivalent would be a better word. I KNOW that Heidegger's philosophy is the greatest but I struggle to accept it : not only the intellect is involved in attempting to "accept" what Heidegger is saying.
The "analytic" tradition is the slave of logic. But faith in logic is illogical ! Thought belongs to the Absolute : it cannot dictate to it or decide it.
PS - Heidegger and Sartre = chalk and cheese. Not both "existentialists".
zarakhast 2 years ago
While I will agree that a moving away from the analytic is definitely desireable and the existential mode of thought should clearly be given more of the voice than it it has been allowed in the English-speaking countries (the States here included, if not especially) I would argue that not only does analytic thought remain useful and needed, if for nothing else than as a reference, but also I would heatedly contest there is no "greatest" philosopher, and certainly not Heidegger. NIETZSCHE lords
obiwanobiwan13 2 years ago
Scientists need to realize that their questions are not fundamental. And to be honest it's pretty obvious that they're not. Metaphysicians for their part need to look at the FORM of any metaphysical question, because the truth is that this form not only stymies metaphysics, it actually gives rise to science, which then attempts to supersede philosophy - completely unaware that is forever the child of philosophy and can never become independent of it.
zarakhast 2 years ago
I feel as though my last comment will be misconstrued; I simply meant to say your comments pertaining to Nietzsche's importance (not your interpretation which I find accurate). Also by asserting this is not our task, I meant debating over superficial distinctions opposed to the search for truth.
Juxtapolice 2 years ago
"Nothing" is not only not anything we might care to imagine - though it is certainly that : it is so utterly not that it is not even itself. The "not" is the essence of Nothing. Nothing is essentially always "other". It is Protean : chaos. It is perpetually "going beyond" : transcendence pure and simple. And Heidegger also calls "Da-sein" (which is sometimes equated with human-being) transcendence pure and simple. This must first be EXPERIENCED - and only then "understood".
zarakhast 2 years ago
The birth of metaphysics (i.e. of philosophy) lies in a fundamental experience - NOT in a "thought", and certainly not in a mere logic classroom. The very conception and formulation of "logic" would have been impossible had it not been for this experience. This is what the Greeks meant by "wonder".
zarakhast 2 years ago
What Heidegger says (in the essay, What Is Metaphysics ?) about the Latin principle upon which logic is based - but which itself is a principle based on a misunderstanding of ancient ontology - namely, "ex nihilo nihil fit" (nothing can come from nothing) is absolutely decisive. This principle is taken to mean that we must always look for "something" as a cause. But that's not what it says if we examine it more closely. It says that nothing "comes from" nothing. "Nothing" BECOMES. Inevitably !
zarakhast 2 years ago
This essential self-becoming of Nothing is expressed in Heidegger by the term "nihilation". Much scorn has been poured on Heidegger's assertion that "Nothing nihilates of itself". But in truth this is the key to Heidegger's thinking and a failure to experience it will lead to a failure to penetrate into his thought. Kierkegaard would certainly have known the meaning of nihilation. Nothing cancels EVEN ITSELF out - and so remains, while not remaining, itself. Not being itself it is itself.
zarakhast 2 years ago
When both Plato and Aristotle name "wonder" as the "mother of philosophy" they mean (although they themselves do not go so far as to analyse this phenomenon) : the "revelation of nothing". Metaphysics consists in waking up from the complacency which takes "existence" for granted ; but this can only happen if and when the opposite possibilty (of there never having been any beings) has been envisaged. This realization is essential to metaphysics as such.
zarakhast 2 years ago
Being a philosophy professor and being a philosopher are two very different things. Look at how badly Nietzsche understood, for instance, Hegel and Aristotle. That didn't stop him from being perhaps the greatest thinker since Plato. Nietzsche himself - and still more often Heidegger- pour scorn on the "professional philosopher". Heraclitus and Socrates are perfect examples of the genuine philosopher.
zarakhast 2 years ago
This is all so subtle that it would be impossible throw any light on it over the internet ! The best thing is to read Heidegger's lectures on Nietzsche - with an OPEN MIND.
Heidegger, in What Is Metaphysics ?, distinguishes metaphysics from science by introducing the theme of "Nothing". What he is trying to do here is to lead the reader on to the path of metaphysics. Genuine metaphysics is rare. But no sooner than metaphysics has been entered into, Heidegger tells us that it is over !
zarakhast 2 years ago
The appearance of the thought of eternal return in Nietzsche career is remarkable precisely because it is the same thought which occurred to the great pre-socratics. It is thus a pre-metaphysical thought. Metaphysics is viewed by Heidegger as decline : as a "history of the oblivion of Being". Man is not responsible for this decline : Being is. When Nietzsche thinks the thought of eternal return, however, he does not escape the labyrinth of metaphysics. He does not think it pre-socratically.
zarakhast 2 years ago
What hope is there of any advances in knowledge when metaphysics, which has in the meantime (i.e. over a century ago) been completed, if it isn't even possible to get philosophy teachers and their students to the point where they understand what metaphysics IS ? Heidegger makes this VERY clear in both Introduction to Metaphysics and What Is Metaphysics ? These works really ought to be standard reading. But there seems to be little hope of that.
zarakhast 2 years ago
Metaphysics must INEVITABLY confront what Heidegger calls "the Nothing" (das Nichts). It is not possible to question the world (i.e. the totality of beings : the universe) unless we contrast it with this absolute counter-possibilty. Philosophy simply CANNOT occur without this counter-possibilty having first been envisaged. This occurs in a flash. Heidegger calls it an "Event". This is where man and philosophy AS SUCH begin ...
zarakhast 2 years ago
On top of all this, Heidegger tells us that metaphysics has been "completed". The answer has been found, or : the entire range of possible metaphysical positions has been exhausted. The final position was Nietzsche's. Nietzsche's metaphysics is characterized as a "reversal of Platonism". According to Heidegger it yet remains Platonism insofar as it VALUES. It merely reverses the Platonic valuation and puts the body first. However, along the way Nietzsche utters the thought of eternal return.
zarakhast 2 years ago
"Being is".
In Heidegger's view, this utterance of Parmenides, is the most profound since Western history began. But to moderns it says nothing. We have utterly forgotten the QUESTION of Being. We don't even acknowledge that philosophy is metaphysics and that metaphysics is inquiry into Being (i.e. ontology). We call metaphysics a mere "branch" of philosophy, whereas it is CLEARLY the whole of philosophy. It's no wonder that philosophical debates lead nowhere any more.
zarakhast 2 years ago
Also, a good grasp of core analytic themes and logic would be wise -- look into cross figures like Rorty or Cavell. Heidegger supporters in serious academia, though strong and rising today (thanks to developments in cog sci) are a minority -- so do not make the folly of many existential followers and simply divulge into the romanticism, but take seriously the philosophy.
Juxtapolice 2 years ago
I'm not interested in Rorty, Cavell et al. Also, it doesn't matter how "well-supported" a thinker is ; it matters only whether he speaks the truth. It is also unimportant, in searching for the truth, to be "well read" in philosophy - unless you merely want to display your superior learning. You only need to know a handful of authors. In truth only a few thinkers are worth reading. Nietzsche is certainly one of them. I also wouldn't regard Heidegger as an "existentialist".
zarakhast 2 years ago
It is highly unfortunate that you waste such breath vehemently protesting every comment placed on this video, so allow me to make a few points
1) You are wasting time with these needless extrapolations, the majority of people watching this video are most likely indifferent and/or naive as to the real implications in Heidegger's thought, etc
Juxtapolice 2 years ago
Heidegger on Sartre's "Sein und Zeit": "That dreck!"
It might be more productive to address zarakhast's ideas, rather than expect him to conform to the "coffee table" discursivities characteristic of the more even-handed proselytisers of current doxa that you seem to valorise. Ad hominem nitpicking, and appeals to the "majority", are not good arguments. Is it a "waste of time" to engage in activity not sanctioned by the tyrannies of the demos, to speak otherwise, than doxa?
derritrane 2 years ago
Correction: Sartre's "Being and Nothingness"
Interesting lapsus lingua, eh?...
derritrane 2 years ago
A police service is a public force empowered to enforce the law and provide security through the legitimized use of force. Polity (shrewd or crafty management of public affairs) "we was innocent of stratagems and polity" Latin juxta put side by side Latin = near.
Criminals are often the nearest to the police...
derritrane 2 years ago
2) Heidegger is an existentialist. You do not want to speak in definitions, fine, well his contribution to existential thought is profound. If we regard the term informally, there is no disputing
3) Your narrow-mindedness and trivializing of other philosophers is both unsubstantiated and naive. This has nothing to do with superior knowledge, but a matured view on philosophical development which is absolutely necessary to make any judgment that isn't frivolous.
Juxtapolice 2 years ago
Heidegger explicitly denied being an "existentialist". There's a huge difference between the thought of say, Sartre, and the thought of Heidegger. Sartre believed that he had understood Heidegger but he couldn't have been more wrong. "Existentialism" is very poorly defined. It has been defined according to Sartre's formula : "existence precedes essence". Sartre meant by this simply atheism, and his was a shallow interpretation of Heidegger. Heidegger didn't mean that.
zarakhast 2 years ago
Call it narrow-mindedness if you like. What I'm saying is that it isn't only philosophy professors and university students - I was one myself - who possess the ability to philosophize. It is not necessary to know the entire history of philosophy in order to be able to philosophize : it is already given to you, in advance, as a human being. If you haven't picked that up from the greats then what have you picked up ?
zarakhast 2 years ago
4) Moreover, your claim on Nietzsche (though I appreciate his thought) is so horrifically debatable.
Conclusion:
I see where you are coming from but your brashness is unnecessary and furthermore falling on dead ears; this is not our task as philosophers. Good luck with your further studies in philosophy.
Juxtapolice 2 years ago
well that's just a shame -- clearly It is pointless to communicate anything on this site -- If you failed to pick up what I am trying to say, which is irrelevant to your aforementioned points, quite frankly you are just too caught up in your own bend; this is pointless. Good day
Juxtapolice 2 years ago
I'm not sure what you were trying to say, though you were very diplomatic in saying it ( a plus point ). But Heidegger was not an existentialist - that's a fact ! So you've got that wrong for a start. Sorry if that's "brash" - it's also true.
The search for truth is not scientific because scientific questions do not go deep enough. Meta-physics asks the question about Nothing : why it isn't. It transcends science utterly.
zarakhast 2 years ago
I'm sorry you feel like that. You're right that it's impossible to communicate philosophically over the internet. I didn't fail to pick up what you were trying to say - I've heard it all before ! If you had understood Heidegger you would realize the unlikelihood of meeting a kindred spirit. And if you'd reacted to his thought as I did then you might not even want to meet such a person. You're a diplomatic type, but I doubt that you could understand.
zarakhast 2 years ago
People react differently.
Start thinking again.
It is not your task to domesticate your output for mass consumption.
derritrane 2 years ago
Do you know what I mean by a "reaction" to an encounter with Heidegger's thought - specifically the essay, What Is Metaphysics ? Have you experienced the terror of realizing that you are nothing - and that nothing can never be destroyed ? It's pretty obvious what follows from this. Socrates taught the immortality of the soul.
What is there left to think about ? The truth is simple and terrible. I can't find any comfort even in the beauty of tragedy. I have no "task".
zarakhast 2 years ago
Modern science is so full of wonderful discoveries that it is impossible to do anything but praise it for the work that it does. But the original, genuinely philosophical questions, still remain unanswered by it. At least for those who haven't carefully read Heidegger. If the whole world is made of atoms then what are atoms ?
?
Science doesn't go deep enough. It stops just where genuine questioning really ought to begin. The answer is in YOU.
zarakhast 2 years ago
What is the "divine" to you, zarakhast?
Games of "sub-ordination", too, are played with, by "B/being", perhaps, through
"beings", perhaps...
What are you? "Being"? "dasein"? "zarakhast"?etc., are not all their meanings
complicit with each other?
What is "science"? the dictionary of a species' abbreviated observations?
derritrane 2 years ago
Genuine philosophy is actually very simple. There are these days too many "clever" interpretations of what it is. My suggestion to anyone who really wants to know what philosophy is would be to first of all read Plato. Heidegger, too, often opens his enquiries into the essence of this or that in a Platonic manner. Nothing has changed : if several things "are" then we need to know what we mean by "being" (i.e. to be), and so on. This method is sound.
zarakhast 2 years ago
It may be as well to remember that the PreSocratics had never read Plato or Heidegger, and that Heidegger wanted to "return" to them, there to start afresh.
"It is not what you think, but THAT you think that is the source of all things" Zen saying
derritrane 2 years ago
Do not forget the pre-socratics. It was Parmenides who posed the first question pertaining to Being; nonetheless, if anyone is serious about Heidegger or figures within the 'continental' tradition they best be advised to have a strong knowledge of the history of philosophy (not taking for granted figures and readings often past or ignored., i.e Nietzsche, Hegel...et cetera).
Juxtapolice 2 years ago
I studied Greek philosophy, including the pre-socratics, in my time at university. As you'll know, Heidegger's interpretation of Parmenides, Heraclitus and Anaximander is not much like that which students get taught in the first year. He also thinks that we moderns understand nothing of Aristotle. We trivialize these thinkers, believing modern "philosophy" to have superseded their thinking. Nothing could be further from the truth. The beginning (of Western thought) was supreme.
zarakhast 2 years ago
An "atom"is the asymptotic idealisation of the quest to control through ever increasing divisibility (which enables reconstitution according to the "controller's desire"). It is the pursuit of a religious belief in physical magnitudes.
"Science"is a devotional discipline that notarizes observations as "acceptable" and
"reliable" for the "community", adjusting common epistemologies according to social
"needs".It can be an honourable task, but is often compromised by ignorance of various sorts.
derritrane 2 years ago
derritrane, I'm sure you could word your ideas / questions / general points in less academic / esoteric terms.
As regards science vs. philosophy, the contrast is simple :
Science deals with beings - and nothing more. Philosophy (as meta-physics) goes beyond beings in order to try to understand them AS SUCH (i.e. AS "beings"). Philosophy therefore deals with that which is never a being : Nothing. Only Nothing is metaphysical.
zarakhast 2 years ago
Akademeia, the garden, outside Athens, where Plato taught.
Academy, Plato's school of philosophy.
Do not be too sure about science's neglect of "nothingness", there's always quantum physics, virtual quantum fluctuations in the void, etc., all the usual gingerbread that's been bandied around for decades- 80 years
derritrane 2 years ago
"Questioning and Answering" is merely one mode of "Being" zarakhast, "life", "being", was never a question that required an answer.
Questioning/Answering is a mode of being, not the only one. It is the alienating
objectification of our own "essential constitution" [a constitution that is always allready (sic) "dependently originated", "given", IF!,
one does anything less than wholly identify with the "totality", and yet this"totality"
is a construction, too],
derritrane 2 years ago
According to Heidegger, questioning is "the piety of thought".
"Being" (or "life", if you like) DOES require an answer. Moreover, it is not "man" who asks the question : it is Being itself. The question "of" Being is not merely the question, asked by man, concerning Being, but the question posed THROUGH man, by Being, to itself.
Whenever the question of Being arises, i.e. whenever philosophy IS, it is Being that asks - not "man".
zarakhast 2 years ago
Equally though, if we follow Heidegger's train of thought, "man" qua man IS only when he is appropriated by Being in the Event. In other words, man only comes to himself and is himself when Being "uses" him to question itself.
The question of Being is, always was and always will be, the greatest question not only for philosophy or for man ; it is always the true "endgame" of Being itself.
And the answer ? It is the question ! But along the way lies tragic wisdom ...
zarakhast 2 years ago
"Tragic wisdom" may well be the experience of a thwarted Eurocentric-Hell(enic) power drive, but it is not necessarily the experience of the yogi. After disconnecting from "Being" in order to violently plunder it, the power-drive returns, self-mutilated, sulkily declaring platitudes about tragedy, the tragic character of this or that, anything but the tragic character of it's own avoidable stupidity.
"Rather than not will, it wills nothing (destruction) at all" Heidegger
derritrane 2 years ago
Nietzsche actually says that the will would rather will nothing than not will (at all). What he says here is that Will (to-power) is fundamental and indeed eternal. Ultimately it is not even in the power of Will to renounce itself. Will is imperishable : eternal. This is what is both terrible and awe-inspiring about Nietzsche's metaphysics. Philosophy has always been about the Absolute ; and this has always meant the eternal and imperishable - which, however, is always perishing by its nature.
zarakhast 2 years ago
The "of" here is to be understood in a double sense : "concerning" (i.e. about) and "belonging to". The question "of" Being is a self-questioning. Man is not some third-party bystander in all of this. He belongs to Being, as does everything else.
zarakhast 2 years ago
as one "thing" dialectically counterpo(I-i)sed to another thing Called World. This
gives rise to the entire calculus of possibilities between Subject and Object, being-
there and the theatres of spatiotemporalty, ontic-ontological possibility, etc..
"Depth" is a matter of perspective.
derritrane 2 years ago
What if, through man, Being were trying to get back to itself ? What if this were not a simple matter ? What if this task were full of "fear and trembling" - not to be rushed, but not to be abandoned ?
zarakhast 2 years ago
"Man against the world" : this is the implicit "philosophy" of modern science.
Question to modern science : what if you not only are a part of the world but are its very dispenser, its arranger ? What if the whole fate of the universe depended on how man comports himself towards it ? But with this crucial proviso : that he first realize that he is subordinate to Being, which he really ought to be seeking ?
The "categories" of Aristotle weren't invented by him . They were (are) A PRIORI.
zarakhast 2 years ago
When a question is asked we arrogantly assume that "we" (i.e. human beings, and even individuals) are doing the asking. Actually, life (or Being, or the world) is asking ITSELF these questions. It is ludicrous of mankind to separate himself from the whole of reality. But this is exactly what he does when he engages in "science". Buddhism, I believe, knows this already. Heidegger also knew this very clearly, as did Nietzsche, but modernity misinterprets them.
zarakhast 2 years ago
Humans have an insatiable thirst for creating hierarchies and heroes to look up to and idolise. Words are just holes in the air, the chirping of birds. We are simply engaged in playing games to while away the time pending the final irreversible annihilation that awaits each of us. Philosophy is useless, as life is.
6p9 2 years ago
Words, verbalised, are mod-u-lay-shuns (sic) in air pressure. Birdsong is a kindred phenomenon. Game-playing? see Heraclitus. A Buddhist might say that there is no reality, being, self, or object, ultimately, to undergo(e?) anthropocentric dramas of annihilation. Philo-sophia, "the love of wisdom", is beyond the limited scope of mere utilitarian justification. Since when did "life" ever require to be 'used'? By what? By the creative imagination, perhaps? A divine power, perhaps?
derritrane 2 years ago
It is a "game in which everything is at stake". Heidegger says that somewhere.
I love the Buddhistic interpretation : things do not have the names we give to them - not really. Words are indeed nothing more (and often less) than birdsong. If that's what you meant ... Utilitarianism is both a far too serious and a far too flippant outlook.
"The will to a system is a lack of integrity" - Nietzsche.
What the "divine" means is to be decided by the divine itself.
zarakhast 2 years ago
Yes, good zarakhast, the game of seriousness is not so easy to avoid. I would also add that each and every "word" is a mystery, so too the evaluations and interpretations (often orientated around forms of utilitarian bias) placed on them. This includes the implicit devaluation of avine audio productions in 6p9's comment.
derritrane 2 years ago
The history of semantic attributions does not exhaust the potential of future recontextualisations, of any "word" or "idea". A Buddhist theory of language that i am aware of is the "apoha" theory, a 'differential' theory which bears similarities to Saussure's theory. "A cow is not a non-cow." - Apoha. "In language, there are no positive terms, only differences." - Saussure.
derritrane 2 years ago
So, linguistic meaning is considered as a 'production' of a differential system. A Mahayana Buddhist might say that a "meaning", or any-thing at all, has no "own-being", that it is "dependently-originated". Hence the correlations between Nagarjuna and Derrida, 15-20 years ago.
derritrane 2 years ago
You're talking about writers I know nothing about, and also in terms of a theory which I'm not acquanited with. But if we're talking about the irreducible mysteriousness of all things and the impossibility of pinning things down - which is the tyrannical demand of modern science - then I'm with you. Having said that, I wouldn't do away with science contemptuously. Science lacks true depth. Buddhism doesn't. Neither do the philosophies of Heidegger and Nietzsche.
zarakhast 2 years ago
One could also add to 6p9's comment, Nietzsche's: "It is only as an aesthetic phenomenon that the world is eternally justified."
derritrane 2 years ago
Justified to WHOM though ? Or to WHAT ? The "world" creates this whole spectacle for itself and it is both too arrogant and too humble of us (human beings) to imagine that we are excluded from this process ...
zarakhast 2 years ago
"the joy a circle feels towards itself...what is this... a light...?...a name...?...intrepid, midnightly men...this world is the will-to-power...and nothing besides..." even
Nietzsche, via the petty vehicle of a colloquialism, acknowledges... "Nothing"...
derritrane 2 years ago
That is a very Buddhistic take on what is perhaps the very same interpretation of reality as Heidegger's ?
Heidegger admitted the futility of his project, but still stressed its necessity.
Nietzsche : "the value of the totality cannot be evaluated". (Inaccurate paraphrase. Apologies).
The world itself can have no meaning, since there is nothing outside it. But it can contain meaning. Meaning is always "mine", i.e. there is no universal meaning for all, but there can be a meaning for me.
zarakhast 2 years ago
According to Heidegger, Nietzsche "completed" metaphysics - though he also confers this honour on Marx. In order that metaphysics henceforth be "overcome" (i.e. incorporated and transcended) it first of all needs to be experienced fundamentally. Nietzsche's thought of the eternal return is, for H., the thought of the "now that bends back into itself". But this is nothing other than the thought of the Nothing, which "nihilates of itself" and brings forth beings perpetually and invisibly.
zarakhast 2 years ago
What say you, good zarakhast, to this alphanumeric personage who ails so?
derritrane 2 years ago
"What Is Metaphysics ?" is perhaps the key to all of Heidegger's other writings. In order to "overcome" (in the Nietzschean sense, i.e. to incorporate) metaphysics it will be necessary to first of all enter into metaphysics in the most fundamental way possible. This necessitates asking the question about Nothing ; for only "nothing" is truly metaphysical. The question is posed again, and not accidentally, at the beginning of Introduction to Metaphysics.
zarakhast 2 years ago
Kierkegaard also took the phenomenon of dread seriously. In "The Concept of Dread" he describes it as "a sympathetic antipathy and an antipathetic sympathy".
Heidegger says in What Is Metaphysics ? that it is of the nature of nothing to repel. He describes in metaphysical terms what Kierkegaard describes in psychological terms.
If Nothing is essential to all beings then obviously neither the senses nor the intellect will be able to access it, though it controls and informs both.
zarakhast 2 years ago
"Dread reveals nothing".
zarakhast 2 years ago
I did not say that nothing was a product of the human intellect, indeed, i would not necessarily valorise the concept of "human intellect" at all. Firstly, the words "human" and "intellect" are of Latin derivation and carry the burden of all sorts of presuppositions.
derritrane 2 years ago
Perhaps more productive here to see "human intellect" as a concomitant moment within a general field of concepts, ideas, language, "Language speaks through Man.", "Architext", etc.. Secondly, one can see all concepts as
half-baked abbreviations, mutually confirming approximations, that attempt ______.
derritrane 2 years ago
This includes "Nothingness". One doesn't transcend the combinatorial banalities (Arendt?) of metaphysics through selecting one of its terms, arbitrarily projecting it 'behind' all the 'others...' as yet another ultimate urgrund, and decorating it with existential-emotional baggage, no matter how profound and relevant it might seem to our deepest sentiments.
derritrane 2 years ago
The Absolute cannot be distinguished from Nothing. It IS Nothing. Or rather, Nothing "is" (transitive) everything. We cannot (obviously) encounter Nothing via the senses. But if it is fundamental (if it IS us) then it must reside within us.
"Dread reveals nothing".
"Wonder is the revelation of nothing".
Nevertheless, Heidegger's and Nietzsche philosophies are the most "religious" philosophies of modern times, by a long way.
Buddhism understands this, though it is not the same.
zarakhast 2 years ago
This was part of my prior comment, but Youtube did not accept it-
I'm not saying it shouldn't be done, just that it's insufficient in and of itself. What is metaphysics 'really'? A distinction created by Aristotle between his love of phusis, and his loyalty to Plato? lol -Nagarjuna's work might be pertinent here. Also, negative theology, which Heidegger was probably more than familiar with. Could say a lot more, but this will do for now.
derritrane 2 years ago
It seems that it won't let me post the URL for this Youtube video: Nagarjuna: "Founder " of Mahayana Buddhism
derritrane 2 years ago
Maybe we are talking about the 'same', dare i say 'it', 'thing'! lol Never underestimate distinctions, though, for the more distinguished philosophies. They enrich the understanding, The rage for the Absolute, applied with thoughtless haste, can lead to distorted and inferior forms of ecstasy. Such inadequate subsumptions of identity? self? dasein? document the horrific rather than the beatific.
derritrane 2 years ago
In such cases, Adorno's "Philosophy lives on, because its moment of realisation has gone." is deferral as salvation.
derritrane 2 years ago
If nothingness is so 'fundamental', then we are encountering 'it' all the time, in the 'sensory' realm, too. The fact that people have a fixation on the cult of objectivity and its interpretative mode or path and thus commit the error of half-thinking, as it were, equating sensory experience only with the categorical jargon of objects, is a matter of social politics.
derritrane 2 years ago
Between Being and Nothing, is and is not, presence and absence, etc., is the difference that gives both: the most radical, neti neti, sunyata. (*T*H*A*T*!*) which orientates you, me, these words ... ? This quest ion, i on, I, On This Quest Ion traverses the realms of the Particular, a Self as Particulate ego, s(witched)ed ON?, to the networks of IS plc,ltd. This loco-motive, this "I", spellbound by "Being", rushes on and on and on... and Ariston...
derritrane 2 years ago
There is no "between" here ; for, as Hegel said -
"Pure Being and pure Nothing are the same".
Heidegger quotes this saying in What Is Metaphysics ? and judges it to be "correct". That which "is" is not the opposite of Nothing - it is precisely Nothing.
Beings are all in Being ; but the Being in which they are - is it a being ? No ! Heidegger makes this point time and time again, indeed right at the beginning of Being And Time. Being is not a being ....
zarakhast 2 years ago
I don't know what insights you might personally have gained but nonetheless that seems to be mere academic-speak to me.
The crucial point is that Nothing is not a human product - not a product of negation. It is not a product of reason. it is not a product at all. How could Nothing be produced ? There is nothing of nothing to be produced !
What Heidegger says in the essay I mentioned is that Nothing itself produces - produces beings. The essence of nothing is nihilation.
zarakhast 2 years ago
One has to understand that much of Heidegger's project will be informed by
polemics that he would have wanted to position as transitional moments within his
own conceptions. Overturning what he would regard as the history of Western
philosophical errors would necessarily involve him in convoluted struggles with the
sedimented common usages of the language he is trying to transcend, or recast.
derritrane 2 years ago
Heidegger's thought is never actuated by polemical aims. He criticizes (polemicizes !) Nietzsche for writing in precisely this manner, while in other respects praising his thought to the heavens.
Heidegger attempts to retrace the history of Western thought back to its beginnings in - and indeed prior to - pre-Socratic thought. The task is to first of all RECOVER the pre-Socratic experience of Being and then to transcend it.
zarakhast 2 years ago
So what he perceives as the devaluation of 'nothing' by the tradition (his contemporary
references are 'science' and perhaps 'logical positivism', 'logical scientism', etc.), call
him to the task of response and redress. In the essay you speak of, he almost
achieves this, certainly he points out the structural complicity of 'nothing' in primary
ontological discourse, even according it a pre-eminence, as you have emphasized.
derritrane 2 years ago
But the weight of the tradition, as he has assimilated it, slows him down. He draws
on Hegel and, in an interesting way, upon a particular characterisation of
psychological experience, but, he does not "think the things themselves" radically enough. He is still thinking about and around. Best to be simple. What is the 'thing' in No(thing)?
derritrane 2 years ago
According to Heidegger, "mood" is fundamental and reveals the whole. Neither sense perception nor the intellect can reveal the whole.
Dread is the "key" mood, i.e. the one which is the most fundamental. It "reveals Nothing" (Heidegger's own words in What Is Metaphysics ?)
"Every being, insofar as it is a being, is made out of Nothing" (ibid.)
Nothing IS the "whole" and dread (angst) reveals it.
The "thing" can only be understood in terms of Nothing, not the other way about.
zarakhast 2 years ago
Human reasoning cannot create nothing by a negation of all things : how could "nothing" ever be "created" seeing that there is nothing of it to create. You cannot create the uncreated (the increate).
It is rather the case that all beings "are" "not-nothing". The "not" derives from nothing itself ("Nothing nihilates OF ITSELF") , not from human reason - which would be impossible. This is Heidegger's most fundamental essay in my opinion.
zarakhast 2 years ago