Heidegger: la question de l'être (6)

[MongeNatural]

La question de l'etre c'est une question fondamental pour le etudie de la théologie. Je pense que les théologiens doivent réfléchir à l'importance de l'herméneutique et le dialogue pour la réflexion religieuse.

[ClaisseHume]

^^



[metphmet]

"science sans conscience n'est que ruine de l'âme" .4 siècles avant le "wissenshcaft denckt nicht" de Heidegger qui a "fait du bruit" selon le journaliste.

Le" bruit fait" ne semble pas un être critère pour juger un philosophe.

[8octavius8]

@metphmet Ce n'est pas vraiment la même idée derrière. Rabelais est plutôt dans l'optique de faire de la science un objet sensible et pas seulement cybernétique. Alors que Heiddeger met en évidence que la science, au même titre que la technique, organise le monde d'une façon apparemment intelligible, à tel point qu'il semble à l'Homme qu'il ne rencontre que lui dans ce monde - donc s'absout de la question métaphysique sur l'Être même.

Sympa ces vidéos ;)

[milodios]

" Nous ne parvenons jamais à des pensées, elles viennent à nous..."

Martin Heidegger

[skonerr]

"le désert croît"

[arsesto]

Tradesman thinks

[elieone]

do you maintain your statement ?

[rabmunch]

I think that in order to understand Heidegger's withdrawal from the visionary political hopes he had in 1933, and the development of his thinking toward a new universal religion (new gods), one must (I think) read the essays by Leo Strauss on this subject, & on Heidegger's radical historicism. These Strauss essays may be found at the "Internet Archive" at archive[dot]org under "Strauss on Heidegger". Strauss & Heidegger express the conflict of our time on the deepest level.

[rabmunch]

In order to understand Heidegger's withdrawal from the visionary political hopes he had in 1933, and the development of his thinking toward a new universal religion (new gods), one must read the essays by Leo Strauss on this subject, & on Heidegger's radical historicism. These Strauss essays may be found at the "Internet Archive" at archive[dot]org under "Strauss on Heidegger". Strauss & Heidegger express the conflict of our time on the deepest level.

[Krelianx]

Can you stop interjecting all Heidegger-related videos with your plea to read Strauss' paper? What's your fixation with this, Strauss is hardly the most apt or lucid commentator on Heidegger, nor is his interpretation unequivocally related to the subject matter in all of these videos. You seem to have a particular agenda in mind. Why don't you recommend Dreyfus' numerous introductory papers on Heidegger, or Blattner's brilliant introduction? Why demand an anachronistic/controversial reading?

[rabmunch]

Thanks for your petulantly offered opinion.

Let others decide for themselves too. Just as Heidegger indicated that few were in a position to understand his writings, Strauss is also not easy to appreciate. I demand nothing. I suggested Strauss' profound analysis for those able to grasp it. There is unprepossessing simplicity & depth in Strauss' discussion. They are free for any to download at archive[dot]org. Each is free to make up their own mind, or slam it shut just like yours.

[samuraizulu]

you two need to chill.

[Krelianx]

No, you insist on everyone reading that paper by claiming that it is necessary to read Strauss to understand Heidegger. Your appeal to 'people choosing for themselves' passes over the question about whether what you are advising is in fact appropriate. Your obsession with Strauss, in favor of other commentators, is not claimed here as a mere 'suggestion', you claim 'one must read Strauss' in order to understand Heidegger. And that is blatantly false, not to mention often unrelated to the videos.

[rabmunch]

Had you read the Strauss essays yourself, which you obviously have not done, your objection might be more interesting.

You are free to suggest your opinion about the matter, rather than hounding me about the fact that I think the Strauss essays are fundamental and necessary. It would be foolish of me to try to articulate that fully here. It would also be foolish of me to waste my time any further justifying my thought with one who is unfamiliar with the whole issue.

[rabmunch]

Thank you Krelianx, however, for your responses, as they tend to show anyone who is sober & sensible that there is a blind and ignorant prejudice regarding Strauss that is mindlessly repeated ad nauseum (as there are such about Heidegger); prejudices which should not deter the serious student from his consideration.

You provide an ideal exemplar of that blind common prejudice.

Farewell.

[rabmunch]

[I note: at the time of this comment almost these essays have been downloaded almost 600 times - which means there are quite a few students out there who would agree with this simple assertion: one must read something before one makes a judgment about it.]

You too are free to download them at archive[dot]org, under "Strauss and Heidegger".

[Krelianx]

No, it simply means a lot of people followed your advise and actually downloaded the essays; it does not mean they agree with you in that they are fundamental. And, contrary to what you think, I have read Strauss (I wrote my thesis on Being and Time). Do not appeal to my ignorance about the subject matter to substantiate your argument. I pointed out Strauss' reading is controversial and often UNRELATED to the videos at hand. You blatantly interject all videos of Heidegger with your plea...

[Krelianx]

Even worse, you claim I am rejecting Strauss on the basis of prejudice. That's a fine way of saying no one can disagree with Strauss' necessity without falling into prejudice. I asked you why didn't you direct viewers to other, more contemporary and less controversial, introductions about Heidegger and you haven't responded. It seems clear to me this is about your affinity with Strauss more than inciting an understanding of Heidegger. And you obviate the necessity which you attribute to Strauss.

[theloniouz]

I just wanted to express support for Krelianx.

To say that one of the most important philosophers of modern times can only be correctly interpreted via ONE other political philosopher's opinions is conspicuously narrow-minded.

But when the person making this claim is also returning to the same videos to repost it again and again and doing so on every video, then it throws considerable suspicion upon their motives. It has all the hallmarks of political zealotry not open-minded inquiry.

[samuraizulu]

do/did you go to uc berkeley?

[Westcoastout]

Wow! Five videos have just changed my perception of YouTube forever. To be honest, I only believed there to be some old news clips and different versions of drama squirrel/hamster/whatever. Now I have, in the last 30 min seen Buckley, Vidal, Foucault, Chomsky and now this on Heidegger. Thank you adadaprout, and the others posting things like this, for introducing me to this side of YouTube. Cheers!

[iaeruo]

Thinking cannot solve everything. How can thinking, which has created so much misery in the world, also be used to help the world? We are looking down a long hallway and we believe that by walking down this hallway we can find truth. In reality if we would just turn around, the door is open right behind us.

[iaeruo]

Das Denken kann nicht alles lösen. Wie kann denkend, die soviel Elend in der Welt verursacht hat, auch verwendet werden, der Welt zu helfen? Wir schauen hinunter einen langen Hallway und wir glauben, daß, indem wir hinunter diesen Hallway gehen, wir Wahrheit finden können. In der Wirklichkeit, wenn wir gerade uns herum drehen würden, ist die Tür geöffnetes Recht hinter uns.

[rabmunch]

One must read Leo Strauss' discussion of Heidegger's project for mankind to fully understand what spirit fills this strange man. Strauss explains the movement of Heidegger's thought from Being & Time, to his intimation of a "world religion." It is found in Strauss' essay called "Existentialism" published in 1995; Interpretation,Vol.22,Nr3. If anyone wants this essay, email me, and I will send it to you.

[blerocs]

He speaks here like a real philosopher, even about biophysics. its good

[adadaprout]

Thank's to all for the interesting comments !

You can find other videos about Heidegger on the french site, unfortunately for you english users, paris4philo dot org

[quangojones]

I think that's a polite way of telling us to bicker off.

[quangojones]

In addition, I belive to the core of my being that those who stubbornly refuse to better themselves will be crushed by nature. Like Freud with his cigar smoking.

[quangojones]

Stoneroses,

I must confess being perplexed by the wordiness of those byzantine responses.

I follow no more than my conscience in unapologetically judging Heidegger by my own high standards of integrity - which I'll fight to the death to uphold.

[Stoneroses6300]

I merely trying to re-establish Heideggers own thought from his OWN writing. It's clear to me that no one here actually reads him but judges him on the most basic popularized opinions of him. This is not the place for me to post anymore....

"My own high standards of integrity - which I'll fight to death to uphold"

Your more interested in personal character masturbation then trying to understand any thinker...

[quangojones]

I've not ignored his or your (convoluted) views,

but answered his sympathizer's defences, which I understood perfectly well.

No amount of passion or psychobabble can ever conquer the truth or my ego (for very long).

[quangojones]

the sympathizers' 'my ego or the truth'.

How I long for an 'edit' button.

[Stoneroses6300]

His problem was this...Not being aware of the ABSOLUTE division between ontology and politics...Not being aware of how personal Ontology as a discipline is. Where Heidegger failed was running ahead of himself, the criticism he employed for so many others, by coming to an identity of otherness of such strong magnitude that it drove him to political activity...the "being-at-the-object" of "betterment"

[Stoneroses6300]

Heidegger is not "classically intelligent"; he wanted nothing to do with a concept so ungrounded.

If you find democratic/categorical morality as the basis of existence, then it logically makes sense, but you're still not encountering Heidegger in any real way. You're still always running ahead of yourself, through concepts of "betterment".

I.E. The political criticism is obviously justified, but has nothing to do with the encounter with Heidegger...

[Stoneroses6300]

You're saying the same thing as the person before...Your saying the fundamental grounds of all existence is democratic, political morality...I.E "All men are created equal" / "Categorical Imperative"

In this sense, it would be correct for you to say that Heidegger wasn't "intelligent" because phenomenology finds grounds prior to express morality in a transcendental sphere.

[Stoneroses6300]

It's not a form to be "known", it's a form to be "experienced"...It's the dedication of "forming", not "The Formed"...

Where "forming" gets completed is where your interpretation can be made...that can't be asked because Heidegger never gets there. It takes a transformation on your part of a man you never met and never experienced to be able to make your interpretation...which is essentially, "politics"...

[Stoneroses6300]

The existential categories you posit to interpret him require a history of metaphysics that is so far down the line in terms of the constitution of time in general that it's like your trying to describe someone without even knowing where he is...

I will say this though; ontology is politically irresponsible, by all logical analysis, because it never gets to categories.

[Stoneroses6300]

"a philosopher who failed as a human being"

This is the first problem in your interpretation of Heidegger. His thinking purposely does not get to what constitutes "Human Being". You are already ahead of him, especially with the category of "failure/success". The question then becomes,

How do you interpret Heidegger?

[vitor1271]

heidegger wasn't in favor of totalitarian state control by principle, he didn't even have intellectual reasons for acting the way he did during nazism, in fact, he was simply a coward citizen, a philosopher who failled as a human being, not a thinker who has philosophycally supported totalitarian control.

[fferdi1]

Some people then think that his thinking is inherently violent, others although find precisely in this nonchalant aspect the charm of Heidegger, his elegance. I dont think his thinking is inherently violent though, it is a very generous one but because of this generosity it is also terrifying to the weaklings and disciples of a "religion of pity".

[fferdi1]

Heidegger is very attractive, very charming, there is a charisma about his thinking and his personality that is not without reminding one of the charisma of great military leaders, say like Napoleon.

[J0shuaBeck]

Hardly.

[theloniouz]

one can be enamoured of the brilliance of his mind without apologising for the actions and personality of the man. to say he is "held to a standard no one else is" seems bizarre. he backed the removal of his own colleagues from academic posts simply because they were jews. he supported the liquidation of academic freedom in favour of totalitarian state control. he never categorically renounced his actions even after the horrors had been revealed...

[theloniouz]

...other nazis collaborators received much worse than heidegger. in fact through sartre and then derrida, he was welcomed back into respectable intellectual circles quite promptly. of course we should judge heidegger as a man. this should not automatically condemn the beauty of his 'thought'. but to fail to personally judge any man for such serious ruthless actions seems anti-intellectual and apologist in the extreme.

[theloniouz]

... i shall clarify once more to be clear what i am saying. to make the statement "i love this man's philosophy/thought/brain (or any other term)" would be understandable.

but to say "i love this man" seems strange and objectionable as it implies a love for the actions and statements of the man as a person. and heidegger as 'a man' was not (as i have described above) an individual deserving of such unqualified adulation.

[helloardy]

a couple things: "he backed the removal of his own colleagues from academic posts simply because they were jews." it would be more appropriate to say that he was complicit with the removal of jewish colleauges, by not doing anything in some instances and turning his back on what was going on. his committment to systematic nazi anti-semetism was his non-committed compliance; his disinterest in asserting himself.

[helloardy]

it should be acknowledged that the default position of the time was nazism and by being in a position of responsibility/action, as he was as rector, silence and inaction was compliance with nazi anti-semetism. this is no doubt cowardly. but he also did what he could to help at least three (that i remember off hand) jewish colleagues, to relocate them, to prevent them from losing their posts. this met with little success, but was hardly a popular thing to do.

[helloardy]

it was also a weak gesture, but nevertheless more proactive than his anti-semetic practices. he was clearly not a outspoken critic of anti-semetism, but also hardly someone who was proactive or even active in removing jewish colleagues. is this an apology? i guess.

[helloardy]

also: "he supported the liquidation of academic freedom in favour of totalitarian state control. he never categorically renounced his actions even after the horrors had been revealed..." i agree.

[helloardy]

and heidegger wasn't interested in politics. and someone who was, sartre---hey sartre, thanks so much for letting heidegger come back to respectability---who stuck by communism and soviet union who was hardly a beacon of humanity, and this was probably pretty apparent. but this doesn't bother me... because who am i to judge?

[MrNobleSavagery]

Sure; and you would turn right around and declare that Jesus is, or Ghandi, or some other feel good doctrine that spreads herd warmth; Heidegger, both his thought, and the man, is dangerous, because it strips away those comfortable, fraudulent veils that we have been consoling ourselves with to the point of their own exhaustion "God is dead"--yes, Heidegger is Nietzsche's direct heir; those who push forward into the unknown and are prosecuted for it--that is more like courage.

[MrNobleSavagery]

"as a man". This translates into herd-prosecution, he who endangers the mob, and we all know how that ends up; with the crucifixion of the individual--the heretic. The fact that you believe a man's philosophy can be separated from the man himself or woman from her philosophy is itself anti-intellectual and a rather mediocre conclusion. If anyone is an apologist, then the upholder of the previous view would be it.

[MrNobleSavagery]

"without apologising for the actions and personality of the man"

The naive idea of hanging onto some fettered morality in an age which has annihilated all world-views is a hilarity. No one wanted six million people to die; but that is exactly where our comprehension stops--at digits. Also, your claims about him being an anti-semite is a fraud. The man was surrounded with Jewish colleagues and lovers his entire life; his wife was half Jewish.

[MrNobleSavagery]

"he supported the liquidation of academic freedom"

This essentially shows that you have no comprehension of neither Heidegger's philosophical/historical situation--Europe's historical situation--the grim future of philosophy and its ramifications upon society at that time--nor the philosophical atmosphere of today. When cultural Marxists begin bitching about "lonely crowds" "alienation" "over-stimulation" "the death of spirituality"--all Heidegger has to say is "I told you so".

[Pathetikos]

i love this man

[helloardy]

i love him too

[theloniouz]

While it would be wrong to deny Heidegger's importance for philosophical thought just because he was complicit with the Nazis, it seeems equally strange to unambiguously declare your love for a man who betrayed his own friends, colleagues and students without even a great deal of remorse?

[helloardy]

He is transparently fallible, selfish, and consistently naive about incredibly serious matters. His position and his stubborness makes his mistakes seem worse than they are. His curiosity--one of his greatest attributes--was tainted by parochialism. Just because he was such a brilliant and fearless thinker his complicity with the Nazis is assumed to be calculated, or at least thoughtful. This wasn't the case.

[helloardy]

it's hard to judge someone in that environment in that period, especially when everything that was propagated by the Nazis, especially early on, at least superficially and emotionally resonated with everything Heidi longed for in fantasy. He parted with the Nazis because, the initial lure of the nationalist saviors, nazism, showed itself to be empty, and well before the horror we associate with them became apparent...

[helloardy]

in a lifetime he displayed surprisingly poor judgment on a few occasions. aside from a few mistakes, he was his own man, he lead his own life and it was more or less committed to a few simple things. and his thinking skewered the entire history of Western Philosophy. any philosophy that isn't explicitly aware of his work is irrelevant.

[helloardy]

i also don't understand why He is held to a standard no one else is. there aren't many faultless, unselfish people. and if there are, they're probably self-righteous, which is the worst quality of all.

[quangojones]

Everyone's character failings should be highlit for mankind's betterment and theirs.

[quangojones]

Every intelligent person can follow the golden rule of reciprocity - irrespective of environment.