Heidegger life and Philosophy 5 of 6

[artaig]

"Foucault... Derrida... are footnotes to Heidegger" , awesome!

[Kingalen01300]

really ? Nazism? Heidegger lived a life of a genius and this is all they got to say about him? Yes it happened but move the fk on

[zarakhast]

Heidegger called Mein Kampf "unreadable" (i.e. absolutely dreadful rubbish). For anyone to see similarities between Hitler's scribblings and the thinking of Heidegger is a sign of superficial reading.

[zarakhast]

Heidegger spoke AGAINST anger. See his "Letter on Humanism". If anyone thinks that THIS world is NOT full of anger, that Heidegger's objections to it were somehow misguided, and that H. himself was motivated by a desire for destruction is tragically - and comically - misguided. Philosophy probes far more deeply into things than science can ever hope to. The rule of modern science is the NADIR of Western history. Its rule is based on the death of philosophy itself, beginning with Socrates.

[TheDavid2222]

I think Heidegger was probably just a REALLY angry guy. It's amazing what anger can do to a person. When your angry you only want to destroy, so his actions become a little understandable if he's emotionally unstable.

[thechosenrabbit]

His nephew only knew of his uncle's Nazi connection in '44? That's years after Heidegger joined the Party..

[IStehSHIT]

heidgers philosophy is about project, you don't see this nazi affair as a project? if you do, then there needs to be no more question, he never developed any existenailistic moral, de de beauvoir did years later.

[eleod11]

Did we not learn anything from Nietzsche? Ideology is irrelevant.

[TheDavid2222]

@eleod11 I've studied alot of Nietzsche and I don't see how ideology is irrelevant. He condemns Christianity as being a life draining ideology. Same with Buddhism. He considers many ideologies to be "against life". I have read a couple of his FULL works and he stresses quite a bit on ideologies.

[eleod11]

@TheDavid2222 But it is easy to see how ideologies are bad in that they lead to a polarization of ideals and pointless fights. I am studying psychology and have a keen interest in theoretical roots. I am on a self learning adventure. I think Nietzsche would agree with my search. You are right he was rather tortured and although he may have spoke about being against anger you can not deny humanity only embrace it (Jung).

[Adastra14]

i wanted to listen to his "philosophy" as said in the title and not about his Nazism. oh well...next video.

[zarakhast]

There is nothing "logical" about avoiding the question of Nothing. Ultimately it is illogical in the extreme to deny that all thinking doesn't boil down to this one question.

I'm so glad I didn't go to Essex, where Andrew Benjamin taught philosophy. England is hostile to philosophy. This documentary is hideously biased. There isn't a single thinker in it, except for Steiner, who has anything positive to say about Heidegger. It's like England's World Cup bid : fixed from the outset.

[rmckim]

This slander is typical of the leftist BBC

[zarakhast]

To erect the laws of logic within the greater context of the all-embracing question of Being (as Aristotle did) is one thing ; to use such laws as a barrier to the inquiry into Being is quite another. In the former case, the laws of thinking are still subject to ontology - which is entirely logical, since Being obviously stands above thought (which is only an instance of Being). In the latter all logic has been abandoned. But this abandonment of logic is what we now call science.

[zarakhast]

To reach the Absolute it is not enough to be a technically brilliant thinker - i.e. a logician. The greatest questions present themselves only to open hearts. In this respect genuine philosophy has much more in common with religion than it does with science. And since in philosophy we are seeking the principle of ALL things then it ought to be patently obvious that this includes reason too. A thinking which clings too zealously to thinking is unthinking in a very profound sense.

[zarakhast]

The subject is objectified, the object is subjectified : metaphysics since Plato bangs it head against first the one wall and then the other. It is the same where good and evil are concerned : the two are really one. It is this One which we really ought to be seeking. From the Absolute all opposites emerge - and into the Absolute they all disappear once more, inevitably. Statements such as these would have been mere platitudes in great ages. But this One is also - None.

[zarakhast]

All thinking which does not proceed from the fundamental question of metaphysics - the question concerning Nothing - is a tale told by an idiot, full of sound and fury, signifying nothing. Or, as we might equally truly say, NOT signifying Nothing ; for Nothing - and Nothing alone - is the true concern of all thinking which actually penetrates to the heart of all things : the untrembling heart of unconcealment (Parmenides).

[zarakhast]

If everything is originally and ultimately nothing then the world is not fundamentally an object, for nothing cannot be represented. But if this is indeed so then that would not rule out the possibility of understanding the world. It would merely mean that representation (i.e. thought and perception) is not fundamental. Heidegger agrees with Nietzsche on this point : reality is WILL and NOT representation. But will itself is ...... Nothing. This is where all true thinking finds its foothold.

[zarakhast]

To achieve an Absolute point of view : this is the unceasing, Sisyphean and necessary task of philosophy. Is this task in a sense futile ? Yes ! But the myth of Sisyphus already illustrated this truth, long ago. Because a task is futile (while we are still here on earth) does not render it unnecessary, and in fact nothing could be further from the truth. Science, with it's commonplaces and its utterly blunt perception, is a million miles away from understanding such profundities.

[zarakhast]

Unthinking belief in objective reality : this is the basic assumption upon which all science is based. And what is the origin of this assumption which leads the whole world astray ? Metaphysics itself ! To be precise, the metaphysics of Plato : the origin of valuative thinking. But what if the world is not an object ? What if object and subject are indistinguishable and ultimately incoherent, even schizophrenic ideas ? Are they perhaps the same ? Then what of this Same ? Is this the Absolute ?

[zarakhast]

It is hard enough to introduce someone to metaphysics who is unaccustomed to it, especially when he or she is already a no-longer reasoning advocate of science, perhaps because he/she has read a bit of Dawkins, Sagan or Charles Darwin. It is even harder then to lead a person so fundamentally into metaphysics that he or she must necessarily confront the fact that metaphysics is OVER, and must now be overcome (incorporated). This is the realm of Heidegger's thought.

[zarakhast]

There ultimately remains a gulf between theory and truth for all that. Truth is not revealed by either theory or practice, i.e. by testing a theory by the yardstick of evidence. Truth occurs - if it occurs at all - in the glance of an eye, a moment of vision. So-called scientific truths, for all their usefulness, are platitudes and can never reveal the genuine state of all things. But then neither, ultimately, can the truths of metaphysics. Metaphysics is fundamentally prior to physics, however

[zarakhast]

At what point does a scientist start "thinking" ? Not until he has allowed himself to believe in his own fiction : that there actually is a world which exists independently of him. But this initial omission renders hollow the whole of his thought from that point onwards. It's a self-deception which a deeper thinker wouldn't allow himself, regardless of the consequences.

[zarakhast]

This documentary epitomizes everything I despise about the way in which both politics and so-called "philosophy" are conducted today : by means of tendentious, scheming, eloquent speeches ("arguments") aimed at winning over a majority of "customers". Pandering to the masses : what could be more un-Greek, more unphilosophical ? It's a bit like Plato in reverse : same means, opposite end. Someone please reassure me that Nietzsche's metaphysics isn't being interpreted so shallowly !

[Krifko]

@zarakhast Oh really? In what Utopian world was that not the case? Science works in exactly that way. Present the evidence, and once it convinces the scientific community, it is accepted as a theory. The truth is that philosophy is not science. It merely mimics its methods. Philosophy departments are filled with pretentious people who are better off laying bricks. Most of the time they try to find justifications for their trivial beliefs and prejudices.

[zarakhast]

@Krifko In philosophy (metaphysics) we ask after what evidence is evidence OF. We search for the absolute. We want to connect with it somehow, sensing that it will throw light on all that we perceive and all that we ourselves are. We do not therefore set much store by evidence, especially seeing that evidence can only ever confirm - or fail to confirm - a theory. Theory is fundamental in science too, but metaphysics does not need to go running to evidence for confirmation.

[zarakhast]

@Krifko Utopia / dystopia - these terms still speak the language of good and evil and thus of particular metaphysics, namely that of Plato. According to the most elevated philosophies, however (and Plato's philosophy also at times rises to such heights), the world is neither good nor evil and there can be no utopia or dystopia. How could the absolute ever be qualified in terms of good or evil - it is beyond both !

[Krifko]

@zarakhast Real understanding of humanity, morality, time, space, and the world around us, only comes through biology, physics, chemistry, mathematics etc. I agree that philosophy is nice pastime, but it offers no real answers

[zarakhast]

@Krifko Well I think you need to go away think again. The sciences are eternally subordinate to philosophy because they only deal with particular areas of being whereas philosophy deals with being itself. Not so hard to understand is it ? Your first step would be to read Plato, in order to understand the difference between Being and beings. The sciences and mathematics mean and achieve absolutely nothing unless they are rooted in philosophy. There is no "outside world" : it is a fiction.

[zarakhast]

@Krifko Scientific understanding is at all times based on metaphysical principles and as such always has metaphysics to answer to before it can attempt to take the world over and even rewrite history, which it has sometimes had the temerity to do (e.g. in Carl Sagan's scribblings, with his rather fanciful notion of the Ionian spirit). Metaphysical truths do not rely for their verification on empirical evidence any more than 2+2 = 4 does. Scientific reasoning is back-to-front and frankly shallow.

[zarakhast]

This documentary - and indeed many other such productions today - reminds me of something Nietzsche once said about decadent ages : that during such times what is "said well is believed". Eloquence (i.e. rhetoric : the tool of the lawyer, the politician and the scoundrel in general) gains the upper hand and almost seems to supersede reason itself. Gather a few "experts" together and attack someone or something eloquently en masse : an elegantly dirty tactic ! Tabloid journalism with ribbons on !

[zarakhast]

Rorty seems to take malicious delight in the notion that Heidegger felt defeated after the downfall of Nazism. How unphilosophical ! There are too many would-be politicians dressed up as philosophers. If Heidegger saw anything in Nazism it was not his own vision but a stepping stone towards realizing it. Was that wrong ? Yes. I don't disagree with that sentiment. But was Nazism his fault ? No ! And should we cease to listen to him ? Certainly not ! Philosophy towers above mere "politics".

[kKpeaceKk]

lol, Deconstructionism as a footnote to Heidegger.. He would turn around in his grave hearing that. Foucault and Heidegger couldn't be more apart in thinking.

[zarakhast]

@kKpeaceKk It is always the same : a great philosophy is always followed by a "school of thought" which attempts to universalize and "normalize" the great thought and perhaps even turn it into a political system (no less !). As if that were remotely possible ! Christ was followed by "Christianity", Plato by "Platonism", etc. And then the schisms take root and before you know it every trace of the original thinker's thought has disappeared into oblivion. Genuine philosophy is RARE at all times.

[zarakhast]

The "proof" of a philosophical truth is never anything "logical". If it were then logic would be truer than truth itself - and that is "illogical". Logic does not stand in judgment over truth, but the reverse. That does not mean to say that truth is "illogical" : it means that thinking undergoes a radical transformation whenever truth is actually THOUGHT. Truth rules thought - not the other way about. But from the point of view of ordinary thought, truth will always appear as a "contradiction".

[zarakhast]

If the universe began but never began then it must repeat itself : this is the only "logical" conclusion. The same "thing" repeats itself ad infinitum. But this "thing" is not a "thing" - but the thingness of things. Itself is nothing. Could science find any evidence for this, to "prove" it ? NO !! The answer does not lie "out there" (in "the world") but IN YOU : YOU YOURSELF.

[zarakhast]

If the universe (time, space, matter, energy - in short, everything) had a beginning then we must wonder how and whether that is possible. Was there time before the beginning ? Obviously not : how could there have been a time before time began ? If there had been a time before time began then time would have begun before it began, which is (logically) absurd. If the universe had a beginning it had no beginning. But perhaps this "contradiction" is true ? It's certainly nothing science knows about

[zarakhast]

"Reification" is a word which scientists need to lay to heart : the unthinking, automatic tendency to turn everything into - something else ! Even when he inquires into the origin of the universe the scientist still looks for (yet again) something. He never asks a philosophical question What a blunt mind the scientist has ! But what is far more maddening is the so-called "philosopher" who actually promotes this view and so misrepresents and degrades philosophy : he is the real guilty party.

[zarakhast]

The fundamental question of metaphysics (and therefore of physics) is this : Why is there something rather than nothing ? To consider that there might have been nothing is philosophical : any other thought is not. "Scientific method" is utterly redundant here. How obtuse is it possible for a human being to be ? You are asking about the possibility of nothing and yet you are asking for "evidence" !!! The philosophical presuppositions of modern science need to exposed.

[zarakhast]

There is a rather inane and back-to-front line of argument which goes something like this : Heidegger was a Nazi. Hence his character was corrupt. THEREFORE his philosophy is false.

I like this analogy : Einstein published his theory of relativity. It was declared to be true (though Heidegger calls it merely "correct" - an important distinction). Now if we discovered that Einstein was also a part-time burglar - would that render his theory false ? It's meant to be a stupid question by the way

[rfbennett2]

Have you guys EVER seen a documentary expounding a particular philosopher's ideas? If you want to know about his philosophy READ ONE OF THE BOOKS HE WROTE. A documentary is by its nature going to talk about events, not ideas. Anyway almost 2 of these 6 parts are concerning his philosophy; a brief overview of which is appropriate for documentary film.

[wenaolong]

@rfbennett2 Agreed. Funny how these boneheads jump right on the "are you an angry neo-nazi" bandwagon or "do you hate jews" etc. So tired, these folks are so tired that they don't even seem to notice that the rest of us just don't care about their issues with jews and nazis and holocausts anymore. That's their tired old fascination.

[evpreversespeaking]

There is a recent effort to eradicate Heidegger's work and reputation because those in power see his accomplishments as a threat and fear the possibility that people who study his work may figure how things truly are.

[zarakhast]

This documentary may not explicitly equate Heidegger's philosophy with that of Nazism, but you only need to look at some of the diatribe directed against Heidegger to realize that such works as these do have the power to prejudice people in a negative way. It is hardly what I would call a dispassionate - let alone a thoughtful - appraisal of a great thinker.

[zarakhast]

Must it be repeated forever - Heidegger's thought has neither political intention nor covert political implication. "Politics" thinks too grandly of itself : philosophy is simply about what is - it is not about who should rule or even what "we" should do. It does not have any action in mind. Any such reading of Heidegger's thought is the interpretation of a total moron.

[wenaolong]

Oh yes, it seems that this series was a tour de force in anything BUT Heidegger's life OR philosophy. It was a documentary about a bunch of limpdick whiney victims complaining about the shoelaces being tied funny on a giant, to whom they stood in comparison as Lilliputians.

[bapyou]

Are you an angry Neo-Nazi?

This documentary doesn't pretend to be about Heidegger's philosophy as such. This is stated at the outset. What it is is an illumination of Heidegger's involvement with the Nazi Party. It doesn't pretend otherwise. On that point, the documentary does its job quite well.

[zarakhast]

Heidegger's philosophy is the truest and therefore the greatest - but is misrepresented here (insofar as it is really discussed at all, which it isn't).

The judgments of those who judged Heidegger is only as powerful as their capacity to judge - and they're all morons.

Heidegger's thought is not understood even today, except by a few. Those few know very well that it has nothing to do with "National Socialism" - or with politics at all.

[zarakhast]

For "is" read "are" - written in a rush.

[thehoopoe]

@zarakhast What is interesting about Heidegger is the perplexing question which no one branch of philosophy has been able to answer, which is : How can a great thinker be at the same time such a terrible human being.

[zarakhast]

@thehoopoe I can't pretend that that's not a hard question to answer. But that's a question to be asked after the more fundamental and more important question of what Heidegger had to say about the nature of reality has been asked, and not before. It's a back-to-front method to begin by deciding how to judge a thinker's character and only then (and based on this) to evaluate his thought. What "character" a thinker had can only be evaluated from his thought - if it is true.

[SKYPEisthelimit]

I think you have followed a logical fallacy to its conclusion.

[zarakhast]

It doesn't "illuminate" anything - it merely gives a biased view of Heidegger and his relationship with the NSP, on the basis of which it wants to make people despise and hate him so that one day they might utterly reject his philosophy - which is the greatest philosophy the earth has yet witnessed, and which is in no way or at any time political in its intentions. It has no intentions. If you had understood it you would understand that much already.

[bapyou]

You're reading all sorts of things into this film. Its main subject is Heidegger's relationship to Nazism. Its main subject is not Heidegger's philosophy. Nowhere in the film is Heidegger's philosophy equated with Nazism or Nazism's ideals (unlike Neitzche, of course). Heidegger isn't "discredited" anywhere in the film. He was a flawed human being. That -- in and of itself -- doesn't detract from his philosophical writings.

[zarakhast]

I don't believe that we can understand Heidegger's involvement with the Nazi party until we understand the tendency of his thought - which would imply stepping outside of this kind of debate and directly into philosophy itself. This series of videos sets out to assassinate his character in a shameless fashion. I agree with you that it doesn't detract from his philosophy as such but it is all the same an attempt to do so and is very much not in the spirit of philosophy.

[zarakhast]

Heidegger's thought is not discussed in this documentary - and that fact alone makes it a very poor documentary. But you cannot justifiably start from a point of view which is unphilosophical and then go on to pronounce judgments on a philosopher. You can't somehow stand outside philosophy and judge it : the fact that you are not already IN philosophy means that you are no judge - of anything at all. Every other subject is subordinate to philosophy because philosophy IS thinking proper.

[bapyou]

The subject of the film is Heidegger's relationship with the Third Reich, not his philosophy.

[zarakhast]

It doesn't matter what the subject of the film is, the first consideration - if we are to hope to have any understanding of the philosopher who is being accused, or the political movement he was supposed to be involved with (according to this documentary, sympathetically) - is the thought of the thinker himself. Only on the basis of an understanding of THIS can we hope to judge Heidegger as a character.

[agentm83]

@zarakhast This documentary is a biography of Heideggar's life, and as such is just one part of the picture. You can't expect a TV documentary to expand profusely on a philosopher's ideas past a certain point. I mean at the university I went to they have entire senior level philosophy courses dedicated to Heideggar. And yes, you can judge someone's actions even from a, what you term, "unphilosophical point of view" (whatever that means). Come on, get off your high horse.

[zarakhast]

No. You can understand - and therefore judge - a philosopher's actions only in the light of philosophy itself. We don't have philosophy on the one hand and, for example, psychology and ethics on the other : philosophy always redefines both psychology and ethics. Philosophy also redefines "good" and "evil" from a point beyond both, as Nietzsche said. I detest what the Nazis did as much as anyone, but whatever the truth regarding Heidegger's involvement it has no bearing on the truth of his work.

[zarakhast]

@agentm83 No such "documentary" should have come into existence. It hardly relates to his thought. There's nothing very thoughtful about it : what's the point of it ? It's just third-rate thinkers pronouncing their opinions on a great thinker whom they don't understand. What has happened to philosophy ? It still informs and upholds science : science would be nothing without it. Scientists are utter BLOCKHEADS when it comes to the subtlest and most fundamental questions.

[ItsHeebyGeeby]

I agree that Heideggers philosophy is the greatest on earth. His work has inspired me and my choice of work for my own future. I personally believe that the ideas if presented by anyone would make them a truely great thinker we must also look at the effect his Nazism has on others prejuice towards even taking the work seroiusly. I havent read Mein Kamf but have encountered some of it and its utter rubbish. The fact that its written by Hitler does influence the reading of it.

[zarakhast]

No it doesn't do its job very well and I'm certainly not an angry Neo-Nazi, btw, but just an angry Heidegger reader (of over 20 years) who is sick to death of all the shallow interpretations of his thought which are STILL doing the rounds. The documentary is superficial and does not take everything into consideration. This really p*sses me off - and would continue to do so even if the accusations against him were later to be somehow verified. Talk about his THOUGHT for God's sake !

[wenaolong]

@bapyou Its "job" is a crock of shit.

[zarakhast]

As per usual - no talk about Heidegger's thought. Just speculation about his "politics". How learned. How intelligent !

[barrywinehousexp]

4:24 --Talk Monism =/=, and contrary to Being, more especially to becoming; garbage.

[wenaolong]

whinehouse...

[rabmunch]

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

[TheEqualiser00]

What a load of CRAP- this documentary is all about nazism. I wanted to hear about his work.

Waste!!!!!!!!

[Cogitoski]

I agree, this is a fascinating new text regarding the Nazi involvement. One shouldn't invest too much value in the comments of some nobody contemporary philosophers that have very little original thought of their own to add to the Tradition. Those who think great thoughts can risk great mistakes. So it goes.

[shidorihunterZ]

i agree ! he was a great help to philosophie in terms of being and the meaning of existence they should conentrate more about he's work !

[chris7777777777777]

Go to Itunes and type his last name.

[RandomResponse]

This is in response 2 The Equaliser00, from 1 year ago, as to the comment of these videos being a waste. I too hoped that the series would contain more about the H.'s ideas. But, the question cannot or should be ignored: can you truly separate the philosophy from the philosopher, esp. when the man himself saw Nazism as the realization of his philosophy. Nazism changes what H.'s ideas mean, and so if the ideas span further than Nazism does, they have to be liberated from the original intention.

[P1B1U1H1]

@TheEqualiser00 Mr. Heidegger was about Nazi'ism. Because the philosophic basis of the Nazis is no longer accepted, Heidegger is no longer accepted. No one believes the state is an organic entity or that it can be embodied in a single individual.

[ShaneyElderberry]

@TheEqualiser00

I guess the title is appropriate for what it promises. "LIFE and Philosophy" haha.

[jeroenvlutters]

of course he was a nazi and an antisemite, back in the days all germans were.

[razorwirelazerbeams]

exactly, brother. how dumbed down do we need our lives

[utuber420]

damn, this whole program is just to try to prove him a Nazi. I came here to learn about his philosophy, but the losers at BBC are only concerned with his being Nazi, which is a million times better than being a meat eater anyway.

[genesisplan]

I know :-(. It's quite dissappointing. But the only reason I can come up with is that there are tons of works that are unpublished by Heidegger still in manuscript form, and each time they do scholarship on these works, new interpretations and ideas comes up. So his philosophy is still to be discovered, as it seems. Besides this, I don't think it would be a good reason to move away from his basic ideas, which are genius.

[4gelassenheit]

Those early days were quite profound indeed -- i think Derrida caried on Heidegger's potential beautifully -- definately two great minds..

[dan020350]

hieddagger is not a good poet

[beneaththewaterline]

This documentary fails on many levels. I don't mind them talking about his Nazism, but this is secondary to the man's philosophy. More needs to be said about his incredible philosophy. By watching this documentary, you don't get the sense of how brilliant this man actually was.

[hollow0rld]

elhamdüllah

[partofnopart]

I imagine that this documentary takes for granted Heidegger's brilliance. And - although I agree it fails to do this in many respects - that it raises the more troubling problem of how we reconcile his philosophical prowess to his jarringly malicious professional life. It would have benefited by raising the issue of ethics in heidegger's ontology of being.

[4gelassenheit]

that wouldve been very nice

[4gelassenheit]

The Ister is a wonderful film expouding his thought, check it out

[Krifko]

@beneaththewaterline I think the documentary addressed a vital subject for Europeans. Namely, what did Heidegger do when he had to make the most profound moral choice that was posed to all European men of his age. Whatever his philosophy, Heidegger was wrong on the most basic questions of morality and humanity. In the end, actions are what makes a man great. Heidegger failed terribly in that respect. To know a man’s life and worldview is vital for understanding his philosophy.

[malkooth]

@beneaththewaterline I felt they didn't include enough of Main Kampf in the doc. The similarities of Mein Kampg and Heidegger's work is amazing.