It is convenient to call Heidegger a Nazi and have a good excuse to avoid reading his work. Yes, Heidegger was fascinated by National Socialism; yes, he saw in it an opportunity for Germany and yes, he was deluded. Let's not forget however that as early as Besinnung (Mindfulness) Heidegger criticizes the Hitler's youth and orients himself resolutely toward a thinking of man's dwelling on earth that is incompatible with National Socialism (and capitalistic societies for that matter).
There is inherently nothing "political" about Heidegger's analysis of Da-sein in Being & Time. It focuses on death - which is very much "not of this world" - and tries to prepare us for it. There isn't even the faintest hint of a political message in B&T, although I'm sure you could invent one if it suited your purposes to do so.
Heidegger is truly the "secret king of thought". Anyone who equates his thought with Nazism - despite his "involvement" with the Nazis - and judges him solely on the basis of that assumption is miles off the mark. That doesn't mean that Heidegger didn't have some sympathy with the Nazis but there is no way that his philosophy is the same as theirs. Ultimately though it shouldn't matter to you if what you are looking for is knowledge of the Absolute without any "political" implications.
And once again (this became boring a long time ago but seemingly it needs repeating over and over again) : philosophy, fundamentally, has nothing whatsoever to do with "politics". Politics feeds off and exploits philosophy, not the other way around. Philosophy, as Plato averred, has to do with preparation for death. It is a search for absolute knowledge. It has nothing directly to do with the "affairs of men" (i.e. politics at any given moment).
Is the question whether the material or the mental is more fundamental really fundamental ? These concepts - "material" and "mental" are already vague and ill-defined anyway. But disregarding the "correct" conceptions of these concepts, the more fundamental question is why there should be anything at all, whether mental or material. This is what philosophy consists in : going beyond ALL things - not merely the "mental" or the "material".
Does history (the subject) predate both philosophy and politics then ? Is "history" the yardstick for judging the relationship between philosophy and politics ? What is history ? Is this a question which can be decided by history ?
The basic question of philosophy, Why is there something rather than Nothing ? places BOTH the material and the mental into question. So it is not a question of deciding which is the more fundamental - the material or the mental - because BOTH are in question here. What is too hard for you to understand here ? NEITHER the mental NOR the material is fundamental ! Philosophy wants to know why EITHER exists - why ANYTHING exists !
@zarakhast I would argue that the material is fundamental, in that it precedes the mental, and is it's base, which includes ontological speculation of any kind.
Philosophy is fundamentally not about this or that society or commanding each other, it is about the Absolute, about life, death and eternity. Only when you have enquired into the Absolute and arrived at a CERTAIN answer do you have the right to order people about, though you almost certainly won't order people about once you know the answer. This documentary, for the umpteenth time, misrepresents Heidegger. It is utter garbage and most of the people who watch it are total morons.
1. Read the opening chapter of Heidegger's Introduction to Metaphysics.
2. Read What Is Metaphysics ?
3. Read the beginning of Being And Time.
Follow these three steps and you SHOULD gain entry to philosophy. And if you can't do so there is something wrong with your thinking or with your soul. Philosophy is SIMPLE. Step 1 reveals this. If you can't understand it after reading that one chapter then you can write yourself off as an eternally ordinary Joe.
@zarakhast I think you've just proved my point with that reactionary rant. You've proved how that whole tradition of German idealism can coincide with aggressive individualism or political quietism, which are the ideologies most preferred by every authoritarian regime. I'm not saying that it or the existential tradition necessarily must coincide with political reaction, only that it can, and that one must be one's guard against it.
@blackmichael75 Struth ! You want to FORCE people into politics ? Would you also like to make it compulsory for people to drink horse piss ? What kind of a control freak are you that for you people MUST take part in whatever stupid society you might dream up ? WHY do you need people to obey you ? What a sorry set of people political types are ! What about what philosophy is REALLY about (i.e. the Absolute) ? Isn't that infinitely more fundamental and important ????
@zarakhast Listen, everything is political, and everything takes places within a social and political (and economic) context. Philosophy isn't somehow exempt. If a person's philosophy allows him to be a Nazi then it is not at all frivolous to suggest that there may be something wrong with it.
@blackmichael75 On the contrary philosophy is the most fundamental subject. There would be no "politics" were it not for philosophy. I'd be interested to know how you've managed to arrive at the conclusion that politics is somehow more fundamental than philosophy.And as for Heidegger's philosophy being a reprise or even a servant of the Nazi philosophy - that's also a simplistic viewpoint which far too many people hold and is in fact boring hogwash.
@zarakhast For a philosopher you're not being very precise with your language. That isn't what I said. I merely state that material facts are before mental, and that philosophising takes place in a social and economic context. There could only be philosophers when society produced an agricultural surplus enough to support a leisured class. And the mere fact that Heidegger's thought could flourish in a Nazi context, that it could coexist comfortably with that regime, is troubling to people.
If you want to play that game then gain control of yourSELF, because that's what all great philosophy urges you to do - not to adopt a superior, patronising attitude and take possession and control of others.
The "world" is not even SLIGHTLY material in essence ! To assume the material world as a "fact" is the epitome of unthinkingness. For the philosophers the world is NEVER a fact.
Please, please find some depth you utter numpties !
"Society" is a LIE. There is just YOU and the ABSOLUTE. The "politician" and his stupid ideas (state, society) is a disgrace and needs breeding out of existence. The moment you conceive the idea of "collective" you have already become a control freak and a sick creature. There has NEVER been a "noble" politician. To want to control others - to NEED to control others - is already to be a failure.
Why this is important is because it shows how a philosophy that it too idealist, not concerned enough with material facts, and not explicitly engaged with the political world can become a tool and an adjunct of a state tyranny, a conservative and reactionary force and not a liberating one. What Heidegger lacked was political engagement and a conscience. Both of these are not unrelated to his specific mode of thought.
@blackmichael75 Rubbish ! You accuse Heidegger of a "lack of conscience" ? This man who ALONE has understood the conscience free from a slavish regard for any regime ? What do you think the "they" means ? It means that cowardly crowd which will always AVOID the true dictates of conscience. These come from the eternal itself and never from a "society" of any kind. A society is ALWAYS a fiction and a lie. People who come to philosophy with a "political" aim in mind make me sick.
@blackmichael75 You are an absolute IDIOT. You haven't got the first idea what Heidegger's thought is all about. You're as ordinary as can be . What do you make of Being ? Do you think it is just a fiction, an abstraction ? Are you yet ANOTHER victim of the commonplace, modern interpretation of Being as a Humean fantasy ? Jesus Chrsit, has philosophy not moved on at all ?? Read the first few pages of Being & Time AGAIN and MAKE SURE YOU'RE NOT READING IT SUPERFICIALLY.
You can't approach ultimate reality by means of mathematics or logic. You still have to explain mathematics and/or logic. This question is "bleeding obvious" and really ought not to be a problem for a maths/logic student. So how are we to explain the existence, or the possibility, of intelligibility ? What makes logic and / or mathematics possible ? What is the intelligible itself ? Is it intelligible or unintelligible ? "Intelligent" people are so dense it's incredible.
The "place of Heidegger's thought within Western history" ? Within some other thinker's philosophy, judged by it and found wanting ? That's not possible, since it goes beyond all thought prior to it, including that of the Presocratics which we know anything about - which is not to say that the Presocratics did not raise Heidegger's question as to the essence of truth, merely that we can't know whether or not they did. We can fairly confidently assume that they did not.
The something v. nothing question is so clearly the most important question for thought that it is a wonder (and a disaster for those of us here, now) that it had not been posed explicitly until Heidegger came along. Even the Greeks, who knew well that this was the fundamental question, remained quiet about it - and for good reason. We are nowhere near as profound as the Greeks were. We think we are better than they were because we are better at "calculation". We are truly idiots.
"Meta-physics" : what does "physics" mean in Heidegger's thought ? Are we doing metaphysics when we are doing logic or mathematics, for instance ? Or are we still failing to transcend ?
The questioning of philosophy takes place outside of and away from - well away from - the hubbub of "democracy", where "popular opinion" reigns. It takes place also outside of physics and mathematics. It is meta-physical - and this does not mean that it is the special preserve of mathematicians, logicians and physicists. Meta- means "to go beyond". It is possible to "go beyond" only in your own time, OUTSIDE the "public domain". Philosophy will never be a "communal" activity.
... In the end this documentary contributes nothing to philosophy as philosophy, primarily because it never ventures into philosophy. But it does potentially sway people's predisposition towards H's thought in that it seems to interview only those who oppose(d) his thought and not those who embrace(d) it. Only Steiner has anything positive to say about H. It is biased and therefore not very "BBC".
We can't know any fundamental truths ???? How can we say this without contradicting ourselves ? Is not such an assertion itself already an assertion of a fundamental truth ? Knowledge can aim only in one direction : at the Absolute. Hume was great at performing syllogisms once he had made a totally baseless assumption at the beginning. He stuck to it blindly. He never for one moment understood the QUESTION : what does "to exist" mean ? His era of thought was fundamentally confused.
@zarakhast so what do you think about aesthetic value? No, I have not looked at your channel. No offense, but I am more concerned with the question than your preferences. You don't have to answer of course, but I'm curious because this topic is of the utmost importance to me.
The human outlook - grounded in logic - is an inescapably SUBJECTIVE one. This is one of the first truths anyone venturing into philosophy must acknowledge. Otherwise he's not going to get very far.
See Heidegger's lectures on Nietzsche and specifically the chapters dealing with Plato's Republic (the larger context being the question of the relation of art to truth in Nietzsche's philosophy and in Western philosophy in general) to hear Heidegger's OWN opinion about the idea of a "philosopher king".It's hard to believe that documentaries like this, being so distortive of the subject matter, are ever allowed to see the light of day. I'm a fan of the BBC but it's a thumbs down for this gunge.
@zarakhast what do you think about aesthetic relativism? Is all music of equal value? I'm wrighting a well thought out paper on this, but I see you are philosophically knowledgable yourself, so what do you think?
@TheDavid2222 Try writing the paper rather than "wrighting" it. But no doubt you are not writing any such paper and just impishly want to have a stab at my varied taste in music, having looked at my channel ? I notice that you are also a self-confessed and "outspoken" supporter of logic. I wonder whether you can tell me on what basis your faith in logic rests ? If you can successfully do that then I will tell you what I think about music.
@TheDavid2222 No ! Phenomena only correspond in your mind to logic because you are already viewing them via your "logical" outlook. Your belief in logic is merely that : a belief. You don't know for sure that phenomena conform to your thinking. This is a classic example of human being "humanizing" the world in advance via logic. Have you read Nietzsche ?
@zarakhast I have read The Antichrist and On The Genealogy of Morals. I'm a senior in high school and do not have time to read every piece yet. In that case none of our scientific theories are actually legitimate, because logic is only a belief? I think your delving into epistemology. I'm pretty sure I just missed my class thanks to you (thank the gods). We do not know any absolute truth that is for certain, but we do know "practical" truths. Logic presents us with practical truths.
@TheDavid2222 Practical "truths", I agree. But philosophy does not deal only with practical truths, nor are practical truths the greatest or most fundamental truths. I apologise if I made you miss your class, though you could have replied later ! It doesn't MATTER if you get things wrong in philosophy : it's not a battle of egos ! As for "epistemology" I always think that a good work to read is Plato's Theaetetus, followed by Heidegger's book "The Essence of Truth".
@zarakhast I am righting that paper. I plan on using Plato's allegory of the cave, as well as David Hume's theory of tatse. I will discuss Nietszche's views on aesthetics as well. Notice that I spelled writing wrong just for your sake. I am using Roger Scruton and Julian Johnson as sources as well. I'm sure you believe they are shallow compared to your great intellectual prowess.
@TheDavid2222 On the contrary, I don't think of myself as a great intellectual power but merely as (at least potentially) a balanced individual. And this is partly what frustrates me about the modern world : that everything seems to boil down to one's logical "prowess", as you put it. But you have lost touch with yourself as a human being if you believe that the intellect rules all. Moreover, you have already made an unjustified assumption about the make-up of the world.
The fact that so many people, without even reading Heidegger own works, jump on the "Heidegger was a Nazi" bandwagon, just shows what sheep most people (including many "academics") are. Also, you don't have to be a neo-Nazi to admire Heidegger's thought. Its significance transcends "politics" in any case. This documentary is unashamed anti-Heidegger propaganda and ought to be condemned even by philosophers who don't agree with H. because it uses tactics which don't belong in philosophy.
Anti-Heidegger Propaganda? Calm down dear. It recognises at the very beginning his brilliant thinking and place in western philosophy. There can't be a "Heidegger was a Nazi" bandwagon, because he was a Nazi, if temporarily (he grew away from it, along with his philosophy). It is simply showing how despite his insightful philosophy he made some unaware political mistakes. I am still greatly interested in Heidegger and if I did want to remind myself what he thinks I'd read a book by or on him.
@MomentRed Okay, I accept that criticism. This documentary is still hardly fair-minded though in that it proceeds from the "gestalt" of a philosophical position which is already anti-Heideggerian and makes no attempt to look outside its own perspective. It also never actually confronts Heidegger's question, and in this respect it is a piece of tat. It "sells" a picture of Heidegger as (possibly) a corrupt human being whose thinking ought to be approached with care...
There have been many philosopher kings. That one guy is a dumbass for thinking that that's a "bad" idea. Might I add that many philosopher kings have been extremely successful. They are usually more successful than kings who are not philosophers.
I get the strong feeling, especially since becoming a "YouTuber", that the short-term fate of Heidegger's philosophy will be this :
The greatness of his thought will be slowly but surely acknowledged, though there will remain hostile resistance to it (sometimes thoughtful, sometimes unthinking) for a long time to come. But even where and when it is thus "accepted" it will still be turned into something anodyne. I don't know whether I sympathise with this or not.
From 2:35 onwards : This is a shameless attempt to make out that Heidegger had been a Nazi sympathiser all along and that therefore we ought to look upon him as we look upon a serial killer, namely as a liar, and whose later works therefore ought not to be trusted. Great propaganda, shit thinking.
Nietzsche despised his fellow Germans for their fondness for alcohol - something which is still true of Germany now and also of England. He clearly didn't rate his contemporaries, and yet they drank away anyway and praised the "great thinkers" of the time (who were almost always nobodies).
The Jews were also held in the highest regard by Nietzsche and Heidegger for the very fact of the Old Testament, which Nietzsche rated as being more profound even than Greek literature. Unravel that one !
If Heidegger had really wanted to exterminate the Jews and would have done so himself, without Hitler's help, given the chance, then what would I think ? I would still think that Heidegger, AS A THINKER, was the greatest the earth has seen. I would also believe, however, that he had no desire to get rid of a race, but only to restore depth and spirituality to life. I don't think Nazism was Heidegger's style.
The Jews are praised by Nietzsche as logically utterly brilliant. Unravel that one.
"Inauthentic" psychology is NORMAL. If you have had a philosophical insight then you will probably have to live with the fact that relatives - usually parents - will not be able to understand you, especially if you are not very good at expressing yourself. And you can still love them (and they can still love you) in spite of the fact that they just don't "get it". It is going to be hard though. And now here come the men in white coats ...
To "know" something implies : to accept its - and your own - eternity and finiteness. Death and deathlessness. The ultimately horrible situation : you have been born, without your consent ; you are destined to die, even if you don't want to ; you have to do certain things - and not do certain things - in order not to "damn" yourself along the way. And finally, you are not allowed to opt out : you are immortal, whether you like it or not. Perfect !
"Inauthentic" means "evading death". To evade death is easy and most of us do it most of the time. I wouldn't blame anyone for evading it. But I WOULD blame someone for evading it who then also wanted to play the big man, to take control and power. It is not an easy thing to do, to accept death. It is not an easy thing to come to know or to accept. Even once you KNOW you can still evade it. What the hell does "science" (including psychology) know about this ? Nothing !
To not succum to 'Inauthentic Dasein', I have to proffer a lack of interest in who Heidegger was in Nazi circles, only an interest in his philosophy. Perhaps he forgot his own rule, or perhaps not. Either way, it is what it is.
The fundamental question of metaphysics : Why is there anything rather than nothing ? This is the ONLY genuine question of philosophy, the only way into philosophy. It is the most frightening question because it addresses the Absolute directly. It forces us to ask why, if Nothing had been possible, it does not prevail now. And if it does not prevail now, is it possible ? For if Nothing is impossible then we are immortal.
To find yourself in eternity and to know and experience yourself as both finite and eternal : this is what philosophy wants you to know and understand. Philosophy is not just for the super-clever, it is for the deepest natures. This seems to have been forgotten. All we get now are "intellectuals" in this world of know-it-alls who know nothing.
Philosophy is not something "democratic". The majority never wins in philosophy. If you are going to involve yourself in philosophy then you had better be prepared to lose.
The "truth". It's frightening. It singles you out and makes you an outcast. There is no such thing and never will be such a thing as a "popular philosophy". Philosophy is grim. It is also exhilarating. It concerns itself with eternity. It knows eternity. It has experienced eternity. It is not of the "zeitgeist".
Let's face it, most people are morons. Plato recognises this clearly and unashamedly in numerous places in The Republic. It's an unfortunate truth. What philosophy tries to do is to acquaint people with what is HIGHER in them.
When Heidegger speaks of "publicity" and the "they" he might as well be Plato or Heraclitus or indeed any of the great thinkers, who are only great because they rose above this.
But "greatness" remains possible for ALL. The question is, Do you have the courage ?
This documentary is distasteful and inaccurate on so many levels. For instance, at around 3:50 Richard Wolin shows his ignorance of Heidegger's thought when he accuses Heidegger of wanting to become a "philosopher king" - a notion which springs from a misreading of Plato's Republic. Heidegger himself says in his lectures on Nietzsche that this idea is lunacy and that what is important is that PHILOSOPHY ITSELF become king. Heidegger was no megalomaniac. And yes, most people ARE morons and sheep.
Heidegger did not start WWII, either by his words or by his deeds. The Nazis made sure he knew that as a major "intellectual" they expected him to at least appear to be on their side. This is what all politicians do, because all politicians are power-seeking scumbags.
But is there perhaps something in Heidegger's thought which would oppose modern, scientific democracy ? Undoubtedly. He might even have preferred it if the Nazis had won. But that does not make him a Nazi. Read his thought.
The talk about Heidegger being guilty of "gossip" in this video had me rolling on the floor laughing. This video isn't at all like that is it ?
And Heidegger was a megalomaniac ? A megalomaniac who lived in a mountain hut ?
Heidegger was the real cause of WWII as well, right ? I'm brainwashed. I believe you. Your arguments are so convincing, your voices so smooth and mellifluous.
Philosophy speak only to philosophers. The rest are deaf. It is the soul which first philosophizes and not the mind. This is what Heraclitus meant when he spoke of the "logos" and how men can be present before it and yet remain absent. You cannot teach or learn philosophy. It occurs spontaneously or not at all. And a philosopher will have to suffer all the pretenders to it - e.g. Rorty and Sheehan. A philosopher is not a mere "intellectual".
The one true question of metaphysics is this : Why is there anything rather than nothing ? To acknowledge Nothing - and this alone - is metaphysical. No other question suffices to set us on the way towards a genuine answer, for it is the only genuine question. It is OBVIOUSLY the most fundamental question, as Heidegger avers. But a certain "law of logic" (viz. the "law of (non-)contradiction" seems to rule it out as a question. But read "What Is Metaphysics ?", because that is NOT so.
Death and the authentic attitude towards it : this is what philosophy has always been about - until modern times. In modern times philosophy has become merely an exercise in dialectic ("logic") and a trivial bickering over which idea of right or wrong is more "valid". What could be farther removed from the original spirit of philosophy ? Scientists (and modern philosophers) instead slurp down their cokes and hobnob with other "intellectuals" as if they were actually doing something important !
If in some future time a very large comet or asteroid were on an inevitable collision course with earth and there was nothing humanity could do about it, then humanity would, collectively, have to face inevitable destruction. Heidegger's philosophy asks us to live at every moment as if this were really so. But instead we evade our inevitable demise and call this dishonest attitude by such names as "truth", "justice", "honesty" etc. This is the lie which this documentary tries to defend.
The TRAGIC : this is the sole basis for any genuine "morality". But this would be nothing like anything we understand by the word today. Nietzsche spoke of a future time when humanity would have to "go under" in a spirit of commonality and unity. We spend almost all of our time avoiding the tragic, and in fact we condemn as lunatics or dissidents or mere cranks people who speak of it. But it awaits us all, whether we like it or not.
Heidegger's thought is not moralism, any more than Nietzsche's was. It teaches us the actual EVIL of morality and its counterpart, immorality. The judgmental person is evil inasmuch as he judges at all - one way or the other. He creates immorality in the same moment as he creates morality. The idea of morality gives rise to a truly SICK world full of judgmental people who are, however, incapable of judgment. The universe is INNOCENT. The truth, however, is TRAGIC.
@blearyeyed09 As Dostoyevsky's novels point out time and time again, apparently without anyone actually ever noticing ! You don't even have to be a Christian to appreciate this. Certainly Heidegger was a great friend of all religions, but only in their non-political (i.e. genuine) manifestations. But surprise surprise, philosophy has always been a great friend of both art and religion. These three "things" are the greatest of all : far above "politics" and "science".
It sickens me when this type of propaganda rears its ugly head, without ever bothering to delve into either the genuine THOUGHT behind what it sets out to condemn, or the relative roles of the individuals involved. This documentary sets out to expose Heidegger as an out-and-out Nazi, in order to prevent people from even considering his work. It never even touches on his thought, nor does it consider the relation between H. and Nazism - nor the position H. found himself in at the time.
Richard Wolin is a tard. Leave it up to an historian to understand a philosophers political ambitions. Heidegger delusional????? the role of philosopher king????? Heidegger is in my opinion the greatest and most original thinker during the 20th century, I do not believe such a great thinker can succumb to thinking that he was a philosopher king. Wolin thinks he is intelligent, by knowing about the philosopher king, however this just makes him more moronic than he already is.
Martin Heidegger was a child of his time. To blame him for the shortcomings is both populistic and unfair. It doesn't matter what his marginal "beliefs" contained, but rather the philosophy as a whole.
Much can be said about Heidegger, but in order to judge him, one have to understand the spirit of the times he lived in. What could be expected from someone brought up in the environment of antisemitism? Love for Jews!? ;)
Those who judge him by modern standards are both unjust and unreliable.
@armelix73 Heidegger is interesting not just for his ideas but also for the blind spots of his psyche. That such a great thinker could not tell between right and wrong is an interesting question for ethical philosophy.
Fully agree! It's sure interesting, isn't it!? It puts a new perspective on the "moral sharpness and awareness" of the philosopher's in the 21st century :)
How much can we trust their conclusions? How will the history judge them? Are they correct, or just witty enough to fool us?
yes i can judge on the basis that there were very courageous ppl who went against the grain of the populist philosophies of the time and helped those trying to elude the nazis and didnt accept the idea of "sub humans"
"Those who judge him by modern standards are both unjust and unreliable."
That would indeedc be a point of contention- if in fact it were true that love or respect or even tolerance of Jews wa a modern phenomenon.
It is not.
I am Jewish, and so will be the first to say, yes, we've been roundly and souldy hated by many countries but there WERE sympathizers, NIETZSCHE praised the Jews as "the toughest people in Europe" in his PRE-Heidegger masterpiece "Beyond Good and Evil."
@ILik3Turtles Why? Was he because he had different ideas than you?, because he lived in different times with different temptations and different problems? The man was flawed, but he wasn't a monster, or a pathetic intelectual that knows nothing more than books. He wasn't as "politically correct" as we are forced to be now a days, but that does not make him evil (if anything he has the advantage) If he had racist ideas, so what? every european up until now was a racist, that makes them all evil?
The world does not want to know the truth. Anyone who has read and at least half understood a novel by Dostoyevsky, for instance, will know that the world will always persecute the one who comes along with the truth ... The world wants an easy truth which everyone can (given the right training) understand and which causes no suffering. That's why we have "science".
But the real truth is not at all comforting. It is tragic. The world will do the vilest things to prevent its appearance.
Flawed like any other person. It is a problem though when people use his past to sidestep the problems he utters in his thinking. The way he reinvents philosophy is too important to mark him a nazi and go on never to think of it again. It still can be useful though, when one takes the knowledge of his political dubiousness into account when questioning the role fundamental thinking can have in the ´real´ world.
Well thanks for at least agreeing about this documentary. I also agree that many of the accusations against him may be substantially true, but this whole affair really has no bearing on whether his philosophy was true or not. One thing we can be sure of is that fundamentally it was never a political philosophy. I'm a completely apolitical person myself and that's how I choose to read Heidegger. Whether that's a "correct" reading I don't know or much care. But I just hate this kind of journalism.
Zarakhast, You´re right in the fact that this documentary is a grossly tendentious bit of work with a clear agenda. You´re also right in the fact Heidegger is an unique thinker and possibly one of the greatest ever. I believe, judging from your knowledge on the subject, that you are in fact someone who studied him, or still does. There´s a particular power of him to capture anyone that´s reading him, the Heidegger Begeisterung. But don´t let this blind you. He´s flawed as well..
Shame on Rorty and Sheehan - who could bear to read either of these inferior thinkers anyway ? They really are third rate at best and certainly not in any position to judge a great such as Heidegger - but then that is quite fitting : third rate thinkers always become critics. Nietzsche said as much several times. There is never even once in this series of videos any discussion of the question for which Heidegger is famous, the question of Being.... It's just blatant muck-raking.
Metaphysics is Da-sein ; i.e. human being is essentially metaphysical. But 'metaphysics' in the sense of that period of thinking from Plato to Nietzsche is over : has been completed. At the end of this period the great thought with which Western history as such began - that of eternal return - was voiced again - but not 'thought'. The great thought came back - but still nothing really happened. Why ? These questions are tackled at length in Heidegger's lectures on Nietzsche.
Heidegger's "thinking of Being" (which implies also the genuine Being (i.e. reality) of thinking) will continue to resonate, whatever happens in the "worldly" dimension. Philosophy was never for the "worldly" in any case - any more than true religion has ever been.
The question of Being is THE fundamental one. Prior to it, as its gateway, lies the fundamental question of metaphysics - as outlined in Heidegger's Introduction to Metaphysics.
"History is written by the victors" : this video (not that it will have much impact) is a perfect example of this dictum.
I'm as horrified as most people at the lengths the Nazis were prepared to go to, but I'm equally certainly no supporter of the world as we see it today.
What I'm more concerned about, however, is the spiritual degeneration not only of mankind in general but of so-called "philosophers" (and artists). Philosophy is not - never has been and never will be - for "everyman".
Instead of engrossing themselves in Heidegger's political affiliations, why not actually highlight his philosophical meditations on phenomenology, metaphysics and esthetic's? this documentary is just a piece of propaganda.
Absolutely ! While there may (or may not) be some truth in some of the accusations levelled against Heidegger's "collusion" with the Nazis, the topic itself is hardly philosophical. And since all politics has its roots in philosophy people would do better to first of all actually involve themselves in philosophical thinking, i.e. in the problems of philosophy.
People miss the point of philosophy entirely. It certainly has nothing to do with when a thinker was born or where - inasmuch as philsophical questions are ALWAYS THE SAME, i.e. eternal and unchanging. So philosophy is certainly never anything like "politics" - or anything so worldly. That would be a degraded view of philosophy. Philosophy is the search for truth - including the question "what is truth" - only ventures into "politics" belatedly and reluctantly - not to mention IRONICALLY.
You are saying all this to a degraded audience. I'm afraid they are incapable of understanding you. I say that with a wry tone, because I enjoy someone else other than myself being in those shoes for once. It feels a bit like being relieved of duty, getting a break for a bit...
It has always been the same : after a great thinker comes along, his thought is not accepted for a long time. But the worst time is the time when it finally IS accepted - because by this time it has been converted into a commonplace (i.e. into something it simply ISN'T !) . I wouldn't worry too much about being in a minority. I imagine that there are quite a few people in similar boats. Heidegger's thinking is here for millennia - nothing will be able to alter that. Thanks for your support.
Like others, I watched to learn about Heidegger's philosophy. I think the point may be inferred from is inestimable error: being high-minded does not guarantee any sort of virtue. He ruined his life, and the lives of others. classical a-hole.
Perhaps he foresaw the the 3rd Reich as a futuristic force to be reckoned with. Having been offered a position of power and influence, he desired to be apart of history, to be a notable figure in it. Power is every philosophers desire. He wanted his thoughts and philosophy to shape the government and country he loved.
Rainer Martin seems to me to be a person who would have been exactly the kind of intellectual who goes and would have gone with mainstream morality in the Third Reich, his outrage about Heidegger hits me as highly artificial.
Also, why is Rorty talking about history? He should stick to his field of expertise.
Agreed, though even the 'pro' figures in this documentary appear both uncritical sycophants and particularly cretinous and ugly specimens of humanity, at least visually.
Heidegger's infinity for Hitler might be as simply grounded as the fact that he looked a lot like him... even in his childhood photo he looks a bit like the childhood Hitler... Looking like somone can often make you warm to them, especially if other events bring you together...
There's not enough philosophy in this vid though. I clicked it to learn about the man's genius, not his racism.
@samshipstone It is appropriate to recognize Heidigger's lack of morals, not merely by his support of Nazi Germany, but, as demonstrated in this particular segment, by his dishonest denunciation of a colleague. That such dishonesty might also be reflected in his philosophy must be taken into account.
@P1B1U1H1 You cannot judge a philosophy by "morality". Philosophy DECIDES what is to be "moral" - and indeed whether "morality" ought not to be abolished altogether ! Perhaps then we would be free of moralizing individuals who take such delight in humiliating and ridiculing people by means of documentaries such as these ? Philosophy has nothing to do with such propaganda, nor does it have anything to do with "politics".
It's very simple to judge others from our manichean position. Most people don't understand Heidegger's philosophy, so the won't understand what Heidegger saw in the nazi worldview. Very easy to insult him when we don't face the same idealogical seductions. Even more easy to simply call him a nazi instead of studying his work and judge him by his merits. Simply put, this is propaganda to make us think that germans where confronted with a simple decision, when reality was more complex than that
@ohem No one believes Continental philosophy any more. We're all strict materialists. We increasingly doubt mathematical constructions in statistics, favoring bootstrap methods.
Heidegger never apologized for his support of the Nazis after the war... That is where the problem lies. Yes, the views and promises of the Nazi party were appealing but after what they had done, he should have apologized.
This is somewhat strange for a such a great thinker.
@ohem You're just making excuses for atrocities. It's not Manichean merely to suggest that some things are morally wrong. I'd love to hear your enlightened defense of Heidegger referring to Jews as "untermenschen" (sub-humans).
Ahh, the irony of someone so intelligent and thoughtful yet capable of such simple-minded generalizations about human nature. His work may still have intellectual value, but he was a little bitch!
definitely... his ideas on the experience of being may be indispensable, but come on.... telling on your work-mates to the fucking nazi party. what a madman
This comment has received too many negative votesshow
Dear Heidegger, you piece of shit, how could you call yourself a philosopher then engage in the workings of a low-life dictator by ruining the lives of others so as to promote your own. You are no more a philosopher than Hitler was -- you more an avaricious, very human scoundrel given over to the trappings of power and greed. You self-serving pig!
well, it is a documentary. If it's created for the general public there will always be a focus on the juicy bits. See they put in his affair with Arendt as well.
If it was about Socrates they'd have hammered on about him having sex with boys, or if it was Bentham they'd have gone on about the autoicon. The headline grabbing bits. If you want to learn about Heidegger's work i suggest you read it. Or download Hubert Dreyfus' Heidegger lectures from itunes if you really can't bear to read.
you are making a flaw in logic... if all meat eaters are subhuman, that does not necessarily mean that because someone doesn't eat meat that they are not also subhuman (not that I don't also disagree with utuber, just correcting faulty use of logic)
Oh, definitely not. I completely agree sleepyeyguy, and obviously Hitler is a subsubhuman despite being vegetarian. But had he also been a meat eater, then he'd have been a subsubsubhuman. Makes sense if you think about it.
I hope that you recognize the irony behind using a humanist rhetoric (currently the most popular site into which Euro-centric racism is translated) to condemn de facto anyone who eats meat and, I infer, to conflate meat eating with mass murder (no responsible person could equate 'eating' with 'killing' without severe qualifications, which you conveniently fail to supply). I don't eat meat but my political/ethical interests are in sub-humanity.
Heidegger was born in the same year like H.(1898)And he looks quite like him.I think the "real" fashism is only a confidence of the german philosophy
It is convenient to call Heidegger a Nazi and have a good excuse to avoid reading his work. Yes, Heidegger was fascinated by National Socialism; yes, he saw in it an opportunity for Germany and yes, he was deluded. Let's not forget however that as early as Besinnung (Mindfulness) Heidegger criticizes the Hitler's youth and orients himself resolutely toward a thinking of man's dwelling on earth that is incompatible with National Socialism (and capitalistic societies for that matter).
jsscm02 1 month ago in playlist Process Philosophy
Philosophy is, as Heidegger said, a "running forward in thought" towards death. That's all it is.
zarakhast 1 month ago
There is inherently nothing "political" about Heidegger's analysis of Da-sein in Being & Time. It focuses on death - which is very much "not of this world" - and tries to prepare us for it. There isn't even the faintest hint of a political message in B&T, although I'm sure you could invent one if it suited your purposes to do so.
zarakhast 1 month ago
Heidegger is truly the "secret king of thought". Anyone who equates his thought with Nazism - despite his "involvement" with the Nazis - and judges him solely on the basis of that assumption is miles off the mark. That doesn't mean that Heidegger didn't have some sympathy with the Nazis but there is no way that his philosophy is the same as theirs. Ultimately though it shouldn't matter to you if what you are looking for is knowledge of the Absolute without any "political" implications.
zarakhast 1 month ago
And once again (this became boring a long time ago but seemingly it needs repeating over and over again) : philosophy, fundamentally, has nothing whatsoever to do with "politics". Politics feeds off and exploits philosophy, not the other way around. Philosophy, as Plato averred, has to do with preparation for death. It is a search for absolute knowledge. It has nothing directly to do with the "affairs of men" (i.e. politics at any given moment).
zarakhast 1 month ago
Is the question whether the material or the mental is more fundamental really fundamental ? These concepts - "material" and "mental" are already vague and ill-defined anyway. But disregarding the "correct" conceptions of these concepts, the more fundamental question is why there should be anything at all, whether mental or material. This is what philosophy consists in : going beyond ALL things - not merely the "mental" or the "material".
zarakhast 1 month ago
Does history (the subject) predate both philosophy and politics then ? Is "history" the yardstick for judging the relationship between philosophy and politics ? What is history ? Is this a question which can be decided by history ?
zarakhast 1 month ago
"Philosophy and politics are historically interdependent" ? Hmm. Please expand.
zarakhast 1 month ago
The basic question of philosophy, Why is there something rather than Nothing ? places BOTH the material and the mental into question. So it is not a question of deciding which is the more fundamental - the material or the mental - because BOTH are in question here. What is too hard for you to understand here ? NEITHER the mental NOR the material is fundamental ! Philosophy wants to know why EITHER exists - why ANYTHING exists !
zarakhast 1 month ago
@zarakhast I would argue that the material is fundamental, in that it precedes the mental, and is it's base, which includes ontological speculation of any kind.
blackmichael75 1 month ago
@blackmichael75 Well you argue that then. Well argued !
zarakhast 1 month ago
Philosophy is fundamentally not about this or that society or commanding each other, it is about the Absolute, about life, death and eternity. Only when you have enquired into the Absolute and arrived at a CERTAIN answer do you have the right to order people about, though you almost certainly won't order people about once you know the answer. This documentary, for the umpteenth time, misrepresents Heidegger. It is utter garbage and most of the people who watch it are total morons.
zarakhast 1 month ago
1. Read the opening chapter of Heidegger's Introduction to Metaphysics.
2. Read What Is Metaphysics ?
3. Read the beginning of Being And Time.
Follow these three steps and you SHOULD gain entry to philosophy. And if you can't do so there is something wrong with your thinking or with your soul. Philosophy is SIMPLE. Step 1 reveals this. If you can't understand it after reading that one chapter then you can write yourself off as an eternally ordinary Joe.
zarakhast 1 month ago
@zarakhast I think you've just proved my point with that reactionary rant. You've proved how that whole tradition of German idealism can coincide with aggressive individualism or political quietism, which are the ideologies most preferred by every authoritarian regime. I'm not saying that it or the existential tradition necessarily must coincide with political reaction, only that it can, and that one must be one's guard against it.
blackmichael75 1 month ago
@blackmichael75 Struth ! You want to FORCE people into politics ? Would you also like to make it compulsory for people to drink horse piss ? What kind of a control freak are you that for you people MUST take part in whatever stupid society you might dream up ? WHY do you need people to obey you ? What a sorry set of people political types are ! What about what philosophy is REALLY about (i.e. the Absolute) ? Isn't that infinitely more fundamental and important ????
zarakhast 1 month ago
@zarakhast Listen, everything is political, and everything takes places within a social and political (and economic) context. Philosophy isn't somehow exempt. If a person's philosophy allows him to be a Nazi then it is not at all frivolous to suggest that there may be something wrong with it.
blackmichael75 1 month ago
@blackmichael75 On the contrary philosophy is the most fundamental subject. There would be no "politics" were it not for philosophy. I'd be interested to know how you've managed to arrive at the conclusion that politics is somehow more fundamental than philosophy.And as for Heidegger's philosophy being a reprise or even a servant of the Nazi philosophy - that's also a simplistic viewpoint which far too many people hold and is in fact boring hogwash.
zarakhast 1 month ago
@zarakhast For a philosopher you're not being very precise with your language. That isn't what I said. I merely state that material facts are before mental, and that philosophising takes place in a social and economic context. There could only be philosophers when society produced an agricultural surplus enough to support a leisured class. And the mere fact that Heidegger's thought could flourish in a Nazi context, that it could coexist comfortably with that regime, is troubling to people.
blackmichael75 1 month ago
@blackmichael75 I asked you a question and you ignored it. Which is the more fundamental subject, philosophy or politics ?
zarakhast 1 month ago
@zarakhast It's a false dichotomy. The two are historically interdependent and inter-related.
blackmichael75 1 month ago
If you want to play that game then gain control of yourSELF, because that's what all great philosophy urges you to do - not to adopt a superior, patronising attitude and take possession and control of others.
The "world" is not even SLIGHTLY material in essence ! To assume the material world as a "fact" is the epitome of unthinkingness. For the philosophers the world is NEVER a fact.
Please, please find some depth you utter numpties !
zarakhast 1 month ago
"Society" is a LIE. There is just YOU and the ABSOLUTE. The "politician" and his stupid ideas (state, society) is a disgrace and needs breeding out of existence. The moment you conceive the idea of "collective" you have already become a control freak and a sick creature. There has NEVER been a "noble" politician. To want to control others - to NEED to control others - is already to be a failure.
zarakhast 1 month ago
Why this is important is because it shows how a philosophy that it too idealist, not concerned enough with material facts, and not explicitly engaged with the political world can become a tool and an adjunct of a state tyranny, a conservative and reactionary force and not a liberating one. What Heidegger lacked was political engagement and a conscience. Both of these are not unrelated to his specific mode of thought.
blackmichael75 1 month ago
@blackmichael75 Rubbish ! You accuse Heidegger of a "lack of conscience" ? This man who ALONE has understood the conscience free from a slavish regard for any regime ? What do you think the "they" means ? It means that cowardly crowd which will always AVOID the true dictates of conscience. These come from the eternal itself and never from a "society" of any kind. A society is ALWAYS a fiction and a lie. People who come to philosophy with a "political" aim in mind make me sick.
zarakhast 1 month ago
@blackmichael75 You are an absolute IDIOT. You haven't got the first idea what Heidegger's thought is all about. You're as ordinary as can be . What do you make of Being ? Do you think it is just a fiction, an abstraction ? Are you yet ANOTHER victim of the commonplace, modern interpretation of Being as a Humean fantasy ? Jesus Chrsit, has philosophy not moved on at all ?? Read the first few pages of Being & Time AGAIN and MAKE SURE YOU'RE NOT READING IT SUPERFICIALLY.
zarakhast 1 month ago
You can't approach ultimate reality by means of mathematics or logic. You still have to explain mathematics and/or logic. This question is "bleeding obvious" and really ought not to be a problem for a maths/logic student. So how are we to explain the existence, or the possibility, of intelligibility ? What makes logic and / or mathematics possible ? What is the intelligible itself ? Is it intelligible or unintelligible ? "Intelligent" people are so dense it's incredible.
zarakhast 3 months ago
The "place of Heidegger's thought within Western history" ? Within some other thinker's philosophy, judged by it and found wanting ? That's not possible, since it goes beyond all thought prior to it, including that of the Presocratics which we know anything about - which is not to say that the Presocratics did not raise Heidegger's question as to the essence of truth, merely that we can't know whether or not they did. We can fairly confidently assume that they did not.
zarakhast 3 months ago
The something v. nothing question is so clearly the most important question for thought that it is a wonder (and a disaster for those of us here, now) that it had not been posed explicitly until Heidegger came along. Even the Greeks, who knew well that this was the fundamental question, remained quiet about it - and for good reason. We are nowhere near as profound as the Greeks were. We think we are better than they were because we are better at "calculation". We are truly idiots.
zarakhast 3 months ago
"Meta-physics" : what does "physics" mean in Heidegger's thought ? Are we doing metaphysics when we are doing logic or mathematics, for instance ? Or are we still failing to transcend ?
zarakhast 3 months ago
The questioning of philosophy takes place outside of and away from - well away from - the hubbub of "democracy", where "popular opinion" reigns. It takes place also outside of physics and mathematics. It is meta-physical - and this does not mean that it is the special preserve of mathematicians, logicians and physicists. Meta- means "to go beyond". It is possible to "go beyond" only in your own time, OUTSIDE the "public domain". Philosophy will never be a "communal" activity.
zarakhast 3 months ago
... In the end this documentary contributes nothing to philosophy as philosophy, primarily because it never ventures into philosophy. But it does potentially sway people's predisposition towards H's thought in that it seems to interview only those who oppose(d) his thought and not those who embrace(d) it. Only Steiner has anything positive to say about H. It is biased and therefore not very "BBC".
zarakhast 3 months ago
i so hate this youtube censorship, i can't watch the first part of the movie in germany
fabar 8 months ago
We can't know any fundamental truths ???? How can we say this without contradicting ourselves ? Is not such an assertion itself already an assertion of a fundamental truth ? Knowledge can aim only in one direction : at the Absolute. Hume was great at performing syllogisms once he had made a totally baseless assumption at the beginning. He stuck to it blindly. He never for one moment understood the QUESTION : what does "to exist" mean ? His era of thought was fundamentally confused.
zarakhast 10 months ago
@zarakhast so what do you think about aesthetic value? No, I have not looked at your channel. No offense, but I am more concerned with the question than your preferences. You don't have to answer of course, but I'm curious because this topic is of the utmost importance to me.
TheDavid2222 10 months ago
The human outlook - grounded in logic - is an inescapably SUBJECTIVE one. This is one of the first truths anyone venturing into philosophy must acknowledge. Otherwise he's not going to get very far.
zarakhast 10 months ago
See Heidegger's lectures on Nietzsche and specifically the chapters dealing with Plato's Republic (the larger context being the question of the relation of art to truth in Nietzsche's philosophy and in Western philosophy in general) to hear Heidegger's OWN opinion about the idea of a "philosopher king".It's hard to believe that documentaries like this, being so distortive of the subject matter, are ever allowed to see the light of day. I'm a fan of the BBC but it's a thumbs down for this gunge.
zarakhast 10 months ago
@zarakhast what do you think about aesthetic relativism? Is all music of equal value? I'm wrighting a well thought out paper on this, but I see you are philosophically knowledgable yourself, so what do you think?
TheDavid2222 10 months ago
@TheDavid2222 Try writing the paper rather than "wrighting" it. But no doubt you are not writing any such paper and just impishly want to have a stab at my varied taste in music, having looked at my channel ? I notice that you are also a self-confessed and "outspoken" supporter of logic. I wonder whether you can tell me on what basis your faith in logic rests ? If you can successfully do that then I will tell you what I think about music.
zarakhast 10 months ago
@zarakhast I do not need "faith" in logic. Logic presents itself as trustworthy through phenomena.
TheDavid2222 10 months ago
@TheDavid2222 No ! Phenomena only correspond in your mind to logic because you are already viewing them via your "logical" outlook. Your belief in logic is merely that : a belief. You don't know for sure that phenomena conform to your thinking. This is a classic example of human being "humanizing" the world in advance via logic. Have you read Nietzsche ?
zarakhast 10 months ago
@zarakhast I have read The Antichrist and On The Genealogy of Morals. I'm a senior in high school and do not have time to read every piece yet. In that case none of our scientific theories are actually legitimate, because logic is only a belief? I think your delving into epistemology. I'm pretty sure I just missed my class thanks to you (thank the gods). We do not know any absolute truth that is for certain, but we do know "practical" truths. Logic presents us with practical truths.
TheDavid2222 10 months ago
@TheDavid2222 Practical "truths", I agree. But philosophy does not deal only with practical truths, nor are practical truths the greatest or most fundamental truths. I apologise if I made you miss your class, though you could have replied later ! It doesn't MATTER if you get things wrong in philosophy : it's not a battle of egos ! As for "epistemology" I always think that a good work to read is Plato's Theaetetus, followed by Heidegger's book "The Essence of Truth".
zarakhast 10 months ago
@zarakhast I am righting that paper. I plan on using Plato's allegory of the cave, as well as David Hume's theory of tatse. I will discuss Nietszche's views on aesthetics as well. Notice that I spelled writing wrong just for your sake. I am using Roger Scruton and Julian Johnson as sources as well. I'm sure you believe they are shallow compared to your great intellectual prowess.
TheDavid2222 10 months ago
@TheDavid2222 On the contrary, I don't think of myself as a great intellectual power but merely as (at least potentially) a balanced individual. And this is partly what frustrates me about the modern world : that everything seems to boil down to one's logical "prowess", as you put it. But you have lost touch with yourself as a human being if you believe that the intellect rules all. Moreover, you have already made an unjustified assumption about the make-up of the world.
zarakhast 10 months ago
The fact that so many people, without even reading Heidegger own works, jump on the "Heidegger was a Nazi" bandwagon, just shows what sheep most people (including many "academics") are. Also, you don't have to be a neo-Nazi to admire Heidegger's thought. Its significance transcends "politics" in any case. This documentary is unashamed anti-Heidegger propaganda and ought to be condemned even by philosophers who don't agree with H. because it uses tactics which don't belong in philosophy.
zarakhast 10 months ago
Anti-Heidegger Propaganda? Calm down dear. It recognises at the very beginning his brilliant thinking and place in western philosophy. There can't be a "Heidegger was a Nazi" bandwagon, because he was a Nazi, if temporarily (he grew away from it, along with his philosophy). It is simply showing how despite his insightful philosophy he made some unaware political mistakes. I am still greatly interested in Heidegger and if I did want to remind myself what he thinks I'd read a book by or on him.
MomentRed 3 months ago
@MomentRed Okay, I accept that criticism. This documentary is still hardly fair-minded though in that it proceeds from the "gestalt" of a philosophical position which is already anti-Heideggerian and makes no attempt to look outside its own perspective. It also never actually confronts Heidegger's question, and in this respect it is a piece of tat. It "sells" a picture of Heidegger as (possibly) a corrupt human being whose thinking ought to be approached with care...
zarakhast 3 months ago
There have been many philosopher kings. That one guy is a dumbass for thinking that that's a "bad" idea. Might I add that many philosopher kings have been extremely successful. They are usually more successful than kings who are not philosophers.
TheDavid2222 10 months ago
I wish Nietszche had been alive and not insane in Heidegger"s time. He would have set everyone straight!!
TheDavid2222 10 months ago
I get the strong feeling, especially since becoming a "YouTuber", that the short-term fate of Heidegger's philosophy will be this :
The greatness of his thought will be slowly but surely acknowledged, though there will remain hostile resistance to it (sometimes thoughtful, sometimes unthinking) for a long time to come. But even where and when it is thus "accepted" it will still be turned into something anodyne. I don't know whether I sympathise with this or not.
zarakhast 1 year ago
From 2:35 onwards : This is a shameless attempt to make out that Heidegger had been a Nazi sympathiser all along and that therefore we ought to look upon him as we look upon a serial killer, namely as a liar, and whose later works therefore ought not to be trusted. Great propaganda, shit thinking.
zarakhast 1 year ago
Nietzsche despised his fellow Germans for their fondness for alcohol - something which is still true of Germany now and also of England. He clearly didn't rate his contemporaries, and yet they drank away anyway and praised the "great thinkers" of the time (who were almost always nobodies).
The Jews were also held in the highest regard by Nietzsche and Heidegger for the very fact of the Old Testament, which Nietzsche rated as being more profound even than Greek literature. Unravel that one !
zarakhast 1 year ago
If Heidegger had really wanted to exterminate the Jews and would have done so himself, without Hitler's help, given the chance, then what would I think ? I would still think that Heidegger, AS A THINKER, was the greatest the earth has seen. I would also believe, however, that he had no desire to get rid of a race, but only to restore depth and spirituality to life. I don't think Nazism was Heidegger's style.
The Jews are praised by Nietzsche as logically utterly brilliant. Unravel that one.
zarakhast 1 year ago
"Inauthentic" psychology is NORMAL. If you have had a philosophical insight then you will probably have to live with the fact that relatives - usually parents - will not be able to understand you, especially if you are not very good at expressing yourself. And you can still love them (and they can still love you) in spite of the fact that they just don't "get it". It is going to be hard though. And now here come the men in white coats ...
zarakhast 1 year ago
To "know" something implies : to accept its - and your own - eternity and finiteness. Death and deathlessness. The ultimately horrible situation : you have been born, without your consent ; you are destined to die, even if you don't want to ; you have to do certain things - and not do certain things - in order not to "damn" yourself along the way. And finally, you are not allowed to opt out : you are immortal, whether you like it or not. Perfect !
zarakhast 1 year ago
"Inauthentic" means "evading death". To evade death is easy and most of us do it most of the time. I wouldn't blame anyone for evading it. But I WOULD blame someone for evading it who then also wanted to play the big man, to take control and power. It is not an easy thing to do, to accept death. It is not an easy thing to come to know or to accept. Even once you KNOW you can still evade it. What the hell does "science" (including psychology) know about this ? Nothing !
zarakhast 1 year ago
To not succum to 'Inauthentic Dasein', I have to proffer a lack of interest in who Heidegger was in Nazi circles, only an interest in his philosophy. Perhaps he forgot his own rule, or perhaps not. Either way, it is what it is.
smudgepost 1 year ago
The fundamental question of metaphysics : Why is there anything rather than nothing ? This is the ONLY genuine question of philosophy, the only way into philosophy. It is the most frightening question because it addresses the Absolute directly. It forces us to ask why, if Nothing had been possible, it does not prevail now. And if it does not prevail now, is it possible ? For if Nothing is impossible then we are immortal.
zarakhast 1 year ago
To find yourself in eternity and to know and experience yourself as both finite and eternal : this is what philosophy wants you to know and understand. Philosophy is not just for the super-clever, it is for the deepest natures. This seems to have been forgotten. All we get now are "intellectuals" in this world of know-it-alls who know nothing.
zarakhast 1 year ago
Philosophy is not something "democratic". The majority never wins in philosophy. If you are going to involve yourself in philosophy then you had better be prepared to lose.
The "truth". It's frightening. It singles you out and makes you an outcast. There is no such thing and never will be such a thing as a "popular philosophy". Philosophy is grim. It is also exhilarating. It concerns itself with eternity. It knows eternity. It has experienced eternity. It is not of the "zeitgeist".
zarakhast 1 year ago
Let's face it, most people are morons. Plato recognises this clearly and unashamedly in numerous places in The Republic. It's an unfortunate truth. What philosophy tries to do is to acquaint people with what is HIGHER in them.
When Heidegger speaks of "publicity" and the "they" he might as well be Plato or Heraclitus or indeed any of the great thinkers, who are only great because they rose above this.
But "greatness" remains possible for ALL. The question is, Do you have the courage ?
zarakhast 1 year ago
@zarakhast Well I'll be darned. Your the most intelligent youtuber I have ever encountered.
TheDavid2222 10 months ago
This documentary is distasteful and inaccurate on so many levels. For instance, at around 3:50 Richard Wolin shows his ignorance of Heidegger's thought when he accuses Heidegger of wanting to become a "philosopher king" - a notion which springs from a misreading of Plato's Republic. Heidegger himself says in his lectures on Nietzsche that this idea is lunacy and that what is important is that PHILOSOPHY ITSELF become king. Heidegger was no megalomaniac. And yes, most people ARE morons and sheep.
zarakhast 10 months ago
Heidegger did not start WWII, either by his words or by his deeds. The Nazis made sure he knew that as a major "intellectual" they expected him to at least appear to be on their side. This is what all politicians do, because all politicians are power-seeking scumbags.
But is there perhaps something in Heidegger's thought which would oppose modern, scientific democracy ? Undoubtedly. He might even have preferred it if the Nazis had won. But that does not make him a Nazi. Read his thought.
zarakhast 1 year ago
The talk about Heidegger being guilty of "gossip" in this video had me rolling on the floor laughing. This video isn't at all like that is it ?
And Heidegger was a megalomaniac ? A megalomaniac who lived in a mountain hut ?
Heidegger was the real cause of WWII as well, right ? I'm brainwashed. I believe you. Your arguments are so convincing, your voices so smooth and mellifluous.
zarakhast 1 year ago
Philosophy speak only to philosophers. The rest are deaf. It is the soul which first philosophizes and not the mind. This is what Heraclitus meant when he spoke of the "logos" and how men can be present before it and yet remain absent. You cannot teach or learn philosophy. It occurs spontaneously or not at all. And a philosopher will have to suffer all the pretenders to it - e.g. Rorty and Sheehan. A philosopher is not a mere "intellectual".
zarakhast 1 year ago
The one true question of metaphysics is this : Why is there anything rather than nothing ? To acknowledge Nothing - and this alone - is metaphysical. No other question suffices to set us on the way towards a genuine answer, for it is the only genuine question. It is OBVIOUSLY the most fundamental question, as Heidegger avers. But a certain "law of logic" (viz. the "law of (non-)contradiction" seems to rule it out as a question. But read "What Is Metaphysics ?", because that is NOT so.
zarakhast 1 year ago
Death and the authentic attitude towards it : this is what philosophy has always been about - until modern times. In modern times philosophy has become merely an exercise in dialectic ("logic") and a trivial bickering over which idea of right or wrong is more "valid". What could be farther removed from the original spirit of philosophy ? Scientists (and modern philosophers) instead slurp down their cokes and hobnob with other "intellectuals" as if they were actually doing something important !
zarakhast 1 year ago
If in some future time a very large comet or asteroid were on an inevitable collision course with earth and there was nothing humanity could do about it, then humanity would, collectively, have to face inevitable destruction. Heidegger's philosophy asks us to live at every moment as if this were really so. But instead we evade our inevitable demise and call this dishonest attitude by such names as "truth", "justice", "honesty" etc. This is the lie which this documentary tries to defend.
zarakhast 1 year ago
The TRAGIC : this is the sole basis for any genuine "morality". But this would be nothing like anything we understand by the word today. Nietzsche spoke of a future time when humanity would have to "go under" in a spirit of commonality and unity. We spend almost all of our time avoiding the tragic, and in fact we condemn as lunatics or dissidents or mere cranks people who speak of it. But it awaits us all, whether we like it or not.
zarakhast 1 year ago
Heidegger's thought is not moralism, any more than Nietzsche's was. It teaches us the actual EVIL of morality and its counterpart, immorality. The judgmental person is evil inasmuch as he judges at all - one way or the other. He creates immorality in the same moment as he creates morality. The idea of morality gives rise to a truly SICK world full of judgmental people who are, however, incapable of judgment. The universe is INNOCENT. The truth, however, is TRAGIC.
zarakhast 1 year ago
@zarakhast I agree. When the great Tao is lost we have moralistic judges and great sinners......
blearyeyed09 1 year ago
@blearyeyed09 As Dostoyevsky's novels point out time and time again, apparently without anyone actually ever noticing ! You don't even have to be a Christian to appreciate this. Certainly Heidegger was a great friend of all religions, but only in their non-political (i.e. genuine) manifestations. But surprise surprise, philosophy has always been a great friend of both art and religion. These three "things" are the greatest of all : far above "politics" and "science".
zarakhast 1 year ago
It sickens me when this type of propaganda rears its ugly head, without ever bothering to delve into either the genuine THOUGHT behind what it sets out to condemn, or the relative roles of the individuals involved. This documentary sets out to expose Heidegger as an out-and-out Nazi, in order to prevent people from even considering his work. It never even touches on his thought, nor does it consider the relation between H. and Nazism - nor the position H. found himself in at the time.
zarakhast 1 year ago
Nice soap opera
alkaline71 1 year ago
tragic
mavishill 1 year ago
Richard Wolin is a tard. Leave it up to an historian to understand a philosophers political ambitions. Heidegger delusional????? the role of philosopher king????? Heidegger is in my opinion the greatest and most original thinker during the 20th century, I do not believe such a great thinker can succumb to thinking that he was a philosopher king. Wolin thinks he is intelligent, by knowing about the philosopher king, however this just makes him more moronic than he already is.
ktronk 1 year ago
This documentary should have been named "Heidegger: the antisemitic polemic". Apart from that polemic, this documentary tells nothing. Poor work.
BlingBlingDo 2 years ago
Being great philosopher doesn't make you a great man.
Zuler01 2 years ago
@Zuler01 Heidegger was both.
EpidosisBiou 1 year ago
Martin Heidegger was a child of his time. To blame him for the shortcomings is both populistic and unfair. It doesn't matter what his marginal "beliefs" contained, but rather the philosophy as a whole.
Much can be said about Heidegger, but in order to judge him, one have to understand the spirit of the times he lived in. What could be expected from someone brought up in the environment of antisemitism? Love for Jews!? ;)
Those who judge him by modern standards are both unjust and unreliable.
armelix73 2 years ago 3
@armelix73 Heidegger is interesting not just for his ideas but also for the blind spots of his psyche. That such a great thinker could not tell between right and wrong is an interesting question for ethical philosophy.
thehoopoe 2 years ago 2
Fully agree! It's sure interesting, isn't it!? It puts a new perspective on the "moral sharpness and awareness" of the philosopher's in the 21st century :)
How much can we trust their conclusions? How will the history judge them? Are they correct, or just witty enough to fool us?
armelix73 2 years ago
yes i can judge on the basis that there were very courageous ppl who went against the grain of the populist philosophies of the time and helped those trying to elude the nazis and didnt accept the idea of "sub humans"
adzug 2 years ago
@armelix:
"Those who judge him by modern standards are both unjust and unreliable."
That would indeedc be a point of contention- if in fact it were true that love or respect or even tolerance of Jews wa a modern phenomenon.
It is not.
I am Jewish, and so will be the first to say, yes, we've been roundly and souldy hated by many countries but there WERE sympathizers, NIETZSCHE praised the Jews as "the toughest people in Europe" in his PRE-Heidegger masterpiece "Beyond Good and Evil."
obiwanobiwan13 2 years ago
Comment removed
ejohnwright 2 years ago
seriously. who gives a shi%t if this guy didnt like jews. so what?
ubermensch81 2 years ago 4
Heidegger was a bit of a cunt wasn't he?
ILik3Turtles 2 years ago
@ILik3Turtles Why? Was he because he had different ideas than you?, because he lived in different times with different temptations and different problems? The man was flawed, but he wasn't a monster, or a pathetic intelectual that knows nothing more than books. He wasn't as "politically correct" as we are forced to be now a days, but that does not make him evil (if anything he has the advantage) If he had racist ideas, so what? every european up until now was a racist, that makes them all evil?
ohem 1 year ago
The world does not want to know the truth. Anyone who has read and at least half understood a novel by Dostoyevsky, for instance, will know that the world will always persecute the one who comes along with the truth ... The world wants an easy truth which everyone can (given the right training) understand and which causes no suffering. That's why we have "science".
But the real truth is not at all comforting. It is tragic. The world will do the vilest things to prevent its appearance.
zarakhast 2 years ago 2
Flawed like any other person. It is a problem though when people use his past to sidestep the problems he utters in his thinking. The way he reinvents philosophy is too important to mark him a nazi and go on never to think of it again. It still can be useful though, when one takes the knowledge of his political dubiousness into account when questioning the role fundamental thinking can have in the ´real´ world.
XKillertofuX 2 years ago
Well thanks for at least agreeing about this documentary. I also agree that many of the accusations against him may be substantially true, but this whole affair really has no bearing on whether his philosophy was true or not. One thing we can be sure of is that fundamentally it was never a political philosophy. I'm a completely apolitical person myself and that's how I choose to read Heidegger. Whether that's a "correct" reading I don't know or much care. But I just hate this kind of journalism.
zarakhast 2 years ago
Zarakhast, You´re right in the fact that this documentary is a grossly tendentious bit of work with a clear agenda. You´re also right in the fact Heidegger is an unique thinker and possibly one of the greatest ever. I believe, judging from your knowledge on the subject, that you are in fact someone who studied him, or still does. There´s a particular power of him to capture anyone that´s reading him, the Heidegger Begeisterung. But don´t let this blind you. He´s flawed as well..
XKillertofuX 2 years ago
Damned interesting story.
bapyou 2 years ago
Shame on Rorty and Sheehan - who could bear to read either of these inferior thinkers anyway ? They really are third rate at best and certainly not in any position to judge a great such as Heidegger - but then that is quite fitting : third rate thinkers always become critics. Nietzsche said as much several times. There is never even once in this series of videos any discussion of the question for which Heidegger is famous, the question of Being.... It's just blatant muck-raking.
zarakhast 2 years ago 6
Metaphysics is Da-sein ; i.e. human being is essentially metaphysical. But 'metaphysics' in the sense of that period of thinking from Plato to Nietzsche is over : has been completed. At the end of this period the great thought with which Western history as such began - that of eternal return - was voiced again - but not 'thought'. The great thought came back - but still nothing really happened. Why ? These questions are tackled at length in Heidegger's lectures on Nietzsche.
zarakhast 2 years ago
Heidegger's "thinking of Being" (which implies also the genuine Being (i.e. reality) of thinking) will continue to resonate, whatever happens in the "worldly" dimension. Philosophy was never for the "worldly" in any case - any more than true religion has ever been.
The question of Being is THE fundamental one. Prior to it, as its gateway, lies the fundamental question of metaphysics - as outlined in Heidegger's Introduction to Metaphysics.
zarakhast 2 years ago
"History is written by the victors" : this video (not that it will have much impact) is a perfect example of this dictum.
I'm as horrified as most people at the lengths the Nazis were prepared to go to, but I'm equally certainly no supporter of the world as we see it today.
What I'm more concerned about, however, is the spiritual degeneration not only of mankind in general but of so-called "philosophers" (and artists). Philosophy is not - never has been and never will be - for "everyman".
zarakhast 2 years ago
Instead of engrossing themselves in Heidegger's political affiliations, why not actually highlight his philosophical meditations on phenomenology, metaphysics and esthetic's? this documentary is just a piece of propaganda.
charlatanbaby 2 years ago 2
Absolutely ! While there may (or may not) be some truth in some of the accusations levelled against Heidegger's "collusion" with the Nazis, the topic itself is hardly philosophical. And since all politics has its roots in philosophy people would do better to first of all actually involve themselves in philosophical thinking, i.e. in the problems of philosophy.
zarakhast 2 years ago
To most of this crud I can only say "So?"
wenaolong 2 years ago
People miss the point of philosophy entirely. It certainly has nothing to do with when a thinker was born or where - inasmuch as philsophical questions are ALWAYS THE SAME, i.e. eternal and unchanging. So philosophy is certainly never anything like "politics" - or anything so worldly. That would be a degraded view of philosophy. Philosophy is the search for truth - including the question "what is truth" - only ventures into "politics" belatedly and reluctantly - not to mention IRONICALLY.
zarakhast 2 years ago
You are saying all this to a degraded audience. I'm afraid they are incapable of understanding you. I say that with a wry tone, because I enjoy someone else other than myself being in those shoes for once. It feels a bit like being relieved of duty, getting a break for a bit...
wenaolong 2 years ago
It has always been the same : after a great thinker comes along, his thought is not accepted for a long time. But the worst time is the time when it finally IS accepted - because by this time it has been converted into a commonplace (i.e. into something it simply ISN'T !) . I wouldn't worry too much about being in a minority. I imagine that there are quite a few people in similar boats. Heidegger's thinking is here for millennia - nothing will be able to alter that. Thanks for your support.
zarakhast 2 years ago 2
Hugo Ott --Martin Heidegger, A Political Life Go read it
Also watch Jonathan Bowden's video on Heidegger for more explication on the Nazi connection.
barrywinehousexp 2 years ago
Like others, I watched to learn about Heidegger's philosophy. I think the point may be inferred from is inestimable error: being high-minded does not guarantee any sort of virtue. He ruined his life, and the lives of others. classical a-hole.
sylvestermeow 2 years ago
Perhaps he foresaw the the 3rd Reich as a futuristic force to be reckoned with. Having been offered a position of power and influence, he desired to be apart of history, to be a notable figure in it. Power is every philosophers desire. He wanted his thoughts and philosophy to shape the government and country he loved.
chris7777777777777 2 years ago
Rainer Martin seems to me to be a person who would have been exactly the kind of intellectual who goes and would have gone with mainstream morality in the Third Reich, his outrage about Heidegger hits me as highly artificial.
Also, why is Rorty talking about history? He should stick to his field of expertise.
RationalEmotive 2 years ago 2
Agreed, though even the 'pro' figures in this documentary appear both uncritical sycophants and particularly cretinous and ugly specimens of humanity, at least visually.
barrywinehousexp 2 years ago
Heidegger's infinity for Hitler might be as simply grounded as the fact that he looked a lot like him... even in his childhood photo he looks a bit like the childhood Hitler... Looking like somone can often make you warm to them, especially if other events bring you together...
There's not enough philosophy in this vid though. I clicked it to learn about the man's genius, not his racism.
OrinocoJonesRedux 2 years ago
This video should clearly have been renamed thus: "Heidegger life and Nazism". This would have more appropriately described its contents.
samshipstone 3 years ago 14
@samshipstone It is appropriate to recognize Heidigger's lack of morals, not merely by his support of Nazi Germany, but, as demonstrated in this particular segment, by his dishonest denunciation of a colleague. That such dishonesty might also be reflected in his philosophy must be taken into account.
P1B1U1H1 1 year ago
@P1B1U1H1 You cannot judge a philosophy by "morality". Philosophy DECIDES what is to be "moral" - and indeed whether "morality" ought not to be abolished altogether ! Perhaps then we would be free of moralizing individuals who take such delight in humiliating and ridiculing people by means of documentaries such as these ? Philosophy has nothing to do with such propaganda, nor does it have anything to do with "politics".
zarakhast 1 year ago
It's very simple to judge others from our manichean position. Most people don't understand Heidegger's philosophy, so the won't understand what Heidegger saw in the nazi worldview. Very easy to insult him when we don't face the same idealogical seductions. Even more easy to simply call him a nazi instead of studying his work and judge him by his merits. Simply put, this is propaganda to make us think that germans where confronted with a simple decision, when reality was more complex than that
ohem 3 years ago 24
@ohem No one believes Continental philosophy any more. We're all strict materialists. We increasingly doubt mathematical constructions in statistics, favoring bootstrap methods.
P1B1U1H1 1 year ago
@ohem well said.
volcom2003 1 year ago
@ohem
Heidegger never apologized for his support of the Nazis after the war... That is where the problem lies. Yes, the views and promises of the Nazi party were appealing but after what they had done, he should have apologized.
This is somewhat strange for a such a great thinker.
gator153 1 year ago
@ohem You're just making excuses for atrocities. It's not Manichean merely to suggest that some things are morally wrong. I'd love to hear your enlightened defense of Heidegger referring to Jews as "untermenschen" (sub-humans).
SterilizeThePopulace 11 months ago
Ahh, the irony of someone so intelligent and thoughtful yet capable of such simple-minded generalizations about human nature. His work may still have intellectual value, but he was a little bitch!
1974freud 3 years ago
definitely... his ideas on the experience of being may be indispensable, but come on.... telling on your work-mates to the fucking nazi party. what a madman
ChocolateExplosion 3 years ago
This comment has received too many negative votes show
Dear Heidegger, you piece of shit, how could you call yourself a philosopher then engage in the workings of a low-life dictator by ruining the lives of others so as to promote your own. You are no more a philosopher than Hitler was -- you more an avaricious, very human scoundrel given over to the trappings of power and greed. You self-serving pig!
TonyLearner 3 years ago
Same here..
grosucelmic 4 years ago
this whole docu is just about nazism. what a waste of time- i thought id learn more about Heidegger's work.
what a waste.
TheEqualiser00 4 years ago 6
well, it is a documentary. If it's created for the general public there will always be a focus on the juicy bits. See they put in his affair with Arendt as well.
If it was about Socrates they'd have hammered on about him having sex with boys, or if it was Bentham they'd have gone on about the autoicon. The headline grabbing bits. If you want to learn about Heidegger's work i suggest you read it. Or download Hubert Dreyfus' Heidegger lectures from itunes if you really can't bear to read.
delise85 3 years ago 5
This has been flagged as spam show
All meat eaters are subhumans.
utuber420 4 years ago
the nazis said jews were subhuma
morelly 4 years ago
That's obviously not correct because some jews are vegetarians.
utuber420 4 years ago
you are making a flaw in logic... if all meat eaters are subhuman, that does not necessarily mean that because someone doesn't eat meat that they are not also subhuman (not that I don't also disagree with utuber, just correcting faulty use of logic)
sleepyeyeguy 4 years ago
Oh, definitely not. I completely agree sleepyeyguy, and obviously Hitler is a subsubhuman despite being vegetarian. But had he also been a meat eater, then he'd have been a subsubsubhuman. Makes sense if you think about it.
utuber420 4 years ago
I hope that you recognize the irony behind using a humanist rhetoric (currently the most popular site into which Euro-centric racism is translated) to condemn de facto anyone who eats meat and, I infer, to conflate meat eating with mass murder (no responsible person could equate 'eating' with 'killing' without severe qualifications, which you conveniently fail to supply). I don't eat meat but my political/ethical interests are in sub-humanity.
partofnopart 4 years ago 3
Heidegger was born in the same year like H.(1898)And he looks quite like him.I think the "real" fashism is only a confidence of the german philosophy
hollow0rld 4 years ago
'fascism'
delise85 3 years ago
ah so heidagger was the counsel for Hitler
dan020350 4 years ago
more, more more
nimachooback 4 years ago
Thank you for posting..but now, I dont think I will be able to read his works again.I lost all my confidence in him.
pinokiofromtokio 4 years ago
Thank you for the videos!
jinyohng 4 years ago