no death without life, no life without death. But what about a continuity of an experience that is mine after the perishing of an object that is no longer mine? what if something continues, despite what it leaves behind?
@ShockOfLemonade wow, that's really deep! but you are being nothing less than those sputtering idiots who refuse Einstein's special or general and/or quantum theory on the grounds that he was a jew and his myth is being perpetrated by bankster, masonic, illuminati, haarp wielding conspiracy... /sigh.
@lajungesombre Because it is a property in-and-of-itself, as opposed to the "becoming" associated with banksters, mason, illuminati, Nazi's, Christians, etc
but that's like saying 'well so and so is an american so....'. Americanism, built on the blood of the indigenous people and all that.....and many of my palestinian frends wud say the same of israelis......its not like in 1942 there was a germany and a nazi germany...it was all nazi germany. the state had total control, and it was totally nazi. i dunno. im not excusing it, but i think im tryin to contextualize it
@lajungesombre fair enough, plenty of philosophers rejected the party though, Nietzsche for instance. Furthermore, I consider myself a pessimist, but I wouldn't personally bother with studying Wagner's texts for theoretical purposes, as he too was a Nazi. I would rather read them as a historical curiosity. Theory is what is being done in this video, not dispassionate observation of the text.
@ShockOfLemonade nietzsche wasn't alive when hitler was furer. he died in 1899 or something like that. but look at einstein and arendt, both were zionists. and zionism, at least from birnbaum and herzl's perspective, was a bloody, messy, violent, reactive, chauvinist affair. but i still think that einstein was brilliant in physics and arendt was a really smart philosopher! i won't agree with their political choice, but it doesn't epitomize what they thot (altho it contextualizes it)
@lajungesombre My mistake on Nietzche, I guess my thinking on that was more about his stated disapproval of anti-semitism. Safe to assume he would have rejected Hitler, but ya never know. I agree with you about these things, and I'm not saying Heidegger wasn't a smart philosopher. I just see no reason to develop theories FROM his philosophy. After all, it's just a specific use of language, anyway. Einstein is a different story, as he was describing facts, know what I mean?
@ShockOfLemonade i agree that einstein described facts. but in a way, so did heidegger. they are different types of facts, but still i think they get at something in a way that science doesnot. wen he writes, its as if he is writing an exegesis of a poem that was never written. reading him, the mind goes clear, and calm, and quiet.....and it all jus kinda then happens, floats there, just is.....and its in that mood that so much reveals itself. but thats only my take for sure.
@LazarusCato i didnt know he was. he didnt seem such a vocal critic. i wouldnt expect him to be tho because he was so focused on physics. my point really was that there have been many philosophers who were pretty bad in certain ways. thomas paine was a pure jerk to natives, einstein was a zionist, heidegger was a nazi. but they have really good points tho, and so its best to take those good points n learn em and take their bad points n learn from them
@lajungesombre I agree - Bruce Lee's philosophy towards Martial Arts (can be extrapolated to anything) was something to the effect of: "Take What Works, Reject What Doesn't & Create What Isn't There"
Bruce Lee was heavily influenced by Jiddu Krishnamurti (nothing to do with Hare Krishna) - whose big thing was about being a light onto yourself, not simply relying on someone else to be your light.
@LazarusCato ah cool! i like that. i have that same attitude when it comes to the quran. i take what inspires me and run with it. so far, i've been runnin miles n miles. n i managed to meet so many people on the way!
@ShockOfLemonade I agree with you there, but I see jogayot's point. My family is Russian-Jewish and the Holocaust and Nazism in general are just strange phantoms to me. But this "deceased Nazi" is one of my greatest teachers. I don't see a point in "redeeming" or "forgiving" him. By the end of reading him, I'd never really accused him. Joining a party for poor reasons is trivial in the midst of giving gifts to life. His work is a much better account of his life than dirty biographical fun-facts.
@ShockOfLemonade Last we left off, your task was to find something in Heidegger's philosophical work that showed even the slightest symptom of Nazi influence, or whatever other strange ghost you seem to be barking at. If you can't, you had no reason to post on this video, other than to troll or make blatant ad hominems IMMEDIATELY AFTER ACKNOWLEDGING that you know what those are and, presumably, why they don't work. "I'm not making a logical argument obviously." Ya, we still have yet to see one.
@DJAR1E lol. You're right, it means absolutely nothing that Heidegger joined the Nazi party. We should expunge this from the historical record. If you can't see why it is important to keep that in mind, I've got nothing for you. If I'm a troll the you're a shill for Heidegger.
@ShockOfLemonade so is guilt by association, proof by authority and argument via emotion.
haha, nope, i'm not thought erroring here: i'm only trying to reflect your logic on the anti-extreme of your initial statetenant. sorry if your spacial perception's warped...
you think german media trumpeted successes of their correctional institutions? is then every intellectual associated with GOP void on account of Guantanamo?
@jogayot You're twisting yourself into a bizarre corner. It's quite simple. We have philosopher A. Philosopher A talked about and developed specific linguistic descriptions of existence. Philosopher A went onto join a blatantly racist political movement. I say this is important to remember when "theorizing" based on his "existential language." So, please, explain how this is a problematic thing to state. I could say the same thing of Thomas Jefferson and the constitution, and have.
@ShockOfLemonade corner? don't judge square by its edges! soooo? guru farted and i shouldn't bang this yoga chick because my child will hate me and be a heroin junkie whore?
i give you better bizarre: ceteris paribus i fail to see what's wrong with being nazi in the "antinatalist picture"? because they were causing suffering? but they only wanted to eliminate "wrong" sort of philosophies! being anti-nazi is so PC! logic mine that.
@ShockOfLemonade If you're not attempting an argument, what are you attempting? If it smells like ad hominem but it's not an argument, it's abuse.
If there was some underlying Nazism in Heidegger's work, then the fact he was a Nazi would matter. Frankly, there isn't. He liked the Nazis for some peculiar reasons, all of which were inaccurate and silly. The Nazis thought his work was rubbish, and his Jewish student who defended him after the war also told Eichmann, "You must hang." Safe by you?
It's not ad hominem. That's when you say, "He's wrong, because he's a Nazi." Abuse is just "Meh, he's a Nazi, boo." And it's not that you're abusive of the deceased Nazi; it's abusive of a philosopher, as if it were necessary to remind everyone of misdeeds. I just think it's silly to bring it up in a video that's not even remotely related to his politics. Forget the deceased Nazi, look at the work that lives on. It's the best part of him, we should remember him for his heights, not his baseness.
@DJAR1E Well, I'll clarify then. For someone who is able to be seduced into the Nazi party, it is certainly WORTH questioning the nature of their foundational philosophies. I don't see how this can be disputed. It is basically a reason to develop your own thoughts on the areas he was attempting to explain. Interesting texts to be sure, but no reason to form any theories based around it, given what we know...
@ShockOfLemonade "the nature of their foundational philosophies" -- as if any sliver of Nazism wouldn't be immediately clear there! What a lofty superstition, dude. If Heidegger ate children and worshipped Satan, I grant you, I'd be confused as to how the same man could write great books, but I wouldn't suspect the position in the books of propagating or being linked to child-eating and the Dark Prince. That would just mean I'm a bad reader. Name ONE suspicious concept, and you have a point.
@DJAR1E Hmm...let me put it this way. Heidegger was attempting to explain that which we basically find inexplicable, right? So we can read his work, perhaps, as we do other philosophers, to help us clarify how to use language effectively to articulate such things. But that's all it is--language. Now, knowing that his specific use of language regarding existence was unable to prevent him from joining the Nazi party--why develop theories UPON his use of language? It really makes no sense.
@DJAR1E "as if any sliver of Nazism wouldn't be immediately clear there" uh...that's kind of the point. Whatever thought "gene" allowed for Heidegger to do something as intellectually dishonest as join the Nazi party is probably NOT so clear in his writings on existence. Which is exactly why it is important to REMEMBER that he did that. Why is this such a hard idea for you to swallow?
@ShockOfLemonade It's a hard idea to swallow because it comes from nowhere and it's covered in shit. You totally missed the point. If there was some Nazi influence, you'd be able to read it and find it instantly. Not even Heidegger's worst detractors make that claim. This "thought gene" is doing it wrong. Just as you have high values with base origins, you may very well have base values with high origins. You're being scant with the origin of his values, and arbitrary with the value of origins.
@ShockOfLemonade And, as if "REMEMBERING" were an active activity, much less an important one. I can't see Heidegger's name WITHOUT remembering he was a Nazi, but since it's absent otherwise, since in granting some context, it is utterly disparate from the work, the only thing you're asking us to do is to be superstitious. You seem to have great difficulty in finding any piece of his work that concerns you in particular, much less tying it to Nazism. Until then, you're a conspiracy theorist.
P.S. And the birth of language seems to me not the start of the definitive attempt to rail against such a problem. More any action, anything signified, anything locked in a time-death. Language just seems like the main attempt at construction away from that horror in some sense. Rob x
This seems like a problem more related to time. The mind body split comes simply with consciousness and the recognition of death, what we call memory. It is memory, or consciousness that plagues the living. Life eternal is the acceptance of that to me. To me, when people say 'god' they mean time, or 'life eternal'. It's like the Christian idea of the trinity. 3 in one but contained in the all consuming idea of 'god'. Much like that of the scientific approach to the dimension
nice man...cool video...you worded my intuition if that makes sense...there is also this duality of real world and "apparent" world which I think is a huge detriment to experiencing the world as it is and not imposing upon it and at the same time not trying to impose an imposing...this state of being almost has to be unnoticed in a sense by your self...
As Nietzsche put it...'Let us beware of saying that death is opposed to life. The living is merely a type of what is dead, and a very rare type.'
But, Professor, could I ask you to define precisely what you mean by 'Life' and 'Death'? Some exactitude, or else some justification of inexactitude, is necessary.
I like your use of western philosophy in the relationship to non-dualism, there is strong eastern tones and flavors in your discussion (almost Shankara like) I dig it prof. Sometime soon I would like to talk about putting together the highlight reel, I will let you know. _SEM_
I think a reasonable hypothesis is that the body works like some kind of lens that magnify appearance. And by appearance, I don't just mean the world outside the body. The thoughts are themselves, magnified by this lens. So the thoughts doesn't really belong to anyone, they are things that appear. Appearance come and go in this reality, some ideas appear that some appearances are personal traits, and so an illusionary agent is formed. No one is really alive, so no one really dies.
no death without life, no life without death. But what about a continuity of an experience that is mine after the perishing of an object that is no longer mine? what if something continues, despite what it leaves behind?
lajungesombre 6 months ago
Not attempting a logical argument here, obviously, but we should be careful to remember that Heidegger was a Nazi.
ShockOfLemonade 6 months ago
@ShockOfLemonade wow, that's really deep! but you are being nothing less than those sputtering idiots who refuse Einstein's special or general and/or quantum theory on the grounds that he was a jew and his myth is being perpetrated by bankster, masonic, illuminati, haarp wielding conspiracy... /sigh.
jogayot 6 months ago
@jogayot Yeah...because "being" a jew is the same as making the deliberate decision to join the Nazi party. Serious thought error here on your part.
ShockOfLemonade 6 months ago
@ShockOfLemonade why did you put "being" in quotations?
lajungesombre 6 months ago
@lajungesombre Because it is a property in-and-of-itself, as opposed to the "becoming" associated with banksters, mason, illuminati, Nazi's, Christians, etc
ShockOfLemonade 6 months ago
@ShockOfLemonade ah....cool i get it. :-)
but that's like saying 'well so and so is an american so....'. Americanism, built on the blood of the indigenous people and all that.....and many of my palestinian frends wud say the same of israelis......its not like in 1942 there was a germany and a nazi germany...it was all nazi germany. the state had total control, and it was totally nazi. i dunno. im not excusing it, but i think im tryin to contextualize it
lajungesombre 6 months ago
@lajungesombre fair enough, plenty of philosophers rejected the party though, Nietzsche for instance. Furthermore, I consider myself a pessimist, but I wouldn't personally bother with studying Wagner's texts for theoretical purposes, as he too was a Nazi. I would rather read them as a historical curiosity. Theory is what is being done in this video, not dispassionate observation of the text.
ShockOfLemonade 6 months ago
@ShockOfLemonade nietzsche wasn't alive when hitler was furer. he died in 1899 or something like that. but look at einstein and arendt, both were zionists. and zionism, at least from birnbaum and herzl's perspective, was a bloody, messy, violent, reactive, chauvinist affair. but i still think that einstein was brilliant in physics and arendt was a really smart philosopher! i won't agree with their political choice, but it doesn't epitomize what they thot (altho it contextualizes it)
lajungesombre 6 months ago
@lajungesombre My mistake on Nietzche, I guess my thinking on that was more about his stated disapproval of anti-semitism. Safe to assume he would have rejected Hitler, but ya never know. I agree with you about these things, and I'm not saying Heidegger wasn't a smart philosopher. I just see no reason to develop theories FROM his philosophy. After all, it's just a specific use of language, anyway. Einstein is a different story, as he was describing facts, know what I mean?
ShockOfLemonade 6 months ago
@ShockOfLemonade i agree that einstein described facts. but in a way, so did heidegger. they are different types of facts, but still i think they get at something in a way that science doesnot. wen he writes, its as if he is writing an exegesis of a poem that was never written. reading him, the mind goes clear, and calm, and quiet.....and it all jus kinda then happens, floats there, just is.....and its in that mood that so much reveals itself. but thats only my take for sure.
lajungesombre 6 months ago
@lajungesombre despite Einstein being a Zionist - he was a critic of Israel - but yeah.
LazarusCato 6 months ago
@LazarusCato i didnt know he was. he didnt seem such a vocal critic. i wouldnt expect him to be tho because he was so focused on physics. my point really was that there have been many philosophers who were pretty bad in certain ways. thomas paine was a pure jerk to natives, einstein was a zionist, heidegger was a nazi. but they have really good points tho, and so its best to take those good points n learn em and take their bad points n learn from them
lajungesombre 6 months ago
@lajungesombre I agree - Bruce Lee's philosophy towards Martial Arts (can be extrapolated to anything) was something to the effect of: "Take What Works, Reject What Doesn't & Create What Isn't There"
Bruce Lee was heavily influenced by Jiddu Krishnamurti (nothing to do with Hare Krishna) - whose big thing was about being a light onto yourself, not simply relying on someone else to be your light.
LazarusCato 6 months ago
@LazarusCato ah cool! i like that. i have that same attitude when it comes to the quran. i take what inspires me and run with it. so far, i've been runnin miles n miles. n i managed to meet so many people on the way!
lajungesombre 6 months ago
@ShockOfLemonade another question. how is 'jew' a basic property while 'christian' is 'becoming'?
lajungesombre 6 months ago
@ShockOfLemonade I agree with you there, but I see jogayot's point. My family is Russian-Jewish and the Holocaust and Nazism in general are just strange phantoms to me. But this "deceased Nazi" is one of my greatest teachers. I don't see a point in "redeeming" or "forgiving" him. By the end of reading him, I'd never really accused him. Joining a party for poor reasons is trivial in the midst of giving gifts to life. His work is a much better account of his life than dirty biographical fun-facts.
DJAR1E 6 months ago
@DJAR1E unless you consider joining a racist political party to be a mundane decision, like what color car to buy
ShockOfLemonade 6 months ago
@ShockOfLemonade Last we left off, your task was to find something in Heidegger's philosophical work that showed even the slightest symptom of Nazi influence, or whatever other strange ghost you seem to be barking at. If you can't, you had no reason to post on this video, other than to troll or make blatant ad hominems IMMEDIATELY AFTER ACKNOWLEDGING that you know what those are and, presumably, why they don't work. "I'm not making a logical argument obviously." Ya, we still have yet to see one.
DJAR1E 6 months ago
@DJAR1E lol. You're right, it means absolutely nothing that Heidegger joined the Nazi party. We should expunge this from the historical record. If you can't see why it is important to keep that in mind, I've got nothing for you. If I'm a troll the you're a shill for Heidegger.
ShockOfLemonade 6 months ago
@ShockOfLemonade so is guilt by association, proof by authority and argument via emotion.
haha, nope, i'm not thought erroring here: i'm only trying to reflect your logic on the anti-extreme of your initial statetenant. sorry if your spacial perception's warped...
you think german media trumpeted successes of their correctional institutions? is then every intellectual associated with GOP void on account of Guantanamo?
jogayot 6 months ago
@jogayot You're twisting yourself into a bizarre corner. It's quite simple. We have philosopher A. Philosopher A talked about and developed specific linguistic descriptions of existence. Philosopher A went onto join a blatantly racist political movement. I say this is important to remember when "theorizing" based on his "existential language." So, please, explain how this is a problematic thing to state. I could say the same thing of Thomas Jefferson and the constitution, and have.
ShockOfLemonade 6 months ago
@ShockOfLemonade corner? don't judge square by its edges! soooo? guru farted and i shouldn't bang this yoga chick because my child will hate me and be a heroin junkie whore?
i give you better bizarre: ceteris paribus i fail to see what's wrong with being nazi in the "antinatalist picture"? because they were causing suffering? but they only wanted to eliminate "wrong" sort of philosophies! being anti-nazi is so PC! logic mine that.
jogayot 6 months ago
@jogayot Yeah...fail.
ShockOfLemonade 6 months ago
@ShockOfLemonade ni ni ni ni
jogayot 6 months ago
@ShockOfLemonade If you're not attempting an argument, what are you attempting? If it smells like ad hominem but it's not an argument, it's abuse.
If there was some underlying Nazism in Heidegger's work, then the fact he was a Nazi would matter. Frankly, there isn't. He liked the Nazis for some peculiar reasons, all of which were inaccurate and silly. The Nazis thought his work was rubbish, and his Jewish student who defended him after the war also told Eichmann, "You must hang." Safe by you?
DJAR1E 6 months ago
@DJAR1E Look--ad hominem or not, it obviously should be taken into account. Do you or do you not agree with this?
ShockOfLemonade 6 months ago
@DJAR1E Also--quite ironic that you'd be worried about me "abusing" a deceased Nazi.
ShockOfLemonade 6 months ago
It's not ad hominem. That's when you say, "He's wrong, because he's a Nazi." Abuse is just "Meh, he's a Nazi, boo." And it's not that you're abusive of the deceased Nazi; it's abusive of a philosopher, as if it were necessary to remind everyone of misdeeds. I just think it's silly to bring it up in a video that's not even remotely related to his politics. Forget the deceased Nazi, look at the work that lives on. It's the best part of him, we should remember him for his heights, not his baseness.
DJAR1E 6 months ago
@DJAR1E Well, I'll clarify then. For someone who is able to be seduced into the Nazi party, it is certainly WORTH questioning the nature of their foundational philosophies. I don't see how this can be disputed. It is basically a reason to develop your own thoughts on the areas he was attempting to explain. Interesting texts to be sure, but no reason to form any theories based around it, given what we know...
ShockOfLemonade 6 months ago
@ShockOfLemonade "the nature of their foundational philosophies" -- as if any sliver of Nazism wouldn't be immediately clear there! What a lofty superstition, dude. If Heidegger ate children and worshipped Satan, I grant you, I'd be confused as to how the same man could write great books, but I wouldn't suspect the position in the books of propagating or being linked to child-eating and the Dark Prince. That would just mean I'm a bad reader. Name ONE suspicious concept, and you have a point.
DJAR1E 6 months ago
@DJAR1E Hmm...let me put it this way. Heidegger was attempting to explain that which we basically find inexplicable, right? So we can read his work, perhaps, as we do other philosophers, to help us clarify how to use language effectively to articulate such things. But that's all it is--language. Now, knowing that his specific use of language regarding existence was unable to prevent him from joining the Nazi party--why develop theories UPON his use of language? It really makes no sense.
ShockOfLemonade 6 months ago
@DJAR1E "as if any sliver of Nazism wouldn't be immediately clear there" uh...that's kind of the point. Whatever thought "gene" allowed for Heidegger to do something as intellectually dishonest as join the Nazi party is probably NOT so clear in his writings on existence. Which is exactly why it is important to REMEMBER that he did that. Why is this such a hard idea for you to swallow?
ShockOfLemonade 6 months ago
@ShockOfLemonade It's a hard idea to swallow because it comes from nowhere and it's covered in shit. You totally missed the point. If there was some Nazi influence, you'd be able to read it and find it instantly. Not even Heidegger's worst detractors make that claim. This "thought gene" is doing it wrong. Just as you have high values with base origins, you may very well have base values with high origins. You're being scant with the origin of his values, and arbitrary with the value of origins.
DJAR1E 6 months ago
@ShockOfLemonade And, as if "REMEMBERING" were an active activity, much less an important one. I can't see Heidegger's name WITHOUT remembering he was a Nazi, but since it's absent otherwise, since in granting some context, it is utterly disparate from the work, the only thing you're asking us to do is to be superstitious. You seem to have great difficulty in finding any piece of his work that concerns you in particular, much less tying it to Nazism. Until then, you're a conspiracy theorist.
DJAR1E 6 months ago
Great stuff.
taratasarar 1 year ago
There is life after death. It is lived by other people.
prhughes0 1 year ago 3
@prhughes0 Amen
Professoranton 1 year ago
@Professoranton There is suffering after death. It is experienced by other people.
ShockOfLemonade 6 months ago
P.S. And the birth of language seems to me not the start of the definitive attempt to rail against such a problem. More any action, anything signified, anything locked in a time-death. Language just seems like the main attempt at construction away from that horror in some sense. Rob x
Jadabh3 1 year ago
This seems like a problem more related to time. The mind body split comes simply with consciousness and the recognition of death, what we call memory. It is memory, or consciousness that plagues the living. Life eternal is the acceptance of that to me. To me, when people say 'god' they mean time, or 'life eternal'. It's like the Christian idea of the trinity. 3 in one but contained in the all consuming idea of 'god'. Much like that of the scientific approach to the dimension
Jadabh3 1 year ago
@Jadabh3 the three physical, all fallible, except when contained in the fourth, that of time. I'm not 'religious' btw. Just an observation. Rob x
Jadabh3 1 year ago
"To philosophise is to learn how to die."
Mjhavok 1 year ago
nice man...cool video...you worded my intuition if that makes sense...there is also this duality of real world and "apparent" world which I think is a huge detriment to experiencing the world as it is and not imposing upon it and at the same time not trying to impose an imposing...this state of being almost has to be unnoticed in a sense by your self...
f1ghtclub2k3 1 year ago
As Nietzsche put it...'Let us beware of saying that death is opposed to life. The living is merely a type of what is dead, and a very rare type.'
But, Professor, could I ask you to define precisely what you mean by 'Life' and 'Death'? Some exactitude, or else some justification of inexactitude, is necessary.
MuhakgreetsWonhyo 1 year ago
I like your use of western philosophy in the relationship to non-dualism, there is strong eastern tones and flavors in your discussion (almost Shankara like) I dig it prof. Sometime soon I would like to talk about putting together the highlight reel, I will let you know. _SEM_
SingleEyeMovement 1 year ago
I think a reasonable hypothesis is that the body works like some kind of lens that magnify appearance. And by appearance, I don't just mean the world outside the body. The thoughts are themselves, magnified by this lens. So the thoughts doesn't really belong to anyone, they are things that appear. Appearance come and go in this reality, some ideas appear that some appearances are personal traits, and so an illusionary agent is formed. No one is really alive, so no one really dies.
Censeo 1 year ago
Either Or? Hmm... We experience one state with out a personal experience of the other. For all I know there may be more than two states.
A good question is "Was I dead before I was alive?".
alowlyapprentice 1 year ago
@alowlyapprentice WHO would want to know about such an "I"?
Professoranton 1 year ago
@Professoranton Funny!
alowlyapprentice 1 year ago
@alowlyapprentice
You're already dead, you 'die' in the moments before you consider yourself to be alive.
JimmySerpent 1 year ago