Hubert Dreyfus on Husserl and Heidegger: Section 2

[nactan]

although that is a 'selective attention test' (watch?v=vJG698U2Mvo) scenario

[nactan]

cellphones while driving: cope with that, heidegger!

[webmastersize]

Can anyone please tell my how can i get in a state of cconsciousness by my self without phenomenons..is this even possible.?.

[niriop]

For me this is the best section of the discourse; a fantastic overview of phenomenology.

[eklektos44]

The question is whether the thong chick ready to hand, or merely present to hand?

[mrfatd]

I dont understand dreyfus's dislike of sartre.

in many ways, sartre was more profound than heidegger. sartre's thought was more embracing, heidegger's dasein is a boring asexual being, sartre makes gender distinctions, heidegger says nothing about diseases and disorders, sartre has theories on psychoanalysis, phobias, perversions and love. heidegger did not have a coherent political theory, sartre did, and obviously sartre wrote literary works and was a literary critic

[polpoint]

I have been conscious of all the doorknobs I have come across. Every door and doorknob is diffrnt-some you need to pull, some you need to push, some have a round knob, some have a lever as a knob,some have a big bar you push. Some of those damn doors don't even have knobs and you've got to kinda pull on the slippery lock until you can get your fingers around the edge of the door. But, then again, I think one of my flaws is that I am too conscious/aware of the input I recive from my surroundings.

[890buddha]

@polpoint you must be very intelligent to make a comment like that.

[polpoint]

@890buddha Thanks, baby - I appreciate it. It took a lot of my brain power to describe all them knobs! Not to mention what it took to notice them in the first place! Anyways, that is enough free will for now. I'm going to go back to having my choices determined by the rest of the universe.

[890buddha]

@polpoint baby?

[68generation]

These videos have really helped me understand the change of filosophical thought brought about by Heidegger.

[eburtzumba]

So great to have this program on youtube. I took courses from when I was an undergrad at Berkeley 1972-76. Watching him from a tape around that time is like time travel. Da-sein has since been translated as the open" rather than Being there, Being open, or opennness to being." It's not only about the breakdown, but abut boredom and wonder, moods that bring us closest to Being.

[TheFriedLiverAttack]

im smarter than any university leacturer anyday...woman is always giving birth its the way her being acts FOR MAN would you give birth...or destrution?

[bertinotti]

what does heidegger's transparent, unselfconscious effort say to the cognitive therapist -- like David Byrne -- who seems to suggest that all emotions are preceeded by thought.

[R1ckr011]

@bertinotti That is incredibly backwards. Our thoughts are colored and suffused with meaning only in as much as they have emotional content.

[bertinotti]

@R1ckr011 Can you explain what you mean. David Burns argues that our feelings --anger, embarrasment, frustration, etc,. are the effects of cognition and that how we think about something informs how we perceive and react to the experience. If we change the way we think about something, we can change the way we feel. How does Heidegger reject this notion? THANKS

[R1ckr011]

@bertinotti But, to the extent that our feelings permit us Only can we change our ideas. Our emotional state ingrains our thoughts in us. If you were able to change how you Feel, then changing how you think would be easy.

You feel that rape is wrong. You feel this very strongly. Even as you think it, there is nothing that would change your thoughts on this unless for some very bizarre reason your feelings had changed on the matter.

Feelings precede thoughts. Developmental psych basics.

[R1ckr011]

@bertinotti -2-

Furthermore it is only possible to change one's opinions when one's feelings have been affected. We have felt embarrassed only about things that would embarrass us. We are taught to feel that way about certain things, for the most part (mirror neurons, anyone). But for many emotions, we don't know why we should be angry about things, but we still do feel the way we do. Feelings are much more primitive than thoughts.

[nwatts88]

other dude is a bit of a douche, love hubey. how's that shirt/tie/jacket, that was definitely a third stage mental process.

[pakk82]

anyone know good introduction to heidegger?  i dont think im quite ready to read the being and time just yet.

[littleskittle2]

@pakk82 Just go through Dreyfus' online podcast of his course introduction to Heidegger; you'll have to read through Being and TIme, but you'll have his guidance. Search for " phil 185 berkeley webcasts ", and it should be the second link down.

[pakk82]

@littleskittle2 i will be on google soon, thank you. but i probably will end up writing about sartre. haha

[FaaarLeft]

Good stuff.

[Einstei8]

So imagine the difficulty of this task! By this preparation now you can get to read what these guys where all about and to see for yourself if they've said or not really trivial things.

[Einstei8]

If you understand triviality as something that needs not so much endeavour to achieve, then this guy's work is non trivial, because it wasn't that easy for him to go contra his tradition. So by this priciple of tolerance you are prepared to see him as trying to transcend something which sounds trivial to you. In addition what is trivial means that you have very little conceptual room to see it as non trivial, you haven't any place to start in the first place!

[Einstei8]

For example in art peole have been trying to draw accurate represantations of nature. In such a cultural setting just imagine the courage of a certain individual which chose to draw differently like expressionism. Try imagine the presure he felt from his peer painters, the negative feedback from viewers and his endurance and peristence to continue to draw in a different way despite all this criticism. That takes courage.

[Einstei8]

Suppose that these people are decedants of a tradition different from you and that what might sounds trivial to you might be non trivial to them.

[Einstei8]

I have a proposition: when you are confronted with philosphical ideas and you find them really trivial and you think what a waste of time and resources it is for people like philosophers to sit and talk about this stuff then you can use what Carnap dubbed "a priciple of tolerance".

[Extracelestial]

Now I can confidently list "wearing my clothes" as a skill the next time I apply for a job!

[Marcaquinho]

@Extracelestial ROTFL!

[soran27]

@Extracelestial also standing and moving and talking. serious job skills.

[almosthuman27]

existentialism for dummies, like a dorm session with phil 101 students...dog spelled backward is god dude.

[soursourapples]

@almosthuman27

I don't agree I think it is very interesting. Anyway if there was an existentialism for dummies, it would be about Sartre, not Heidegger. Why do you think this is stupid?

[PaulKGillett]

you are on youtube. if you are looking for advanced stuff sit in a lecture hall

[borjon23]

Would you be willing to provide a more adequate explanation of the essential contentions of Husserlian and Heideggerian phenomenology? I would be very interested to hear it!

[jaocheu]

If you can see layers of depth in what they are saying, then you must be a pretty shallow thinker.

[Sylaq]

@almosthuman27 In a sense it is. But you're forgetting that this programme was broadcast on prime-time BBC1, for the general public's consumption. Pretty incredible really. What were you watching on American TV back in '85? The Love Boat and Gilligan's Island repeats?

[mrfatd]

am i the only one to think that husserl scribbled incomprehensible boring pseudophilosophical nonsense?

[chimphunter]

Yes, you are probably the only one.

[mrfatd]

do you actually UNDERSTAND him? im trying to but just seems like a bunch of words i cant understand

[Slavestorms]

I sounds like he was trying to demystify consciousness

Most people on the planet are deterministic, every thing's already written in the book of history and we're just observers along for the ride on some God's master plan

Brains cause mind, consciousness is a component of brains and a current theory is that free will comes from the quantum level

Nobody really knows yet but consider that 65% of the universe is dark energy, 30% dark matter and 5% what we know. Our perceptions will change.

[msjkirkpatrick]

dont understand it, just perceive it

[soursourapples]

nope, dreyfus for one would agree!

[ttasi7]

better than Heidegger's scribbled incomprehensible sexy pseudophilosophical nonsense (stolen from Husserl).

[pilkingtonphil]

@mrfatd That's weird, your profile lists Husserl as number 8 on your, er, "Top Ten Philosophers".

So either we're dealing with a case of split personality or you're dropping names in your profile to come across as intelligent. Weird stuff!

[mrfatd]

he is #8 cuz i read a lot of his stuff, i read at least 1000 pgs of husserl but its just incomprehensible. i think kierkegaard was a fool but he is still on my list cuz i read soo much by him

[pilkingtonphil]

You read things thousands of pages that you don't understand? You're either a poser or a moron - or both.

Gimme your address I'll post you a few books written in Ancient Egyptian and Esperanto, you'll have great fun!!!

[qigong1001]

But, let me be clear. My critique is not saying that things that are experienced are analytic. They are not. I'm criticising how "H" starts with certain premises, then just rewords them. That is analytic.

[qigong1001]

yet, your view that it is "held within the concept" is what I am getting at with regard to H's statements. Good way of putting it. Just another, but virtually same explanation of itself. Almost a tautology. Everyone has their concept of what existence "contains." it reveals itself through experiences. People don't need to be told this, as it is in the book. Its self-showing. They may not be able to articulate it, but thats because it shouldn't be. It has to be experienced.

[jkqd14]

Not almost tautological, exactly tautological. It is a mistake to leap to saying that because something is necessarily true, it is therefore obvious. It is not obvious that a triangle's angles add up to 180 degrees in that most people would never arrive at that fact themselves. Truth has to be pointed out, as it were, by philosophers.

And I was talking about the geometric concept of a triangle. I just used it because it's a common example. I could've said, "All bachelors are unmarried men."

[qigong1001]

Analytic propositions "sound" correct by virtue of the inherent meaning of the words. Not because of any facts relating to the world. Sometimes, they may be right, but only if there are observable consequences to the statement. "Being[capital B] is that which is 'concerned' of itself." Then says this "care" is characteristic of Dasein. Its like a double defining, basing the second definition on the first. When you get further in the book, you will see more. Feel free to disagree.

[jkqd14]

I don't want to comment on the book being one way and discover that I was full of shit, so I'll just concede that stuff.

Analytic propositions are propositions which don't involve any outside concepts. A bachelor is an unmarried man. Here's why I don't get your criticism: the three angles of a triangle add up to 180 degrees, so the angles of two triangles add up to 360 degrees. The 2nd def is "based on" the 1st. Maybe Heidegger takes leaps, but are analytic props. themselves really to blame?

[qigong1001]

I should have used the word "synonymous" and not "based on" to be more clear. thats what I meant by "double defining." In any case, your math example is more about synthetic propositions, but I get your point. That's another interesting debate, which I'm not prepared for yet.

[qigong1001]

I have'nt read Meno, But this a good direction "how will we know we found IT." For IT could be seen in a different yet consistent way. Could be shown wrong in the future. But at least observable consequences are needed in order to have some utilitarian meaning. Nothing in his writing has that flavor. There are plenty of self-evident ideas, however, such as the [quest] in itself being characteirstic. But its an empty bowl. Other philosopher, I feel, new better not attempting this one.

[jkqd14]

I don't think the sum of a triangle's angles being 180 degrees is synthetic; it is HELD WITHIN THE CONCEPT of a triangle that the angles are so related, which is to say it is ANALYTICALLY true. If I say that this triangle I just drew is six inches high, that is a SYNTHETIC proposition because the concept of height does not have a place within the concept of triangles as triangles. We can still drum up deep and obscure truths analytically. Though Kant may add, not in the realm of metaphysics.

[qigong1001]

If you say " the sum of angles is 180 in a triangle"is "held within the concept" then you have to accept mathematics (Plus, +) is within the concept. You have to accept that we are talking about flat space, which assumes you know the difference with curved (Einstein sense) space. Because only in flat space (on paper or small scale things) is this true. Which assumes other concepts, and so on. Are you willing to accept that? It cannot be analytic. It has to be synthetic.

[jkqd14]

I don't see how I'd have to accept anything about arithmetic by saying that (let's call it) "internal triangular angular relation" is always in a certain way.

I'd agree with Kant that arithmetic is synthetic -- for him, because the concept "the sum of 5 and 7" is different from "12". But either way, our argument is whether analytic truths are worth being stated. I say yes, and don't know how you could say that it isnt worthwhile to explicitly define and examine all the implications of concepts.

[qigong1001]

Adding 5 and 7 is no different than adding angles. Both are synthetic. So, why would you call one analytic (triangle angles) and one synthetic? Further, its not important whether one may "never arrive at the fact themselves", but whether it is possible without the aid of empirical or other methods. If you do not need empiricism or "additional info" then it becomes analytic. And...

[qigong1001]

And implications? if it offers up nothing new, then all you are left with is analytically formed statements. But what about all the conjectures he makes based on Dasein. Aren't they new. Lots of "new" terms (authentic, being-in-the-world, care) posing as new concepts. They are "nothing", because they are mostly unverifiable. They are only right "in form" because they follow his own premises. I will provide examples after you read on. Thats why I use "analytic" to describe his style.

[qigong1001]

How does the concept of vagueness sit with you? I feel it makes no sense to use this as a launching point of investigation. Something can only be vague, in the light of understanding what is certain. You can only know "grey" if you know "black" and white. Philosophically, the only certainty is existence. So, here we have our first circle. "H" dancess around this by redifining it as more of a "backwards and forwards." He wastes considerable time trying to deal with this.

[jkqd14]

I'm inclined to agree with you, but I think it's essential to bring up Meno's Paradox. Have you read Plato's Meno? In it, Meno asks the profound question of how we can ever search for knowledge. If we don't know it, how will we know a) when to start or b) when we've found it? And if we already know those things, don't we already know it?

It's a serious problem. I think Heidegger is just tackling it head-on rather than ignoring it like a cowardly thinker might, hence the appearance of "dancing".

[dedbusted]

Can anyone please tell me Magee's own philosophy? which school did he follow or appreciate most?

[begily]

when I say "like a child", what I mean to convey is the way that a child is involved in the world, in that children are totally absorbed in the world, and they don't think of themseleves as "selves" or individuals etc. however, I never at any point said "be as a child".

I'm talking about how children engage with their world, with complete and utter immersion. I will look back a the video and see exactly why I made point in the first place, just to clarify.

[Fatali1989]

Interesting, many ideas came into my mind when I listened to this interview, yet I am not sure if those ideas were the real intentions of those philosophers or a mere product of my imagination.

[qigong1001]

Dasein does not sound like a "new" concept, as Dreyfus says. Eastern traditions have viewed "being" as an "activity" centuries prior. Probably longer, Its just a logical inference of interconnectedness. I admit I have not read Heidegger or know enough about eastern traditions... just commenting on what Dreyfus says at the end.

[jkqd14]

I'm reading Being & Time right now; Heidegger is much harder to read than eastern texts like from Lao-Tze or Buddhist Sutras etc. from what I have read. In the eastern stuff, especially in the Mahayana Sutras, it seems like they enjoy enigma and some kind of vagueness that might make their words more beautiful. Heidegger is committed to rigorous examination, and so his writing is both plainer and more challenging, because it often becomes labyrinthine and perplexing.

[qigong1001]

I recently read the ranslation myself. And I would make the same claim about "vagueness" in the book as in most religions. In fact, "H" starts his exploration into Dasein with this vagueness. From here, he attempts to concretize the concept of Dasein. He says he wants to make it concrete, but can only conclude what we already know --that it exists. The book is replete with analytic propositions; only truth which comes out of the rules of language. Overindulges in circular hermeneutics.

[jkqd14]

Well, in the beginning, which is all I've read, he explains that in order to form the question of being, we have to examine (or "interrogate") our own mode of being; that is, being in relation to things and as a part of the world -- Dasein. Any time you are trying to explain something, it necessarily has to be vague at first. It hasn't been explained yet.

Your dismissal and description of analytic propositions is confusing to me. And as to circularity, I'll quote H. himself (next post):

[jkqd14]

(cont'd): "In working out the question do we not presuppose something that only the answer can provide? Formal objections such as the argument of 'circular reasoning,' always easily raised in the area of investigation of principles, are always sterile when one is weighing concrete ways of investigating. They do not offer anything to the understanding of the issue and they hinder penetration into the field of investigation."

[jkqd14]

From the same page (p.6, tr. Stambaugh): "A 'circle in reasoning' cannot possibly lie in the formulation of the question of the meaning of being, because in answering this question it is not a matter of grounding by deduction but rather of laying bare and exhibiting the ground.

'Circular reasoning' does not occur in the question of the meaning of being. Rather, there is a notable 'relatedness backward or forward' of what is asked about being to asking as a mode of being of a being."

[qigong1001]

I see you started reading the book. But I encourage you, when reading any philosophy to stay strictly critical. Cont...

[begily]

one good way to understand this philosophy is to look back at how you thought as a child. the way a child acts an thinks in the world is a very good example of what Heidegger is describing.

children don't think of themselves as minds perceving the world, or as subjects thinking about the world etc. rather they are just wholly engagedwith the world around them, totally engrossed.

[Erkynar]

Being like a child... I think I see what you mean, however, I think it would be more correct to say: "Being in a state of consciousness that corresponds to an idea I have of how children perceive the world in certain circumstances." Which is where Husserl and fenomenology comes in hand. What is it we're really talking about here?

[begily]

I'm not saying do what a child would do, rather i'm talking about how a child is so totally engrossed in its world, in a way that a lot of older people are not for whatever reason.

[Erkynar]

Sorry. Didn't mean to knit-pick, but I think the point is that the expression "be as a child" is often used, and I think that that, in fact is also an image, rather than a reality. Hence it sort of draws the attention from whatever state of mind you want to talk about and in stead focuses on whatever people think of (within their own connotation) as being "as a child". I guess I could go another way rond this and just ask: what do you mean when you say "be as a child"?

[Erkynar]

I'm labouring the point. Sorry. :)

[mccormick2]

Consciousness is not an aspect of Dasein - this hints at the subject-object problem.

[macsm]

This si my favourite one so far. A seemingly impossible subject to understand, available to everybody in an understandable manner, excellent!. Where can I by these series, is it available for purchase?

[SKTPSY]

They should have gone to Specsavers!

[jmnocera]

5:30 - this seems pretty easy... look at all of the things they say, in fragments, and re-explain it to yourself like he does here... That should make it easier for you. Maybe, instead of other people calling each other names like simple minded, they might rather help their fellow brothers. -what a dick.

[chaniwie]

AWESOME AWESOME VIDEOS.!!

[b1nphk66]

this guy must have smoked a lot of marijuana: "with a relaxed attitude of wonder."

[Dandroidanimal]

Flame0430, did you write the description for this video?

[begily]

there is such an irony involved with Heideggers philosophy, how it has supposedly captured something so basic about human existence, yet its probably one of the most abstact and difficult philosophies ever devised. difficult because its talking about a part of our consciousness that usually goes undetected in most peoples minds.

[barrywilliamsmb]

Hey! I think I just thought of something!

Thanks for these videos, flame0430.

[SKTPSY]

Why these folks make things look and sound so difficult?

[xytoplazm]

Because everything isn't as simple as your simple mind can comprehend.

[chaniwie]

these things aren't difficult..just take time to reflect and you will understand these things in no time.

[johndickweed1]

Thank you Flame0430 for making this available, simply wonderful

[phiphers]

chuck norris side kicks faces therefore he exists...

[rafarpc]

i belive in human mind as increible creation of divine esence but i see burried in his deepest parts some bad ancient feeling that dont let us be all united, all more aware connected, the FEAR

[bshepps77]

the dasein is the nexus of the unconcealment

of the unfolding of the being of Being contradistinct from the being of things

[CCSalisbury]

mmm, very helpful explanation for someone new to Heideggerian Terminology.

[MichaelFrances]

youre better off with Buddhism mate; much less pretentious terminology and waffle

[MikeLtheSoulChild]

how sad is it that this only has 3,281 views, while a stupid chick who decides to show her ass in a thong gets a million views!

[sherezadelink]

Indeed, I wonder the same thing.

[NihilAdmirari]

that's just normal; it's nothing to wonder at. i would wonder if it was otherwise.

[supergopi]

now its 5,956

I think that's a good pace, for a heavy subject like this!

[TeeCee49]

Whoah!! Where's that chick in a thong clip?

[xytoplazm]

I'll show you if you are willing to construct an original thesis on the philosophy of pornography.

[f1ghtclub2k3]

@MikeLtheSoulChild thats the world we live in think of it this way without the stupidity we would have no boundaries to distinguish everyone who is wacthing this as smaarter thant he average individual.

[WrestlingHeretic]

@MikeLtheSoulChild

You should bracket the stupid chick.

[MikeLtheSoulChild]

@WrestlingHeretic Hahahaha, riiiiight, that would've been in Husserl's spirit! ;)

[safetydept]

@MikeLtheSoulChild at least that number has multiplied by 10 in the past two years!

[MikeLtheSoulChild]

@safetydept Well yeah, but so has that thong chick!!!

[Guaguanco11]

Can anyone give a straight-forward, direct definition of Dasein? I have looked at several texts including philosophical dictionaries, companions/reading guides and Heidegger himself and havent found anything coherent.

[korona3103]

In English it means "there being" but I think looking to a definition to give you an understanding of the concept is just the wrong approach.

To understand it its best to just read Heidegger. I think that his need to differentiate the conscious individual is that he wanted to avoid any of the preconceived notions using more normal phrases would cause. Essentially I would just take it to mean "individual" and the nuances in the concept of "Dasein" will come out as you read.

[Lewclan]

the definition is in the text. It only makes sense in the context of heidegger's philosophy. This is one of the main criticisms that the terms cannot be defined apart from the text. but that is kinda the point... the system and its parts only make sense in the context of the system. the definition is holistic.

[denkbeeld]

fantastic stuff, thanks flame!

[ensufuerointernoexul]

I was lucky enough to meet Dreyfus at Berkeley. Truly a great professor and a most generous mind.

[paparodendro1]

thanks again flame0430

I think everyone is eagerly awaiting for the Next Bryan Magee video