Hubert Dreyfus on Embodiment (I-II)

When did this interview take place?

I never said I would like to silence you. I said that people like you are what is wrong with the world. I will stick by that if you continue to act so aggressively and maliciously towards those who do not deserve it. Putting words in people's mouth and then knocking over the straw man you've constructed is a technique of the sham philosopher.

Heidegger lived with the peasants. Even when offered a teaching position in Berlin he refused, because he wished to stay in the country. Think about this.

Either way, the act of you posting comments reveals that you care about the relationships you have between the "herd," "superficial men," and "youth." Otherwise, why would you try to derogate and attack other people's interpretations?

You can't even respond to my post because doing so would only demonstrate the fact that you care about what I think - you have lost the game by playing it. Elitists like you are exactly what is wrong with the world.

The man behind the name "Lewclan" would like tosilence people like me forever, since we "are what is wrong with the world."

If people like me, he is saying, could somehow be exterminated, the world could be rectified and even saved. This is almost the definition of man who is fanatic. In this case, fortunately, a merely private, impotent, and neurotic fanatic.

I never said anything about extermination, that is YOUR fanaticism leaking through. YOU are the one who was talking about extermination.

If you're just trying to help us understand Heidegger better, because YOU care if Dreyfus gets Heidegger right or wrong (for some silly egoistic reason) and YOU care if we understand it properly, then you could help us in a much more benevolent manner.

Honestly, who cares if Dreyfus gets it right? Do you think Heidegger would care if people were getting him wrong? If you think Heidegger would take offense to the "herd" misunderstanding him then you obviously do not understand Heidegger. Do you not see the ridiculous irony in trying to prove that your interpretations of Heidegger are "right" and others are "wrong?"

I am speaking only to a few, a very few perhaps, who have the seriousness patient self-reflectiveness to think about nihilism. This should be a bridge to broader questions. Serious beginners might look at Allan Bloom's lectures on Nietzsche here on Youtube (recently put-up by someone who deserves thanks). Fanatics like Lewclan will always exist. It is necessary for us to think about what form fanaticisms take today: insane egalitarianism, for instance. [This too: said for the benefit of a few.]

Lewclan, you have a point. Still, Heidegger explicitly rejects pragmatist philosophy in his interview with Der Spiegel. He would, I think, care about certain interpretations of his work.