วีดีโอ

Wasn't Heidegerr a nazi?

I would read Michael Gelven's Commentary on Being and Time before reading Heidegger. Heidegger's work requires a guide. Try it without and you'll be lost in a few pages.

I wouldn’t say his support for hitler is a stain on his reputation. Most of Germany supported him too, they were not all fools.

so many ads ruin this

The problem with an introduction like this is it doesn’t tell us if it means everything it’s saying literally, it makes some bold claims, like that a house stops existing once it has turned into vapor and ash after burning down. Am I ridiculous for asking a similar question about a house that has been painted? In other words, when does a thing stop being the thing it was before? I think Heidegger might agree that the way that an entity is is that it stops being as soon as its temporal nature takes over, annihilating it with each new moment and making it new, bringing into view an entity that I am tempted to refer to as its more general being, the average of its being, or its narrative being. You can’t just say that something stops existing because it leaves one state and enters another, or if you do, you would need to explain the function of this dynamic. It makes sense to say to your family “our house is burned down. It’s gone.” and does not make sense to say “our house has been painted, it’s gone.” but if we are to take an ontological approach to this idea then we must not be so focused on our social relationships to things and entities in general. The only reason we say the house is or isn’t there is because its ability to do what we recognize as its function has changed. This becomes more complicated with a person, animal, or Dasein, because, what is the function of a person but to be, have been, and be a projected being into the future? In other words, is the purpose of Dasein not to remain temporal? Does a thing that existed within the space of time stop existing simply because that time has passed? In other words, does a thing that existed in one moment truly become an annihilated thing in the next, in other words, not being able to “be” as it was? In other other words, what is annihilation if not the essence of temporality? The ability for a thing to change its function and become something else? For a Dasein this happens constantly, as we orient ourselves are we but constantly searching for a particular entity or entities which orient us towards an entity that will fulfill whatever desire we have for the moment? The ability for us to be oriented towards a grand entity, such as the Tao, God, or any smaller entity that expresses itself as being Being (but it is either not Being or not an entity, and we are never sure to know such a thing until we are sure of it, and once that happens we must realize we have only reached a kind of assuredness about it and the ability to transcend through this dynamic in such a grand Being-like being should be seemingly infinite is something which is afforded to us as we transcend through accordance with certain entities and become more able to agree with Being’s indifference to our being. Idk just spitballing here but it would follow that the house itself might transcend, changing its function and become a different entity but can I even say that the house had any purpose in the first place? It didn’t ask to be lived in and it certainly didn’t care if it was lived in so what is its purpose to itself if it can have one? To be. Our purpose for it is meaningless to any entity that doesn’t believe in purpose outside of being. This proves to me that the house has not changed its purpose but its organization, and this organization does not affect its purpose except to us. Unless Purpose has priority which defines our purpose as more than the purpose of an indifferent being in Being we cannot say that the house is not the house anymore, but we can say that to call it a house and define it in such a way is to comport oneself towards the entity which says that our priority in regards to the house’s being is closer to being Priority, and it is not. We cannot even conceive of the priority of Being in relation to a structure like a house, its components, its conception. If it is to have an essential being as a house, is it that being which is closest to Being or our own being? This would have to depend entirely on a seemingly arbitrary entity which controls Dasein’s organizing of prioritized entities. This becomes confusing as it is difficult to decipher where this prioritization of entities comes from, if not from Being itself. This might seem to imply that Being itself has a priority in being, but it does not. Being is merely an observer of being, and allows it to exist by seeing, which becomes a kind of being for it which we can never possibly conceive of. The highest form of being might be the being that Being has, which I am tempted to consider might be the being of entities as Being fills them to become entities. This makes me think that the distinction between Being and being is arbitrary, but again, it cannot be that way. For Being to exist, it must have infinite ways of being, in a sense of a superbeing which ignores or does not reflect certain aspects, properties, or entities of the being within Being. For Being, however, it may be possible for it to transcend the necessity for ignorance to being entirely, manifesting dissonances in being which seem to defy the laws of physics and life itself. Where am I going with this? I don’t fucking know I’m just saying shit I guess how’s everyone’s day going? My birthday was yesterday I’m 25 now

Thank you.

OK. I’m lost…!!!😅😅😅😂😂

WAIT IM LOST!!! IM LOST!!!!!!!!! OK…. 😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂

OK IM…. GUYS I…….. I’m lOSSTTTTTT!!!!!!!!!! 😢😢😢

OK GUYS IM LOSSTT!!!!!!!!!!!!

C - 19:55 §22 - 22:02 §23 - 30:53 §24 - 49:54 IV - 1:00:40 §25 - 1:03:20 §26 - 1:13:02 §27 - 1:42:00 V - §28 - 1:58:15 A - §29 - 2:09:40 §30 - 2:29:15

§13 - 24:00 §14 - 34:45 A - §15 - 47:25 §16 - 1:06:35 §17 - 1:21:20 §18 - 1:42:30 B - 2:02:40 §19 - 2:04:55 §20 - 2:12:25

§7 A - 4:20 B - 16:22 C - 25:22 §8 - 40:10 §9 - 44:22 §10 - 56:45 §11 - 1:11:05

§1 - 15:40 §2 - 23:50 §3 - 35:50 §4 - 45:25 §5 - 56:30 §6 - 1:11:10

Ignore the introduction by whomever, amd listen to the translated words of a genius Heidegger. Rule 1 in philosophy is do the best you can at reading the original and avoid interpretation until after you have spent significant time with the original.

45:00 timestamp

OK. I am so lost! 😅

Ok wait…………….. I’’M LOSST!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! 😅😅😅😅😂

1:42:50 chapter4 session 67

1:58:32 session 59

Professor Polt struggles to keep the interviewer focused and doesn’t discuss the degree to which Heidegger‘s writings argue against Humanism. @2:31:50 anything even though I think he was probably right about a lot of things uh it just means that he's permanently thought provoking so with people like that no matter how much quote progress and philosophy there may be uh every generation is given the opportunity to take up their books once again and think What does Heidegger think about ‘progress‘? “…Progress exists only in the realm of what is ultimately unimportant for human existence…” Philosophy belongs to the most original of human endeavors. In this regard Kant remarks: "But these human endeavors turn in a constant circle, arriving again at a point where they have already been. Thereupon materials now lying in the dust can perhaps be processed into a magnificent structure.* It is precisely these original human endeavors that have their constancy in never losing their questionable character and in thus returning to the same point and finding there their sole source of energy. The constancy of these endeavors does not consist in the continued regularity of advancing in the sense of a so-called progress. Progress exists only in the realm of what is ultimately unimportant for human existence. Philosophy does not evolve in the sense of progress. Rather, philosophy is an attempt at developing and clarifying the same few problems; philosophy is the independent, free, and thoroughgoing struggle of human existence with the darkness that can break out at any time in that existence. And every clarification opens new abysses. Thus the stagnation and decline of philosophy do not mean not-going-for-ward-anymore; rather they point to having forgotten the center. Therefore every philosophical renewal is an awakening in returning to the same point. Phenomenological Interpretation of Kant's Critique of Pure Reason von Martin Heidegger

OK….. I’M LOST!!!!!!!!! 😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂

2:29:17 session 30th

1:42:05 session 27

What the hell is going on between sections!!!!! How do you post a whole series like this and have such a consistent mistake

is it that hard to keep that stutter thing from happening in between sections? seriously annoying

I know they can be helpful but I am annoyed to hell by introductions. Time stamps please, for the love of god

A Brilliant poet in thought

Being, is the Steady Point, time is the shadow of Motion.

Being, is the Sready Point, Time is the 'shadow' of Motion.

Reading the first sentence in ancient Greek I already started questioning my being

I don’t understand the purpose or the value of trying to describe the human condition as something special or unique. For me it is all very simple, we are just another living organism whose particular evolution has provided us with certain pattern solving functionality. But beyond the hormonal drivers of survival through to the point of transferring our genetics through to subsequent generations, there isn’t anything more of actual significance to say about us beyond that of the trees or insects.

That first sentence. Profound! Yet so obvious once you think about it. Thanks for the content.

56:24

This makes reading Foucault sound like a walk in the park 😅

so the years start coming and they don't stop coming?

idk if this is the most profound thing or the most stupid but im all for it

I enjoyed this part, seeing things exactly as they are without projecting our nature on it,. When things announce their presence, that is simply an announcement, our experience of it deeply depends on the nature of the entity announced and our nature as human.

Reader is not so bad at Greek pronunciation. It could use some work, though.

What is a worthwhile life? Is there a common value system between people with thought forms as a kind of currency?

This shit is boring af

This is awesome, thanks so much for uploading. Also - maybe Heidegger doesn’t offer a politics or a psychology but Heideggerians always seem so respectful and grounded in conversation. So perhaps that’s something.

This is pathetic thinking.

german version of platonic ontology with mixed accents and mispronounciations, too complicated to even understand. Why not just read Pythagorean logic, maybe you ll find out who Phanes really were

23:50

I don’t know what that monologue at the start is for but I gotta tell ya, I don’t care for it one bit

14:12 starts

Lies told by a Nazi full of rebarbative prose signifying 'the Nothjing that Nothings' ( best self reference)

Best to skip the first 10 minutes to get to the beginning of the substance.

_Beautiful_