Join us on Patreon! www.patreon.com/ManufacturingIntellect Donate Crypto! commerce.coinbase.com/checkout/868d67d2-1628-44a8-b8dc-8f9616d62259 Share this video!
@@jimlaguardia8185No need for your rudeness, mate. I'll use occam's razor here and infer that he meant "we" in the sense of most people these days. In which case he is correct. If I'm wrong then he can correct me.
@@jose123001 Nonsense. The capitalists just got better at using tv as a means to generate wealth, at the expense of educating and informing people. As our society became more about work and creating wealth, it became less about education and expanding our minds. People nowadays just want entertainment as a means to distract themselves from the grim reality of their corporate treadmill existences. No-one wants to be grappling with existentialism after a hard day serving coffees at Starbucks.
I guess im asking randomly but does any of you know of a method to log back into an instagram account? I stupidly forgot my password. I love any tricks you can give me!
@Kenzo Markus thanks for your reply. I found the site thru google and I'm waiting for the hacking stuff atm. Looks like it's gonna take a while so I will get back to you later when my account password hopefully is recovered.
Magee is a wonderful interviewer, as well as writer. His " Wagner and Philosophy" is one of the very best books on Wagner. As for Barrett, I keep coming back to " Irrational Man" since I first picked it up at Kennedy in New York in the sixties.
I found out about William Barret through a book of D.T. Suzuki's, called "Zen Buddhism". He had done the editorial work for that book and in the end pages, there's a mentioning of one of his work "Irrational Man". So, could you tell me what it is about? Like is it a good introductory book on Existentialism or the subject matter is of another kind?
@@101...... Thank you for this question. Yes, it is a clear explanation of existentialism and of how we are, not as rational as we think. It examines Nietzsche, Kiekregaard,Heidigger,and Sartre. There is a kind of epilogue that looks at The Furies. There is no philosophical mumbo jumbo. Everything is relevant to our daily lives. An excellent read. I am glad I stumbled upon it.
That’s absolutely amazing! He sounds like a wonderful teacher! In The Heideggerian sense I’m devastated about the facticity of my thrownness into being as I’ll never get to meet or talk with these two wonderful gentlemen! 😔
William Barret is the author of the brilliant book "The Irrational Man" with which he introduced existentialism in the United States of America. i recommend everybody who is interested in existentialism to read this book. It is simply the best on this subject.
Brilliant stuff and great to have this reminder of proper work from the BBC. Bryan Magee should have had more credit for this and his other series - Modern Philosophy and The Great Philosophers.
An excerpt from Bryan’s ‘Making the Most of it’ (2018) If it could be revealed to me for certain that life is meaningless, and that my lot when I die will be timeless oblivion, and I were then asked: “Knowing these things, would you, if given the choice, still choose to have been born?”, my answer would be a shouted “Yes!” I have loved living. Even if the worst-case scenario is the true one, what I have had has been infinitely better than nothing. In spite of what has been wrong with my life, and in spite of what has been wrong with me, I am inexpressibly grateful to have lived. It is terrible and terrifying to have to die, but even the prospect of eternal annihilation is a price worth paying for being alive.
That's good for you, living in a privileged western society. Had you been born stricken with disease, poverty, and pain like you couldn't believe is real, I think you would have a different answer.
There are some for which life is plain suffering and I would not think lesser of them for thinking about oblivion as a path to endless peace and an absence of further pain.
@@danieljliverslxxxix1164 I understand what you are saying, and it sounds very realistic. Nonetheless, I think that one can still make a good case for being alive. For example, I know some folks would rather feel pain than feel nothing. When you are dead or not born, you cannot be stricken with disease. You would at least need to first be born, be stricken with disease, poverty and pain and see the contrast of plenty in a privileged western society to then decide that it is better to die. And even then, you would have lived to enjoy the pleasure or power of choosing to die. You can have the opinion that you have now, because you are alive to have it. Everything that will ever exist - pain, pleasure, all - exists in life. Outside of life there is nothing - not even the absence of pain, just nothing.
It's a bit of a sweeping statement and or just sloppy and idle mentation to suppose that just because you are utterly insignificant so is everything /everyone or the totality is as insignificant as you are. It is simply an idle truism that there is no time for those that cannot experience anything; would you also like to guild that lily with Tuesdays have an uncanny habit of following Mondays? Gosh, you know everything Brian. When you die or are(for yourself) destroyed forever it is axiomatic that the dead cannot experience anything including time for want of an experiencing apparatus or an experiencer, but, according to a chap called Krishna, that which is real cannot cease to be real while that which -like you not real, never were which roughly translated into idle oik for you comes to a a dreaming machine that has no more to it is no more from a certain perspective than the shadow of a dream. A dead or pointless dreamer is merely meat, and on your own account you are no more than a dreaming machine that is utterly aimless, ditto the writer. It may be that some beings that are more less dreamy wastes of space can by awakening acquire a significance that as aimless dreamers they otherwise lack and it is no more than a truism that an idle an otherwise useless dreamer is without significance save as a space that something les worthless and pointless can occupy but who knows.?The state of not knowing is a glimmering of intelligence or a possibility, but you confess to being an aimless dreamer do you not whereupon you become like a character in Eliot's wasteland, one cigarette between two men and between two women, one half pint of butter beer, their deaths unmentioned in The Times" and you have bet the farm on your being a sulky self pitying dreamer of which gives you so much swagger; as my clerk once told me twenty percent of nuffink is nuffink sir, and what happens to a nuffink when it ceases to be useful? you, you guessed it, but sulky self pity feeds nothing and it is said that a man -not a dreamer has but two possibilities, not more; eat or be eaten. the question is: for what are you food? You *like* being a worthless dreamer do you not? why else the swagger? Dust thou art and unto dust though shalt return, s no changes there then.Take away the appetites of your functions what are you?-Like the writer neither use nor ornament, and that unpleasant realisation that you squandered you birthright does not just go away, does it? You are up an excrement watercourse in an a native american means of water transport with no means of propulsion but on the hugely pleasing an and bright side you know nothing. not a bad start for an otherwise worthless dreamer with nothing to lose.
I'm an ordinary 60 something year old and find this programme fascinating... I wish we had similar today (2024). Sadly today we just have celebrity rubbish..
Yes, I’m of the same age and share the same view of post modern society. In the 70’s there were great film makers actively at work exploring existential themes - Kubrick, Bunuel, Fellini, Antonioni, Bergman and Kurosawa. I think Philosophy and Art have arrived at truths too disturbing to confront so in a kind of reactive retort people have switched to fantasy and illusion in order to make life more tolerable. I rarely see any young people taking an interest to read poetry, literature or the great films these days after their older generation have dismissed them. My daughter for instance said that watching the Bergman film Persona was unbearable. We are creatures who have succumbed to a world which surrounds us in a sublimated version of reality. For people who wish to become authentic, they must break through the veneer, the tension film, to see reality for what it is, not as something terrifying but innocent. You can see how Heidegger inspired the popular film Matrix, where the few have broken out of the world of illusion to realise their authentic being and by doing so discover a disturbing reality about the world of illusion.
Heidegger, when asked by Deyfuss (visting Heidegger in Germany), what he thought about Being and Nothingness, Heidegger answered, according to Dreyfuss, that he thought Sartre's Being and Nothingness was "Dreck" ('muck'). The reason was, of course that it was cartesian as it could be. Quite correctly Barrett characterised Being and Nothingness therefore as a "melodrama between two cartesian consciousnesses".
well i must confess that it was an amusing and interesting interview to watch.. I myself don't know nearly anything about philosophy and I actually don't enjoy reading such books.. but this was really good man..
I have so much to learn before I die! Thank you TH-cam...Every night I share with my 10 year old grandson what I found on TH-cam. We've been researching Quantum Computers.. It scared him. Tonight, we will talk about Philosophers - being, what is truth, love, a spiritual connection with a higher power. I need all the help I can get...so little time. Thank you TH-cam.
Yeah, it baffles me that if you put the newest crappy movie up on youtube it would be taken down with repercussions to the poster but the wisdom of the ages....free for all (as it should be) but ignored by almost all. I've been working my through the sum of human knowledge and call it a huge win over watching some horrible tv rerun. FWIW.
I think, and I'm probably not alone in this, that if we didn't die we might, as a species, be even more inclined to philosophise. Anxiety about the shortness of life makes us hurry to achieve things. This is how a lot of people try to give their lives significance: 'I built a business,' 'I had a family,' 'I wrote a great novel,' etc. Without this pressure towards clear material achievements, would we be more willing to think about the sheer strangeness of existence and knowledge? 'The world is too much with us,' pace Wordsworth. EDIT: I think I must have watched this video before, so the Wordsworth quote was in my head. This time, I wrote it before Magee said it!
Heidegger would have hated Berkeley's observation though! He emphasises over and over again that we are 'always-already' here. That's what his 'thrown-ness' concept is. Only a Cartesian would imagine that our experience of a tree has any causal relation to its existence. Since it was also thrown into the world, it has always-already existed. He might well have added that it needs no-one's awareness, since it has its own - that of the world and its being in the world. The real mystery, in a sense, is that neither beginnings nor endings are accessible to us: we do not recall our conception, and will not experience our death. A common way of dealing with this notion of 'endings'/death is to say that since we do not experience it, we need not be anxious about an experience we will in fact never have. The reason this is inadequate is that we are aware of such possibilities which will, so to speak, 'occur - although not to us'. Anxiety is the paradoxical experience of knowing what will not be (all that we are), and is therefore part of the absolute ground of our being - hence our 'ownmost possibility' in his slightly quirky terminology. Therefore, we overcome this precisely by accepting it - in some way, and what is significant is not how we accept this possibility of 'un-being' but *that* we accept it. If we had no such awareness of death, then philosophy would be an easier and 'brighter' proposition, but it would not be our philosophy. Therefore, we can only pursue philosophy as it *is to us*, with anxiety running through it like the stitching in a sock. I suspect that he's right (although I may be expanding on what he said explicitly here) that our refusal to allow nature its own being, which is also the ground of our being - this denial of the nature *of* being (including anxiety), in which technology is rooted - leads towards what it attempts to vanquish, i.e. death. This is perhaps a grim thought, but our refusal to think of it is the cause of the accelerating failures of 'technological man': in constant flight from a single thought, he loses touch with *all* thought. Technology is the denial of nature, and the embrace of cowardice. And what characterises the twenty-first century more than denial and cowardice? I suspect that he never hoped to be *quite* as correct as the last few decades have proven him (!) (Hope I didn't veer too much into rhetoric at the end there... Just trying to tease out the implications for us today...)
@@Microtherion But in a way, this still matches up with what I'm saying because, as you describe it, the fear of death leads to the non-philosophical busyness of technology. Philosophy has to take that on, which is how death shapes our philosophy, but it's not the only thing that shapes it. We could still be subject the existential predicament of thrownness, for example, without it being finite.
@@JohnMoseley I think it mostly matches up, yes. (Mostly, Moseley. Lol). Neither death nor anxiety define our experience - they are *part of* the basic ground or 'scheme'... 'A given', as they say. There are other givens - most of which I like better, of course. I'm not sure I understood your last bit there. (Whether Thrown-ness is or isn't 'finite'?) It isn't really 'finite' or 'infinite' - it just *is*... (Or so it seems. That was precisely Heidegger's point, I think. 'Is' and 'seems' are different - but not always obviously different). :)
@@Microtherion The last bit is about whether all the other givens are going to be ended (for us subjectively) by death, hence 'finite.' I meant that even in a world where people were immortal, philosophers would still have lots of concerns in common with us mortals when we philosophise: the nature of time and space, epistemology, lots of binaries like the one vs. the many etc. etc.
In this series of interviews, Magee often articulates the philosopher under discussion with greater clarity than the supposed specialist. This is the case, again, here. Magee never fails to (i) situate the philosopher in the history of ideas; and (ii) unify the unruly thoughts of the professors being interviewed into a cohesive chain of ideas. Magee’s writings were superlative. This series of TV interviews is a monument to a great thinker and a world of public intellectuals that has vanished.
We're thrown into the world and ask what's everyone doing and they say can't you see were walking around in a circle. So you say, well I guess I better join them they seem to know what's going on. Thus we suffer from existential perplexity. Equanimity through meditation is the beginning... .
14:06 thank you for actually trying to get the train back on the rails. It doesn’t seem to stay on though; it was so all over the place (I’m an average person trying to learn more about philosophy) . I’m just trying to figure out what Heidegger said and what his ideas were. Clearly Barrett is an expert but I don’t think I was able to take away any meaningful notion from this conversation.
The programme was made for the BBC in the '80s, Wikipedia tells me. The BBC's old mandate, dating from around the end of WWII, was 'to educate, inform and entertain,' and based on that they produced, for decades, some of the most remarkable television in the world, from groundbreaking comedy like Monty Python to serious programmes on ideas, such as Monitor to extraordinary films and plays directed by now internationally renowned directors such as Mike Leigh and Ken Loach. But the BBC is always somewhat embattled because they're a state broadcaster with no advertising and depend on the paying of a TV license fee by the general population to function. Any UK owner of a TV is required to pay this fee (or anyone accessing BBC programmes online too now) and many object, especially if they feel the corporation's programming fails to serve their interests. Commercial television providers such as Sky, part owned by Rupert Murdoch, also object strongly that the BBC unfairly dominates the market. All this, plus the need to make content that can be sold at a profit abroad, means the BBC now puts more and more of its resources into populist programming. It retains an outlet for more intellectual fair, BBC4, but even this is deeply insipid compared to what it used to do. It's mainly just arts and history programmes with attractive presenters skimming the surface of their subjects while walking around attractive settings. It's very sad.
It always had a big state, nanny-knows-best, Leftist-Liberal slant, even from the start. Conservative, reactionary views and values were always questioned, critiqued or outright mocked, such as in comedies like Monty Python or kitchen sink dramas. Still, they did at least back then feel somewhat "British", and so even for a rightist/nationalist like me there was some appeal in their often creative and talent-packed programming. Since the Blair years, however, they have become total shills for "Globalhomo Inc.", a no-borders, morally-relativist clown-world that keeps the plebs in their place by pushing vapid, deracinated consumerism and hedonism. There is absolutely nothing "British" about the BBC anymore, they are just cheerleaders now for globalist values that I find fundamentally abhorrent, and so I, and many others, will no longer watch their propaganda and pay their tithe. It's very sad, as you say.
Ержан Насанов, There you go, Thad tuiol's comment is a paradigm example of the standard hostility to the BBC, though with a large dollop of extra crazy.
loved this series so much but I couldn't stop wondering why they did not get another couch/chair so that they didn't have to sit twisted at that angle.
You having exactly how much experience of Liberace discussing Heidegger, that you may make the comparison, or are you supposing the Prof. to be a bit low in the loafers as the kinderlander say?
As a molecular biologist with an interest in philosophy, I found this discussion to be one of the most accessible and therefore interesting of the series. For me, I watch the endeavours we make to address our existential anxiety with some mild amusement. It’s as if we choose to blind ourselves to the reality of what, for functional purposes generates these anxieties and desires.
@@yp77738yp77739 Bent or not you cannot answer a simply question or I simply infer that you are using the kinderlander " we" the kinderlander-mercan american, finding the prospect of no " we" terrifying.
*W-h-y* do *You -yes *You* as you put it"Blind *Your*_self to the reality of what, for functional purposes generates these anxieties and desires, which are........................?
At 30.31 he says that Parmindes was the first to come up with the idea of the unity but that is exactly what Hinduism pronounced with “ srvang kalvidang Brahman” several millenia before
Very conservative, academic and sorely missed on television programming these days. NOTE: Both of these men are heavily influenced by Ludwig Wittgenstein, therefore their comparisons, discussion and vitality of thought using Wittgenstein’s int in comparison is something you don’t hear everyday. All in all, solid discussion that perhaps by chance crosses over to the one-to-one / one to many and many to one / many to many meta relationships swirling through human collective thought regarding what is life?, what is consciousness?, sentience, ethics and morality, relating to Artificial Intelligence (AI).
I don’t think Barret did a great job in this one. Bryan tried his best to get something out of him and thankfully his questions and recapitulations were more helpful than Barret’s rambles.. I’d recommend Bryan’s interview with Dreyfus as a much better take on Heidegger
A few Wittgenstein/Heidegger parallels (on the back of an envelope): novel kind of attention to the everyday / sustained critique of the Cartesian subject / major work left incomplete / two philosophies / forms of life / obscure attitude towards religion / finitism / world as language / practical (anti-theoretical) stance / early mathematical interests / poetry as template / trying to slow the reader down ...
Heidegger was disturbing in more ways than one. He was not only a nefarious Nazi but the most petty and vindictive of individuals as evidenced by his treatment of husserl who had done much to promote his earlier work.
Who told you that "he was not only a nefarious Nazi but the most petty and vindictive of individuals," and why do you believe them? Were you born credulous or did you go on a course?
@vhawk1951kl I believe the evidence. Heidegger was an early member of the nazi party and a member until the day the party ceased to exist. Heidegger denouced colleagues at freiberg not only for being unsympathetic to the nazi party but also for things like pacifism. This included his benefactor edmund husserl. This was found in nszi dicuments by the americans but supprrssed to rehabilitate heidegger. It only came to light years after his death. What i said is uncontroversial-for anyone who knows the subject.
The entire history of human search for knowledge, philosophy as well as science, and from antiquity to present day (and still continuing), has always been about linking sense perceptions (that too, almost exclusively, the sight) to the brain (or mind) thruogh describing how motios in non living matter and of celestial bodies occur. Never about linking of the far more basic for survival, the needs and satisfaction perceptions to the stomach and lungs through describing the development and growth of PLANTS, the only entity in the entire known universe that deliver and sustain 100% of all life in it. Epistemology instead of ontology. That is the reason why in the entire history of our search for knowledge we haven't derived the mathematical model for the mechanism of even a single natural phenomenon in such a way that it PREDICTS accurately when that phenomenon could harm life function, let alone PREVENT such. PRACTICAL PREVENTION OF EVIL (disasters, predation, diseases ~ which include birth defects and all violence ~ and death) is not found even in the vocabulary of search for knowledge, whereas in any system of proper search for knowledge that ALONE should be the sole purpose CUM criterion of proof.
My death, but I can not experience it? With an assumption that my awareness tied into the brain activities, if there are no activities in the brain, then no awareness and no way to experience DEATH.
All this talk of meaning...we are just wired to think like that.otherwise the thing most matters in most of our lives is physical survival, comfort and enjoyment.then comes the need to be loved and be in company of our loved ones.love keeps us going.
@@nowhereman6019 rubbish, you are trying to understand his work by applying a metaphysical approach. Understanding words by being clear about their definition, or a concept that fully delineates them, is as far away from his views as you could possibly get.
This seems framed like "which objection to Descartes do you like?" as if mind/body dualism is definitely wrong and it's just a question of which to replace it with. I agree with their statements but like, instead of "let's get rid of this mind thing", they should be like "lets concentrate on the body, the subject more, and less on the mind and objectivity". Which I think is the key take away of Existentialism as a whole. My biggest objection here is the implication that philosophers prior to Descartes did not care about the mind, when in fact it was their primary focus, and the hyperfixation on the "objective" world today is a symptom of that. Plato's fundamental problem, which is the backdrop of the Abrahamic religions and their mysteries is precisely about mind/body/theological trinitarianism. That's why we get priests who deny the flesh, are abstenient and so on. that's taking their mind/body problem and objectivity view to the extreme to the point of violence. And between the Greeks and Descartes, the entire field of medieval philosophy is all about studying the mind, but through many veils of myth. Noam Chomsky's talks on Descartes are good, he mentions the British Neoplatonists a lot, whom I'm a great fan of. Even the original Neoplatonists in Athens, Syria, Alexandria were primarily interested in this. I love the writings of Plotinus.
A professional philosopher eh? Sort of chap that gets woken up at 3 AM by "help help my epistemology is leaking, or my existentialism won't start".. Finds himself saying that his minimum call out charge is fifty quid and he can't take on any new work before next Wednesday, and puffing out his cheeks and saying " If only you people wouldn't buy cheap foreign syllogisms, you wouldn't have these problems
William Barret might be a sweetheart but he is insufferably annoying to watch. There is a reason that philosophers are not poets, and that critics are not philosophers; and that is because poets are magicians, philosophers are scientists, and critics are simply academic journalists. If you want to understand Heidegger's existentialism, read any literature from the 30s & 40s. Heidegger himself (& basically every philosopher) says that the answer to the dread & anxiety of the human condition is ART & POETRY.
@Sean The problem is that all of this is now well understood to be meaningless. Such discussions might have made some kind of sense back then, but someone with a proper scientific education, i.e. a person that understands the evolved biological nature of human beings, all answers regarding existence and "being" are well known - human beings are a bag of carbon atoms that exists for the sole reason ("reason", not "purpose") of maximizing the inclusive fitness of its genes - and the likes of Heidegger appear to just spew meaningless gibberish. I just spent 40 minutes of my life listening to this video, and did not hear one meaningful thing that Heidegger said. Nor did I find anything meaningful when I have tried to read his writings. There is just nothing of substance or relevance to the real world there. And yet, an extremely elaborate elaborate edifice has been built on that non-existent foundation over the last 80-90 years...
@@GM53946 -- Check out the book by Moreland and Craig called Naturalism: a Critical Analysis and Morelands book Scientism and Secularism. Also The Rationality of Theism by Copan and Moser.
@@GM53946 I disagree. The scientific explanations are explanations of processes of nature. You can memorize the infinitely many steps and natural laws that led to your birth, but reducing your existence to only a handful of propositions is ignoring the immensely complex subjective reality within your mind. No equation or model can describe your subjective experience. That's beyond the realm of the scientific method because it is not reproducible, cannot me measured quantitatively and, worst of all, can be experienced only by you. Therefore, the questions about our subjective existence (which leads to the acceptance of death, anxiety, freedom, etc.) cannot be answered by other people, let alone science, unless you willingly choose to give up the choices of your life and bow to the rules and methods developed by other men and women (as it has been done over and over by other people in other times).
Some people do find these things early on in life. To me, it started in my early teens. It might have been the same for them. Perhaps anyone can feel like this early in life, if they are paying attention and the setting is right.
For all of his spectacular intellectualism, Heidegger made a choice to become a Nazi... What is the value of a philosophy that doesn't lead us to be better human beings?
What is the value of a philosophy that doesn't lead us to be better human beings? "Better" in what sense?-More likeable? Does that not depend on who is doing the liking? If you are a bored Asiatic fisherman waiting for the weather to improve is not philosophy as good a way of passing the time as any?
Difficult to reconcile such intelligence as Heidegger obviously had with being an enthusiastic devotee of Hitler I have listened to this interview before and once again come away feeling betrayed since it seems all Heidegger is saying is “we are born and then we die He doesn’t seem to tackle any of the major epistemological questions at all in this Heidegger repreoresents the death of western philosophy
Who told you that "Heidegger was an enthusiastic devotee of Hitler", and why do you believe them? To what is it relevant that "Heidegger was an enthusiastic devotee of Hitler? Where and what is your syllogism? If an "enthusiastic devotee of Hitler" suggested to you that the sum if two and two were four or that Tuesdays have an uncanny habit of following Mondays, would you demur on the ground what he was" an "enthusiastic devotee of Hitler"? Hitler was very sound on some hings but not others; it's an ill wind that blows nobody any good.
Did no-one ever warn you against using those asinine infantile symbols used only by imbecile children, lest you be taken for an imbecile child, for no *sane* adult would dream of using anything so asinine and infantile, but if you sincerely*wish* to be taken for an imbecile child, that is of course entirely a matter for you. I only need to see them used to know for a certainty that the user is a child with few wits, for no adult with wits and learning would dream of using them for fear of being taken for an imbecile child, that inference being inescapable. The *only* inference that can be drawn from the use of those asinine and infantile symbols is that the user is some kind of imbecile child, for*no* adult with wits or learning would use anything to asinine and infantile, but if you active *wish* to be taken for or supposed to be an imbecile child, that is of course entirely a matter for you. here really is *no_other* inference to draw but those that use such asinine and infantile symbols *are* imbecile children, for *no* sane adult with wits and learning would dream of using anything so asinine and infantile for fear of being taken for, or supposed to be, an imbecile child. You seem to *wish* to be supposed to be an imbecile child, but if that is your wish amen to that.
Join us on Patreon! www.patreon.com/ManufacturingIntellect
Donate Crypto! commerce.coinbase.com/checkout/868d67d2-1628-44a8-b8dc-8f9616d62259
Share this video!
We lack the quality these men possess so effortlessly and genuinely. No politics no hidden agenda just a meaningful and polite conversation
What do you mean by “we”? Do you have a mouse in your pocket? Speak for yourself.
I agree.
@@jimlaguardia8185No need for your rudeness, mate. I'll use occam's razor here and infer that he meant "we" in the sense of most people these days. In which case he is correct. If I'm wrong then he can correct me.
@@jimlaguardia8185hit the gym
"We" being you and which specific identifiable interlocutor?
Is there a "we"?
TV in 1977 differs from TV in 2017... This "Modern Philosophy" series is great.
I was lucky to be growing up in a period when TV understood its responsibility to educate. It no longer does.
@@jose123001 Nonsense. The capitalists just got better at using tv as a means to generate wealth, at the expense of educating and informing people. As our society became more about work and creating wealth, it became less about education and expanding our minds. People nowadays just want entertainment as a means to distract themselves from the grim reality of their corporate treadmill existences. No-one wants to be grappling with existentialism after a hard day serving coffees at Starbucks.
I guess im asking randomly but does any of you know of a method to log back into an instagram account?
I stupidly forgot my password. I love any tricks you can give me!
@Brentley Toby instablaster =)
@Kenzo Markus thanks for your reply. I found the site thru google and I'm waiting for the hacking stuff atm.
Looks like it's gonna take a while so I will get back to you later when my account password hopefully is recovered.
Magee is a wonderful interviewer, as well as writer. His " Wagner and Philosophy" is one of the very best books on Wagner. As for Barrett, I keep coming back to " Irrational Man" since I first picked it up at Kennedy in New York in the sixties.
I found out about William Barret through a book of D.T. Suzuki's, called "Zen Buddhism". He had done the editorial work for that book and in the end pages, there's a mentioning of one of his work "Irrational Man". So, could you tell me what it is about? Like is it a good introductory book on Existentialism or the subject matter is of another kind?
@@101...... Thank you for this question. Yes, it is a clear explanation of existentialism and of how we are, not as rational as we think. It examines Nietzsche, Kiekregaard,Heidigger,and Sartre. There is a kind of epilogue that looks at The Furies.
There is no philosophical mumbo jumbo. Everything is relevant to our daily lives. An excellent read. I am glad I stumbled upon it.
@@Operafreak9 O, got it, thanks for your reply. I'll give it a read soon.
…Some people inhabit their skins as strangers…. Well said Professor!
William Barrett was my phil. prof at NYU. Thanks for posting.
Lucky lady!
That’s absolutely amazing! He sounds like a wonderful teacher! In The Heideggerian sense I’m devastated about the facticity of my thrownness into being as I’ll never get to meet or talk with these two wonderful gentlemen! 😔
I envy you; but I could not be in his class.
Was he any good?
William Barret is the author of the brilliant book "The Irrational Man" with which he introduced existentialism in the United States of America. i recommend everybody who is interested in existentialism to read this book. It is simply the best on this subject.
The quality of this video from 40 years ago is amazing.
BBC of course.
Beyan magee states his points more clear and touchable and it's such a pleasure to listen to them talking together.
You can’t expect clarity from his interlocutor when his aim is to explain Heidegger’s philosophy, It’s just impossible to understand it.
Hearing a guy with a Brooklyn accent talk about Heidegger is a trip man. LOL
And he cited Henry Miller's Air Conditioned Nightmare. Check out some of Miller's interviews on here for an amazing Brooklyn accent. Lol
" What's up Prof...?? "
I listen to this instead of music while working, Both voices so pleasant.
Brilliant stuff and great to have this reminder of proper work from the BBC. Bryan Magee should have had more credit for this and his other series - Modern Philosophy and The Great Philosophers.
An excerpt from Bryan’s ‘Making the Most of it’ (2018) If it could be revealed to me for certain that life is meaningless, and that my lot when I die will be timeless oblivion, and I were then asked: “Knowing these things, would you, if given the choice, still choose to have been born?”, my answer would be a shouted “Yes!” I have loved living. Even if the worst-case scenario is the true one, what I have had has been infinitely better than nothing. In spite of what has been wrong with my life, and in spite of what has been wrong with me, I am inexpressibly grateful to have lived. It is terrible and terrifying to have to die, but even the prospect of eternal annihilation is a price worth paying for being alive.
That's good for you, living in a privileged western society. Had you been born stricken with disease, poverty, and pain like you couldn't believe is real, I think you would have a different answer.
There are some for which life is plain suffering and I would not think lesser of them for thinking about oblivion as a path to endless peace and an absence of further pain.
@@danieljliverslxxxix1164 I understand what you are saying, and it sounds very realistic. Nonetheless, I think that one can still make a good case for being alive. For example, I know some folks would rather feel pain than feel nothing. When you are dead or not born, you cannot be stricken with disease. You would at least need to first be born, be stricken with disease, poverty and pain and see the contrast of plenty in a privileged western society to then decide that it is better to die. And even then, you would have lived to enjoy the pleasure or power of choosing to die. You can have the opinion that you have now, because you are alive to have it. Everything that will ever exist - pain, pleasure, all - exists in life. Outside of life there is nothing - not even the absence of pain, just nothing.
It's a bit of a sweeping statement and or just sloppy and idle mentation to suppose that just because you are utterly insignificant so is everything /everyone or the totality is as insignificant as you are. It is simply an idle truism that there is no time for those that cannot experience anything; would you also like to guild that lily with Tuesdays have an uncanny habit of following Mondays? Gosh, you know everything Brian.
When you die or are(for yourself) destroyed forever it is axiomatic that the dead cannot experience anything including time for want of an experiencing apparatus or an experiencer, but, according to a chap called Krishna, that which is real cannot cease to be real while that which -like you not real, never were which roughly translated into idle oik for you comes to a a dreaming machine that has no more to it is no more from a certain perspective than the shadow of a dream. A dead or pointless dreamer is merely meat, and on your own account you are no more than a dreaming machine that is utterly aimless, ditto the writer.
It may be that some beings that are more less dreamy wastes of space can by awakening acquire a significance that as aimless dreamers they otherwise lack and it is no more than a truism that an idle an otherwise useless dreamer is without significance save as a space that something les worthless and pointless can occupy but who knows.?The state of not knowing is a glimmering of intelligence or a possibility, but you confess to being an aimless dreamer do you not whereupon you become like a character in Eliot's wasteland, one cigarette between two men and between two women, one half pint of butter beer, their deaths unmentioned in The Times" and you have bet the farm on your being a sulky self pitying dreamer of which gives you so much swagger; as my clerk once told me twenty percent of nuffink is nuffink sir, and what happens to a nuffink when it ceases to be useful? you, you guessed it, but sulky self pity feeds nothing and it is said that a man -not a dreamer has but two possibilities, not more; eat or be eaten. the question is: for what are you food?
You *like* being a worthless dreamer do you not? why else the swagger? Dust thou art and unto dust though shalt return, s no changes there then.Take away the appetites of your functions what are you?-Like the writer neither use nor ornament, and that unpleasant realisation that you squandered you birthright does not just go away, does it? You are up an excrement watercourse in an a native american means of water transport with no means of propulsion but on the hugely pleasing an and bright side you know nothing. not a bad start for an otherwise worthless dreamer with nothing to lose.
And look at TV in 2020....I love this series....
I'm an ordinary 60 something year old and find this programme fascinating... I wish we had similar today (2024). Sadly today we just have celebrity rubbish..
Yes, I’m of the same age and share the same view of post modern society. In the 70’s there were great film makers actively at work exploring existential themes - Kubrick, Bunuel, Fellini, Antonioni, Bergman and Kurosawa. I think Philosophy and Art have arrived at truths too disturbing to confront so in a kind of reactive retort people have switched to fantasy and illusion in order to make life more tolerable. I rarely see any young people taking an interest to read poetry, literature or the great films these days after their older generation have dismissed them. My daughter for instance said that watching the Bergman film Persona was unbearable. We are creatures who have succumbed to a world which surrounds us in a sublimated version of reality. For people who wish to become authentic, they must break through the veneer, the tension film, to see reality for what it is, not as something terrifying but innocent. You can see how Heidegger inspired the popular film Matrix, where the few have broken out of the world of illusion to realise their authentic being and by doing so discover a disturbing reality about the world of illusion.
Heidegger, when asked by Deyfuss (visting Heidegger in Germany), what he thought about Being and Nothingness, Heidegger answered, according to Dreyfuss, that he thought Sartre's Being and Nothingness was "Dreck" ('muck'). The reason was, of course that it was cartesian as it could be. Quite correctly Barrett characterised Being and Nothingness therefore as a "melodrama between two cartesian consciousnesses".
well i must confess that it was an amusing and interesting interview to watch.. I myself don't know nearly anything about philosophy and I actually don't enjoy reading such books.. but this was really good man..
i really love youtube
I fucking know dude
I have so much to learn before I die! Thank you TH-cam...Every night I share with my 10 year old grandson what I found on TH-cam. We've been researching Quantum Computers.. It scared him. Tonight, we will talk about Philosophers - being, what is truth, love, a spiritual connection with a higher power. I need all the help I can get...so little time. Thank you TH-cam.
Yeah, it baffles me that if you put the newest crappy movie up on youtube it would be taken down with repercussions to the poster but the wisdom of the ages....free for all (as it should be) but ignored by almost all. I've been working my through the sum of human knowledge and call it a huge win over watching some horrible tv rerun. FWIW.
I think, and I'm probably not alone in this, that if we didn't die we might, as a species, be even more inclined to philosophise. Anxiety about the shortness of life makes us hurry to achieve things. This is how a lot of people try to give their lives significance: 'I built a business,' 'I had a family,' 'I wrote a great novel,' etc. Without this pressure towards clear material achievements, would we be more willing to think about the sheer strangeness of existence and knowledge? 'The world is too much with us,' pace Wordsworth. EDIT: I think I must have watched this video before, so the Wordsworth quote was in my head. This time, I wrote it before Magee said it!
"The tree exists because we are here to call it a tree" - Bishop Berkeley.
Heidegger would have hated Berkeley's observation though! He emphasises over and over again that we are 'always-already' here. That's what his 'thrown-ness' concept is. Only a Cartesian would imagine that our experience of a tree has any causal relation to its existence. Since it was also thrown into the world, it has always-already existed. He might well have added that it needs no-one's awareness, since it has its own - that of the world and its being in the world.
The real mystery, in a sense, is that neither beginnings nor endings are accessible to us: we do not recall our conception, and will not experience our death. A common way of dealing with this notion of 'endings'/death is to say that since we do not experience it, we need not be anxious about an experience we will in fact never have. The reason this is inadequate is that we are aware of such possibilities which will, so to speak, 'occur - although not to us'.
Anxiety is the paradoxical experience of knowing what will not be (all that we are), and is therefore part of the absolute ground of our being - hence our 'ownmost possibility' in his slightly quirky terminology. Therefore, we overcome this precisely by accepting it - in some way, and what is significant is not how we accept this possibility of 'un-being' but *that* we accept it. If we had no such awareness of death, then philosophy would be an easier and 'brighter' proposition, but it would not be our philosophy.
Therefore, we can only pursue philosophy as it *is to us*, with anxiety running through it like the stitching in a sock. I suspect that he's right (although I may be expanding on what he said explicitly here) that our refusal to allow nature its own being, which is also the ground of our being - this denial of the nature *of* being (including anxiety), in which technology is rooted - leads towards what it attempts to vanquish, i.e. death.
This is perhaps a grim thought, but our refusal to think of it is the cause of the accelerating failures of 'technological man': in constant flight from a single thought, he loses touch with *all* thought. Technology is the denial of nature, and the embrace of cowardice. And what characterises the twenty-first century more than denial and cowardice? I suspect that he never hoped to be *quite* as correct as the last few decades have proven him (!) (Hope I didn't veer too much into rhetoric at the end there... Just trying to tease out the implications for us today...)
@@Microtherion But in a way, this still matches up with what I'm saying because, as you describe it, the fear of death leads to the non-philosophical busyness of technology. Philosophy has to take that on, which is how death shapes our philosophy, but it's not the only thing that shapes it. We could still be subject the existential predicament of thrownness, for example, without it being finite.
@@JohnMoseley I think it mostly matches up, yes. (Mostly, Moseley. Lol). Neither death nor anxiety define our experience - they are *part of* the basic ground or 'scheme'... 'A given', as they say. There are other givens - most of which I like better, of course. I'm not sure I understood your last bit there. (Whether Thrown-ness is or isn't 'finite'?) It isn't really 'finite' or 'infinite' - it just *is*... (Or so it seems. That was precisely Heidegger's point, I think. 'Is' and 'seems' are different - but not always obviously different). :)
@@Microtherion The last bit is about whether all the other givens are going to be ended (for us subjectively) by death, hence 'finite.' I meant that even in a world where people were immortal, philosophers would still have lots of concerns in common with us mortals when we philosophise: the nature of time and space, epistemology, lots of binaries like the one vs. the many etc. etc.
Such a sweet man. Genuine and amiable
Excellent interview, their Dasein's continues to exist in their printed writings and videos. Thank you
No one asks better questions than Bryan Magee. A far better communicator than the American professor.
In this series of interviews, Magee often articulates the philosopher under discussion with greater clarity than the supposed specialist. This is the case, again, here.
Magee never fails to (i) situate the philosopher in the history of ideas; and (ii) unify the unruly thoughts of the professors being interviewed into a cohesive chain of ideas.
Magee’s writings were superlative. This series of TV interviews is a monument to a great thinker and a world of public intellectuals that has vanished.
Might that be because he is relaxed, takes his time and does not babble?
Wherever these gentleman are, I hope they know I am continuing to celebrate and learn this today
We're thrown into the world and ask what's everyone doing and they say can't you see were walking around in a circle. So you say, well I guess I better join them they seem to know what's going on.
Thus we suffer from existential perplexity.
Equanimity through meditation is the beginning...
.
"We" being *you* and *which*specific identifiable interlocutor that is not imaginary?
14:06 thank you for actually trying to get the train back on the rails. It doesn’t seem to stay on though; it was so all over the place (I’m an average person trying to learn more about philosophy) . I’m just trying to figure out what Heidegger said and what his ideas were. Clearly Barrett is an expert but I don’t think I was able to take away any meaningful notion from this conversation.
This is a good philosophical conversation.
@manufacturing intellect. So happy i ran into your channel. Great work! Highly appreciated.
why did programs like this cease to exist
Really good question.
The programme was made for the BBC in the '80s, Wikipedia tells me. The BBC's old mandate, dating from around the end of WWII, was 'to educate, inform and entertain,' and based on that they produced, for decades, some of the most remarkable television in the world, from groundbreaking comedy like Monty Python to serious programmes on ideas, such as Monitor to extraordinary films and plays directed by now internationally renowned directors such as Mike Leigh and Ken Loach. But the BBC is always somewhat embattled because they're a state broadcaster with no advertising and depend on the paying of a TV license fee by the general population to function. Any UK owner of a TV is required to pay this fee (or anyone accessing BBC programmes online too now) and many object, especially if they feel the corporation's programming fails to serve their interests. Commercial television providers such as Sky, part owned by Rupert Murdoch, also object strongly that the BBC unfairly dominates the market. All this, plus the need to make content that can be sold at a profit abroad, means the BBC now puts more and more of its resources into populist programming. It retains an outlet for more intellectual fair, BBC4, but even this is deeply insipid compared to what it used to do. It's mainly just arts and history programmes with attractive presenters skimming the surface of their subjects while walking around attractive settings. It's very sad.
It always had a big state, nanny-knows-best, Leftist-Liberal slant, even from the start. Conservative, reactionary views and values were always questioned, critiqued or outright mocked, such as in comedies like Monty Python or kitchen sink dramas. Still, they did at least back then feel somewhat "British", and so even for a rightist/nationalist like me there was some appeal in their often creative and talent-packed programming. Since the Blair years, however, they have become total shills for "Globalhomo Inc.", a no-borders, morally-relativist clown-world that keeps the plebs in their place by pushing vapid, deracinated consumerism and hedonism. There is absolutely nothing "British" about the BBC anymore, they are just cheerleaders now for globalist values that I find fundamentally abhorrent, and so I, and many others, will no longer watch their propaganda and pay their tithe. It's very sad, as you say.
Ержан Насанов, There you go, Thad tuiol's comment is a paradigm example of the standard hostility to the BBC, though with a large dollop of extra crazy.
The standard snarky leftist ad hominem. Go fuck yourself.
Fantastic presentation.
loved this series so much but I couldn't stop wondering why they did not get another couch/chair so that they didn't have to sit twisted at that angle.
You have obviously never been a director/cameraman, but have a little think why it is set up as it is -watch c-a-r-e-f-u-l-l-y.
Love it. It’s like Liberace discussing Heidegger.
You having exactly how much experience of Liberace discussing Heidegger, that you may make the comparison, or are you supposing the Prof. to be a bit low in the loafers as the kinderlander say?
Magee is simply BRLLIANT when he interviwes philosophers!!! Just FANTASTIC! THANK YOU!!🙂👌👏
As a molecular biologist with an interest in philosophy, I found this discussion to be one of the most accessible and therefore interesting of the series.
For me, I watch the endeavours we make to address our existential anxiety with some mild amusement. It’s as if we choose to blind ourselves to the reality of what, for functional purposes generates these anxieties and desires.
"We" being *you* and *which* specific identifiable interlocutor?
Is there a " we"?
"We" being you and *which*specific identifiable interlocutor that is not imaginary?
@@vhawk1951kl Being of a scientific bent it is my habit to use the pluralis modestiae.
@@yp77738yp77739 Bent or not you cannot answer a simply question or I simply infer that you are using the kinderlander " we" the kinderlander-mercan american, finding the prospect of no " we" terrifying.
*W-h-y* do *You -yes *You* as you put it"Blind *Your*_self to the reality of what, for functional purposes generates these anxieties and desires, which are........................?
This is so solid
هايدغر أكبر نقطة تحويل في الفلسفة المعاصرة
Brian Magee insists on making philosophy understandable by the non professional like myself unlike the majority of philosophers he discusses
Where is the historically momentous realisation in this? I don't get it.
I'm thinking that, by watching this, we're "making the most of it" given we had no choice.
At 30.31 he says that Parmindes was the first to come up with the idea of the unity but that is exactly what Hinduism pronounced with “ srvang kalvidang Brahman” several millenia before
RIP Bryan
Meditation on death and the fear of it keeps it in perspective.
The Tibetan Book of the Dead explain the realms of non existentence.
Very conservative, academic and sorely missed on television programming these days.
NOTE: Both of these men are heavily influenced by Ludwig Wittgenstein, therefore their comparisons, discussion and vitality of thought using Wittgenstein’s int in comparison is something you don’t hear everyday. All in all, solid discussion that perhaps by chance crosses over to the one-to-one / one to many and many to one / many to many meta relationships swirling through human collective thought regarding what is life?, what is consciousness?, sentience, ethics and morality, relating to Artificial Intelligence (AI).
At least BBC Radio still has some decent broadcasts.
"..Heidegger has no ethics..." as a quote says a lot.
I think they can talk about Schopenhauer more when discussing “everydayness “
1977, Heidegger just died the year before 1976.
cant tell if the name of this channel is meant to be tongue-in-cheek
I think the year is 1987, not 1978. The whole series was in 1987.
I don’t think Barret did a great job in this one. Bryan tried his best to get something out of him and thankfully his questions and recapitulations were more helpful than Barret’s rambles.. I’d recommend Bryan’s interview with Dreyfus as a much better take on Heidegger
Yes he's a bit long winded.
Barrett does go for a bit of a ramble on this one; doesn't really find anything to relate. Great writer though.
I was being in 1977
A few Wittgenstein/Heidegger parallels (on the back of an envelope): novel kind of attention to the everyday / sustained critique of the Cartesian subject / major work left incomplete / two philosophies / forms of life / obscure attitude towards religion / finitism / world as language / practical (anti-theoretical) stance / early mathematical interests / poetry as template / trying to slow the reader down ...
Heidegger was disturbing in more ways than one.
He was not only a nefarious Nazi but the most petty and vindictive of individuals as evidenced by his treatment of husserl who had done much to promote his earlier work.
And what about his work?
@@Mtmonaghan both his work and his character are legitimate topics of debate.
One does not invalidate the other.
Who told you that "he was not only a nefarious Nazi but the most petty and vindictive of individuals," and why do you believe them? Were you born credulous or did you go on a course?
@vhawk1951kl
I believe the evidence.
Heidegger was an early member of the nazi party and a member until the day the party ceased to exist.
Heidegger denouced colleagues at freiberg not only for being unsympathetic to the nazi party but also for things like pacifism. This included his benefactor edmund husserl.
This was found in nszi dicuments by the americans but supprrssed to rehabilitate heidegger.
It only came to light years after his death.
What i said is uncontroversial-for anyone who knows the subject.
It's a pity that Magee didn't do the whole presentation. All his guest does is muddy the waters.
43:15
The entire history of human search for knowledge, philosophy as well as science, and from antiquity to present day (and still continuing), has always been about linking sense perceptions (that too, almost exclusively, the sight) to the brain (or mind) thruogh describing how motios in non living matter and of celestial bodies occur. Never about linking of the far more basic for survival, the needs and satisfaction perceptions to the stomach and lungs through describing the development and growth of PLANTS, the only entity in the entire known universe that deliver and sustain 100% of all life in it.
Epistemology instead of ontology.
That is the reason why in the entire history of our search for knowledge we haven't derived the mathematical model for the mechanism of even a single natural phenomenon in such a way that it PREDICTS accurately when that phenomenon could harm life function, let alone PREVENT such.
PRACTICAL PREVENTION OF EVIL (disasters, predation, diseases ~ which include birth defects and all violence ~ and death) is not found even in the vocabulary of search for knowledge, whereas in any system of proper search for knowledge that ALONE should be the sole purpose CUM criterion of proof.
This series was called Men of Ideas.... why has that been replaced one wonders!
My death, but I can not experience it? With an assumption that my awareness tied into the brain activities, if there are no activities in the brain, then no awareness and no way to experience DEATH.
who saw who saw at 1:44 (subtitle) :D
All this talk of meaning...we are just wired to think like that.otherwise the thing most matters in most of our lives is physical survival, comfort and enjoyment.then comes the need to be loved and be in company of our loved ones.love keeps us going.
"We" being*you* and *which* specific identifiable interlocutor that is not imaginary?
We're not worthy
Did these prof.s believed Heidegger is an existentialist ?!
Heidegger is the most confusing thing there is
He doesn't have metaphysics. If anything he should be the easiest to understand.
It makes perfect sense, but his vocabulary makes it near unreadable.
@@nowhereman6019 rubbish, you are trying to understand his work by applying a metaphysical approach. Understanding words by being clear about their definition, or a concept that fully delineates them, is as far away from his views as you could possibly get.
He's got competition from William Barrett
19:15
This seems framed like "which objection to Descartes do you like?" as if mind/body dualism is definitely wrong and it's just a question of which to replace it with.
I agree with their statements but like, instead of "let's get rid of this mind thing", they should be like "lets concentrate on the body, the subject more, and less on the mind and objectivity". Which I think is the key take away of Existentialism as a whole.
My biggest objection here is the implication that philosophers prior to Descartes did not care about the mind, when in fact it was their primary focus, and the hyperfixation on the "objective" world today is a symptom of that. Plato's fundamental problem, which is the backdrop of the Abrahamic religions and their mysteries is precisely about mind/body/theological trinitarianism. That's why we get priests who deny the flesh, are abstenient and so on. that's taking their mind/body problem and objectivity view to the extreme to the point of violence.
And between the Greeks and Descartes, the entire field of medieval philosophy is all about studying the mind, but through many veils of myth.
Noam Chomsky's talks on Descartes are good, he mentions the British Neoplatonists a lot, whom I'm a great fan of. Even the original Neoplatonists in Athens, Syria, Alexandria were primarily interested in this. I love the writings of Plotinus.
A professional philosopher eh?
Sort of chap that gets woken up at 3 AM by "help help my epistemology is leaking, or my existentialism won't start".. Finds himself saying that his minimum call out charge is fifty quid and he can't take on any new work before next Wednesday, and puffing out his cheeks and saying " If only you people wouldn't buy cheap foreign syllogisms, you wouldn't have these problems
Great questions but not so great answers. What's the point of an expert who can't clearly explain. Too many oblique and imprecise responses.
William Barret might be a sweetheart but he is insufferably annoying to watch. There is a reason that philosophers are not poets, and that critics are not philosophers; and that is because poets are magicians, philosophers are scientists, and critics are simply academic journalists. If you want to understand Heidegger's existentialism, read any literature from the 30s & 40s. Heidegger himself (& basically every philosopher) says that the answer to the dread & anxiety of the human condition is ART & POETRY.
@Sean The problem is that all of this is now well understood to be meaningless. Such discussions might have made some kind of sense back then, but someone with a proper scientific education, i.e. a person that understands the evolved biological nature of human beings, all answers regarding existence and "being" are well known - human beings are a bag of carbon atoms that exists for the sole reason ("reason", not "purpose") of maximizing the inclusive fitness of its genes - and the likes of Heidegger appear to just spew meaningless gibberish. I just spent 40 minutes of my life listening to this video, and did not hear one meaningful thing that Heidegger said. Nor did I find anything meaningful when I have tried to read his writings. There is just nothing of substance or relevance to the real world there.
And yet, an extremely elaborate elaborate edifice has been built on that non-existent foundation over the last 80-90 years...
@@GM53946 -- Check out the book by Moreland and Craig called Naturalism: a Critical Analysis and Morelands book Scientism and Secularism. Also The Rationality of Theism by Copan and Moser.
@@GM53946 I disagree. The scientific explanations are explanations of processes of nature. You can memorize the infinitely many steps and natural laws that led to your birth, but reducing your existence to only a handful of propositions is ignoring the immensely complex subjective reality within your mind. No equation or model can describe your subjective experience. That's beyond the realm of the scientific method because it is not reproducible, cannot me measured quantitatively and, worst of all, can be experienced only by you.
Therefore, the questions about our subjective existence (which leads to the acceptance of death, anxiety, freedom, etc.) cannot be answered by other people, let alone science, unless you willingly choose to give up the choices of your life and bow to the rules and methods developed by other men and women (as it has been done over and over by other people in other times).
I think it's the gym.
@@Sanelicv Spot on friend
I didn't find life _short_ nor day-to-day life overly familiar up to my late 20s.
It frustrates me that these men make no allusion to this.
Some people do find these things early on in life. To me, it started in my early teens. It might have been the same for them. Perhaps anyone can feel like this early in life, if they are paying attention and the setting is right.
yech - I am forced to utter . . . it's like taking iron for anemia
Whu dont we have programms like this, why?! In my country 🇦🇱 u only see stupidity, never such programms
Schopenhauer and later Cioran destroyed all the existentialist position.
how so
Cioran had put his ideas of philosophical pessimism to an extreme that he has had jettisoned the value existentialism...
...'Heidegger has no ethics'🙄
For all of his spectacular intellectualism, Heidegger made a choice to become a Nazi... What is the value of a philosophy that doesn't lead us to be better human beings?
What is the value of a philosophy that doesn't lead us to be better human beings?
"Better" in what sense?-More likeable?
Does that not depend on who is doing the liking?
If you are a bored Asiatic fisherman waiting for the weather to improve is not philosophy as good a way of passing the time as any?
Difficult to reconcile such intelligence as Heidegger obviously had with being an enthusiastic devotee of Hitler
I have listened to this interview before and once again come away feeling betrayed since it seems all Heidegger is saying is “we are born and then we die
He doesn’t seem to tackle any of the major epistemological questions at all
in this Heidegger repreoresents the death of western philosophy
Who told you that "Heidegger was an enthusiastic devotee of Hitler", and why do you believe them? To what is it relevant that "Heidegger was an enthusiastic devotee of Hitler? Where and what is your syllogism?
If an "enthusiastic devotee of Hitler" suggested to you that the sum if two and two were four or that Tuesdays have an uncanny habit of following Mondays, would you demur on the ground what he was" an "enthusiastic devotee of Hitler"? Hitler was very sound on some hings but not others; it's an ill wind that blows nobody any good.
This professor is not very good at explaining lol. Maggie is much better LOL
My free book has the answer to the meaning of life..
Brains in a vat
Blah Blah Blah again lots of bs! As we don't know that we are beings in the world😂
Did no-one ever warn you against using those asinine infantile symbols used only by imbecile children, lest you be taken for an imbecile child, for no *sane* adult would dream of using anything so asinine and infantile, but if you sincerely*wish* to be taken for an imbecile child, that is of course entirely a matter for you. I only need to see them used to know for a certainty that the user is a child with few wits, for no adult with wits and learning would dream of using them for fear of being taken for an imbecile child, that inference being inescapable. The *only* inference that can be drawn from the use of those asinine and infantile symbols is that the user is some kind of imbecile child, for*no* adult with wits or learning would use anything to asinine and infantile, but if you active *wish* to be taken for or supposed to be an imbecile child, that is of course entirely a matter for you.
here really is *no_other* inference to draw but those that use such asinine and infantile symbols *are* imbecile children, for *no* sane adult with wits and learning would dream of using anything so asinine and infantile for fear of being taken for, or supposed to be, an imbecile child.
You seem to *wish* to be supposed to be an imbecile child, but if that is your wish amen to that.
Are existentialism is relatively short and long in the same time...🫵😉
44:39