When i first listened to lectures about Heidegger’s Being and Time I understood very little. After studying Mahayana Buddhism and Daoism I understood everything. Heidegger basically re-discovered key concepts of Mahayana Buddhism 17-19 centuries later. Dasein is “interbeing”.
Great video, just wanted to share my impressions as someone who's first proper exposure to Heidegger is this video. Frankly most of it isn't really clicking, but that might just be that this is too limited an exposure of a complicated topic for me to fairly articulate an opinion on. One of the things I'm struggling to understand is the notion of reflection being the force that drives non-being into being. A young child presumably lacks the ability to reflect, yet do they not have being? And related to that point, you mention the idea that the fact that we exist within time makes us aware of our end, which motivates us to action (if I understand that correctly). Again, I don't know that a young child is aware of its mortality, yet young children do all sorts of things. Another point I'm struggling with is the idea that we "de-distance" ourselves from things in space in order to create a world, and I can't understand that in a sense that isn't metaphorical. Does being physically closer to an object necessarily imply a larger degree of engagement with it? Am I completely misunderstanding? Lastly, there's the idea of a persisting sense of self that you mention. At first I thought I understood what the object of focus was, namely the sense of having subjectivity per se, to be able to feel that one belongs within a body. But then you mention that this relates also to one's character, but yet distinct from the sum of our likes and dislikes and individual histories. I struggle to conceive of speaking of my character in a sense that is completely divorced from this. Apologies if I'm not being precise, I'm pretty tired at the moment. I enjoyed the video, though. It was very engaging even though I don't feel like I understood anything.
Thanks Dr David. I think may have understood something of some of what you have said. But one question, which may help me a little, please: would puppy dogs, kitty cats, and fuzzy little bunnies also have this dasein thing? (Given that their adorable intelligences have no idea of inevitable death solely due to the effect of Time.) Thank you very much.
@@balsarmy Thank you very much. I do not know if you mean biological evolution, but have striven to understand, and will remember what you have said. Thank you. Still I would like to hear from our new Doctor about the fuzzy little bunnies, etc, on this matter. I asked again in the subsequent video, but thus far my entreaties have been coldly rebuffed! I care very much for cute little kitties and puppies, though not in the way Heidegger means I suppose - and I fear that by including them I have made myself a figure of fun to Dr David, even though I excluded the wuzzily wombat and looping lemur. I suppose I would had done better to have said "higher mammals" and left it at that.
Hi! As I understand it, the Dasein is a potentiality of the being, but doesn't have to happen. With that in mind, the Dasein is not excluded to any kind of animal but as far as we know, we humans, are the only ones to have "reach it"? I'm not a big fan about the Dasein being an evolutionary term, because in that case it would generate a hierarchy but what it is truth is that the Dasain seems some kind of next step of the conscious about oneself, it's like transporting consciousness to an ontological state. Anyway, I'm pretty far from being an expert, just jumping into the debate!@@numbersix8919
@@numbersix8919Kant explains the categies off logic necessary for us to experience objects. The finite rational being is the subject of kant and there are 4 categories. Varying degrees of consciousness of an object means that we do not always fully experience all objects. If you are walking and you see a dog walking toward you then you experience the dog but don't consider the sidewalk. Andrew Brooks explains this in his book on kant. Some animals think an object in a mirror is another animal because they don't have our cognitive capacities. Then there is the well developed pre frontal cortex which allows a deeper morality, which plays a huge role in who we are. Kants work on self generates categories of self such as soul and personality which are really paralogisms, suitable for rational psyc, but not strictly tly true in a metaphysical sense. So along comes Heidegger and instead of answering this I question, reformulated it as being, dasien. I'm just starting Heidelberg but I know kant, I have a stack of books by and on kant over 3 feet high and filled with margin notes and he was so brilliant, so unbelievably brilliant. Heidelberg was no slouch and the respect he got was why I bought the book. I will read it 2 or 3 times, then read the best interpretations.
What you described almost reminds me of the free energy principle as Karl Friston formulates it (at least what I understand of it from his podcast with Lex Friedman)
Read Ernest Becker on the importance of death-awareness in a much broader context. And, Dasein can also be Being in the Now; as in the Buddhist sense of being fully present here and now.
It's a phenomological life world within the atmosphere that can be ontologized by the ready-at-hand and they can't even perceive reality - husserlian attitude of transcendental deconstruction.
Whenever I think of dasein, it strikes me how the heidggeriean terms are actually baked into the Germanic word (?) In swedish it's basically the every day word "närvaro" I which to hear if anyone else (scandinavian, German) have the same understanding here? It feels like Heidiggers linguistically proximity to me gives me an easier time, than perhaps other languages. Maybe Ive said it before, but anyway you are a pearl David, a real gem on youtube! It was some time since I watched your stuff, but I really appreciate your channel!
Personaly I like närvaro better BUT I wont argue that there is a hermeneutical and lingustical correctness in tillvaro, and perhaps not in närvaro, It is a better translation. So (and I now assume you are swedish/scandinavian) would you not say that there is a certain closeness-in-thought in words like när-varo, till-varo, här-vara, här-öra, här-berga? (another favourite of mine) have a nice afternoon person of the internet :) @@geolazakis
@@thunbergmartin Hi just saw your reply. For me it's important to see the origin and use of the word, there ought to be a continuation rather than reappropriation of words. Words are in a sense sacred for Heidegger, not in a mystical way but that we need to treat them with care and a listening ear. The word 'till' is tied with 'to' while the word 'när' is tied to 'when', the former is tied to 'reaching' while the latter is tied to 'reached' and Dasein is not reached since it is reaching i.e. becoming. The reaching for Dasein is Death, there's no more becoming since it has already become. The words you mention have a closeness-in-thought, but for Heidegger it is not just about mere closeness but of their difference to each other, the details in difference matter. Tillvaro is becoming, Närvaro will or had already been determined in it's fruition while Dasein is not. Hence Tillvaro is more appropriate and also the ethics of such ontology are more open to the openness of life. But let's not forget Dasein is human, the aspect of life i.e. is in a state of becoming (Heidegger was inspired by Goethe and his morphology).
Hegel said that German ( replacing Greek) had become "the natural language of philosophy" I think one of the things Heidegger does is almost create a language in this case 'Heidegerise' (which drove one of my Philosophy lectures a bit nuts! ) But the adoption of compound words is entirely natural and ordinary in German, one of my fellow students who was bilingual in German and English said Being and Time was much easier to understand in German..
I'm not sure if "da" from "dasein" should be translated as "there." In this case, I would prefer "here." In German, in colloquial language, one says "ich bin da," which means "I am here." "Schau da" means "look there," which indicates a direction away, but in the context of existence, one refers to oneself.
is dasein something an individual can have, or is it something you are? How would you explain somebody with, or who is, dasein, im incredibly confused.
beingness, the quality of being, the actuality of being ... revealing, close cousin of becoming - presence, the experience of presence, what happens in a moment of time, if there is such a thing - that space in which something exists, in life - the subconscious experience of existing
It's more fundamental than the end of life. This current moment will end. So your current state of being knows that the end is coming in the next fraction of a second. Knowing about this miniscule ending is the perception of time.
Who is Dasein?- it's "you" as Heidegger said " Dasein is always and in every case, mine." But this video is trying to get to and over the concept of Dasein as well so using 'what' is fine by me.
@@geolazakis It's not just "who" is dasein though, because the term "who" is normally described with reference to personal traits. "Who is it?" can be answered with "the person with black hair, standing over there, it's my friend" or whatever. Whereas dasein is meant to get across a beingness that exists before any of that can form. Not only does it exist before those other traits, but its very existence allows those other traits to form.
![ละลาย (LALALYE) - DAOU PITTAYA ต้าห์อู๋ พิทยา [OFFICIAL MV]](http://i.ytimg.com/vi/wo6r9TgausI/mqdefault.jpg)
![[ ออกกอง ] วัยหนุ่ม 2544 โลกหลังลูกกรง..ทัวร์กองถ่ายหนังใน "คุกของจริง" | JUSTดูIT.](http://i.ytimg.com/vi/vB--aOkZCpw/mqdefault.jpg)
YOU LITERALLY MADE ME LOVE PHILOSOPHY AGAIN, THANK YOU
again?
literally?
When i first listened to lectures about Heidegger’s Being and Time I understood very little. After studying Mahayana Buddhism and Daoism I understood everything. Heidegger basically re-discovered key concepts of Mahayana Buddhism 17-19 centuries later. Dasein is “interbeing”.
Got a university test tomorrow morning on the Dasein, hopefully this will help me a bit ahah
I saw Dasein. It opened up my eyes
Heard and laughed out loudly
Great video, just wanted to share my impressions as someone who's first proper exposure to Heidegger is this video.
Frankly most of it isn't really clicking, but that might just be that this is too limited an exposure of a complicated topic for me to fairly articulate an opinion on. One of the things I'm struggling to understand is the notion of reflection being the force that drives non-being into being. A young child presumably lacks the ability to reflect, yet do they not have being? And related to that point, you mention the idea that the fact that we exist within time makes us aware of our end, which motivates us to action (if I understand that correctly). Again, I don't know that a young child is aware of its mortality, yet young children do all sorts of things.
Another point I'm struggling with is the idea that we "de-distance" ourselves from things in space in order to create a world, and I can't understand that in a sense that isn't metaphorical. Does being physically closer to an object necessarily imply a larger degree of engagement with it? Am I completely misunderstanding?
Lastly, there's the idea of a persisting sense of self that you mention. At first I thought I understood what the object of focus was, namely the sense of having subjectivity per se, to be able to feel that one belongs within a body. But then you mention that this relates also to one's character, but yet distinct from the sum of our likes and dislikes and individual histories. I struggle to conceive of speaking of my character in a sense that is completely divorced from this. Apologies if I'm not being precise, I'm pretty tired at the moment.
I enjoyed the video, though. It was very engaging even though I don't feel like I understood anything.
first, you could say I was "being in time"
You are the first dasein in Time to comment in this space which is now embedded in our individual and shared Beings.
Description of daesiin starts at 01:26
Thanks Dr David. I think may have understood something of some of what you have said. But one question, which may help me a little, please: would puppy dogs, kitty cats, and fuzzy little bunnies also have this dasein thing? (Given that their adorable intelligences have no idea of inevitable death solely due to the effect of Time.) Thank you very much.
@@balsarmy Thank you very much. I do not know if you mean biological evolution, but have striven to understand, and will remember what you have said. Thank you.
Still I would like to hear from our new Doctor about the fuzzy little bunnies, etc, on this matter. I asked again in the subsequent video, but thus far my entreaties have been coldly rebuffed! I care very much for cute little kitties and puppies, though not in the way Heidegger means I suppose - and I fear that by including them I have made myself a figure of fun to Dr David, even though I excluded the wuzzily wombat and looping lemur. I suppose I would had done better to have said "higher mammals" and left it at that.
Hi! As I understand it, the Dasein is a potentiality of the being, but doesn't have to happen. With that in mind, the Dasein is not excluded to any kind of animal but as far as we know, we humans, are the only ones to have "reach it"? I'm not a big fan about the Dasein being an evolutionary term, because in that case it would generate a hierarchy but what it is truth is that the Dasain seems some kind of next step of the conscious about oneself, it's like transporting consciousness to an ontological state. Anyway, I'm pretty far from being an expert, just jumping into the debate!@@numbersix8919
@@numbersix8919Kant explains the categies off logic necessary for us to experience objects. The finite rational being is the subject of kant and there are 4 categories. Varying degrees of consciousness of an object means that we do not always fully experience all objects. If you are walking and you see a dog walking toward you then you experience the dog but don't consider the sidewalk. Andrew Brooks explains this in his book on kant. Some animals think an object in a mirror is another animal because they don't have our cognitive capacities. Then there is the well developed pre frontal cortex which allows a deeper morality, which plays a huge role in who we are. Kants work on self generates categories of self such as soul and personality which are really paralogisms, suitable for rational psyc, but not strictly tly true in a metaphysical sense. So along comes Heidegger and instead of answering this I question, reformulated it as being, dasien. I'm just starting Heidelberg but I know kant, I have a stack of books by and on kant over 3 feet high and filled with margin notes and he was so brilliant, so unbelievably brilliant. Heidelberg was no slouch and the respect he got was why I bought the book. I will read it 2 or 3 times, then read the best interpretations.
Thank you for the explanation. Some things are clearer now. Heidegger seems endeed to be quite a social philosopher.
What you described almost reminds me of the free energy principle as Karl Friston formulates it (at least what I understand of it from his podcast with Lex Friedman)
Read Ernest Becker on the importance of death-awareness in a much broader context.
And, Dasein can also be Being in the Now; as in the Buddhist sense of being fully present here and now.
It's a phenomological life world within the atmosphere that can be ontologized by the ready-at-hand and they can't even perceive reality - husserlian attitude of transcendental deconstruction.
really good overview but also just wanted to hop on and say, really nice shirt!
Brutally summarized, could we say Dasein is "dynamic essence"?
Whenever I think of dasein, it strikes me how the heidggeriean terms are actually baked into the Germanic word (?) In swedish it's basically the every day word "närvaro" I which to hear if anyone else (scandinavian, German) have the same understanding here? It feels like Heidiggers linguistically proximity to me gives me an easier time, than perhaps other languages. Maybe Ive said it before, but anyway you are a pearl David, a real gem on youtube! It was some time since I watched your stuff, but I really appreciate your channel!
It's not närvaro, it is tillvaro or rather said tillvarot. So the question is not what is dasein but rather who is Dasein.
Personaly I like närvaro better BUT I wont argue that there is a hermeneutical and lingustical correctness in tillvaro, and perhaps not in närvaro, It is a better translation. So (and I now assume you are swedish/scandinavian) would you not say that there is a certain closeness-in-thought in words like när-varo, till-varo, här-vara, här-öra, här-berga? (another favourite of mine) have a nice afternoon person of the internet :) @@geolazakis
?@@geolazakis
@@thunbergmartin Hi just saw your reply. For me it's important to see the origin and use of the word, there ought to be a continuation rather than reappropriation of words. Words are in a sense sacred for Heidegger, not in a mystical way but that we need to treat them with care and a listening ear.
The word 'till' is tied with 'to' while the word 'när' is tied to 'when', the former is tied to 'reaching' while the latter is tied to 'reached' and Dasein is not reached since it is reaching i.e. becoming. The reaching for Dasein is Death, there's no more becoming since it has already become.
The words you mention have a closeness-in-thought, but for Heidegger it is not just about mere closeness but of their difference to each other, the details in difference matter.
Tillvaro is becoming, Närvaro will or had already been determined in it's fruition while Dasein is not. Hence Tillvaro is more appropriate and also the ethics of such ontology are more open to the openness of life. But let's not forget Dasein is human, the aspect of life i.e. is in a state of becoming (Heidegger was inspired by Goethe and his morphology).
Hegel said that German ( replacing Greek) had become "the natural language of philosophy" I think one of the things Heidegger does is almost create a language in this case 'Heidegerise' (which drove one of my Philosophy lectures a bit nuts! ) But the adoption of compound words is entirely natural and ordinary in German, one of my fellow students who was bilingual in German and English said Being and Time was much easier to understand in German..
I'm not sure if "da" from "dasein" should be translated as "there." In this case, I would prefer "here." In German, in colloquial language, one says "ich bin da," which means "I am here." "Schau da" means "look there," which indicates a direction away, but in the context of existence, one refers to oneself.
is dasein something an individual can have, or is it something you are? How would you explain somebody with, or who is, dasein, im incredibly confused.
Who's in your bookcase? I think I know 7 of them.
good question
Excellent, thank you,
Like the question but not when it exceeds need.
Is it normal for this fundamental quality, the quality that I track within myself, to be a distaste for the world?
being in the world
beingness, the quality of being, the actuality of being ... revealing, close cousin of becoming - presence, the experience of presence, what happens in a moment of time, if there is such a thing - that space in which something exists, in life - the subconscious experience of existing
Young people don't see their lives ending.but they still do things.
It's more fundamental than the end of life. This current moment will end. So your current state of being knows that the end is coming in the next fraction of a second. Knowing about this miniscule ending is the perception of time.
Thank you for letting the world know you understand nothing about what Heidegger was trying to do in 'Being and Time'.
This some good shit
Da sein should be Being Here, not there. In German, there is dort. Da = here.
You should say “Being” more.
Long intro 😢😢😢
start from 01:25
At least pose the question properly: *Who* is Dasein?
Who is Dasein?- it's "you" as Heidegger said " Dasein is always and in every case, mine." But this video is trying to get to and over the concept of Dasein as well so using 'what' is fine by me.
@@russellbaston974 Do you know what Heidegger meant by those quotes?
It is -ME writing this- I am tapping the keys.- the German word he used was Jemeinigkeit.@@geolazakis
@@russellbaston974Do you have an understanding of Heidegger in your own language or just through his terminology? Not very Dasein of you.
@@geolazakis It's not just "who" is dasein though, because the term "who" is normally described with reference to personal traits. "Who is it?" can be answered with "the person with black hair, standing over there, it's my friend" or whatever.
Whereas dasein is meant to get across a beingness that exists before any of that can form. Not only does it exist before those other traits, but its very existence allows those other traits to form.