There are at least a threefold philosophical problem with his Nazi gig. 1) His actions (of which there are many) in purging German universities of Jews (see the documentary on YT by Jefferey Van Davis) and his refusal to apologise afterwards (the meeting with Paul Celan) points to the ethical and moral vacuum that is at the core of his "structure of Being" which rests on futurity and potentiality at any cost. 2) Derrida ("Of Spirit") notes that the linguistic/textual flaw appears when he turns to the image of "fire" as the metaphor for Being. This screams at you in his 1940s/late 1930s lectures on Heraclitus. For Heidegger, fire "lightens" a clearing and opening of Being. He didn't spot that it also consumes and destroys. 3) His own admission of philosophical collapse in the Der Spiegel interview when he was grilled a little on his Nazi involvement. Heidegger's conclusion: "Only a god can save us." Being has evaporated into thin air after the Nazi atrocities and there is no answer to the will of technology that he decided the Nazis came to symbolise. So it's not about "hey, we all get things wrong, he's not such a bad guy". The philosophical problem is: what went wrong with his ethics in his assertion of pure individual existential existence? This goes back to his rejection of Kant when he tried to establish an ontology without any Kritik, a word that he never understood in Kant while he spent years rejecting (and missing) the Kantian thesis on the ideas of reason and the refutations of cosmology.
Have you noticed how, recently, it has become fashionable to avoid using the word "Nazi", a simple word, whose meaning everyone understands, and use instead the official name of the party, "National Socialist" which was rarely used in the past and many people may not even know that this was Hitler's party? I seriously suspect that the social media have been flooded with this term by the American right, to associate it with the Democrats, whom the Jewish-Space-Laser crowd also associates with the term "socialist". The fact that neither the USA Democrats nor Hitler had anything remotely to do with socialism meaning in the fantasy world a good part of the USA lives.
Well, I suspect that a bigger reason has to do with how using the simple term "Nazi" can easily get your content censored, demonetized, de-platformed, etc. At least that's why I favor, "National Socialism," which seems a lot less susceptible to all of that.
@@cpolychreona ... Well, the name "Hitler" doesn't seem to be subject to as much censorship as the word "Nazi" is. I'm not sure why that is; you'd probably need to ask the people who are doing the censoring. Maybe it's because Hitler was a historical personage who came to a definite end in 1945, rather than a virulent, ideological movement that's sometimes manifest in the present. But that's just a guess. There seems to be a certain capriciousness to today's censorship that's not terribly coherent or rational. So, there may not actually be an explanation as such.
Same thing as a utilitarian republic being in the world towards death In ontic dualism of a delay, do you want me to retranslate that for you? I gave it back to the bookstore.
Sartre found himself in the same hole when he openly supported Marxist communism . H e as lured by the Freedom banner ( Marx borrowed from Hegel) .that Sartre well walking down that road realized it in fact was not freedom rather you surrendered your freedom to the state . Heidegger as mentioned fell into the same hole . Thus both having a dark shadow cast over their projects . Heidegger cold blooded stare and Sartre look does not have the cause of trust . On the archetype of forgiveness .Forgiveness that being a Theists thing does not enter their domain of thought ,so they as atheists have to take responsibility for their action from the perspective that they knew what they were doing . Relative to theism , from a human encounter of bad to good archetype is Saint Augustine .... a human who lived in the shadowy world of sex .drink and party on later on as a adult confessed and lived by the book . HIs mother of course was a devout Catholic so never gave up on him . Soul , spirit or elf ,so is not a part of existential thought , often twisted up in the soup bowl of desien ., So they feel nothing personal . Just another academic in the moment "good experiment" gone bad ! .
Thank you for these lectures. I’m a college student and wish I had a professor like you
Thank you Prof. If you don't mind of course may you share with us the docs that display in the screen ? Thank you again .
Thank you, this really helped!
There are at least a threefold philosophical problem with his Nazi gig.
1) His actions (of which there are many) in purging German universities of Jews (see the documentary on YT by Jefferey Van Davis) and his refusal to apologise afterwards (the meeting with Paul Celan) points to the ethical and moral vacuum that is at the core of his "structure of Being" which rests on futurity and potentiality at any cost.
2) Derrida ("Of Spirit") notes that the linguistic/textual flaw appears when he turns to the image of "fire" as the metaphor for Being. This screams at you in his 1940s/late 1930s lectures on Heraclitus. For Heidegger, fire "lightens" a clearing and opening of Being. He didn't spot that it also consumes and destroys.
3) His own admission of philosophical collapse in the Der Spiegel interview when he was grilled a little on his Nazi involvement. Heidegger's conclusion: "Only a god can save us." Being has evaporated into thin air after the Nazi atrocities and there is no answer to the will of technology that he decided the Nazis came to symbolise.
So it's not about "hey, we all get things wrong, he's not such a bad guy". The philosophical problem is: what went wrong with his ethics in his assertion of pure individual existential existence?
This goes back to his rejection of Kant when he tried to establish an ontology without any Kritik, a word that he never understood in Kant while he spent years rejecting (and missing) the Kantian thesis on the ideas of reason and the refutations of cosmology.
Have you noticed how, recently, it has become fashionable to avoid using the word "Nazi", a simple word, whose meaning everyone understands, and use instead the official name of the party, "National Socialist" which was rarely used in the past and many people may not even know that this was Hitler's party? I seriously suspect that the social media have been flooded with this term by the American right, to associate it with the Democrats, whom the Jewish-Space-Laser crowd also associates with the term "socialist". The fact that neither the USA Democrats nor Hitler had anything remotely to do with socialism meaning in the fantasy world a good part of the USA lives.
Well, I suspect that a bigger reason has to do with how using the simple term "Nazi" can easily get your content censored, demonetized, de-platformed, etc. At least that's why I favor, "National Socialism," which seems a lot less susceptible to all of that.
@@EricDodsonLectures Interesting alternative explanation. Is the name "Hitler" also banned? If not, why?
@@cpolychreona ... Well, the name "Hitler" doesn't seem to be subject to as much censorship as the word "Nazi" is. I'm not sure why that is; you'd probably need to ask the people who are doing the censoring. Maybe it's because Hitler was a historical personage who came to a definite end in 1945, rather than a virulent, ideological movement that's sometimes manifest in the present. But that's just a guess. There seems to be a certain capriciousness to today's censorship that's not terribly coherent or rational. So, there may not actually be an explanation as such.
Thanks
Powerful
Same thing as a utilitarian republic being in the world towards death In ontic dualism of a delay, do you want me to retranslate that for you? I gave it back to the bookstore.
He makes a mistake and calls Heidegger's book "being in time" which is more to the point, as I interpret the idea of being and existence.
Sartre found himself in the same hole when he openly supported Marxist communism . H e as lured by the Freedom banner ( Marx borrowed from Hegel) .that Sartre well walking down that road realized it in fact was not freedom rather you surrendered your freedom to the state .
Heidegger as mentioned fell into the same hole . Thus both having a dark shadow cast over their projects . Heidegger cold blooded stare and Sartre look does not have the cause of trust .
On the archetype of forgiveness .Forgiveness that being a Theists thing does not enter their domain of thought ,so they as atheists have to take responsibility for their action from the perspective that they knew what they were doing . Relative to theism , from a human encounter of bad to good archetype is Saint Augustine .... a human who lived in the shadowy world of sex .drink and party on later on as a adult confessed and lived by the book . HIs mother of course was a devout Catholic so never gave up on him . Soul , spirit or elf ,so is not a part of existential thought , often twisted up in the soup bowl of desien ., So they feel nothing personal . Just another academic in the moment "good experiment" gone bad ! .
It's Dasien.