Heidegger and the End of Philosophy. A Conversation with Ivo De Gennaro
ฝัง
- เผยแพร่เมื่อ 28 ส.ค. 2024
- You can now enrol on my course on Being and Time!
Seminars start 22nd January 2023. Follow this link to enrol halkyonacademy...
You get access to more than 10 hours of exclusive video and audio lectures plus lecture notes.
I see you inside!
The course is an invitation to think after the most fundamental phenomena of being and human existence. This course is ideal for anyone who wants to understand Heidegger but also if you want to articulate an exit from modernity. Heidegger's thought of concealment, withdrawal, and another beginning is specifically intended for this.
The course is ideal for everyone who wants to gain a deeper understanding of existentialism, phenomenology, the philosophy of technology, and modernity and its relationship with Antiquity.
In my second conversation with Ivo we discuss Heidegger's notion of the "end of philosophy" and what this means for the task of thinking.
Ivo De Gennaro is professor of philosophy at the Free University of Bozen-Bolzano
Subscribe to my channel and leave a comment.
Yes!!!!💖 this is very much in line with what I've been thinking about. Technology seems to provide a modern type of Hedonism, and humanity seems to be getting lost along the way. I think we now have the resources to pursue extreme forms of individualism, but we are becoming so hyperspecific that we are losing touch with eachother. I've heard it argued in the other direction, but I think we are moving toward a BRAVE NEW WORLD type of future, where everyone is pacified with medications and virtual experiences, that we stop striving to make ourselves better as a society, and we just keep consuming all of our resources until we cause our own extinction. Bleak!
Thank you, my awareness of my love for philosophy has been uncovered again and so too it's well spring of inspiration.
I love long form discussions on phenomenology :)
god bless Ivo, can't wait to see this conversation!!
Thank you!
ivo's final words are really meaningfull for me. In the pressure to do something to "save" the world I started having panic attacks, feeling like what I was doing was useless and meaningless and feeling how much I was powerless. Now I just do what I can. I can't save the world but I can save myself. (However, by saving myself, I'm sort of saving the world. We know that the fundamental structure of the world is the dasein itself. We are the world ( we are the childreeeen (ops had to write that sorry)). I don't want any tragedy in my life and I think that tragedy end where our understanding of our nature begins (of living in a finite body with our infinite mind).
Save yourself?
@@tylerdavis520 i wrote that comment some years ago so i may not identify anymore with what i said, anyway, i thought i meant something in the lines of gnostic teachings about pistis sophia which is enslaved from the archons or the man in platos cave, or buddist samsara
@@sacredgeometrymusic3290 I’ve always found the gnostic position quite depressing
@@tylerdavis520 i mean, i think that gnosticism reflect the philosophical attitude of questioning everything. moreover gnositicism is about a direct experience of truth and the way to reach it, i dont know what should there be depressing about it. you probably never red any direct source and you only talk by wikipedia knowledge
@@sacredgeometrymusic3290 the main premise of Gnosticism is that creation and the creator are evil. That’s the depressing part. Is that understandable to you?
Entrancing, enchanting. Being. ad infinitum........
it seems 'the meaning crisis' discussion is becoming more prevalent. John Vervaeke has a wonderful series on it as well as other creators such as Vanderklay and Pageau.
byaringan13 It’s intensifying insofar as it’s beginning to show itself fully
An urgency for our thinking to be in response to what we are always already responding. How to do that? “Think what is”.
Yes. Isn't it remarkable that such a simple question, "what is today?", sparked the thinking path.
The unspoken issue or skirted around issue here, it seems to me, is the question of God.
If one begins from God, one begins from the possibility of truth. Any other way is in deed the "tragic condition" which Mr De Gennaro names. The possibility of truth and indeed its necessity, so that all speech flows from Him and flows to Him, except that which is false. I know exactly what the guest is referring to when he says that from the tragic position it seems like more can be seen, but ultimately whatever is seen is like dandelion which disintegrates in the hand, and so this 'seeing' is worse than a mirage, it is a deception which keeps the person from finding true water, thinking the mirage to be so bountiful!
Let us look at the question of time. Is time a 'thing' or is it a 'thing for the purposes of speech' - ie, something that we experience in our experience of living as human beings, but which doesn't actually exist. This question, like every other question, is moot, or wrongly phrased so as to make any answer false, when one begins from the reality of God. From that stance, Time is accepted - because intuitively we all know what is meant by time - as a gift. The fact of it being a gift makes time relational, and it is this relational aspect which gives anything its truth-meaning (specifically, its content). Of course one can say, time is arbitrary, but such saying would be absurd - why? Because man only knows the dimension of his own existence. It's like saying, Do I really exist? All I am is atoms, and so forth. But intuitively we know that we exist as conscious individuals, therefore any understanding of ourselves outside of that awareness, is absurd and has no possibility of truth. Now, to God's sight - which of course, is what actually is being attempted in the thought exploration, what a thing to attempt! - what are we? "Well we know only that we are individuals who have consciousness and therefore capacity to know Him and be in relation with Him in a way impossible, it would seem, to any other creature on earth.
And in this, also, is found the falsity of the subjective/ objective distinction which is hopelessly flawed a distinction. What there is, is my sight, and others' sight, and there is God's sight. In fact, God's sight is all that is meant by 'the objective' but it is made ridiculous because how can the objective ever be known, if one has already named this thing 'the subjective'? The absurdities inherent in this position one sees played out in all our popular discussions about 'scientific truth' and 'the possibility of morality without religion'. What is my sight? My sight is something given by God. Really it is His, but he has given it to me. Thus again, my sight, my 'subjective' is relational, to He who is All Seeing. The absence of the All Seeing would make seeing itself absurd, because seeing is something one does 'in time', in flux, and thus the see-er would be in flux 'seeing' in flux and there would be no possibility for actual seeing, which implies some kind of stillness or permanence. In other words, our language and every intuitive understanding we have points to and rests on the existence of God. This is why without God, all would be absurd, and even the attempt at these types of discussions would be rendered ridiculous. But if one begins from God - or finds that all such discussions are another way to get to the matter of Him - then it may be fruitful, so that we may better appreciate the nature of reality and thereby our Creator.
As an addendum, I am someone who has converted to Islam, and I see in this religion the solutions to the foundational problems in the Western tradition. I only add this - not, firstly, to encourage any reader to follow me - but because I think that, ultimately, one does need an access to God, and this must be in the form of revelation. Otherwise, it would risk rendering 'God' as a concept, the ownership of the namer - you or I - and thus be another closing off to truth and He who is Truth. Therefore the need for prophets.
The necessity of a god in philosophy is highly problematic. Even Heidegger gestures to this in The Last God when he implies that the next god or gods must study philosophy. Again, why do we need gods? When will human beings become adults?
@@DanFeldmanAgileProjectManagermaybe Heidegger is your God?
Where could I find Gino Zachary's works?