Mark Blitz on Martin Heidegger
ฝัง
- เผยแพร่เมื่อ 16 ก.ค. 2024
- In this video, Claremont McKenna professor of political philosophy Mark Blitz talks to Bill Kristol about German philosopher Martin Heidegger (1889 - 1976). While stressing the problematic features of Heidegger's thought and his deplorable political activity, Blitz explains here why Heidegger cannot be simply ignored. For more on Heidegger, visit thegreatthinkers.org/heidegger
![[UNCUT] ลูกหมี-ลิลลี่ เหงียน เปิดใจฟาด ปู มัณฑนา I คนดังนั่งเคลียร์ I 15 ก.ค.67](http://i.ytimg.com/vi/FKQ60Y7bJ6s/mqdefault.jpg)
Mark Blitz puts MH in perspective!
My hilight reel (11:30 - 22:30)
11:44 You are yourself from the beginning to the end
12:30 Value is part of this misunderstanding of what human beings actually are
12:50 Being authentic
13:30 Seeing the public via authenticity
14:00 Illuminating the public via authenticity
14:30 Authenticity as the true understanding of humanity
15:45 Hostility to technological world view
19:00 Full dehumanization
20:30 Recovery of art
21:00 Connection to Environmentalism
33:45 Nazi association
23:18 "The use of reason is...dependent (first on) things having a certain meaning.... Rational understanding of a rational calculation is always in terms of something or other. And what we are first of all is the ones who first illuminate or bring out those first terms of meaning." This is the core of it.
Thanks for this discourse. I have heard many an articulation about Heidegger's involvement with the Nazi's, and Professor Blitz is the best so far. The hook that snags Nazism is "Das Man" or "They-Self" or "The One", where we (daseins) find our understanding of 'self' or 'me' in he public world, rather than some 'inner experience' or 'mental representation' or 'belief'. What was missing (due probably to time limitations) in Professor Blitz's articulation is that there was a certain 'temporality' or better 'historicality' to the events taking place in Europe and Germany in the 1920's. There is also an inherent, acceptable anti-Semitism that pervaded the 'They-Self" through Europe for centuries, and obviously Heidegger grew up in that "They-Self". The opportunity for anyone that studies Being and Time and Heidegger's thinking is the possibility to experience immersion into the "They-Self" and experience one's identity in this pre-conceptual, pre-linguistic public realm. In doing so, it frees one from being this incriminating, judgmental a-hole that seems to pervade public discourse, and most notably in political discourse. Currently, such notable figures and Donald Trump and Rush Limbaugh express this "non-They-Self" understanding of human beings, and go about their days invalidating and chastising those that are not on their page of "inner experiential' involvement. or understanding. So, it was with Heidegger, since the 'they-self' is not the kind of clearing that shows everything. Yes, it seems we are all on the same page, but the page is as Heidegger distinguishes a "lucus non lucendo" -- a clearing with little light. Or, what is implicit is difficult to make explicit, so signing on with Hitler was a leap into some very dark territory. At the time, Heidegger seems to accept the challenge of the Rectorship to see if his 'thinking' and 'standing' could at least offer a way forward to transforming the German University system, and move it from its attachment to detached, conceptual, theoretical science. It is interesting that with all this baggage, his work continues, even though it is called Continental Philosophy in Europe and not Heideggerian thinking. In the end, I guess, no one likes to be affiliated in any way with a history of genocide.
I read Heidegger's essays as an undergrad in 89 and then read what he published as "Being and Time" maybe 6 or 7 years ago. It creeped me out somehow as a 19 year old and creeped me out again as a 45yr old. Like some kinda philosophic ghost story, perhaps like James' "Turn of the Screw". Obviously this is the specter of the Death Camps wafting around the text. It is hard to read heidegger's stuff on "authenticity" without imagining the Furher. It is hard to read him today without imagining and scaring oneself over the people supporting Trump. I think Marcuse commented that the Nazi's fascist "pure land" politics is IN THE TEXT"S FORMULATIONS, not a bastardization of an abstruse philosophy. The way commentators since the 1980s have pronounced Heidegger's word "Being of Things" is a tell. Everyone must bar his teeth and clench his fingers when using Heidegger's phrases. The text is an exercise in how abstract and poetic language can be pushed in the service of one german's romantic nostalgia for the Fatherland, the anti jewish anti immigrant HOMELAND. Can we preserve Heidegger's bullshit "authenticity" now that communication is instantaneous and wealth and technology is spread so unevenly? The authentic kids from central america want to live in heidegger's technologically developed neighborhood. I think Heidegger's clenched teeth abstractions, the language he stretched out, trend toward a viscious Trumpian Bolsanaro Brexit politics that can only end badly. The answer is to spread a greener technological wealth more widely. If every kid in Panama wants to come to the suburbs around the U of Nebraska or to NYC then make Panama more like the U of Nebraska or NYC.
Sorry, could you say that again?
I believe there is a difference between his philosophical writings and his political choices, based on pursuing his career.
He may have sold out his principles by join the Nazi party but he continued to write the truth of Being as he saw it..
There are some deeply important points to be taken away from this, particularly as the human species is now being forced to cope with climate change. Worlds and the earth are entering into an unprecedented interrelated meaning.
Thank you so much
I don't think it interferes with scientific reductionism at all, scientific reductionism is very pragmatic and has a clear purpose - to predict, and it does well on that. Heidegger's view towards objects is not about prediction, but about the common philosophical quest to internally rationalize our surroundings. These are 2 different tool of thought, each for different purpose, and I think there's no one absolute "correct" way for all situations.
Best and clearest intro to Heidegger.
Authenticity is not regarding ourselves as a bag of chemicals but also not as just a soul. We're both. My thought is that if mind and body did not meet there would be no love, hate etc. Animals exhibit some mother love and some bond as couples. But humanity is special ... probably among others elsewhere.
I'd agree with all of that, except the notion that humanity is special among/versus other animals. In some sense, that's correct but it wasn't Heidegger's view, anyway. Humanity differs from other species in that we have a highly developed symbolic system (systems, plural, really) which allows the creation of 'the They' - i.e. alienation/personas/false consciousness.
Humanity is 'special', therefore, mainly in terms of our general lack of authenticity. (With many exceptions, I would hope, and a sliding-scale of self-awareness/'self-fakery'!) Animals do not, of course, have the concept of a fundamental division of ends and means, body and mind, labour and capital etc. That was the 'wrong turn' Heidegger was preoccupied with...
Someone please tell this Mark Blitz fellow that the accent in the name "Heidegger" is on the first syllable.
excellent
What’s up with the air grabs?
He's very technical in his verbiage. If you want a quick intro to MH's thought, this is not the video you want!
You can not have any kind of quick understanding of Heidegger. A great deal of his work is defining the manner of being you are exhibiting right now, inauthentic. You are looking for some scribble about Heidegger, that will satisfy your superficial curiosity and allow you to express your knowledge of him, in a manner adequate for the dinner party conversation. You would also be able to level someone who has an authentic grasp of his work, by smugly dismissing it as so unremarkable, and throwing in, in a glib manner, phrases attributed to him.
Hubert Dreyfus is much better
I read Heidegger's essays as an undergrad in 89 and then read what he published as "Being and Time" maybe 6 or 7 years ago. It creeped me out somehow as a 19 year old and creeped me out again as a 45yr old. Like some kinda philosophy ghost story like James' "Turn of the Screw". Obviously this is the specter of the Death Camps wafting around the text. It is hard to read heidegger's stuff on "authenticity" without imagining the Furher. It is hard to read him today without imagining and scaring oneself over the people supporting Trump. I think Marcuse commented that the Nazi's viscious, fascist extermination politics is IN THE TEXT"S FORMULATIONS, not a bastardization of an abstruse philosophy. The way commentators since the 1980s have pronounced Heidegger's word "Being of Things" is a tell. Everyone must bar his teeth and clench his fingers when using Heidegger's phrases. The text is an exercise in how abstract and poetic our language can be pushed in the service of one german's romantic nostalgia for the Fatherland, the anti jewish anti immigrant HOMELAND. Can we preserve Heidegger's bullshit "authenticity" now that communication is instantaneous and wealth and technology is spread so unevenly? The authentic kids from central america want to live in heidegger's technologically developed neighborhood. I think Heidegger's clenched teeth abstractions, the language he stretched out, trend toward a viscious Trumpian Bolsanaro Brexit politics that can only end badly. The answer is to spread a greener technological wealth more widely. If every kid in Panama wants to come to the suburbs around the U of Nebraska or to NYC then make Panama more like the U of Nebraska or NYC
Actually technical language is probably appropriate for an introduction to Heidegger. The average philosopher will have a greater facility with metaphysical language. Heidegger's very Lutheran insistence upon the use of vulgar German in the articulation of his philosophical outlook is highly specific to a particular people and place. He obviously detests the universality of scientific language, but perhaps we must first glimpse the ideas through the muddy medium before we can familiarize ourselves with his philosophy through more authentic means.
@@jefffudesco9364 I never got that from the text, and comparing Trump to Hitler is so 2016. 😏
23:05 real question is asked?
nietzsche number 1
Why political? because it shapes your concrete actions. We are in the Covid-19 crisis right now; and how authentic are we?
A great question ..we will find out, and perhaps recover, a lot about ourselves.
This is surreal.
Of all the hosts ... we have the ever-grinning hawk who helped mastermind 9/11.
I can't see past that to listen to anything McKenna has to say.
It does yes.
Damn.
I did a double take…
🙏🙏thanx alot♠️❤♠️🙏
Still confused
What about the mystic?
What do you mean ? If Heidegger's thought has something to do with "mystics" or if it is close or friendly to something like that ? It depends of what one means as "mystic". As much as I have read Heidegger and can I have understood some of his work, If one means someone like Plato or Heractlitus or Parmenides as "mystic", in general ancient greek culture, yes Heideger's thought is in strong dialogue and "open" with something like that (without this to necaisairly mean that he takes all of that as if they were some "gospel", as usually is meant for a "mystic" by different people).
In reallity all his thought more or less is based on them, and not much more things than a comment on them, just in modern context and clothes (Heidegger's thought - however impressive thinker and undoubtedly with many virtues he is - in the end it is just ancient greek meta-physics in new clothes).
If now, one means, with "mystic" (by the way this is an ancient greek word, that in modern greek is also the same, it derives from ancient greece i mean) something that has an after religious or theological meaning or with an eastern meaning or the way esoterism or occult or new age means that, the answer is that Heidenger is not very "friendly" with something like that.
He "rejects" clearly such things as religious thinking, with things that have to do with belief and religious systems of beliefs (etc.), and not philosophy, at least as such we mean, without putting one them inside the occidental thinking. By "rejects" we mean that they can be interesting from every other point of view, but "rejects" in the sense that they are not philosophy, and in their own specific context (and in the sense that the ancient Greeks mean this, that for Heidegger is the ONLY philosophy, and what real philosophy is. Not in the sense that the other things is not philosophy those too in any way, but in the sense that the real philosophy is only the occidental thinking).
He is very clear and "straightforward" about this point, and it is what all his thinking is based on. That is, in this fundamental differentiation between ancient Greek thought and any other thought. He gives the first a clear priority and considers it superior to everything else, without any "political correctness" being of interest to him.
Kristol is like Krystal Ball of NBC falling asleep. He doesn't know what to ask, and the interviewee is going off into the Netherlands with the Santa, the Elves, and Heidegger driving them in the Santa Sleigh. It's not very enlightening nor is the presence forthcoming. We're grasping at straws for anything while Bill is getting his beauty nap. Blitz is probably aware of it but can't do anything. There will be coal in Bill's boots for this and the best of the worse is he can use it to do blackface at his leisure with his chums. He should, however, just be getting the boot.
This made me laugh. I can't stand Bill Krystal.
The speaker right off , began sounding like Heidegger personal agent .Setting Heidegger up as the modern God .Heidegger was a student of Husserl ( phenomenology) who was influenced by Descartes as was Sartre .
Kierkegaard was the father of Existentialist not Heidegger. He is in fact trying to be a model of Heidegger rather in fact being anything himself . His upside l feel was his awareness of Aristotle genius .
Heidegger being in time was being a natzi .
19:12 Kristol sounds just about ready to go Marxist. ;)
Love that this is being hosted by a great American exponent of authoritarianism. Not likely to win any worthwhile new American inquisitors into the question of Being.
Heidegger does not look at presocratics at all he assumes that Aristotle’s criticism was valid it was not Aristotle fudged his way and the west has suffered ever since Husserl was closer to getting back to Parmenides where he needed to be
Bingo!
6:19-7:13
Lmugr smĺib
High Dagger
Jacob Klein
i was wondering who that was. thank you.
Hans jonas, Karl leurith
Thank you.
Karl Löwith (not leurith)
Interviewer annoys me. He's got no idea
can't agree more
to me, it seems that nazi germany is always judged by the facts, however, when historians look back to understand why, it’s almost as though the facts are pushed aside in favor of abstractions
Heidegger's idea of leading a meaningful life: advocating systematic discrimination and genocide against racial, ethnic, cultural, and religious minorities.
I guess that's one way to be in the world.
Pferdscheissigkeit? (Would he have got the job if so many dons hadn't been scarpering abroad or disappearing into labour camps?)
Your audio recording sucks... Volume is too low
concerning the nazi thing, i just figure he was making a smart business move for his career. he wanted to be a big time professor and be part of the upper class bourgeoisie. nazism was on the rise to becoming the dominant power structure at the time where he lived. so it was in his best interests to support it politically. if the emerging predominant power structure at the time had been something else say, something akin to the 'woke left' of today, i'm guessing he would've been LGBT supporter.
Thoughts from people who (knew) Heidegger: th-cam.com/video/_TEEJeyZNaM/w-d-xo.html
does great thinkers have an adddress: can i get a job there ? ( please ) .....
Do ...thinkers. What is your point?
I read Heidegger's essays as an undergrad in 89 and then read what he published as "Being and Time" maybe 10 years ago. It creeped me out somehow as a 19 year old and creeped me out again as a 45yr old. Like some kinda philosophy ghost story like James' "Turn of the Screw". Obviously this is the specter of the Death Camps wafting around the text. It is hard to read heidegger's stuff on "authenticity" without imagining the Furher. It is hard to read him today without imagining and scaring oneself over the people supporting Trump. I think Marcuse commented that the Nazi's fascist "pure land" politics is IN THE TEXT"S FORMULATIONS, not a bastardization of an abstruse philosophy. The way commentators since the 1980s have pronounced Heidegger's word "Being of Things" is a tell. Everyone must bar his teeth and clench his fingers when using Heidegger's phrases. The text is an exercise in how abstract and poetic language can be pushed in the service of one german's romantic nostalgia for the Fatherland, the anti jewish anti immigrant HOMELAND. Can we preserve Heidegger's bullshit "authenticity" now that communication is instantaneous and wealth and technology is spread so unevenly? The authentic kids from central america want to live in heidegger's technologically developed neighborhood. I think Heidegger's clenched teeth abstractions, the language he stretched out, trend toward a viscious Trumpian Bolsanaro Brexit politics that can only end badly. The answer is to spread a greener technological wealth more widely. If every kid in Nicuragua and Panama wants to come to the suburbs around the U of Nebraska or to NYC then the task for Nicuragua and Panama is to become more like the college town suburbs of U of Nebraska or NYC. The task for every human, contra Heidegger's nonsense, is to learn as much as she can. And that learning includes sport and languages and technology and cooking and hx and how to drive and how to make love and how to parent and make a fire. Heidegger is kinda ultra plus plus Marx in THIS regard: he diminishes the prestige of the German University Professor's "theoretic or text based" desk bound, lecture hall learning and elevates the practical activity of working people. Farming or pumping welding gases into cylinders or hunting becomes an activity like a professor reading a thrice translated text from 400BCE. BUT THEN he goes into critical mode from his cabin in the woods and his famous strolls around his property, that he probably inherited from his daddy, to talk a rather theoretic shit against people unlike himself. A lot of the early 20th c philosophy is concerned with immigration and tech like we are today. Perhaps Ortega Gassett's, and everyone elses modern "Mass man" was Heidegger's immigrant/iphone problem. In essense, the push/pull factors of wealth and climate change "ruining" the borders we police for our children (future).
What nonsense. The funniest part is the stringing of all the political figures you oppose and weaving them into your nonsensical verbal diarrhea, this block of text if anything should be studied by sociologists as to what happens when a mind is so filled with worms and ideological possession.
Not a very good analysis of Heidegger..
Why
@@crizish Just personal taste, but I find the interviewer flippant while Blitz seems to take many liberties with Heidegger's ideas. In the first 10 minutes alone, he seems to want to say that Being for Heidegger is in between object and subject, or in between theory and praxis. Heidegger is consciously rebelling against precisely this Cartesian divide, and, while his relationship to Aristotle is much more complicated, I find this second comparison superfluous and misleading. Perhaps its because of Blitz's desire to fit Heidegger into a political philosophy, a category far too superficial for his work...I far prefer the William Barrett & Bryan Magee (1978) discussion
@@KatelynMMM funny you should mention Magee...I was just watching that interview and concur with your assessment. Do you have any good suggestions for an “intro” book to Being and Time?
@@crizish I'm not sure I can recommend anything.. I've just read "Being and Time" itself. Don't be afraid to jump right in if you haven't yet!
Cheers
@@KatelynMMM I like your style.
I don't see how it's controversial that Heidegger said, "nomadic groups could not be a part of the people." If a group is trying to create/manifest a certain culture, then they have to set boundaries on what is acceptable in order to give form to the chaos. This is very obvious and the fact that the speaker sees this as controversial is another indication as to how implicitly Christian most have become.
The speaker also keeps calling various ideas ugly/deplorable/etc.. Once again, he is just seeing the world through the keyhole of Christianity. He may as well be a Christian pastor, except that he does not speak with enough energy/conviction for that occupation. Maybe a Catholic Priest would be more fitting for the dry and uninspired presentation style.
I know a lot of Catholic Priests who have more Character and knowledge of human nature than you, sir.
Don't take his stand against Liberalism personally , any expression of dualism got under his skin.
lol
maybe i should just publish my own book to pitch
🤣🤣🤣
get it?
inauthenticly stuck in Das Man
"A radical new understanding of human being and. . . at the end of the day, how you understand human beings is fundamental to understanding politics. . ." I suppose that it was this understanding that led him to be a card-carrying Nazi and, when his mentor Husserl was bumped off his university chair for being a Jew, to be only too happy to fill the vacancy. It amazes me that, a century later, with all the strides in sociology, political science, biology, genetics, neurosciences and evolutionary psychology, after all this fundamental knowledge about Homo sapiens, people are still being paid to regurgitate words, words and more words that filled the ignorance of a century ago.
What a liar! "Nietzsche much less so" heidegger almost exclusively dictated courses about nietzsche during his rectorante of the 40s
This is textbook pseudo-philosophy; putting words in gramatically correct order and convey nothing at all. Listen carefully and learn nothing at all ...
Heidegger too a pseudo-philosopher?
I read Heidegger's essays as an undergrad in 89 and then read what he published as "Being and Time" maybe 6 or 7 years ago. It creeped me out somehow as a 19 year old and creeped me out again as a 45yr old. Like some kinda philosophy ghost story like James' "Turn of the Screw". Obviously this is the specter of the Death Camps wafting around the text. It is hard to read heidegger's stuff on "authenticity" without imagining the Furher. It is hard to read him today without imagining and scaring oneself over the people supporting Trump. I think Marcuse commented that the Nazi's viscious, fascist extermination politics is IN THE TEXT"S FORMULATIONS, not a bastardization of an abstruse philosophy. The way commentators since the 1980s have pronounced Heidegger's word "Being of Things" is a tell. Everyone must bar his teeth and clench his fingers when using Heidegger's phrases. The text is an exercise in how abstract and poetic our language can be pushed in the service of one german's romantic nostalgia for the Fatherland, the anti jewish anti immigrant HOMELAND. Can we preserve Heidegger's bullshit "authenticity" now that communication is instantaneous and wealth and technology is spread so unevenly? The authentic kids from central america want to live in heidegger's technologically developed neighborhood. I think Heidegger's clenched teeth abstractions, the language he stretched out, trend toward a viscious Trumpian Bolsanaro Brexit politics that can only end badly. The answer is to spread a greener technological wealth more widely. If every kid in Panama wants to come to the suburbs around the U of Nebraska or to NYC then make Panama more like the U of Nebraska or NYC