I have been watching you for years. You helped me get my degree in philosophy. You've helped me with understanding the many books I live. You have helped me with writing my own. Best philosophy TH-cam channel hands down.
Well, I will be aware of my keyboard from now on! In fact, I am aware of it right now, as I am typing ahahha. P.S. Please continue with Heidegger. By the way, CC option transcribes Heidegger as High Digger. :))
Based on this, Heidegger is the first Western philosopher whose thinking doesn't seem to fall frustratingly short of the point (as far as the nature of reality), to me. Descartes, for instance, has all of Western thought wrapped around his finger with "I think therefore I am", but no one seems to consider that this statement is still the thought and there is no reason to make any kind of leap from the thought to proof of something outside of it. Please talk more about dazein!
I don't know if I've heard the ontic vs. ontological distinction described quite in this way before. The interesting thing is that you seem to be saying the ontological comes before the subject and object distinction, and maybe that it's pre-theoretical. Is it pre-language though? And it sounds like you're saying that meaning for Heidegger is also in this pre-theoretical ontology but that it's perceived through our theoretical knowledge in some imperfect form. But how can you tell the difference between finding aspects of a pre-theoretical meaning through imperfect ontic understandings of things and simply constructing meaning where there was none before? Is it because action and motivation can be seen in pre-theoretical, ontological instances? Then in that case I would wonder about things like habits which are often consciously formed over time before they become more automatic. Such a thing would seem to be very artificial, not arising from a pure space without subject and object thinking.
This Dasein sounds like a it's meaningful to the person involved in the present. But as far as meaning in what I would see it is what was the purpose of having to live, struggle, have pain, grow, connect and die for? As far as evidence is concerned we are not going to use what we gained from when we were alive after dying. And after all life ceases to exist the universe is going to continue doing what's been doing for billions of years making life insignificant. And to top if off if you buy into this concept then you have no right to tell drug addicts or people who don't want to grow that in the long term things will be good for them while also having to also use the same concept as them "it's good for me now". Because both are saying it's important for me now and not later. Life is meaningful to us yes. But purpose of having to die and no use of what we did when were alive is still unknown. And we're still insignificant that if we cease to exist there will be little to no impact to the universe. So in that sense he also has error in logical reasoning too.
I think you're right. There is no real meaning to existence/the universe in any way that we can comprehend. It's unfathomable to the human mind. We're tiny ripples in the ocean -- might as well sit back and enjoy the ride as much as you can 😉
Trying to present this with humility: I've been trying to understand gnosticism. Gnosticism has influenced the worst of progressive politics = communism, nazism and fascism. Nietzsche and Heidegger take their metaphysics from a gnostic-hermetic view. So, whereas Marxists, the woke, nazis or fascists may provide criticisms or justifications for becoming like god (undifferentiated from the whole or knowledge of the eschaton), which provide the narratives or mythical ideals for praxis, where do they have their limiting principles?
![ตีสิบเดย์ [FULL] | เปิดใจ "อาจารย์ เบียร์ ฅนตื่นธรรม" นักสนทนาธรรมสายดุดัน!](http://i.ytimg.com/vi/vqaBI_mnoDk/mqdefault.jpg)
I hate you. 12 years of deep Heideggerian study, and this is the best 'plain English' explanation I've heard. Actually, well done!
I’m an on and off listener… I didn’t realize this series was in dire straits… thanks for keeping it up despite how much you’re paid by TH-cam.
Who said it’s in dire straits?
Hell yeah more on Heidegger please!
I have been watching you for years. You helped me get my degree in philosophy. You've helped me with understanding the many books I live. You have helped me with writing my own. Best philosophy TH-cam channel hands down.
Excited about this one
Cool show. Next one should be great. Dont let anyone make you rush it though.😌
Yes yes!! All according to my plan to get Gadamer episodes!
Great stuff great to see you tackling Big H in fine style. 👌
Well, I will be aware of my keyboard from now on! In fact, I am aware of it right now, as I am typing ahahha.
P.S. Please continue with Heidegger. By the way, CC option transcribes Heidegger as High Digger. :))
I would appreciate an episode about Kenji Nishitani on Heidegger and his book „Religion and Nothingness“.
coming soon! :)
That was a great one! Unto the Philosophy of the Future (2024).
Based on this, Heidegger is the first Western philosopher whose thinking doesn't seem to fall frustratingly short of the point (as far as the nature of reality), to me. Descartes, for instance, has all of Western thought wrapped around his finger with "I think therefore I am", but no one seems to consider that this statement is still the thought and there is no reason to make any kind of leap from the thought to proof of something outside of it. Please talk more about dazein!
32:25 I feel this in my bones... Nice episode!!!
Thank you for your work Mr west 🙏
Please do one on the later Heideigger!
It is weird… I have felt where Heidegger is coming from for years now. It’s a fantastic, yet vexing worldview
Will you ever cover the philosophy of Bernardo Kastrup (Analytical Idealism)?
I don't know if I've heard the ontic vs. ontological distinction described quite in this way before. The interesting thing is that you seem to be saying the ontological comes before the subject and object distinction, and maybe that it's pre-theoretical. Is it pre-language though? And it sounds like you're saying that meaning for Heidegger is also in this pre-theoretical ontology but that it's perceived through our theoretical knowledge in some imperfect form. But how can you tell the difference between finding aspects of a pre-theoretical meaning through imperfect ontic understandings of things and simply constructing meaning where there was none before? Is it because action and motivation can be seen in pre-theoretical, ontological instances? Then in that case I would wonder about things like habits which are often consciously formed over time before they become more automatic. Such a thing would seem to be very artificial, not arising from a pure space without subject and object thinking.
This reminds me so much of Robert Pirsig
❤
Another interesting show, thanks 🙏 I would say to Descartes - I am, therefore I think 🤔
Heidegger got tricked into signing stuff too.
Yep, singing like a bird
@@juls5347 🤨about what? To who?
This Dasein sounds like a it's meaningful to the person involved in the present. But as far as meaning in what I would see it is what was the purpose of having to live, struggle, have pain, grow, connect and die for? As far as evidence is concerned we are not going to use what we gained from when we were alive after dying. And after all life ceases to exist the universe is going to continue doing what's been doing for billions of years making life insignificant. And to top if off if you buy into this concept then you have no right to tell drug addicts or people who don't want to grow that in the long term things will be good for them while also having to also use the same concept as them "it's good for me now". Because both are saying it's important for me now and not later. Life is meaningful to us yes. But purpose of having to die and no use of what we did when were alive is still unknown. And we're still insignificant that if we cease to exist there will be little to no impact to the universe. So in that sense he also has error in logical reasoning too.
Can anyone please send me to where I can get feedback because I really want to know if my reasoning needs improvement.
I think you're right. There is no real meaning to existence/the universe in any way that we can comprehend. It's unfathomable to the human mind. We're tiny ripples in the ocean -- might as well sit back and enjoy the ride as much as you can 😉
@@noahbrown4388 I know right 😁
Trying to present this with humility: I've been trying to understand gnosticism. Gnosticism has influenced the worst of progressive politics = communism, nazism and fascism. Nietzsche and Heidegger take their metaphysics from a gnostic-hermetic view. So, whereas Marxists, the woke, nazis or fascists may provide criticisms or justifications for becoming like god (undifferentiated from the whole or knowledge of the eschaton), which provide the narratives or mythical ideals for praxis, where do they have their limiting principles?
First comment
heidegger mad Hegel did geist first