Thanks, professor. As a first time Heidegger reader I was having a blast with B&T until I arrived to Understanding. For whatever reason this section completely blocked me, but your explanation cleared the way.
just wanted to say i really appreciate the work you do on this channel. it has been incredibly useful while reading being and time. its a shame more people don’t care to read it
Thank you for your words. Its amazing what one misses when you read/listen to summaries only or just read excerpts. We all gotta start somewhere but its quite eye opening to go through the text methodically.
To support this work, please consider becoming a Patreon member for this channel at www.patreon.com/SingularSublime where you can obtain transcripts and unedited materials or by providing a one-time time tip through the "Super Thanks" option above. Thank you!
This is an excellent question. Coincidentally the next video will address this very question in depth, it will be coming out next week. But in brief unconcealment is a more primordial mode of Dasein that makes possible understanding and interpretation.
Great question David! An entire book can and should be written to answer it as it gets at a debated issue concerning the relationship between philosophy and psychoanalysis. How one could answer it depends greatly on which side one begins with. From the side of Heidegger's phenomenology, Dasein and Lacan's Subject operate at different levels of analysis. The analysis of Dasein is ontological, whereas the Subject is an ontical concept. Heidegger was very critical of Freud, which he engages most explicitly in The Zollikon Seminars delivered, I believe, to a group of psychiatrists and hosted by the existential psychoanalyst Medard Boss who developed what he called Daseinanalysis. It is uncertain what Heidegger thought of Lacan's return to Freud. He was most certainly aware of it as the two had met at some point and, in fact, Lacan translated one of Heidegger's essays. Perhaps the scholar who was in the best position to assess this was William Richardson who was an eminent scholar of both thinkers. Richardson, in fact, wrote at least one essay addressing this very question. Here is a link to that article:pepsic.bvsalud.org/pdf/nh/v5n1/v5n1a01.pdf. Lacan more explicitly addressed the relationship from a psychoanalytic perspective. In general, the tendency in psychoanalysis is to see the psychological subject (whether the Cartesian Ego or Dasein) as a product of psychoanalytic forces. Zizek is particularly good at developing this. Among the two seminars I have so far covered on the channel, Lacan most explicitly addresses Heidegger in Seminar I, Lecture 15. We find Lacan seemingly treats Heidegger's thought on the same level of psychoanalysis, without suggesting any distinction regarding levels of analysis. There, he is somewhat critical of Heidegger's notions of authenticity/inauthenticity. Lacan seems to deny the notion of an authentic mode of being-in-the-world and, instead, places inauthenticity as the most primordial basis for the subject/Dasein. The subject emerges out of the 'the They' in its original and fundamental alienation. So any notion of authenticity would be an imaginary misrecognition of this self. In many ways, Lacan's critique of Dasein convergences with Levinas' critique, and though I would in no way equate their respective conceptualizations of the self, there are perhaps more similarities between them than one finds between the Subject and Dasein.
@@SingularityasSublimity Thank you for the detailed answer. I appreciate you taking the time. Especially since, as you mentioned in your video, you are quite busy nowadays.
@@chindico Of course, more than glad to make time for you David. I am always grateful to you for encouragement and support from nearly the very beginning of this channel!
S as S, would you agree that, although Heidegger's philosophy was a possibility that came out of Nietzsche; Nietzsche's philosophy could never have been a possibility that comes out of Heidegger?
Its a good question. Its hard to imagine almost any philosophy coming out of the 20th century without having passed through Nietzsche (including Heidegger). Nietzsche's thought shook the very foundations of the enlightenment project. He would have had less need to do that if Heidegger had already come. (Though perhaps someone like Nietzsche is still to come, but we cannot imagine yet what that philosopher would say to us until it is already said).
@@SingularityasSublimity I admit I posed a deceiving question which is in fact a paraphrase from Deleuze's book on Foucault where Deleuze, in a polite way, is trying to say that nationalism, antisemitism, and in the final consequence fascism, was purely Heideggerian contribution to Nietzsche's philosophy, which had nothing to do with _Blut und Boden._ In his _Foucault,_ Deleuze writes: "Being-power is determined inside the relation of forces which are themselves going through singularities that vary with every epoch. And the self, being-self, is determined by the process of subjectivation, that is, by the places through which the fold passes (the Greek don't have anything universal). In short, conditions are never more general than they are conditioned, and they are worth according to their own historical singularity. Also, conditions themselves are not "apodictic" but problematic." (my shitty translation) I guess that for the conceptualization of "technicity", "being" and "time" Deleuze trusts Simondon ("indviduation") and Bergson ("duration") much more...
![🔴 ฟุตบอลแชมป์กีฬา 7HD แชมเปียน คัพ 2024 [รอบ 8 ทีมสุดท้าย] - ช่วงบ่าย](http://i.ytimg.com/vi/M0S_ReCIkxg/mqdefault.jpg)
Thanks, professor. As a first time Heidegger reader I was having a blast with B&T until I arrived to Understanding. For whatever reason this section completely blocked me, but your explanation cleared the way.
very glad to hear it!
How does the understanding/interpretation distinction relate to readyness-to-hand and presentness-at-hand?
just wanted to say i really appreciate the work you do on this channel. it has been incredibly useful while reading being and time. its a shame more people don’t care to read it
Thank you for your words. Its amazing what one misses when you read/listen to summaries only or just read excerpts. We all gotta start somewhere but its quite eye opening to go through the text methodically.
To support this work, please consider becoming a Patreon member for this channel at www.patreon.com/SingularSublime where you can obtain transcripts and unedited materials or by providing a one-time time tip through the "Super Thanks" option above. Thank you!
EXCELLENT
How does unconcealment (Unverborgenheit/alethia) relate to the act of interpretation?
This is an excellent question. Coincidentally the next video will address this very question in depth, it will be coming out next week. But in brief unconcealment is a more primordial mode of Dasein that makes possible understanding and interpretation.
How does Heidegger's "Dasein" relate to Lacan's "subject"?
Great question David! An entire book can and should be written to answer it as it gets at a debated issue concerning the relationship between philosophy and psychoanalysis. How one could answer it depends greatly on which side one begins with. From the side of Heidegger's phenomenology, Dasein and Lacan's Subject operate at different levels of analysis. The analysis of Dasein is ontological, whereas the Subject is an ontical concept. Heidegger was very critical of Freud, which he engages most explicitly in The Zollikon Seminars delivered, I believe, to a group of psychiatrists and hosted by the existential psychoanalyst Medard Boss who developed what he called Daseinanalysis. It is uncertain what Heidegger thought of Lacan's return to Freud. He was most certainly aware of it as the two had met at some point and, in fact, Lacan translated one of Heidegger's essays. Perhaps the scholar who was in the best position to assess this was William Richardson who was an eminent scholar of both thinkers. Richardson, in fact, wrote at least one essay addressing this very question. Here is a link to that article:pepsic.bvsalud.org/pdf/nh/v5n1/v5n1a01.pdf.
Lacan more explicitly addressed the relationship from a psychoanalytic perspective. In general, the tendency in psychoanalysis is to see the psychological subject (whether the Cartesian Ego or Dasein) as a product of psychoanalytic forces. Zizek is particularly good at developing this. Among the two seminars I have so far covered on the channel, Lacan most explicitly addresses Heidegger in Seminar I, Lecture 15. We find Lacan seemingly treats Heidegger's thought on the same level of psychoanalysis, without suggesting any distinction regarding levels of analysis. There, he is somewhat critical of Heidegger's notions of authenticity/inauthenticity. Lacan seems to deny the notion of an authentic mode of being-in-the-world and, instead, places inauthenticity as the most primordial basis for the subject/Dasein. The subject emerges out of the 'the They' in its original and fundamental alienation. So any notion of authenticity would be an imaginary misrecognition of this self.
In many ways, Lacan's critique of Dasein convergences with Levinas' critique, and though I would in no way equate their respective conceptualizations of the self, there are perhaps more similarities between them than one finds between the Subject and Dasein.
@@SingularityasSublimity
Thank you for the detailed answer.
I appreciate you taking the time.
Especially since, as you mentioned in your video, you are quite busy nowadays.
@@chindico Of course, more than glad to make time for you David. I am always grateful to you for encouragement and support from nearly the very beginning of this channel!
S as S, would you agree that, although Heidegger's philosophy was a possibility that came out of Nietzsche; Nietzsche's philosophy could never have been a possibility that comes out of Heidegger?
Its a good question. Its hard to imagine almost any philosophy coming out of the 20th century without having passed through Nietzsche (including Heidegger). Nietzsche's thought shook the very foundations of the enlightenment project. He would have had less need to do that if Heidegger had already come. (Though perhaps someone like Nietzsche is still to come, but we cannot imagine yet what that philosopher would say to us until it is already said).
@@SingularityasSublimity I admit I posed a deceiving question which is in fact a paraphrase from Deleuze's book on Foucault where Deleuze, in a polite way, is trying to say that nationalism, antisemitism, and in the final consequence fascism, was purely Heideggerian contribution to Nietzsche's philosophy, which had nothing to do with _Blut und Boden._ In his _Foucault,_ Deleuze writes: "Being-power is determined inside the relation of forces which are themselves going through singularities that vary with every epoch. And the self, being-self, is determined by the process of subjectivation, that is, by the places through which the fold passes (the Greek don't have anything universal). In short, conditions are never more general than they are conditioned, and they are worth according to their own historical singularity. Also, conditions themselves are not "apodictic" but problematic." (my shitty translation)
I guess that for the conceptualization of "technicity", "being" and "time" Deleuze trusts Simondon ("indviduation") and Bergson ("duration") much more...