@@PhiloofAlexandria Really, I went through some of the very difficult journal articles in the analytic tradition. After listing to your TH-cam lectures twice or three times each, they were 200% easier to read. Many thanks.
This video, and Heidegger by extension, come in a quite a relevant time for me! Thank you so much Prof. Bonevac, and pardon me, i have now a date with Heidegger scheduled.
I think it's a mistake to think of thrownness as only pertaining to the conditions of your birth. My thrownness at any given moment pertains to the whole of my past (and the history preceding my birth) and to the particular situation I'm in - and as these things evolve, so does my thrownness. Heidegger says that moods disclose Dasein's thrownness, and Dasein's moods change constantly. If thrownness was a once-and-for-all deal that started and ended with birth, then Dasein's moods wouldn't be changing - supposing, as Heidegger does, that moods disclose thrownness. I think you present a conception of thrownness that's much more Sartrian than Heideggerian, and thus a conception of authenticity that's much more Sartrian, i.e., voluntarist. For Heidegger, authenticity involves an embracing of finitude, which means, among other things, that Dasein is heavily determined by its thrownness as against its projection. tldr: thrownness ≠ natality
This is a very generous reading of Heidegger - the idea can easily be twisted into understanding modes of being more or less authentic, and the human expressions being worth more or less, offering some support for exterminating the inauthentic. I wish that weren't so, but explains the facts on the historical ground.
I believe that part of the alienation of the Dasein comes from ths distinction between the object and the subject. Being in the world is not being in something that is apart from myself, like something completely opposite to my existence in the world, I'm part of it and I should be conscious about it. Greetings from Colombia, and thanks for sharing the video.
13:50 - In German "end" as telos is "Zweck", whereas end as the opposite of beginning is "Ende". I do not think that Heidegger was confused about a homonymy which does not exist in his own language. (Although I am not 100% sure which words Heidegger uses in B&T here)
Thank you for this lecture! Don't you think that between Heidegger's "Being in the world with others" and Ortega y Gasset's "I am me and my circumstance" there is something similar? It would be great to read/listen to your opinion.
Interesting series of lectures so far and I plan to finish. Thank you. However, how puzzling is this authenticity! I'm an old being (no children) so it's helped me to understand a bit better younger beings or is that Daseins? Anyhow, how can you reject what has been "imposed" by others and at the same time plunge into yourself looking for authenticity and all this time you have to allow for others and do some caring while you are at it? What a tall order. I should think that's worrying enough even before you set about contemplating your finitude and getting all anxious about dying. Phew. But perhaps I've misunderstood all this. Quite possible. I know there were certain things imposed on me at birth and as a young child and yes as I grew up and did some reflecting I managed my way out of those and imposed a few others on myself of which I liked some and didn't others. It's called muddling along. But some, possibly many, of those "imposed" things are really a bedrock, a stable environment and society, a culture from which secure place (well, as secure as it can be) you can set off from to make your way in the world (or make a world), to reflect and make choices and do your authentic stuff. Without that bedrock you can easily flounder about and play video games all day.
I wonder how much his comments on leaving the world (I assume it’s the Umwelt? Pardon my ignorance, as I’m not yet to the point in Being and Time that you’re covering) and entering another are related to his thinking about art. As he says in The Origin of the Work of Art, the work of art creates a world. And Heidegger certainly privileges these worlds over, say, the world of the World of Warcraft video game. So, if the two texts can be put in dialogue, this seems to me to be when Hölderlin’s line (that Heidegger loves so much) “Where danger is, grows the saving power too.” Would you agree? And, if so, what is it that slows us to leave the world set up by the work of art? Is our being-in-such-a-world essentially finite, just as our being-in-the-Umwelt is? Is this perhaps part of why Heidegger privileges art: If that’s the case, then art forces us to confront our finitude in a truly explicit way. Thank you.
Crazy screaming acid-loving beer-drinking Jimmy Morrison; "into this world we're thrown, like a dog without a bone and Hector out alone. Riders on the Storm..." The Doors
Can force relations (foucault) make inauthentic choices authentic? After all,it seems that forcerelations wil make it the case the marginal utility of the inauthentic choice, greater than the marginal utility of the authentic choice. And also it seems that moral domestication (nietzche) can make inauthentic choices profitable and therefore authentic.
Re: living in “the world as it is”, but what if the world as it is, is a bunch of malarkey? And, or some kind of simulacrum that you find terribly disappointing and inauthentic??
@@Scott-bh2qb I work in the great outdoors and so have no shortage of beauty in my life. I appreciate the sentiment, but it doesn't negate the fact that society and most people are god awful.
Might I ask how old you are? I am curious what you make of your student who traveled to the lands of Azeroth, a game which centers around the concept of interacting with others in both a cooperative and competitive way in order to advance a digital avatar's progress.
Dear sir, This is a doubt regarding freedom. Whether or not we are actually free. Kindly consider the following: P1. A person generally does that, what it likes. P2. A person cannot choose to like something. C. Therefore, a person does that what it cannot choose. Extending on the conclusion.... any freedom, if exists, gurantees choice. Choice is the synonym for freedom (here). But since we logically deduced that freedom is an illusion, does that in any ways change Heideggerian freedom of life choices? Wouldn't it lead to the conclusion that any life examined or unexamined cannot be lived otherwise? And the possibilities of authenticity become null? Thankyou.
@@insearchoflostthought8135 generally because there are instances where likes and dislike doesn't work but it is curiosity. I wouldn't touch a hot pan bcz i dont like that. A child will touch because of curiosity.
@@insearchoflostthought8135 well needing more Thought..... in what sense? Regarding p2, i cannot choose to like mozart, i simply like mozart therefore i listen to mozart. You cannot choose to dislike mozart, you simply dislike mozart. That's the point. I cannot choose for an authentic life, i like an authentic life. You cannot choose to examine your life, rather that is something that you would like to do.
@@2004Patil I'm afraid I fundamentally have to disagree with your first two premises. A person generally does not do what they like or desire but rather is forced. Would you desire to wake up at 6 a.m to go to your school as a kid? I reckon not. Second of all, a person can choose what to like by building a habit. If a person simply listens to classical music for years, it will develop a liking for it, although it may not. However, one example such as this one will prove your entire conclusion from the aforementioned 2 premises wrong. A lot more work has to be put into this argumentation as the other person who commented said. Good work though, do not be demoralised. Extend your thinking more and avoid statements such as "generally" and you will be good to go.
And also he criticizes the way we do philosophy and science since Ancient Greece. I agree with him cause philosophy has always been ( in general ) elite thing in terms of number not class
life is a kind of trauma, this obfuscates Freud (occludes him) for he looked for 'special' trauma whereas its pob universal (so to speak) - Jung too is wrong and on and on
It doesn't equate with it, but there is a connection, which results from Heidegger's "turn" in the late twenties and early 1930s. I've written about this here: philosophical.space/papers/Heidegger'sWrongTurn.pdf
@@PhiloofAlexandria Thanks. I will leave aside the question of whether Heidegger can be wrong about "Heidegger", and just say--to only address the Nazi question in H's thought in a "private" academic journal but lecture in a "public" forum (like youtube) on a central moral concept for H without mentioning the Nazi connection (Afterall, H chose to join the Nazi Party) doesn't seem right. [I have no vested interest in this topic. I tuned in to hear what you were going to say about the topic but you avoided the issue].
@@richardrumana5025 that’s not a fair question then. You weren’t asking a genuine question for learning, seems like you only posted that question to bait the professor. And when no one played into it, you act like a stuck up snob with some long-winded response only to say you aren’t satisfied that no-one fell for it.
@@ABB14-11 Very good. You are right. In my opinion, the Professor is a coward and/or a fool for not addressing the issue. Heidegger had given speeches where he ends with the words: "Heil Hitler." How can that behavior be equated with a positive virtue like authenticity? Why is that kind of conduct being defended (apologized for) by Prof. B? [Besides, B has made comments about contemporary political figures who may welcome this type of association].
A tension of Kierkegaard and Aristotle, the individual and social animal. No surprise that these were major influences. Pity he obscures both. Some ugly Hegelianism too - inauthentic notions of historicity and rootedness that no doubt lead him to the Nazis. The philosopher of authenticity was deeply inauthentic, a slave of culture. He was more Aristotelian than Kierkegaardian, despite his early works. Maybe he thought coming up with a new vocabulary made him an individual? Later Heidegger is hyper-romantic. He abandons Kierkegaard's subjectivity, but maintains the tension of three lifestyles/being from Kierkegaard: dwelling poetically' takes the place of faith or subjectivity. Despite protestations, Heidegger has an Aristotelian-like ethics of flourishing that points to a deeper, poetic contemplation of everyday life. He never gives up Hegelianism with his grand, poetic meta-narrative. Heidegger is good for people who will never read Kierkegaard, Nietzsche, or the summary of earlier work by Sartre.
Why do you assume we have ave freedom, even beyond family, culture influences etc? We are a human animal with certain genetic boundaries that define our emotional lives and responses. That is key to me - boundaries set by biology that we don’t even see, and that doesn’t even address physics determinism (but let’s ignore that). This video seems really superficial and puts people in a worse mental state, one of not realizing how hard it is to change due to simple biological drives and framing of the possible. The imperiousness of the sex drive, especially male, is the most obvious. This makes people wrong for what they inherently are. This seems WAY too simple.
Greatest teacher of philosophy in the 21st century. Thanks
Wow, thanks!
@@PhiloofAlexandria Really, I went through some of the very difficult journal articles in the analytic tradition. After listing to your TH-cam lectures twice or three times each, they were 200% easier to read. Many thanks.
This video, and Heidegger by extension, come in a quite a relevant time for me! Thank you so much Prof. Bonevac, and pardon me, i have now a date with Heidegger scheduled.
This is the best explanation I’ve heard yet, thanks man!!!
Thank you Sir for easy and accessible, but how substantial lectures!!!
I think it's a mistake to think of thrownness as only pertaining to the conditions of your birth. My thrownness at any given moment pertains to the whole of my past (and the history preceding my birth) and to the particular situation I'm in - and as these things evolve, so does my thrownness. Heidegger says that moods disclose Dasein's thrownness, and Dasein's moods change constantly. If thrownness was a once-and-for-all deal that started and ended with birth, then Dasein's moods wouldn't be changing - supposing, as Heidegger does, that moods disclose thrownness. I think you present a conception of thrownness that's much more Sartrian than Heideggerian, and thus a conception of authenticity that's much more Sartrian, i.e., voluntarist. For Heidegger, authenticity involves an embracing of finitude, which means, among other things, that Dasein is heavily determined by its thrownness as against its projection.
tldr: thrownness ≠ natality
First TH-cam comment ever. Thank you for everything you share!
You're welcome!
Light, light, light.
Because of my past, I will never be fully and honestly accepted by my world of others. It's a very lonely place at times. Great lecture and lecturer
◔_◔
This is a very generous reading of Heidegger - the idea can easily be twisted into understanding modes of being more or less authentic, and the human expressions being worth more or less, offering some support for exterminating the inauthentic. I wish that weren't so, but explains the facts on the historical ground.
Yikes! I hope that’s not what he had in mind.
I believe that part of the alienation of the Dasein comes from ths distinction between the object and the subject. Being in the world is not being in something that is apart from myself, like something completely opposite to my existence in the world, I'm part of it and I should be conscious about it.
Greetings from Colombia, and thanks for sharing the video.
You are doing very good work.
We are the world. And the world is us
Thank you !!!
Thank you sir
I definitely took the plunge this last year.
Helpful
13:50 - In German "end" as telos is "Zweck", whereas end as the opposite of beginning is "Ende". I do not think that Heidegger was confused about a homonymy which does not exist in his own language. (Although I am not 100% sure which words Heidegger uses in B&T here)
Good point! I don’t think he was confused either. I’ve seen criticisms of him on this, but they strike me as thoughtless.
Thank you for this lecture! Don't you think that between Heidegger's "Being in the world with others" and Ortega y Gasset's "I am me and my circumstance" there is something similar? It would be great to read/listen to your opinion.
Interesting series of lectures so far and I plan to finish. Thank you.
However, how puzzling is this authenticity! I'm an old being (no children) so it's helped me to understand a bit better younger beings or is that Daseins?
Anyhow, how can you reject what has been "imposed" by others and at the same time plunge into yourself looking for authenticity and all this time you have to allow for others and do some caring while you are at it?
What a tall order. I should think that's worrying enough even before you set about contemplating your finitude and getting all anxious about dying. Phew.
But perhaps I've misunderstood all this. Quite possible.
I know there were certain things imposed on me at birth and as a young child and yes as I grew up and did some reflecting I managed my way out of those and imposed a few others on myself of which I liked some and didn't others. It's called muddling along.
But some, possibly many, of those "imposed" things are really a bedrock, a stable environment and society, a culture from which secure place (well, as secure as it can be) you can set off from to make your way in the world (or make a world), to reflect and make choices and do your authentic stuff. Without that bedrock you can easily flounder about and play video games all day.
I wonder how much his comments on leaving the world (I assume it’s the Umwelt? Pardon my ignorance, as I’m not yet to the point in Being and Time that you’re covering) and entering another are related to his thinking about art. As he says in The Origin of the Work of Art, the work of art creates a world. And Heidegger certainly privileges these worlds over, say, the world of the World of Warcraft video game. So, if the two texts can be put in dialogue, this seems to me to be when Hölderlin’s line (that Heidegger loves so much) “Where danger is, grows the saving power too.” Would you agree? And, if so, what is it that slows us to leave the world set up by the work of art? Is our being-in-such-a-world essentially finite, just as our being-in-the-Umwelt is? Is this perhaps part of why Heidegger privileges art: If that’s the case, then art forces us to confront our finitude in a truly explicit way.
Thank you.
Free will?
Crazy screaming acid-loving beer-drinking Jimmy Morrison; "into this world we're thrown, like a dog without a bone and Hector out alone. Riders on the Storm..."
The Doors
Can force relations (foucault) make inauthentic choices authentic? After all,it seems that forcerelations wil make it the case the marginal utility of the inauthentic choice, greater than the marginal utility of the authentic choice.
And also it seems that moral domestication (nietzche) can make inauthentic choices profitable and therefore authentic.
Re: living in “the world as it is”, but what if the world as it is, is a bunch of malarkey? And, or some kind of simulacrum that you find terribly disappointing and inauthentic??
Go touch water, smell the grass and pat a dog. Go beyond symbols.
@@Scott-bh2qb I work in the great outdoors and so have no shortage of beauty in my life. I appreciate the sentiment, but it doesn't negate the fact that society and most people are god awful.
@@hamburgler227 you said the world.
@@Scott-bh2qb that's how the lecturer paraphrased Heidegger. I presume it refers to life in general, and esp in society
Might I ask how old you are? I am curious what you make of your student who traveled to the lands of Azeroth, a game which centers around the concept of interacting with others in both a cooperative and competitive way in order to advance a digital avatar's progress.
I’m 67, and I find it…. amusing.
I prefer Lionel Trilling's Sincerity and Authenticity, on the topic of authenticity.
▪️
2:34
These past few years -
There was absolutely *NO* "word that starts with a Pand, .... and Ends with a ... mic" - *AT ALL - WHATSOEVER* .
⬛️
Dear sir,
This is a doubt regarding freedom. Whether or not we are actually free. Kindly consider the following:
P1. A person generally does that, what it likes.
P2. A person cannot choose to like something.
C. Therefore, a person does that what it cannot choose.
Extending on the conclusion.... any freedom, if exists, gurantees choice. Choice is the synonym for freedom (here). But since we logically deduced that freedom is an illusion, does that in any ways change Heideggerian freedom of life choices? Wouldn't it lead to the conclusion that any life examined or unexamined cannot be lived otherwise? And the possibilities of authenticity become null?
Thankyou.
Your first two points strike me as needing more thought. (Plus, in the first, “generally” is carrying a lot of weight.)
@@insearchoflostthought8135 generally because there are instances where likes and dislike doesn't work but it is curiosity. I wouldn't touch a hot pan bcz i dont like that. A child will touch because of curiosity.
@@insearchoflostthought8135 well needing more Thought..... in what sense? Regarding p2, i cannot choose to like mozart, i simply like mozart therefore i listen to mozart. You cannot choose to dislike mozart, you simply dislike mozart. That's the point. I cannot choose for an authentic life, i like an authentic life. You cannot choose to examine your life, rather that is something that you would like to do.
@@2004Patil I'm afraid I fundamentally have to disagree with your first two premises. A person generally does not do what they like or desire but rather is forced. Would you desire to wake up at 6 a.m to go to your school as a kid? I reckon not. Second of all, a person can choose what to like by building a habit. If a person simply listens to classical music for years, it will develop a liking for it, although it may not. However, one example such as this one will prove your entire conclusion from the aforementioned 2 premises wrong. A lot more work has to be put into this argumentation as the other person who commented said. Good work though, do not be demoralised. Extend your thinking more and avoid statements such as "generally" and you will be good to go.
And also he criticizes the way we do philosophy and science since Ancient Greece. I agree with him cause philosophy has always been ( in general ) elite thing in terms of number not class
That isn’t his criticism of Greek philosophy.
Ugh more Marxism
life is a kind of trauma, this obfuscates Freud (occludes him) for he looked for 'special' trauma whereas its pob universal (so to speak) - Jung too is wrong and on and on
How does being a Nazi equate with authenticity? (And no propaganda that he was a reluctant Nazi for only a short period).
It doesn't equate with it, but there is a connection, which results from Heidegger's "turn" in the late twenties and early 1930s. I've written about this here: philosophical.space/papers/Heidegger'sWrongTurn.pdf
@@PhiloofAlexandria Thanks. I will leave aside the question of whether Heidegger can be wrong about "Heidegger", and just say--to only address the Nazi question in H's thought in a "private" academic journal but lecture in a "public" forum (like youtube) on a central moral concept for H without mentioning the Nazi connection (Afterall, H chose to join the Nazi Party) doesn't seem right. [I have no vested interest in this topic. I tuned in to hear what you were going to say about the topic but you avoided the issue].
@@richardrumana5025 that’s not a fair question then. You weren’t asking a genuine question for learning, seems like you only posted that question to bait the professor. And when no one played into it, you act like a stuck up snob with some long-winded response only to say you aren’t satisfied that no-one fell for it.
@@ABB14-11 Very good. You are right. In my opinion, the Professor is a coward and/or a fool for not addressing the issue. Heidegger had given speeches where he ends with the words: "Heil Hitler." How can that behavior be equated with a positive virtue like authenticity? Why is that kind of conduct being defended (apologized for) by Prof. B? [Besides, B has made comments about contemporary political figures who may welcome this type of association].
Not easy to take Heidegger's advice on authenticity when you look at his own life...
A tension of Kierkegaard and Aristotle, the individual and social animal. No surprise that these were major influences. Pity he obscures both.
Some ugly Hegelianism too - inauthentic notions of historicity and rootedness that no doubt lead him to the Nazis. The philosopher of authenticity was deeply inauthentic, a slave of culture. He was more Aristotelian than Kierkegaardian, despite his early works. Maybe he thought coming up with a new vocabulary made him an individual?
Later Heidegger is hyper-romantic. He abandons Kierkegaard's subjectivity, but maintains the tension of three lifestyles/being from Kierkegaard: dwelling poetically' takes the place of faith or subjectivity. Despite protestations, Heidegger has an Aristotelian-like ethics of flourishing that points to a deeper, poetic contemplation of everyday life. He never gives up Hegelianism with his grand, poetic meta-narrative.
Heidegger is good for people who will never read Kierkegaard, Nietzsche, or the summary of earlier work by Sartre.
Chatbot ...
>>>>>>>
Philobot
Psychobot
Medibot
"Politibot"
Ideas ....
Why do you assume we have ave freedom, even beyond family, culture influences etc? We are a human animal with certain genetic boundaries that define our emotional lives and responses. That is key to me - boundaries set by biology that we don’t even see, and that doesn’t even address physics determinism (but let’s ignore that).
This video seems really superficial and puts people in a worse mental state, one of not realizing how hard it is to change due to simple biological drives and framing of the possible. The imperiousness of the sex drive, especially male, is the most obvious. This makes people wrong for what they inherently are.
This seems WAY too simple.