Studied Heidegger nearly 50 years ago. Attended the lectures of the great John Sallis at Duquesne. Over the years, I have heard literally dozens of lectures on Heidegger. In my experience, Brezinsky's introduction of Heidegger is among the best. If you ask me why he is so good; he's more interested in having you understand than in performing. Great job!
I agree, it's a fantastic lecture. The late Rick Roderick also presents a very interesting and down to Earth account of Heidegger's philosophy as part of his series The Self Under Siege, which I think helped me understand this one much better than I would have otherwise as someone who is just starting to get into philosophy.
I have never been able to even be close understand Heidegger before now. One lecture and and it’s not gibberish all of a sudden. Thank you good sir 🙏🏽👏🏽👏🏽
Reiterating, I've since done two courses with a top expert in Heidegger and this is still one of my absolute favorite Heidegger lectures, it is just so good as an intro. I feel anyone with a grip in philosophy can learn so much from it and for me it helps me get in tune to the Heideggerian way of thought, which is by no means easy. I love this lecture.
This is the first time I understand Heidegger! What a clear exposition, I am really grateful I would like to find books written by this great professor
This is the best lecture I viewed so far in explaining Heidegger and his philosophy. You really show how careful and precise you are in the way you explain, your choice of words and even the pausing from time to time. I have always wanted to understand Heidegger better in order to understand Christian Norbergschultz and his writings in Architecture Theory (given my Architectural Background). Thank You Very Much Michael.
Thank you for presenting this. I found it intelligible and clear, but only because I've been reading over and over, Being and Time and other of Heidegger's writing everyday for the past five years. I worked on a film with an actor who was in a Terrence Malick film and he mentioned all of his movies are based on Heidegger and 'worlds' in Heidegger. Curiosity awakened, I started on a project of understanding Heidegger, a much bigger task than I expected, but I'm deeply immersed in it and really having fun figuring it all out. In the 80s I did get an undergraduate degree in Philosophy from Boston University, with a focus on Kant and Hegel, and I doubt you'd get very far with Heidegger's moves without a background in Descartes and Kant. Having read the Pre-socratics, Homer and Greek philosophy will enrich the reading. I've heard Kierkegaard is pivotal as well, but I know nothing about him so far.
Heiddeger, the Zen Master of Western Philosophy. His emphasis on the engagement of 'Dasein' to its particular historic existence in its allotted time of being-in-the-world before it ends in death and to find its authentic 'being' by living out its possibilities free from the demands of rigid conformity and the empty cliches of the society or culture it's thrown in; sounds more like Zen rather than a traditional western bent of thinking with it's emphasis on the mind-matter dualism and it's corollary consequence that tends to view the external world and objects as things to be analyzed & exploited.
As a starting student of western Thought, from an Eatern mystical background, I discover lot of similarities.There is jada and chetana, insentient and sentient, uncovering of the sentient, unfoldment of the sentient from layers and and layers of insentient to discover the transcendant in us.
Thank you for sharing Michael. Your knowledge of the content is not just conceptual - there is a powerful experiential aspect to your delivery that brings the concepts to life. A great gift.
My father has been talking about Heiddeger to me for the last 6 to 7 yrs. He passed away on 2nd July, so I was looking for some help to assist me while reading Heidegger, I am delighted to have found Brezinsky's lecture. My question is when Heiddeger says , only God can save us , does that mean things will take their course and there is nothing that we can do.
What a superb lecture- you made something very subtle and hard to understand immanent and approachable. Thank you for your patient lucidity, and of course for sharing this.
"By the Token of Time Humankind is lost."Each one of us seems to be Time.Each one of us is a Time Capsule.What one reveals and conceals is in the domain of his Being which is Time.The clock time and the metaphysical Time or Temporality.Thanks for sharing the Temporalities of Martin.
Thank you for making this the closest I have been able to come to understanding Heidegger's message, love the way you look up as if connecting to his mind in search of words, absolutely beautiful.
This is great, slow and succinct, just how i need it, especially on a philosopher as enigmatic and clandestine as Heideggar. I have subbed your channel.
What a great professor! I love watching his videos. I’ve watched some of them multiple times. Dr Brezinski, if you get this message, please make more videos!!
the end reminds me of how I used to get so annoyed when people started packing away before the lecturer had stopped talking. I always thought 'do you have somewhere to be so desperately that zipping up your pencil case to put it in your bag is an absolute essential thing to do before they stop speaking?!'
This man deserves a standing ovation and people/pupils just leave as if they just heard yet another piece of useless information, what is wrong with people?
It's like every knower is (or has), at any given time, a finite integer of knowledge divided by an infinity of ignorance. It's like trying to reconcile the notion of form with the vast, infinite context of formlessness...
Both of them agree with the idea that being in itself Connor and will not be represented. One can only understand being through representation of them through a conceptual mode of observation.
Very clear explication of the fundamentally irrationalist and mystical basis of phenomenology from Husserl to his Nazi-to-be student, Heidegger. “Things revealing themselves, speaking for themselves etc.For the first time I understand how Heidegger can posit time as the ground of being and talk about “history” while managing to disregard actual history which men and women make. Heidegger makes Hegel’s Logic of becoming seem quite reasonable by comparison.
So both Kant and heideger look for that same question but in different direction. Kant looks at it from purely metaphysical sense from the outside in but hiedeger looks at it ontologically from the inside out from everyday experience to a larger picture.
Hello Sir Your philosophy lectures are the best one one youtube, i couldn't find anyone better then you, please accept my heartiest gratitude. Sir please do one series on whole history of philosophy. Please please please,Sir. I myself could only sponsor you £1000 for that and i request all philosophy lovers to contribute because i think that no one can make philosophy that easy. Kindest refards
Michael B Brezinsky 37:05 ff "...emptying one's self ... forgetting one's self, although when we talked about it in Socrates... becoming 'wise', which I suppose in Heidegger would almost be the same thing as becoming 'authentic', requires the dismantling of the ego." I keep encountering difficulties with the term 'ego' . In common speech 'ego' and 'egoism' get used as synonyms for selfishness and pride (which I interpret as 'egotism' and 'hubris' because they seem less ambiguous). In Freud the ego judges between the super-ego and the ID (which I equate with Nietsche's Ubermensche and Last Man - loads of questions i need to investigate there too - but for now...). When you say "dismantling of the ego" can it not mean: 1. disentangling Freud's super-ego and ID? and 2. that Freud's 'ego'/Heidegger's 'authentic self'/Plato's 'wisdom' is the part doing the disentangling?
Thank you for the lecture. I was wondering if you could recommend any particular literature in the wider area of phenomenology and hermeneutics. In getting into hermeneutics through Ricoeur, I have found it necessary to investigate Gadamer, Heidegger, Merleau-Ponty, and (in order to understand the historical context) Husserl. There is plenty of literature available to me, but not much guidance as to what is considered the more valuable reading. Any insight on this? Again, thanks for the lecture.
Taro Madden Taro, see if you can get a copy of Michael C. Gelven's A COMMENTARY ON HEIDEGGER'S BEING AND TIME. He was my first mentor, and this particular book provides a very accessible, common sense introduction to hermeneutic phenomenology.
Excellent lecture on Heidegger: I am interested in Heidegger's views on Art. He viewed Jesus as a Work of Art. In other words Jesus reconfigured the world allowing new possibilities in.. However, is the reconfiguration brought about by Art the same as unconcealment, ?
I've never been able to get successfully clear in my mind Dasien as a clearing. If the concept doesn't relate to a type of Kantian category - human being's perceiving the world as they do by dint of their perceptual "make up" (so to speak), then, does Heidegger mean that A) being only exists purely in an idealist sense (ala Berkley) within the mind of Dasein? Or B) that Dasein is, in effect, the instance of how being becomes aware of itself? Or C) Dasein literally brings being into physical existence? Also: are none human conscious animals - cats, dogs etc, "present" or "ready" at hand for Heidegger?
in my completely unqualified opinion the answer is similar to B. Without Dasein there are still beings, heidegger thinks. But there is no concealment or unconcealment, etc.
What does it mean: "only finite beings make things possible. God has no possibilities"? Aren't things possible per se? It's like we have some power (?) which God doesn't have. Another thing: "letting things be is letting them enter into presence, to present themselves" reminds me on buddhist zen teaching. Was he influenced with it or he came to the same idea with his own thinking? Emptying oneself is not just a buddhist idea, it's also idea/praxis of mystics like Eckhart and st. John of the Cross. Anticipation of death is also old philosophical idea. But Heidegger was aware that every philosophist is actually a collage artist while he said: "“The small are always dependent on the great; they are "small" precisely because they think they are independent. The great thinker is one who can hear what is greatest in the work of other "greats" and who can transform it in an original manner.”
Michael B Brezinsky I must confess I enjoyed your lecture on Martin Heidegger. In your lecture, you mentioned the special way in which Heidegger uses Existence. As you stated, For him, "only Human Beings exist. Things are." In this line of thought, do you think Heidegger associated existence with 'consciousness' and 'awareness'? Did Heidegger assign existence to Dasein (Human Being) because Dasein is aware or conscious of his existence and the existence of other things (der seienden). Was he not following George Berkeley idea that "to be is to be perceived and to perceive" (esse est percipi aut percipere)?
Excellent question. While I'd be hesitant to reduce what Heidegger indicates by the term "existence" to either "consciousness" or "awareness," both terms, as you suggest, are certainly associated with it. Existence should be conceived in a more active sense, i,e., as an event. To exist is to stand-open for the dis-closure of possibilities, from the average, everyday presence of the familiar, to the awareness of oneself as the very condition and ground of the unconcealment of all possibility upon which one might project oneself in the anticipation of death. As to the suggestion of a Heideggerian echo of Berkeley's subjective idealism, while, to be is, indeed, to be perceived, in the sense of being-disclosed, that is, brought to a stand, Berkeley's rejection of the being of material substance raises a metaphysical question that the phenomenological reduction does not entertain. Thank you for the clear effort and attention you've devoted to my discussion! Heidegger's thought remains a world of astonishment and mystery for me. It brings me joy to connect with others who share in the gift of following his path of thinking.
Michael B Brezinsky Hi. Very nice lecture. Along these lines, is there a special reason only human beings are taken as existing, and not other animal life?
+otakurocklee I apologize for not seeing your question long ago. I offer two responses to your question: 1) Heidegger would probably argue that other animals do not speak a language, at least one rich enough to reveal a world. Clearly, some will dispute this. 2) I think the better answer is that one cannot experience the life of any animal; thus, the extent to which other animals experience possibility and the onus of decision making is closed-off to us.
Heiddegger is a representative of the hermeneutic tradition, right? Most of his philisophy is build on metaphor, on static imagery and emblematic pictures like "Lichtung", "Gestell" and so forth, which he found in the Swarzwald. It' very poetic, but the French (Lacan, Derrida, Deleuze) have more answers to being, meaning, and existence, in the Fabric. But I may be totally wrong with this.
What is the question that the student asks about Socrates at around 26 minutes? Also, average everydayness doesn't seem that bad a thing compared to a neurotic preoccupation with death. (I know what Heidegger proposes is not neurotic.)
John, you're quite correct that everydayness ought not be given a negative connotation, as authenticity and inauthenticity are not moral evaluations. Everydayness is a necessary condition of letting beings-Be. Authentic Being-towards-death is anticipatory resoluteness. In the anticipation of one's own no-longer-Being-there, one becomes open to new possibilities for living. Thus, the focus is not on death, but, rather, on what the awareness of the inescapability of death discloses to us. Death is not the object of authentic existence. It is, perhaps, the horizon against which the possibility for a richer life comes into focus.
Michael B Brezinsky This isn't true. Societies that have lasted are societies whose fundamental laws are founded on frightening myths where as if too many citizens disobey they foresee their common doom.
+Joe Ruf But the advent of post-structuralism has deconstructed these myths. Human history has so far experienced the change in meta-narratives; from religion to God-religion to reason, science, capitalism, etc. While Marx's classless utopia did not (and may never) appear, due to Althusser's theory on ideology and interpellation, it does not go to show that the general deconstructionist approach of charting human history is problematic. The statement you've made on 'myths... [to] frighten' holds true though, but the term 'myth' won't be accepted by normal people in our current context. We are frightened not because we 'foresee [our] common doom', but rather because we see ourselves being alienated. As if we weren't, to begin with capitalism, media interference, and Baudrillard's infamous simulacrum. Perhaps your 'myth' signifies more of Althussian ideology or Foucauldian power-knowledge, that linguistic grid that both polices individuals or makes them self-police into accepting the capitalistic metanarrative. :)
+umut barat Finish your MA. At that point you can teach at most any community college, as I, myself, do. However, I do hold a Ph.D. in Philosophy from Tulane University. Once you complete your MA, you can apply to doctoral programs, most of which will transfer all your MA credit, provided you continue in the same field, so you'll already be halfway done with the doctoral coursework. You should apply to a range of schools, some more prestigious, some less, depending on how much it costs you to apply to each. Then take the best deal offered to you, With your MA, you'll very likely receive at least a tuition waiver, and, perhaps, a stipend for teaching as part of your degree requirements. But, like I said, you can teach for a while at the two-year college level if you aren't quite sure or ready to take the next step. Best wishes in your pursuits!
Michael B Brezinsky Thanks a lot Mr. So you suggest me to do a phd right? In which country should I do it? I am wanting terribly to be an academician. So a phd. is a MUST right? After I do phd., is it guaranteed that I become a lecturer or an academician?
your masters is probably enough to work as an adjunct or a couple years at some institutions, at least in the US. While working you can work towards a phd which is probably a must for a tenure track job.
So, ... as a refined "hayseed" .... I am still living the common ordinary "they"/anonymous life in Appalachia ..... hmmmm ..... authenticity can not be put in a "Title" ..... love Heiddeger ..... home does not exist with the outstanding Being.
It's a combination of complex ideas and a lack of existing vocabulary. So not only did he need to explain a complicated idea, but in order to do so he needed to invent new words and phrases for said explanation. This essentially means you have to learn almost a new language before you read Heidegger, add to that any further translation for non-German speakers and you fall into this mess. He reads relatively easily once you understand his way of writing, similar to Hegel or Deleuze in that respect.
26:05... Why does it have to 'go back to Socrates'? Just because Socrates can be read in such a way from today? Heidegger himself realizes that modes of being, even Dasein doesn't have the same structure in the ancient Greek/Roman world (when nature or things are essentially knowable and even men have different essences) nor in feudal Christianity (when the world is the Book of God and things are divine signatures and humanity is an organic body and therefore men have a natural state or condition assigned by God - either Lord or serf), and only modernity's man is a subject amongst objects, and so on... Why then this evolution of thought from one thing to the same? Heidegger saw clear cuts, not evolution. He didn't take it to the end though: the Mode of Production of these modes of being, but still...
In my understanding,Heidegger was a brilliant student of both Greek and Latin, and sought to reawaken the original Greek experience of truth as aletheia, as opposed to veritas. This is explicit in the essay "On The Essence Of Truth." Moreover, the discipline of Philosophy is essentially evolutionary. Thinkers build upon and take their departure from the thought of others. Consider A. N. Whitehead, "The whole of ohilosophy is but a footnote to Plato.
I know that the second Heidegger was not only fond of rural German expressions but also "sought to reawaken the original Greek experience of truth" which was supposedly embedded in the Greek terms themselves that the Romans eventually began to alter, and so on (Derrida went down that tragic avenue too)... But where is evolution here, other than in the positivist horizon? Where is the notion of "language in itself" (and the post-structuralist 'semantic chain') and "being in itself" other than in a phenomenological account of that horizon as a system of literal/objectual existence(s)? Don't you need to presuppose a subject (also in itself) for that? Well, what do you need in order to have or think 'that'? Certainly not a system based in slavery (Master/slave essences), nor one that only thinks from/in terms of the Lord/serf dichotomy and the readability of God's signatures in the world. Instead of those, you need (supposedly) free subject/subject social relations, because only these will produce a notion of 'in-it-self-ness'. 'That' might be a footnote to Plato, but certainly nothing to do with the reality that produced Plato's discourse. Of course, unless you think that discourse is transcendental and not 'radically historical'. Indeed, in order for A. N. Whitehead to even say that, didn't he need such a thing as 'the need for a European tradition' in which to base the national one? And, more so, later on, when 'European culture' needed to be saved from Nazi concentration camps - 'The Death of Virgil', and so on... In any case, yes, Whitehead said that; we don't even need to say it, we presuppose it, don't we?
We the capitalist western world believe stupidly, that we have the best grasp on so call reality. When in fact at the level of phenomenon, we are no different to any other culture. We manifest some thing in to being by the “taking-as”, inherited from the culture were thrown in to. You can never know the thing in itself, that which remains if all humans no longer exist, but only the phenomenon of be-in-the - world. So don’t tell a human from a different culture that is wrong to interpret a wild monkey as the return soul of his dead brother. If you try and correct by convincing him to see the world as you do, then if you succeed, you will have destroyed a world, which had as much credibility as your own. You will have replaced it with a technology enframent of his world where he will see the forest as a standing reserve, potential lumber or a resource for the leisure industry, instead of the sacred home of his forefathers.
+Michael B Brezinsky LOL...I was wondering and hoping he meant that too!! We can assume that the 'At last...' hopefully sets up a positive compliment...! I am doing my Phd on adoption and using phenomenology as my theory/method...so I am really digging into Heidegger or any phenomenologists of note!
+Four Owls Also, I wanted to recommend that you read some Edmund Husserl, especially "Ideas." As Heidegger's own teacher, and the founder of the Phenomenological Method, Husserl explains the method itself, rather than immediately employing it. This will be your best guide to Phenomenological research. All the best, Michael.
I think he means that you aren't reading from the text during your lecture. LIke you don't have passages of being and time or whatever that you are reading from.
And, if you get to the point where you say things are real, they ARE, but they don't "exist," aren't you just creating definitions and then playing with them?
![แข่งแลกของ 1 วัน!! ของใครแพงสุดชนะ!! [Ver.2024]](http://i.ytimg.com/vi/joRT59ilPHg/mqdefault.jpg)
![Rick Roderick on Heidegger - The Rejection of Humanism [full length]](/img/n.gif)
Studied Heidegger nearly 50 years ago. Attended the lectures of the great John Sallis at Duquesne. Over the years, I have heard literally dozens of lectures on Heidegger. In my experience, Brezinsky's introduction of Heidegger is among the best. If you ask me why he is so good; he's more interested in having you understand than in performing. Great job!
The most straightforward and unpretentious presentation of Heidegger I've ever heard. Thank you.
I agree, it's a fantastic lecture. The late Rick Roderick also presents a very interesting and down to Earth account of Heidegger's philosophy as part of his series The Self Under Siege, which I think helped me understand this one much better than I would have otherwise as someone who is just starting to get into philosophy.
I have never been able to even be close understand Heidegger before now. One lecture and and it’s not gibberish all of a sudden. Thank you good sir 🙏🏽👏🏽👏🏽
This is the clearest start-from-square-one, under-one-hour introduction to Heidegger I have ever heard. Thank you.
Thank you!
Thanks for your compliment.
I am German and must say that I understood Heidegger better following this lecture than in any other German language lecture - well done!
This did more for my understanding of Heidegger than an entire graduate course in phenomenology. Thank you so much for putting this out there.
Reiterating, I've since done two courses with a top expert in Heidegger and this is still one of my absolute favorite Heidegger lectures, it is just so good as an intro. I feel anyone with a grip in philosophy can learn so much from it and for me it helps me get in tune to the Heideggerian way of thought, which is by no means easy. I love this lecture.
This is by far the best introductory lecture on Heidegger I have ever seen. Well done.
This is the first time I understand Heidegger! What a clear exposition, I am really grateful I would like to find books written by this great professor
This lecture changed my life.
This is the best lecture I viewed so far in explaining Heidegger and his philosophy. You really show how careful and precise you are in the way you explain, your choice of words and even the pausing from time to time. I have always wanted to understand Heidegger better in order to understand Christian Norbergschultz and his writings in Architecture Theory (given my Architectural Background). Thank You Very Much Michael.
This guy blew my mind. He makes it simpler.. Thank you
Thank you for presenting this. I found it intelligible and clear, but only because I've been reading over and over, Being and Time and other of Heidegger's writing everyday for the past five years. I worked on a film with an actor who was in a Terrence Malick film and he mentioned all of his movies are based on Heidegger and 'worlds' in Heidegger. Curiosity awakened, I started on a project of understanding Heidegger, a much bigger task than I expected, but I'm deeply immersed in it and really having fun figuring it all out. In the 80s I did get an undergraduate degree in Philosophy from Boston University, with a focus on Kant and Hegel, and I doubt you'd get very far with Heidegger's moves without a background in Descartes and Kant. Having read the Pre-socratics, Homer and Greek philosophy will enrich the reading. I've heard Kierkegaard is pivotal as well, but I know nothing about him so far.
Zimmerman's book, "The Eclipse of Self," really helped me with Heidegger. This lecture here is awesome, as people are noticing..
“Tell me how you read and I'll tell you who you are.” -Heidegger
Heiddeger, the Zen Master of Western Philosophy. His emphasis on the engagement of 'Dasein' to its particular historic existence in its allotted time of being-in-the-world before it ends in death and to find its authentic 'being' by living out its possibilities free from the demands of rigid conformity and the empty cliches of the society or culture it's thrown in; sounds more like Zen rather than a traditional western bent of thinking with it's emphasis on the mind-matter dualism and it's corollary consequence that tends to view the external world and objects as things to be analyzed & exploited.
+Solis de Luna A very good description of Heidegger's charge of the forgottenness of Being.
As a starting student of western Thought, from an Eatern mystical background, I discover lot of similarities.There is jada and chetana, insentient and sentient, uncovering of the sentient, unfoldment of the sentient from layers and and layers of insentient to discover the transcendant in us.
That's very cool I'd love to learn more of the eastern similarities.
Dear Sir, as I am working on my thesis I am listening to your lecture. It's been very helpful.
Thank you!
I think this could easily be a complicated subject, but I learned and understood, I like your style.
Thank you for sharing Michael. Your knowledge of the content is not just conceptual - there is a powerful experiential aspect to your delivery that brings the concepts to life. A great gift.
My father has been talking about Heiddeger to me for the last 6 to 7 yrs. He passed away on 2nd July, so I was looking for some help to assist me while reading Heidegger, I am delighted to have found Brezinsky's lecture. My question is when Heiddeger says , only God can save us , does that mean things will take their course and there is nothing that we can do.
What a superb lecture- you made something very subtle and hard to understand immanent and approachable. Thank you for your patient lucidity, and of course for sharing this.
"By the Token of Time Humankind is lost."Each one of us seems to be Time.Each one of us is a Time Capsule.What one reveals and conceals is in the domain of his Being which is Time.The clock time and the metaphysical Time or Temporality.Thanks for sharing the Temporalities of Martin.
Thank you for making this the closest I have been able to come to understanding Heidegger's message, love the way you look up as if connecting to his mind in search of words, absolutely beautiful.
This is great, slow and succinct, just how i need it, especially on a philosopher as enigmatic and clandestine as Heideggar. I have subbed your channel.
really like the way he presents the content, gives me time to process the complex material and becomes easier to absorb !! Thank you !
Reading Sein & Zeit at the moment. This really helps me understand. Thank you.
What a great professor! I love watching his videos. I’ve watched some of them multiple times. Dr Brezinski, if you get this message, please make more videos!!
the end reminds me of how I used to get so annoyed when people started packing away before the lecturer had stopped talking. I always thought 'do you have somewhere to be so desperately that zipping up your pencil case to put it in your bag is an absolute essential thing to do before they stop speaking?!'
Great job! Thank you for sharing this lecture.
Superb content and delivery, thank you.
Thank you for such a brilliant lecture.
You're a tremendous professor. Please keep putting out new material!!!!
Great lecture. I love it.
I like this introduction. Well done.
great lecture on a difficult topic
Thank you, Saif!
Great lecture. I was thoroughly absorbed in this lecture. Lost myself for 40 mins or so.
Great presentation
This man deserves a standing ovation and people/pupils just leave as if they just heard yet another piece of useless information, what is wrong with people?
Really helpful introduction, thanks
I think when Heidegger said that only a God can save us, he meant is sarcastically. I fact he said we are doomed. ;-)
This is so good. Thank you!
It's like every knower is (or has), at any given time, a finite integer of knowledge divided by an infinity of ignorance. It's like trying to reconcile the notion of form with the vast, infinite context of formlessness...
Both of them agree with the idea that being in itself Connor and will not be represented. One can only understand being through representation of them through a conceptual mode of observation.
Where can I get the other article mentioned here? I got The essence of Truth but not the other one
Very clear explication of the fundamentally irrationalist and mystical basis of phenomenology from Husserl to his Nazi-to-be student, Heidegger. “Things revealing themselves, speaking for themselves etc.For the first time I understand how Heidegger can posit time as the ground of being and talk about “history” while managing to disregard actual history which men and women make. Heidegger makes Hegel’s Logic of becoming seem quite reasonable by comparison.
amazing lecture! Can you do lectures on Hegel´s phenomenology of the spirit?
Thank you for your lecture
Thank You!
Very good, thank you
27:46 “To be authentic is to resolve upon the possibilities that lay ahead of that one possibility which cannot be avoided, my own death.”
Thank you so much for sharing this with us :)
Poetic, articulate, but it gives away the entire exploration.
So both Kant and heideger look for that same question but in different direction. Kant looks at it from purely metaphysical sense from the outside in but hiedeger looks at it ontologically from the inside out from everyday experience to a larger picture.
Hello Sir
Your philosophy lectures are the best one one youtube, i couldn't find anyone better then you, please accept my heartiest gratitude.
Sir please do one series on whole history of philosophy. Please please please,Sir. I myself could only sponsor you £1000 for that and i request all philosophy lovers to contribute because i think that no one can make philosophy that easy.
Kindest refards
Very nice remarks as regards the lecturer’s clarity, will have to view.
Thank you.
brilliant!
God IS these possibilities (aces)! So you´re right when you said: "God has no possibilities!"
Michael B Brezinsky 37:05 ff "...emptying one's self ... forgetting one's self, although when we talked about it in Socrates... becoming 'wise', which I suppose in Heidegger would almost be the same thing as becoming 'authentic', requires the dismantling of the ego."
I keep encountering difficulties with the term 'ego' .
In common speech 'ego' and 'egoism' get used as synonyms for selfishness and pride (which I interpret as 'egotism' and 'hubris' because they seem less ambiguous).
In Freud the ego judges between the super-ego and the ID
(which I equate with Nietsche's Ubermensche and Last Man - loads of questions i need to investigate there too - but for now...).
When you say "dismantling of the ego" can it not mean:
1. disentangling Freud's super-ego and ID?
and
2. that Freud's 'ego'/Heidegger's 'authentic self'/Plato's 'wisdom' is the part doing the disentangling?
differous01 Being wise did not stop him being a Nazi supporter and doing bad things to his Jewish colleagues.
Whats the possibilty of BEING for human beings ? Werner Erhard Your students are lucky to have you as a mentor
fucking finally I get it, brilliant explanation.
Thank you for the lecture.
I was wondering if you could recommend any particular literature in the wider area of phenomenology and hermeneutics. In getting into hermeneutics through Ricoeur, I have found it necessary to investigate Gadamer, Heidegger, Merleau-Ponty, and (in order to understand the historical context) Husserl. There is plenty of literature available to me, but not much guidance as to what is considered the more valuable reading. Any insight on this? Again, thanks for the lecture.
Perhaps check-out Michael Zimmerman's ECLIPSE OF THE SELF.
I will, thank you. I hope there are more Heidegger video lectures on the way.
Taro Madden Taro, see if you can get a copy of Michael C. Gelven's A COMMENTARY ON HEIDEGGER'S BEING AND TIME. He was my first mentor, and this particular book provides a very accessible, common sense introduction to hermeneutic phenomenology.
Excellent lecture on Heidegger: I am interested in Heidegger's views on Art. He viewed Jesus as a Work of Art. In other words Jesus reconfigured the world allowing new possibilities in..
However, is the reconfiguration brought about by Art the same as unconcealment, ?
Always felt existentialism and ontology are so different to be irreconcilable, but haven't read B&T.
I've never been able to get successfully clear in my mind Dasien as a clearing. If the concept doesn't relate to a type of Kantian category - human being's perceiving the world as they do by dint of their perceptual "make up" (so to speak), then, does Heidegger mean that A) being only exists purely in an idealist sense (ala Berkley) within the mind of Dasein? Or B) that Dasein is, in effect, the instance of how being becomes aware of itself? Or C) Dasein literally brings being into physical existence? Also: are none human conscious animals - cats, dogs etc, "present" or "ready" at hand for Heidegger?
in my completely unqualified opinion the answer is similar to B. Without Dasein there are still beings, heidegger thinks. But there is no concealment or unconcealment, etc.
What does it mean: "only finite beings make things possible. God has no possibilities"? Aren't things possible per se? It's like we have some power (?) which God doesn't have. Another thing: "letting things be is letting them enter into presence, to present themselves" reminds me on buddhist zen teaching. Was he influenced with it or he came to the same idea with his own thinking? Emptying oneself is not just a buddhist idea, it's also idea/praxis of mystics like Eckhart and st. John of the Cross. Anticipation of death is also old philosophical idea. But Heidegger was aware that every philosophist is actually a collage artist while he said: "“The small are always dependent on the great; they are "small" precisely because they think they are independent. The great thinker is one who can hear what is greatest in the work of other "greats" and who can transform it in an original manner.”
Michael B Brezinsky I must confess I enjoyed your lecture on Martin Heidegger. In your lecture, you mentioned the special way in which Heidegger uses Existence. As you stated, For him, "only Human Beings exist. Things are." In this line of thought, do you think Heidegger associated existence with 'consciousness' and 'awareness'? Did Heidegger assign existence to Dasein (Human Being) because Dasein is aware or conscious of his existence and the existence of other things (der seienden). Was he not following George Berkeley idea that "to be is to be perceived and to perceive" (esse est percipi aut percipere)?
Excellent question. While I'd be hesitant to reduce what Heidegger indicates by the term "existence" to either "consciousness" or "awareness," both terms, as you suggest, are certainly associated with it. Existence should be conceived in a more active sense, i,e., as an event. To exist is to stand-open for the dis-closure of possibilities, from the average, everyday presence of the familiar, to the awareness of oneself as the very condition and ground of the unconcealment of all possibility upon which one might project oneself in the anticipation of death. As to the suggestion of a Heideggerian echo of Berkeley's subjective idealism, while, to be is, indeed, to be perceived, in the sense of being-disclosed, that is, brought to a stand, Berkeley's rejection of the being of material substance raises a metaphysical question that the phenomenological reduction does not entertain. Thank you for the clear effort and attention you've devoted to my discussion! Heidegger's thought remains a world of astonishment and mystery for me. It brings me joy to connect with others who share in the gift of following his path of thinking.
Michael B Brezinsky Hi. Very nice lecture. Along these lines, is there a special reason only human beings are taken as existing, and not other animal life?
+otakurocklee I apologize for not seeing your question long ago. I offer two responses to your question: 1) Heidegger would probably argue that other animals do not speak a language, at least one rich enough to reveal a world. Clearly, some will dispute this. 2) I think the better answer is that one cannot experience the life of any animal; thus, the extent to which other animals experience possibility and the onus of decision making is closed-off to us.
I like it.
Heiddegger is a representative of the hermeneutic tradition, right? Most of his philisophy is build on metaphor, on static imagery and emblematic pictures like "Lichtung", "Gestell" and so forth, which he found in the Swarzwald. It' very poetic, but the French (Lacan, Derrida, Deleuze) have more answers to being, meaning, and existence, in the Fabric. But I may be totally wrong with this.
very nice. subbed!
28:27 “But the word he uses for the human being remains untranslated. It is ‘Dasein’”
“Da,” means here or there, and “sein” means being?
about the part where there is only a world because we bring it into presence. The world doesn't stop being because we have died?
What is the question that the student asks about Socrates at around 26 minutes? Also, average everydayness doesn't seem that bad a thing compared to a neurotic preoccupation with death. (I know what Heidegger proposes is not neurotic.)
John, you're quite correct that everydayness ought not be given a negative connotation, as authenticity and inauthenticity are not moral evaluations. Everydayness is a necessary condition of letting beings-Be. Authentic Being-towards-death is anticipatory resoluteness. In the anticipation of one's own no-longer-Being-there, one becomes open to new possibilities for living. Thus, the focus is not on death, but, rather, on what the awareness of the inescapability of death discloses to us. Death is not the object of authentic existence. It is, perhaps, the horizon against which the possibility for a richer life comes into focus.
Michael B Brezinsky This is why Germans were able to "think" their way into "reasoning" the "priestly peoples" away.
Joe Ruf By a very poor brand of reasoning, if you can call it that. Humanity is so desperate, it can talk itself into anything.
Michael B Brezinsky This isn't true. Societies that have lasted are societies whose fundamental laws are founded on frightening myths where as if too many citizens disobey they foresee their common doom.
+Joe Ruf But the advent of post-structuralism has deconstructed these myths. Human history has so far experienced the change in meta-narratives; from religion to God-religion to reason, science, capitalism, etc. While Marx's classless utopia did not (and may never) appear, due to Althusser's theory on ideology and interpellation, it does not go to show that the general deconstructionist approach of charting human history is problematic. The statement you've made on 'myths... [to] frighten' holds true though, but the term 'myth' won't be accepted by normal people in our current context. We are frightened not because we 'foresee [our] common doom', but rather because we see ourselves being alienated. As if we weren't, to begin with capitalism, media interference, and Baudrillard's infamous simulacrum. Perhaps your 'myth' signifies more of Althussian ideology or Foucauldian power-knowledge, that linguistic grid that both polices individuals or makes them self-police into accepting the capitalistic metanarrative. :)
How is this more than a complicated expression of simple pure idealism, if being is created by our time-experience?
"Why is there something rather than nothing?" I don't know. Why?
Exactly. For Heidegger, that’s not the question.
Can the uncovering go truth be evil? As uncovering some sort of evil entity?
i have thought a lot about it
In which university are you teaching?
I also wanna become an academician. What shall I do for that? I am currently writing my MA thesis.
+umut barat Finish your MA. At that point you can teach at most any community college, as I, myself, do. However, I do hold a Ph.D. in Philosophy from Tulane University. Once you complete your MA, you can apply to doctoral programs, most of which will transfer all your MA credit, provided you continue in the same field, so you'll already be halfway done with the doctoral coursework. You should apply to a range of schools, some more prestigious, some less, depending on how much it costs you to apply to each. Then take the best deal offered to you, With your MA, you'll very likely receive at least a tuition waiver, and, perhaps, a stipend for teaching as part of your degree requirements. But, like I said, you can teach for a while at the two-year college level if you aren't quite sure or ready to take the next step. Best wishes in your pursuits!
Michael B Brezinsky Thanks a lot Mr. So you suggest me to do a phd right? In which country should I do it? I am wanting terribly to be an academician. So a phd. is a MUST right? After I do phd., is it guaranteed that I become a lecturer or an academician?
your masters is probably enough to work as an adjunct or a couple years at some institutions, at least in the US. While working you can work towards a phd which is probably a must for a tenure track job.
Lewis Carrol did all of this in the mid-19th century, more brilliantly and with more humor...
And the word became the flesh... that is the Christian framework of being.
So, ... as a refined "hayseed" .... I am still living the common ordinary "they"/anonymous life in Appalachia ..... hmmmm ..... authenticity can not be put in a "Title" ..... love Heiddeger ..... home does not exist with the outstanding Being.
Question: What enables human beings to exist?
Death in your heart.
Tell that chick to mute her dam phone
According to Heidegger do animals “exist?”
Or do ONLY human beings exist? In Heidegger’s theory, are human beings the only beings that are said to exist, excluding other creatures, animals?
the man is a Fish Trap, I tell you
Are you a sixth-density entity?
Yes - is hard to understand philosophers - the problem of Heidegger is always time and being!
If he was such a great philosopher why was he so obscure. Are the ideas really so difficult that they cannot be put transparently?
It's a combination of complex ideas and a lack of existing vocabulary. So not only did he need to explain a complicated idea, but in order to do so he needed to invent new words and phrases for said explanation. This essentially means you have to learn almost a new language before you read Heidegger, add to that any further translation for non-German speakers and you fall into this mess. He reads relatively easily once you understand his way of writing, similar to Hegel or Deleuze in that respect.
26:05... Why does it have to 'go back to Socrates'? Just because Socrates can be read in such a way from today? Heidegger himself realizes that modes of being, even Dasein doesn't have the same structure in the ancient Greek/Roman world (when nature or things are essentially knowable and even men have different essences) nor in feudal Christianity (when the world is the Book of God and things are divine signatures and humanity is an organic body and therefore men have a natural state or condition assigned by God - either Lord or serf), and only modernity's man is a subject amongst objects, and so on... Why then this evolution of thought from one thing to the same? Heidegger saw clear cuts, not evolution. He didn't take it to the end though: the Mode of Production of these modes of being, but still...
In my understanding,Heidegger was a brilliant student of both Greek and Latin, and sought to reawaken the original Greek experience of truth as aletheia, as opposed to veritas. This is explicit in the essay "On The Essence Of Truth." Moreover, the discipline of Philosophy is essentially evolutionary. Thinkers build upon and take their departure from the thought of others. Consider A. N. Whitehead, "The whole of ohilosophy is but a footnote to Plato.
I know that the second Heidegger was not only fond of rural German expressions but also "sought to reawaken the original Greek experience of truth" which was supposedly embedded in the Greek terms themselves that the Romans eventually began to alter, and so on (Derrida went down that tragic avenue too)... But where is evolution here, other than in the positivist horizon? Where is the notion of "language in itself" (and the post-structuralist 'semantic chain') and "being in itself" other than in a phenomenological account of that horizon as a system of literal/objectual existence(s)? Don't you need to presuppose a subject (also in itself) for that? Well, what do you need in order to have or think 'that'? Certainly not a system based in slavery (Master/slave essences), nor one that only thinks from/in terms of the Lord/serf dichotomy and the readability of God's signatures in the world. Instead of those, you need (supposedly) free subject/subject social relations, because only these will produce a notion of 'in-it-self-ness'. 'That' might be a footnote to Plato, but certainly nothing to do with the reality that produced Plato's discourse. Of course, unless you think that discourse is transcendental and not 'radically historical'. Indeed, in order for A. N. Whitehead to even say that, didn't he need such a thing as 'the need for a European tradition' in which to base the national one? And, more so, later on, when 'European culture' needed to be saved from Nazi concentration camps - 'The Death of Virgil', and so on... In any case, yes, Whitehead said that; we don't even need to say it, we presuppose it, don't we?
You with high
Das Man ?
We the capitalist western world believe stupidly, that we have the best grasp on so call reality. When in fact at the level of phenomenon, we are no different to any other culture. We manifest some thing in to being by the “taking-as”, inherited from the culture were thrown in to. You can never know the thing in itself, that which remains if all humans no longer exist, but only the phenomenon of be-in-the - world.
So don’t tell a human from a different culture that is wrong to interpret a wild monkey as the return soul of his dead brother. If you try and correct by convincing him to see the world as you do, then if you succeed, you will have destroyed a world, which had as much credibility as your own. You will have replaced it with a technology enframent of his world where he will see the forest as a standing reserve, potential lumber or a resource for the leisure industry, instead of the sacred home of his forefathers.
At last à philosopher Who doesn't read What hé talks about.
+Jean Bordes Thank you. I take you to mean I don't read my lectures from notes!
+Michael B Brezinsky LOL...I was wondering and hoping he meant that too!! We can assume that the 'At last...' hopefully sets up a positive compliment...! I am doing my Phd on adoption and using phenomenology as my theory/method...so I am really digging into Heidegger or any phenomenologists of note!
Good for you! The Phenomenological Method is enriching and brilliant. Best Wishes to you!
+Four Owls Also, I wanted to recommend that you read some Edmund Husserl, especially "Ideas." As Heidegger's own teacher, and the founder of the Phenomenological Method, Husserl explains the method itself, rather than immediately employing it. This will be your best guide to Phenomenological research. All the best, Michael.
I think he means that you aren't reading from the text during your lecture. LIke you don't have passages of being and time or whatever that you are reading from.
..if you could get a better microphone...every would go fine....
Is it me or can Americans not pronounce the name of Husserl correctly? It's HUSS-URL not HUSS-EREL.
And, if you get to the point where you say things are real, they ARE, but they don't "exist," aren't you just creating definitions and then playing with them?
Is it only men in this lecture?!
No.
Some stupid comments from the class.
Thank you for this. I am brushing up on Heidegger to assist my reading of Morton's Hyperobjects. Appreciate you uploading.
Thank you for watching! Best wishes in your pursuits!