Dewey was arguing against the Cartesian view of the self he describes here since at least the 1910s, and for sure in the first edition of Experience and Nature (1925). I love professor Dreyfus, it’s just sad how he talks of Heidegger as if he made this massive discovery that hadn’t occurred to anyone! Lol. Like, can we at least acknowledge Dewey was ahead on this, even if he’s not your philosopher of choice? Ain’t that hard to do. I guess if a philosopher is pedestrian, writes in your language, had no controversies, helped everyone, and was behind all the right social-moral causes, (and isn’t European), they are doomed to being uninteresting.
I'm a fan of Dewey. It's true. There is certainly a kind of pragmatism espoused by Dewey that Heidegger formulates in phenomenological language, such as truth as a disclosure and the way engaged agency is involved with situations and their resolves.
I think a lot of people argued against Descartes view both during and after his time. There’s a lot more to Heidegger than simply that refutation. Moreover, the uniqueness and influence of his work is pretty undeniable. Dreyfus is a man who made a name for himself and a career being an expert on Heidegger’s work - what was your point of even coming to this video?
@@redtree732 to complain about how certain philosophers are often implicitly passed as more “revolutionary” than they were simply because historical accidents made them more fashionable to study and quote independently of their actual worth I guess. Thanks for asking. Made me reflect on my intentions from 3 months ago which I remember with complete clarity.
@@sergiosatelite467 It seems that's the case for most all philosophy or famous philosophers, but as well as business, art, and most history in the world, like it or not. There's something to be said about execution or "marketing"/presentation of an idea as well...not to mention the fact that "connections" or being within a certain network to allow for influential distribution is a non-negligible factor. Nevertheless, whether the attributed author was the "first" for the idea or not (which they're probably very unlikely to be), in any case we are still learning about the idea, which I personally take more value from than who's relatively arbitrarily attributed to it.
I’ve tried many times to understand what Heidegger is saying, including this gentlemen’s explanations and I don’t find any meaningful insights that correlate to my experiences. Either I’m stupid or they aren’t there, I don’t believe I am particularly stupid.
Have you tried reading at the minimum Kant and Husserl beforehand? Reading Heidegger as a beginning exposé into hermeneutics and phenomenology is like starting a race just a few metres from the finish-line.
Mistaken, people have inner thoughts and experience all the time. He actually points thIs out when he mentions depression-mental illness is wide spread, where their inner and reflective experience dominates life as a whole. He is describing people as as a type of automaton, with a very superficial way of thinking. Heidegger contributes to the discussion, but to say everyone has that outer thought process all the time is absurd. Besides, Heidegger is not that original-Hegel describes a lot of what he talk about.
Actually Dreyfus was an early advocate for neural nets instead of symbolic AI. Most of today’s ai takes into account his criticisms, and I think it will take embodiment to reach the next level.
@@ruspoli I don’t know enough about AI to argue my corner so assume you are right and stand corrected. I grew up with HAL 9000 as one of my most significant childhood memories, more so than any religious indoctrination, so going to take some time to change my assumptions of what AI is.
@@yp77738yp77739 Be careful not to think that AI today is much closer to being like a human than what it was back when Dreyfus first made his critique. Today's AIs are remarkable not because they are like humans, but because they are very sophisticated parrots. Artificial intelligence is still a misnomer; imitative intelligence is much better description of how ChatGPT and others work. This doesn't mean that they aren't incredibly powerful and potentially useful, but we have just as much reason to believe that ChatGPT is "thinking" like a human as we do to believe that competent bikers still have invisible training wheels on their bikes. I'm still skeptical that "general artificial intelligence" is even possible, at least in the way that most people think of it.
@@MatthewBirdAndCompany That assumes you believe that human intelligence is a something other than a store of data and comparing the patterns inputs that arrive via our senses to stored data and then evaluating the potential outputs or actions. I don’t feel like I am significantly different to a parrot with a larger memory store and faster processor.
This is precisely what I find valuable about Heidegger's work. Our basic assumptions about what it means to be human shape how we see the world. If you start with Cartesian dualism, then you fill find it in everything and AI will definitely look human to you. If you start with meaning, you will find it in everything and AI will be inherently inhuman, albeit useful.
'I don't experience my brain'. What a great answer to the scientific sceptics of philosophy
Thoroughly enjoyed!!! thanks for the upload
Great lecture!
What a thinker! Goodness gracious, I’m humbled.
Mind-blowing
my favorite part was at 11:44 where someone off screen, apparently in traditional wood clogs, decides to jitterbug across the room.
🤣
They're carrying a bicycle, so maybe those are clip-in shoes?
I thought that showed contempt (by the interviewer too). Undermined the seriousness of the interview and subject.
@@beingsshepherd we were in the graduate student lounge, so people had to come and go...
@@ruspoli Ok, but that was your choice of environment, trivialising his time and thoughts by inviting chaotic intrusions at any point.
Dewey was arguing against the Cartesian view of the self he describes here since at least the 1910s, and for sure in the first edition of Experience and Nature (1925). I love professor Dreyfus, it’s just sad how he talks of Heidegger as if he made this massive discovery that hadn’t occurred to anyone! Lol. Like, can we at least acknowledge Dewey was ahead on this, even if he’s not your philosopher of choice? Ain’t that hard to do. I guess if a philosopher is pedestrian, writes in your language, had no controversies, helped everyone, and was behind all the right social-moral causes, (and isn’t European), they are doomed to being uninteresting.
I'm a fan of Dewey. It's true. There is certainly a kind of pragmatism espoused by Dewey that Heidegger formulates in phenomenological language, such as truth as a disclosure and the way engaged agency is involved with situations and their resolves.
I think a lot of people argued against Descartes view both during and after his time. There’s a lot more to Heidegger than simply that refutation. Moreover, the uniqueness and influence of his work is pretty undeniable. Dreyfus is a man who made a name for himself and a career being an expert on Heidegger’s work - what was your point of even coming to this video?
@@redtree732 to complain about how certain philosophers are often implicitly passed as more “revolutionary” than they were simply because historical accidents made them more fashionable to study and quote independently of their actual worth I guess. Thanks for asking. Made me reflect on my intentions from 3 months ago which I remember with complete clarity.
@@sergiosatelite467 It seems that's the case for most all philosophy or famous philosophers, but as well as business, art, and most history in the world, like it or not. There's something to be said about execution or "marketing"/presentation of an idea as well...not to mention the fact that "connections" or being within a certain network to allow for influential distribution is a non-negligible factor. Nevertheless, whether the attributed author was the "first" for the idea or not (which they're probably very unlikely to be), in any case we are still learning about the idea, which I personally take more value from than who's relatively arbitrarily attributed to it.
@@redtree732 I just love complaining like an infant about Dewey as frequently as I can. But, yeah, ideas, value, not source. Like it.
I’ve tried many times to understand what Heidegger is saying, including this gentlemen’s explanations and I don’t find any meaningful insights that correlate to my experiences. Either I’m stupid or they aren’t there, I don’t believe I am particularly stupid.
Perhaps you are wrong
Have you tried reading at the minimum Kant and Husserl beforehand? Reading Heidegger as a beginning exposé into hermeneutics and phenomenology is like starting a race just a few metres from the finish-line.
I did not get much substance from this talk about the relation of Heidegger to Merleau-Ponty.
Yes, poorly titled. As well as poorly filmed.
It’d be a bit distressing to fail to see the clear continuity of Heideggerian thought into Merleau-Ponty.
Mistaken, people have inner thoughts and experience all the time. He actually points thIs out when he mentions depression-mental illness is wide spread, where their inner and reflective experience dominates life as a whole. He is describing people as as a type of automaton, with a very superficial way of thinking. Heidegger contributes to the discussion, but to say everyone has that outer thought process all the time is absurd. Besides, Heidegger is not that original-Hegel describes a lot of what he talk about.
This didn’t age well with respect to AI, did it!
Actually Dreyfus was an early advocate for neural nets instead of symbolic AI. Most of today’s ai takes into account his criticisms, and I think it will take embodiment to reach the next level.
@@ruspoli I don’t know enough about AI to argue my corner so assume you are right and stand corrected. I grew up with HAL 9000 as one of my most significant childhood memories, more so than any religious indoctrination, so going to take some time to change my assumptions of what AI is.
@@yp77738yp77739
Be careful not to think that AI today is much closer to being like a human than what it was back when Dreyfus first made his critique. Today's AIs are remarkable not because they are like humans, but because they are very sophisticated parrots. Artificial intelligence is still a misnomer; imitative intelligence is much better description of how ChatGPT and others work.
This doesn't mean that they aren't incredibly powerful and potentially useful, but we have just as much reason to believe that ChatGPT is "thinking" like a human as we do to believe that competent bikers still have invisible training wheels on their bikes. I'm still skeptical that "general artificial intelligence" is even possible, at least in the way that most people think of it.
@@MatthewBirdAndCompany That assumes you believe that human intelligence is a something other than a store of data and comparing the patterns inputs that arrive via our senses to stored data and then evaluating the potential outputs or actions. I don’t feel like I am significantly different to a parrot with a larger memory store and faster processor.
This is precisely what I find valuable about Heidegger's work. Our basic assumptions about what it means to be human shape how we see the world. If you start with Cartesian dualism, then you fill find it in everything and AI will definitely look human to you. If you start with meaning, you will find it in everything and AI will be inherently inhuman, albeit useful.