Hubert Dreyfus on Kierkegaard (Part 1 of 4)
Vložit
- čas přidán 2. 06. 2024
- UC Berkeley professor Hubert Dreyfus discussing Soren Kierkegaard's The Sickness Unto Death (TSUD), taken from an undergraduate class on Existentialism in Literature and Film. You can find the recording in iTunes U.
While I think Dreyfus makes some interesting points and useful insights, I think his summary suffers from its failure to discuss TSUD as a rejection of Hegel's speculative theology, and in particular as interpreted by Kierkegaard's intellectual rival Hans Martensen. Though Kierkegaard is rejecting a Hegelian (not necessarily to say Hegel's) position, he cleverly adopts Hegelian terminology in service of this argument. See, e.g., Kierkegaard's distinction of a positive self -- as opposed to the mere "negative unity" of soul vs. body -- is taken from Hegel's Science of Logic; see, e.g., Section 1448. For what I hope is a helpful synopsis of what a negative unity is, and why Kierkegaard thought the Self could not be a negative unity, see this article from Jack Marsh:
www.quodlibet.net/articles/mar...
For another take on The Sickness Unto Death, see our recorded discussion on the Partially Examined Life website, where we likely got more wrong than did Dreyfus.
www.partiallyexaminedlife.com/...
![Eminem - Houdini [Official Music Video]](http://i.ytimg.com/vi/22tVWwmTie8/mqdefault.jpg)
![Rick Roderick on Kierkegaard and the Contemporary Spirit [full length]](/img/n.gif)
I just dropped in to see what relation my relation was in.
Your relation to your relation is related.
Funniest comment ever
Lol fab comment
Thanks for putting the videos up! Kierkegaard has changed my life. Dave
me too.
Forgiveness good to hear
"-gaard" is pronounced exactly as "gore" is. And the "ie" sound is like the "ee" in "keep".
Dreyfus is soooo articulate, really great listen, thanks partially %ruined% life for this gem
I appreciate the changing images, but I think it might be even better if the frames were tied to the audio a little more directly. For instance, showing the image of Kierkegaard when he is being quoted or his life is being discussed, maybe the cover of the book when a passage from that book is mentioned, etc. Either way and regardless of whether you even read this, I'm grateful for your uploads.
19.00 the self is that which perceives itself...something like that
Excellent!
@meanmrmustard89 Yeah, I go back and forth on whether to have my "audio" uploads alternate images or just go with one static image. I figured alternating images help the viewer understand whether the "movie" is actually running. But perhaps it's just irritating to no positive benefit. Will consider, thanks!
Thanks Love this lecture!
We are not the self in ourself [itself], but the self in half ourself[itself]. Fascinating and thoughtful. Jesus Christ in the Gospels said, "I AM the door [to bringing heaven on earth our purpose in praying with God] " If this is so His Father's name is the key to this door. I believe there are five basic belief steps we need to take in order to understanding His Father's name in each of us [subjectively]. 1) God exists, 2) I AM, 3) God thinks, 4) I pray and meditate, 5) God lives in us.
I know there's got to be some relationship between this conception of the self and Hesse's "Steppenwolf" but I'm hazy on the exact relationship. I can't help but think of Harry Haller forever balancing between "the martyrdom of the spirit and the martyrdom of the flesh" but never surrendering to either. Hesse seems to be arguing contrary to Kierkegaard, that life is found in extremes? Or is the Tractate meant to be an ironist take on Harry's dilemma?
What am I hearing at 1:06 exactly?
lol "let me correct kierkegaard at this point"
kierkegaard wrote the way he wrote not as to make logical sense but intutive and imaginative sense, much like zen and eastern teachings which point symbolically towards insight. and construct a picture, not a complete logical statement, but a 'sense'. inner lively inner sense of life and living, poetically.
The first paragraph of the book gets discussed at 17:55.
great!
What's going on at 12:45? is it cut? what does he say?
He says: Man is neither simply angel or simply brute and the unfortunate thing is that he would act the angel at... 'it's brutest way'. - Maybe. History has shown this repeatedly.
Cool!
maybe if you could fade them in and out rather than jumping
The true self no doubt. Affect regulation(Allen Schore) Sincerely believing
thanks for posting such a great lecture! I have to disagree with Drefyus at the end here. One CAN fully satisfy spiritual needs and physical needs simultaneously! I can give the simple example of taking a vigorous hike up a mountain that stimulates the body, clears the mind and frees the spirit! This is perhaps the archetypal quest of our current times. Wow- the mind/body schism has been present in the west for so long! I like Kierkegaard's take on it: The relation to the relation is the Self!
Nice uploads, very interesting! However, the incessant cycle of pictures is rather annoying. I suppose it isn't really necessary to watch though.
LOL, either way, cheers for the great uploads!
waht bro
Kierkegaard's definition of self in The SUD sounds like when you write down a great conclusion you reached, read it down later, and don't understand shit cuz you didn't explain the context or process.
So, I cant help by think that is a shed load of naval gazey over complication going here. The whole relationship of the relating being to the relationship to relating blah blah is a red herring, as is the misunderstanding and over complication of Heidegger. That human beings are the being for whom being is an issue is just another, albeit self consciously over complicated way saying that what marks humans apart from other animals is our consciousness of our own existence & the fact that we care about it. (Care being a key concept in Heidegger's philosophy) when K talks about our relatedness to our relationship with being as being fundamental to the self (which exists only as a relationship to awareness of our own existence) he is, in the simplest possible terms, referring to our own awareness of being.
These notions require no reference to canonical philosophy and are only complicated when one is seduced by an intellectual pursuit of understanding as against a clear minded desire to think properly about what it means to be. Which is, of course the starting point from which we should precede. yaffel yaffel yaffel, now the mouse organ has gone to bed and proffessor yaffell the art deco woodpecker returns to his role as a bookend.
The opaqueness of Kierkegaard’s quote is, on one hand, nearly comical. On the other, you haven’t really digested it, and in your reduction of Heidegger, you’ve made a key mistake in saying that consciousness is the most relevant aspect. In fact, Heidegger’s whole project is to show that our being relates to itself in decidedly unconscious ways, and that relatedness to being can be articulated through practical action, as opposed to specific mental states. Again with Kierkegaard, he doesn’t care specifically or exclusively about “awareness”, it is a broader sense of relatedness. So while you may be correct in critiquing the overly complex nature of their writing, your examples have only shown that their complexity was necessary, so as to avoid making a point as simple minded as your reduction.
@@rachelkatzenburg4753 get em' Rachel
go in @@rachelkatzenburg4753
?...
18:03
but i do'nt evan gotta tell yuo waht i sadi when Dale was al "les get lit and jump of the roofs of my houes" i was all DAde" las thyme we did that yuo broke yuore rist and i got a hurnia )(and shit wile were on the thoipic maybe evan hypoxia_ so less jsut relaxcs and lay all are cards on the tabble and sea waht we got seea wahts on teve sea wahts on the inretets mayeb get a lil painted, so we did taht and sure enofguh endud up on the roff of his horse,. yah well won werd: painte,. so anywho he's
senseless
no one does
Andrew Feist no u
this guy is too hard to understand
I think it was a part of lectures
On the surface it looks like a bunch of convoluted, archaic make-believe - not fit for today (in light of advancements in knowledge, where an adequate philosophy evolves with knowledge)... and listening, that's exactly what it sounds like (and is) - philosophy used to try to divine reality through sheer speculation, before science really got going, and that is where these philosophers were. My suggestion - begin with Bertrand Russell, and take it from there (build on his ideas - because it hasn't been done yet, and it's been 100 years, and knowledge has advanced)...
I don't think assuming naturalism and empiricism necessarily makes philosophy before the development of positivism obsolete.
how was science changed anything? if anything the natural world is even more of a mystery then before, since the more you know the more you don't know. just look at quantum mechanics and he fact it has opened the black box of matter, or in other words it has shown us we really do not know what matter is at all. Kierkegaard is as relevant today as he was 200 years ago.
soldatheero
As if Russell isn't on dubious ground himself.
@@Komnenos1234 - I used to simply dismiss B. Russell, but now after listening to him again I've come like him being there, quietly tick-tockking away like an antique grandfather clock down in the hall-way...
while it's Kierkegaard (& Heidegger) that remain with edge and insistence to our contemporary question's and dilemmas.