Heidegger on the Question of Being and the Origin of Language. With Ivo De Gennaro
Vložit
- čas přidán 30. 03. 2020
- Get the Study Guide for my new 2023 course on Heidegger's seminal Being and Time here
www.halkyonguild.org/heidegge...
Seminars begin mid January 2023.
The course is an invitation to think after the most fundamental phenomena of being and human existence. This course is ideal for anyone who wants to understand Heidegger but also if you want to articulate an exit from modernity. Heidegger's thought of concealment, withdrawal, and another beginning is specifically intended for this.
The course is ideal for everyone who wants to gain a deeper understanding of existentialism, phenomenology, the philosophy of technology, and modernity and its relationship with Antiquity.
Ivo De Gennaro and Johannes Niederhauser discuss the origin and meaning of Heidegger's unique question: the "Seinsfrage", the question of being. We begin with an excerpt of the essay "The First Man Was an Artist“ written by the artist Barnett Newman.
I’m an independent scholar and your contributions make this work possible. Huge thanks to all my supporters!
Support on Patreon: / classicalphilosophy
Support me via PayPal: www.paypal.com/paypalme/janie...
Gift Bitcoin: 3JimXYdoLVPWVEtk3tPtiYcLqQsFmS5KmH
Thank you for your support
man what a beautiful conversation!! I'm so glad you're sharing all these dialogues with us!! I'm so glad internet reduced space to zero!! I just want to add my idea on this with a quotation from the poet Carmelo Bene: " language does not exist. Language is existence itself"!!
You're welcome! And thank you for the quote
Yes, re-listening 13x should be sufficient. Great work!
No wonder Gurdjeif's Enneagram stewarding sufis called themselves Bee Keepers.
So very appreciated.
Wow… this was a great conversation, very stimulating. When you came to “the cut”, I almost had a shock, paused and remained in silence for a few minutes. I wanted to share some thoughts with you because I’m using my time now to read Kyoto-school material.
It seems to me that seeing „the cut“ is something like the Buddhist notion of the „Great Doubt“. Keiji Nishitani, the great student of Heidegger writes in Religion and Nothingness: “One might say that only when a thing has lost any point to be reduced to, only when it has nothing more to rely on, can it be thrown back upon itself. This is the mode of being that we referred to earlier as the Great Doubt. Furthermore, when the unique existence of all things and multiplicity and differentitaion in the world appear on the field of nihility, all things appear isolated from each other by an abyss. Each thing has its being as a one-and-only, a solitariness absolutely shut up within itself. We call such a state of absolute self-enclosure ‘nilistic’. […] On the field of nihility […] all nexus and unity is broken down and the self-enclosure of things is absolute. All things that are scatter apart from one another endlessly. And even the ‘being’ of each thing that it shatters in every direction, riding atop its tangents, as it were, of which we know not whence they come nor whither they go. This existence seems to evaporate into bottomless nihility; its possibility of existence seems to continually sink away into an impossibility of existence.”
Nishitani himself characterized his philosophical attempt “to break through nihilism with nihilism”; or, to step from “relative nothingness” (the field of nihility) towards “absolute nothingness” which is radical openness, the background to all foregrounded things, the foundational seen to all that is seeable. To achieve that breaking through, however, praxis was of vital importance for him; he practiced Zen meditation for a long period in his life.
This field of nothingness also presupposes a non-egoic stance, a self that has “emptied itself”. Heidegger and Nishitani both characterized Nietzsche as the greatest nihilist, because he could not empty or free himself from “being”, and ideas like the “will the power” can be seen as reflections of that inability. Both Heidegger and Nishitani were therefore completely aware that they had to tackle the question of “being” from a different angle or standpoint.
I believe that the collapse of modern subjectivity was inevitable, at some point. If there’s only self-certainty we can rely on and all metaphysical theories are invalid, death isn’t just death, it is probably the single-most terrifying thing for the individual that is only certain of itself. Zen-like metaphors that death is like the “returning of a dew drop to the ocean” won’t reach most people because they’re incapable of contemplating anything besides their narrow self-consciousness. Death would mean that “I”, a being that exerts, that wills, returns into a world of complete inertia and “willnessless”.
Thank you Johannes for uploading this dialogue, I'm very grateful for it. Please keep up your good work.
Daniel Zaruba thank you for your comment! The cut is Ivo De Gennaro’s translation for what is usually translated as “difference” (Unterschied in German). But Unterschied is not really “difference”. Unfortunately many Heidegger scholars don’t take the time to try and carefully translate him. They rather use the standard dictionary translation and much if not all is lost then
@@JohannesNiederhauser Now I can also "out" myself as a native speaker haha. Unterschied hat hier dann eher die Bedeutung, dass etwas "geschieden", getrennt ist. Das ist tatsächlich etwas ganz Anderes als "difference". Schade dass so viele Nuancen in der Übersetzung verloren gehen; gerade bei so einem anspruchsvollen Denker wie Heidegger führt das wohl zu vielen Missverständnissen innerhalb der Interpretation. Ich bin ein Heidegger-Anfänger, deshalb finde ich Deine Videos sehr hilfreich, vielen Dank für Deine Arbeit.
@@zappzapp00 Danke Dir! Ja, da geht einiges verloren. Man kann aber auch davon ausgehen, dass das teilweise durchaus Absicht ist. Dann kann man z.B. Deleuze und Heidegger vergleichen oder Derrida und Heidegger ad infinitum. Auch etwa die Übersetzung von Ereignis als "Event" ist irreführend. Für Heidegger geht es um den "Schied", der sich zuerst zeigt. Dabei muss man natürlich auch bedenken, dass "Scheidung" im Deutschen auch meint, Schlichtung eines Streites.
@@JohannesNiederhauser Danke für Deine Erklärung!
Daniel Zaruba Gerne!
I watched this twice already. It might happen again soon
Your both my heroes!
Thank you, Guy!
listening for a second time. I was searching for both the texts you mention (Newman and Heidegger). On Amazon, I could only find "Einführung in die Metaphysik" by Heidegger... Maybe somebody can link me to the texts online? Would be appreciated :)
These are topics that interest me a lot at the moment, so thanks for this great discussion! It also goes to show how aware and prescient Nietzsche was. If you never mentioned Barnett, I would have guessed this text comes straight from Friedrich. It is quite similar to his ideas in "Dyonisische Weltanschauung", "Birth of Tragedy" and "Wagner in Bayreuth".
Thank you! De Gennaro speaks of "Einleitung in die Philosophie". Gesamtausgabe 27. These are published by Klostermann and often they still offer them on their website. If not then Abebooks might have a used copy
@@JohannesNiederhauser danke Johannes
matthias staber Gerne!
That cut!!!
very good thanks
IRLPOLITIK thank you!
Wow! I’m gonna listen to this again and again. The “cut”...hmmm
Mr S what’s the real problem that they don’t see?
@Mr S Consciousness is...isn't it?
Language is the house of Being. That is all Being comes from language, even you come to you via language. You can not get before the revelation of yourself to yourself by language. Fundamentally there is no subject that forms beliefs about an external objective world. Language houses a whole history and a destiny, that you manifest in your being, it sets up the shared implicit background of aims and understanding, that must be there for things to be the beings they are, and for us to have the outlook we have of ourselves. If language has this fundamental ontological role, we need to learn to listen to it, to be open to it. Today language is being reduced to a technological enframement, we are seeing it as predominantly transferment of information, when we need to see it as a manifestation of possibilities for us to Be. Via the arts, particularly poetry, our existence could be so much more.
Very well put!
You might enjoy this dialogue on Japanese and European languages and translation czcams.com/video/bxyk_65PmwU/video.html
Johannes (if I may),
I'm taking a course on nature and language for my MA presently -- we're reading a text by Jan Patocka that deals with the subject. I plan to stage a critique of his origin of language from this Heideggerian perspective, using, in part, Newman as you do here. Is there any literature in the field that I should know of that inspires the conversation you're having here? Out of interest and so as to not step on any toes / commitment accidental intellectual fraud. Otherwise I will just cite this discussion as an influence.
Aaron Hone
Thank you, Aaron. I can't speak for the others, but my readings in this regard are Heraclitus and the early Greeks more broadly as well as Hegel and Heidegger. But presumably it would be good if you could cite this discussion as it is an original attempt at articulating this.
@@JohannesNiederhauser Thank you!
@@Pixel4tedNinj4 Pleasure. And feel free to share your essay here if you happen to publish it online on your blog or similar. All the best for your writing.
Heidegger betrays Parmenides when he finds being in Aristotle and betrays his own quest by separating beings from Being .. the transcendent god of Aristotle is preferred over the immanent one of Parmenides .
Not buying It - To take up one of the metaphors: Dogs howl “for” each other, not “at” the moon. The dog points its nose at the sky for reach, not aim. The purpose of dog’s howl is to be less alone, not more so.
Heidegger understood this very well. Our starting point is always already for and among other people. His elevation of the individual - wrongheaded I think, symptomatic of a romanticizing failure, but be that as it may - was as an ideal and an endpoint, and the product in any case of insane amounts of work. Nothing to do with the free and easy, much less the ‘natural.’ See ‘The Essence of Truth’ among others.