Ep. 47 - Awakening from the Meaning Crisis - Heidegger
Vložit
- čas přidán 5. 12. 2019
- New videos released every Friday.
Podcast Links:
•Anchor: anchor.fm/john-vervaeke
•Google Podcasts: www.google.com/podcasts?feed=...
•Spotify: open.spotify.com/show/43gIWKV...
•Breaker: www.breaker.audio/awakening-f...
•Pocket Casts: pca.st/EYU4
•RadioPublic: radiopublic.com/awakening-fro...
Books in the Video:
-
Series Playlist: czcams.com/users/playlist?list...
Facebook: / vervaeke.john
Twitter: / vervaeke_john
Forty-seventh episode of Dr. John Vervaeke's Awakening from the Meaning Crisis.
I will be answering questions at my live Q&A here on my channel Friday Dec 13, 2019 at 1500 EST.
You can support my work at patreon.com/johnvervaeke and receive benefits such as priority question-asking access.
Great John 👍
I have a copy of "Phenomenology and Mysticism "- Anthony Steinbock on the way for Christmas. Have you read this book?
@jay, I believe one reads "Know Thyself", a reference to Socrates, I think. Prof. Vervaeke mentioned it during one of the lectures discussing Socrates.
I can't listen to Gymnopédie No. 1 without hearing "hello and welcome back to awakening from the meaning crisis" in my head
Just like hearing that exact one synth note from Jake Chudnow makes me hear "hi vsauce, Micheal here".
Now that I think about it, Vsauce was probably the first domino push long ago that lead me here to Vervaeke.
Legit. I wanna be like Mr. Vervaeke when I grow up.
Same
He's doing it. Bless him beyond
Why?
I also aspire to be like him
“Instead of questioning... questing.” ❤️
THIS episode. This is an ushering into a mind orgasm. A mental fibrillation of simultaneous pure unconceptualizable awareness of BEING delivered in a momentary laser beam package of grasped inferences. We cannot HAVE awareness. We can only BE aware. We cannot possess meaning. The deliverance from the nihilism of realizing the meaninglessness of attaining it as a possession transcends the need for it and thus delivers it by the absence of needing it. Freedom.
Perhaps the best elucidation of Heideggers concept of attunement and the forgetfulness of Being on CZcams.
I appreciate YOUR time JV ❤️🍄
Professor, I don't know what to say, I'm speechless. What an amazing lecture. You helped me understand so many things I've been sort of intuiting but couldn't quite grasp. Thank you so much!
So good. So, so good...
TRANSCRIBED EXCERPTS, NOTES
INTRODUCTORY REMARKS, SUMMARY OF LECTURE #46
(c. 0:15) "Welcome back to Awakening from the Meaning Crisis. Last time, I finished the discussion of wisdom and connected it to elightenment and argued for the wise cultivation of enlightenment as our deepest kind of existential response to the meaning crisis, a way in which we can awaken from the meaning crisis. (c. 0:38)
"I, then, wanted to put that scientific model of spirituality---for lack of a better phrase---into discourse with some of the central 'prophets' of the meaning crisis. I'm using the word prophet, of course, as it's used in the Old Testament sense. I'm talking about individuals, who are crucial for articulating the advent and helping to propose or promise a response to the meaning crisis.
"I put a diagram up on the board---I'm not gonna re-put that diagram up on the board---in which Heidegger played a central role. There's many connections in there, that I will not be able to fully address. I'll point out---and because some of the people are there insofar as they help us articulate the response, not to be examined for their own sake.
"A couple of major pointers, that I want to make out: First, an apology: I mispelled, because of my dysgraphia [...] Heidegger. I won't make that mistake again. I mention the work of Nishida and Nishitani---the Kyoto school. But I won't be able to go into that in depth. I do intend to do this later in another series I'm putting together. I'm putting together a couple of series to follow this one. And I would like to do a series, that will include work on the Kyoto school, a series, that I am titling "The God Beyond God", in which we look at all of these great non-theistic thinkers within, both, eastern and western traditions and things, like the Kyoto school, which try to bridge between them. So, I will have to---to some degree---neglect the Kyoto school in this series. But I promise to follow it up in another series. (c. 2:38)
"I also mentioned Derrida. And I will not be able to talk very much, probably, maybe not even at all, about Derrida and deconstructionism. I will also address this again when I return in the other series---"The God Beyond God"---especially when I'm gonna talk the relationship between Derrida and what's called negative theology. (c. 3:00)
"So, many of you will be, perhaps, disappointed that I don't talk too much about Derrida or the Kyoto school. I do promise to return to that in another series, that I am currently working on. (c. 3:12)
"So, what did I do? I sort of tried to give a quick background to Heidegger. I talked about the importance of Husserl and phenomenology, and I pointed you to the work of Sokolowski as a great introduction. Husserl---and he does write a book with the word crisis in the title: Crisis in the Europen Sciences [i.e., Crisis of the European Sciences and Transcendental Phenomenology (1936) by Edmund Husserl]. We talked---and this is, basically, he's pointing to the loss of contact epistemology. And he's trying to get that contact back. And this is done through, not just introspection, but through a reflective, experiential attention paid to the structures and processes within our experience. (c. 4:00)
"And I pointed out how there's two components in this. There's the intentional, mental directedness---noesis. And then there's the world disclosure---there's a deep correlation between them---this is noema. Noesis---and notice that that's the term I've used to describe perspectival knowing. Right? And the correlation between noesis and noema is very much---right?---like the agent-arena relationship." (c. 4:34)
"Now, we took a look at Heidegger's main criticism of Husserl's work. And Heidegger's main criticism is that Husserl has not given us back the missing contact. I would say that, um, I am in agreement with this. I think Heidegger is pointing to something very important in the critique of phenomenology, that Sparrow has picked up in his wonderful book, The End of Phenomenology. (c. 5:07)
Work cited (c. 4:54): The End of Phenomenology and the New Realism by Tom Sparrow
Work cited (c. 5:14): Phenomenology of Perception (1945) by Maurice Merleau-Ponty
"[...]" (c. 5:48)
"So, Heidegger is critiquing, both, the lack of participatory knowing [...] (c. 6:30)
"Another way of putting it is that Heidegger thought that Husserl was still trapped within the Cartesian cultural-cognitive grammar. [...] (c. 7:36)
"But I think that the work of speculative realists, like Harman and others, Morton for example, brings this aspect out and why they see their work as transcending phenomenology. (7:46)
HEIDEGGER & THE MEANING CRISIS
"Now, to return to Heidegger. How do we get to this deeper contact?" (c. 7:50)
"[...] being mode [...] You're trying to go on a quest with this questioning. You're not trying to have a propositional answer. You are trying to engage in a participatory transformation. (c. 8:40)
"Now, this brings us to the central thing for Heidegger, in some ways. And this is Heidegger's notion of dasein, being there. This is our being. (c. 8:45)
[...] (c. 9:10)
"Why is that? Because for Heidegger, our being is the being, who is in question. We are the type of being, who actually question who and what we are in a way that makes a difference to who and what we are. This is the core idea of existentialism. Existentialism is that we are fundamentally without an 'essence'. And our 'essence', if you wanna put it that way, is to have no 'essence'. And, therefore, we are continually defining ourselves by how we question---right?---we question our being and respond to that questioning questing. (c. 9:52)
[...]
Work Cited (13:44): "On the Essence of Truth" by Martin Heidegger (as translated in Martin Heidegger Basic Writings: Nine Key Essays plus the Introduction to Being and Time)
QUOTE 1 FROM HEIDEGGER ESSAY, "On The Essence of Truth":
(c. 14:40)
QUOTE 2 FROM HEIDEGGER ESSAY, "On The Essence of Truth":
(c. 18:20)
"[...]" (c. 22:29)
"And one of Plato's ongoing points is: This [philia nikia] is the deepest kind of bullshitting because this [philia nikia] looks like we're arguing. This [philia nikia] looks like we're reasoning. Right? But what we're really doing is manipulating propositions---right?---and trying to assert correctiveness. But we're forgetting all of this [philia sophia] and we're forgetting the pursuit of wisdom, the transformative existential project, that Socrates advents for us. (c. 22:54)
[...] (c. 24:02)
"So, we have to wake up, according to Heidegger. And, again, this is why his language is so torturous. Because we are in a state of deep forgetfulness, deep modal confusion. And, if we read his texts, we are deeply tempted to read them from that forgetfulness and that modal confusion and, thereby, fundamentally misunderstand him. (c. 24:24)
"So, his texts are deliberately Socratic. And they are constantly trying to undermine that cognitive-cultural grammar, that we habitually bring to things. (c. 24:36)
"So, he wants us ro remember---sati---the forgotten mystery of dasein. (c. 24:45)
QUOTE 3 FROM HEIDEGGER ESSAY, "On The Essence of Truth":
(c. 24:45)
"So, he says this [...]
HARMAN, SPARROW, ET AL. & SPECULATIVE REALISM
(c. 26:04)
"In order to pick this up, I want to [...] briefly talk about the work of Harman [...] of phenomenology as being inadequate. [...]
Work cited (c. 26:35): Object-Oriented Ontology: A New Theory of Everything (2018) by Graham Harman
[...] (c. 30:13)
"This is, I think, a profound way in which Harman and others have explicated Heidegger's idea and then gone beyond it. (c. 30:20)
"Now, the way I want to put it and the way I've argued it---right?---earlier is [...] that our framing, which is transjective in nature about attunement, simultaneously discloses and conceals. Right?
"So, I wanna replace the Kantian term---the thing in itself---with another way, another term---the thing beyond itself. Everything is, both, shining into our subjectivity and withdrawing beyond our framing of it.
[...] (c. 31:34)
"But I think we can take from speculative realism this idea, this term I've coined---the thing beyond itself. It's clearly a central idea in Harman's idea of the object---the thing beyond themselves. (c. 31:48)
A NEW UNDERSTANDING OF TRUTH
"Okay, so this takes us to, now, a new understanding of truth. How do we get an attunement, that discloses things, as 'things beyond themselves', things, that are simultaneously shining into our subjectivity, but also withdrawing into their objectivity, where this no longer means an objective thought? It means a depth beyond our framing, an independence beyond our experience, and how those are transjectively interpenetrating for us in the sense of realists. What does it mean to be connected to things in this way? And this is Heidegger's famous notion of truth as aletheia. (c. 32:38)
[...] (c. 34:23)
HEIDEGGER, DREYFUS, & 3rd GENERATION 4E COG-SCI
(c. 34:23)
Work cited (c. 35:40): Being-in-the-world by Hubert J. Dreyfus
QUOTE FROM DREYFUS BOOK ON HEIDEGGER
(c. 35:48)
Work Cited (c. 39:05): Retrieving Realism by Hubert Dreyfus and Charles Taylor
[...] (c. 39:20)
"I'm gonna keep doing that. I'm gonna keep showing you---because what I'm trying to show you is that the framework we have built [pause] allows us to enter into deep dialogue with the central prophets of the meaning crisis in a way that I think insightfully discloses aspects of their own theorizing and affords potentially synoptically integrating them together into a more comprehensive response to the meaning crisis. (c. 39:48)
[...]
QUOTE
(c. 39:54)
"I wanna continue on to a little bit more about Heidegger, and leading into the other thinkers, we want to examine. (c. 40:00)
Work cited (c. 40:00): The New Gnosis: Heidegger, Hillman, and Angels by Robert Avens
[...]
END OF NOTES
○
NICE! Thank you for this. 🙏
Thanks John.
Thanks Lee.
John "VOLUME TO ADD EMPHASIS" Vervaeke
Not always. He also uses the “reduce volume to add emphasis” technique.
That's so funny you both mention this cuz I had a thought during this episode about exactly that haha.
It's so interesting how John uses volume changes in both directions for emphasis! I think it's part of what makes him so captivating.
Wow! Deep and fantastic episode. I've worked through them all but this has to be one of the best. Really brings Heidegger and company (Dreyfus, Harman, Avens) to bear on the meaning crisis in a profound and transformative way. Well done
Having Mode vs Being Mode, is sounding alot like the distinction made by Ian McGilchrist, in how each side of the brain pays very different kinds of attention to the world.
yes, I've also made connections to McGhilchrist's work throughout this series. Good to see we (and they) have similar intuitions, which increases the validity of their/our claims.
Thank You!
i think there is a lot of value in the concept of victory (philia nikia?) in the quest for wisdom. It is the feeling of victory that one feels when they have attained mastery over their misunderstandings and old habits, and made successful progress on the path to self-transformation in the service of their aspirations. This is the ‘taste of victory ‘ Thomas Merton spoke of, and I think it is essential to the growth of all human beings
I think the key takeaway is to not confuse victory for wisdom.
Victory is an essential carrot on the stick that can motivate us, absolutely, but we can get lost and confused if we think that catching the carrot is the actual goal.
@@DisgruntledPeasant i agree, they are not the same - but wouldn’t you say that the goal of the endeavour (at least here in this series) is to achieve wisdom? if wisdom is an objective, then attaining it would be the victory. If you missed your mark but still attained something (fame, fortune, etc.) maybe you would have a victory, but you wouldn’t necessarily have wisdom
Thank you for the distinction between the types of engagement that lead to victory and the types that lead to wisdom. This is a lesson I need to continually learn about myself, giving this idea words will help me spot it in my own behavior.
I think the difference might have something to do with ego and humility. Is my desire to 'win the argument' and get some real or imagined accolades, or is the disagreement approached with humility and that sincere desire to both hear and be heard. The difference is that between competition and cooperation, scarcity and abundance. I'm even feeling some intimations of Christ's exhortation to be the servant of all.
I'm not a Heidegger expert, I don't even qualify as a novice on his work - but I did find it interesting that you began with the cult of personality that he was trying to create and ended with his participation in the Nazi party. Both of these comments screamed 'ego', and perhaps he succumbed to the problem of many a hyper-intelligent person - a lack of humility. It appears he settled for a kingdom of the world.
Yet another excellent talk, thank you again for all your hard work.
This is the one. This is the key to the series.
I have a copy of Heidegger's Being On Time.
(Punctuality has always been very important to me.)
I started reading it...but I got lost in the part where he joins the Nazi Party.
Made me puke a little. I guess that was my way of embodying his ideas.
He did say to Hannah Arendt "Thinking is hard".
Colour me forewarned.
Thank you for explaining his importance in framing the meaning crisis as a journey to Nihilism.
Roger Penrose has a wonderful example that illustrates his conviction that Human Insight is not reduceable to propositional logic, that Human Insight Trascends algorithmic computation.
Penrose constructed an arithmetic problem which by induction leads to an exponentially explosive arithmetic computation that can blow up any current and forseable super computer, not solvable by mathematics (now yes by a new highly abstract branch of math formalism), but the human mind correctly solves. Beyond computation. The answer is found intuitively, and is correct.
Yes! Finally it's said. Believing in a Supreme being disconnects us from being, fundamentally Nihilism. Thank you!
Wow, now I get that part - John treaded this so carefully (understandably) that I basically missed the gist.
@abdelhassan9501 yeah basically when you look to 'other' what is that? It's nihilism. But if you look for the connection we all have to each other, common experience and awareness, then Being arises.
More seasons! Yes
Absolutely mind shattering episode!
You mentioned that the moreness of things only acts as a feature of your experience and never the object of experience.
The first thing that came to mind to act as a possible counter example are videos of infinite geometric fractals.
Whilst it's not exactly the object of your infinitely expanding horizon it's a really good representation of it that tends to resonate with people. Perhaps it is a symbol of the horizon?
W00t! This one harkened back to mid-series in tone. Specifically I felt more spontaneity and flow here. Bravo and Thank You, John 🙏
It only took me 3 viewings to truly sink in. Not JV fault I blame my mind drifting as if wanting to keep us from knowing. Thank you JV.
Professor Varvaeke, I recently attended a lecture from a Phd Heideggerian in Greece and he said something very interesting that might interest you too. In the first edition of What is metaphysics Heidegger had made a comment on the side that said that Being is independent from beings but he deleted that in the following republication of the book. So Heidegger was flirting with the idea of a Being independent, or transcending beings.
That is interesting...because i have only ever known Heidegger to treat the ontological as not a separate dimension behind or beneath the ontic but as being as the being of entities, so we can get at being only through studying entities (which means through the specific modes of comportment).
@@zeb358 Heidegger wanted to know, or at least intuitively, "at the fringes of (widewake-)consciousness", sense the "preconditions of the possibility" (I.Kant) of percepting "things" or "ens". Thereby he most probably used, as hermeneutical tool, Edmund Husserl`s triade of ego-cogito-cogitatum, as well as the (re)construct of the "horizonal structure of consciousness" (on which,among others, also Henri Bergson meditated/contemplated intensively, as well as axial-time classics, like Master Lâo and Master Zhuang).
Hi Professor Vervaeke
First of all I must say I'm completely captivated by this lecture series.
I'm a psychology student from Denmark and at the moment I'm trying to decide on a subject for my Bachelor's thesis. Your discussions of 4E cognitive science and problem solving has really inspired me to write about issues pertaining to those aspects of cognition.
Recently i have also been very interested in epistemology and theories of learning. Especially Luhmann's systems theory perspective and his notion of knowledge only being possible within self-referential closed systems has really fascinated me as of late. I was wondering if you have encountered Luhmann's work and if so, what your thoughts are on his particular theory. Maybe it's a topic for a future lecture.
I'm very much looking forward to future lectures and series. Thanks a lot for your work!
Attunement is such a brilliant word for this. It picks up the idea of resonance and discordance for truth sensibility.
This way of speaking is so useful for facilitating support groups. Thank you for consolidating so much information together in an engaging way. I very much look forward to your new series... from the title I am sure my Adult Bible Study (methodist) group will have a lot to work with since we cite Tillich at least once a month.
When Jesus prays that we would be one with God as he is one with God in John ch17, it directs my thoughts towards a mode of being with “God” instead of a mode of attaining something as my religious experience would have led to up to this point.
heads up: this episode truly requires your full attention and active listening, what a great episode by the way, John- much to digest as well as much clarity revealed. definitely not offended by the way.
It really does require careful listening. I must have rewinded as much in this episode as I have in the rest of the series.
Thanks to you now Im hooked to podcasts
It seems to be very challenging for most people to separate the ideas from the man.
Finally!
Not ignoring Heidegger's support of the N+zi regime as something that might potentially indicate a flaw in his ideas struck to me as a very good point.
I kept hearing, "our being is the being of being in question", to be stating that our being was nebulous, but when you said questing, suddenly now I realize that he means, "our being is the being of being in quest"
Great Heidegger.
“We turn being into a problem to be solved by the conceptual manipulation of a propositionally defined object.” That expresses my unease with traditional Christian statements of faith (the bullet list of propositions). I’m a Christian, and yet this feels to me like “man-handling” God for the sake of group identity and the felt need for certainty (wisdom-avoidance!). Something deeply disrespectful and confused about it, even though folks do it to try to bring clarity. It’s the use of the Bible for the bullet-list: a “short cut” to salvation, without transformation.
Love of wisdom vs love of victory. 29:00 Simultaneous shining and withdrawing; the withdrawing and inexhaustibility is crucial to its real ness, according to Harmon. The objectivity is understood as a depth beyond our framing
Would love to see a Deleuze lecture. If Heidegger is the most profound thinker of the first half of the 20th century, the second half belongs to Deleuze.
me too. John has such a wonderful way of explaining his RR'ing to us. I would love to see him focus on Deleuze.
Daoist here. Agency like other forms of Being/being retreats/returns to huntun (totally undifferentiated chaos) spontaneously when we look away or stare at it too long. It is spontaneously dissolving. Meaning can return (after Returning to Dao) as correspondence-systemization or as new inspiration. Agency might just be a tool for understanding affordances. Agency is embodied/disembodied as our hand (the hand of all hands, god?).
Almost finished yet just getting started! When book?!
The book for the first half of the series should be out no later than July of 2024. We have out a lot of work into it!
John, is there any way in which the concept of adjacent possible (from Stuart Kaufmann) fits into your model of thinking? My intuition is that it is a sort of a shining in and also drawing out, and an combinatorially explosiveness that we are always in relation with.
What does it have to do the feeling of surprise or novelty with the withdrawal that you are talking about?
The presentation of Martin Heidegger emphasized, i.m.o., the negative, deconstructionist aspects of the person and his work a bit too much. Surely there were sombre sides, but the historical circumstances were all but easy, starting with WW I, and especially in continental Europa they weren`t really getting better, as Heidegger for a short time in the beginning 1930ies had hoped.
As I see it, he just tried to somehow bring the bright and dark aspects of life together in a true narrative - true not necessarily being authentic with good.
But in "Time and Being", "Bauen.Denken.Wohnen" (correct title?) or his "Conversations with an Japanese" he tried the best he could, to revert the "deconstructionist" impetus and be "constructive" again, thereby following the way, Edmund Husserl had outlined for the "phenomenological method", as, e.g., in his concept of the "Geviert", "Gelassenheit", etc.
He always seems to have regarded himself as a "seeker", maybe following in this respect the Lutherian work-ethos of: "And if the world would perish tomorrow, I would still plant an apple-tree today.
Maybe this can help, round-up the lecture about Heidegger a bit. Greetings.
Great comment
Yes I think Europe at that time needs to be put in much greater context, especially what was going on with the "concert of Europe" and hence the balance of power over the last few hundred years since the Treaties & Peace of Westphalia
Around 2007 I discovered On Bullshit by Harry G. Frankfurt in a now exctinct bookstore in Berkeley. I bought two copies, and took one to my lab (microscopy). No one appreciated it, although for me it said a lot scientists should care about.
As a Bay Area resident, curious which bookstore that was?
@@abdelhassan9501 Hello, sorry for the delay. It was Coddy's Books in Berkeley. I used to live on Euclid Ave. Berkeley and often my breaks were about searching through the stacks of Coddy's, or music, what was it, Rasputin and Amoeba? Anyway. When Coddy's closed to me it felt like loosing half the neighbourhood. What makes a neighbourhood interesting at least.
Is the Thing Beyond itself a bit like finding a branch to a family tree? You become aware of a new individual that is real to you but at the same time you know that they have parents and grandparents yet to be accounted for that extend outwards?
I just like this drone ambient in the background near lecture's end.
I really liked this lecture. It got me thinking about how I treat this lecture series; as much as an invitation to reflect, and as a source of knowledge.
It also got me thinking, as I've written in the comments earlier, that you and Peterson should talk more. Try talking specifically about Heidegger if you get the chance.
This one hasn't yet shown up on the podcast feed. :-(
I will see what’s up.
In an age where most people are off one side or the other, the mean seems to be meaningless.
I cannot find the series on a God beyond Gods. Are you still planning on making it?
I'm always looking for new interesting lectures on Psychology/Philosophy, please let me know if you guys have any recommendations, would be highly appreciated
Check out "The Living Philosophy"
I think his stuff is great 👌
...but reality isn't combinatorially explosive! Rhizomatically, what was relevant always precedes what is relevant.
Getting to the “God beyond God” by study of our non-theistic great thinkers?
You mean by the study of the theism beyond theism by some of our greatest thinkers?
I would like to put in a slight caution about Heidegger and the East, and recommend a very thorough study; Heidegger on East-West Dialogue: Anticipating the Event, by Lin Ma. Essentially whilst H. saw analogies between his thought and Taoism, he thought that a proper in-depth dialogue between east and west was something that must be indefinitely postponed. Only when the west had abandoned mistaken metaphysics and returned to being in itself could that dialogue happen. Secondly he did not properly distinguish between Taoism and Buddhist thought, which is very disappointing. If he had there are so many rich connections that could have been made. For Buddhism of course things in themselves have no own being, they are always dependently co-arisen. How this could be related to heidegger's thought is clearly a matter requiring deep reflection, there is no obvious and simple analogy. The Mahayana notion of the intrinsic ungraspable 'Thusness' of things, Tathata, empty and yet present, does seem to point towards Heidegger's Being in some kind of way, but equally they are not the exactly same idea...
Very well said. Although I would say that I think the Kyoto school has down excellent work at bridging east and west, especially Heidegger’s thought.
I'd be interested in your take on Heidegger's debate with Ernst Cassirer at Davos. Heidegger's ontological analytic of Dasein seems to dominate most of North American humanistic inquiry.
I think when reading Heidegger's work a point needs to be underscored: Dasein has a body, but not a human body. If Dasein was human (and not merely spatially "being-there"), it would have both memory and self-awareness, i.e. a moment where I = I. But this is not an absolute divine I = I like YHWH says of himself to Moses in Exodus; nor is it the transcendental I = I of Kant's first Critique; nor is it the I = I of Hegel's Phenomenology; this I = I is the relative I = I of an embodied self (see Kierkegaard's The Sickness Unto Death or Genesis 1-3).
Heidegger's Being and Time is profoundly empty and pointless. Cassirer's Philosophy of Symbolic Forms is the better place to start.
If you have to choose between a Nazi and a Jew, there really is no choice. I remain confused after these so many years why Nazi were defeated on the battlefield, but they conquered the North American academy and no one blinked an eye.
The critique you offer of the Kantian "thing-in-itself," putting in place a "thing-beyond-itself," assumes that the self is identical with subjectivity--which is odd, is it not? I see you in the video talking as if the self is identical with subjectivity. I see myself sitting in front of the computer watching you talk about the self as if it is identical with subjectivity. That seems to suggest that my subjective experience of myself is identified with a particular objective bodily experience--with a being, not being itself. Yours too: I may be able to peer into your subjective experience, but I can see you and I can hear you.
The problem with Kant's idea of the "thing-in-itself" is that Kant failed to appreciate that with respect to his own bodily existence he was the thing-in-itself--but that put him no closer to understanding himself than before. Kierkegaard put his finger squarely on this problem.
One last point: we don't need better ideas to get back in touch with reality; we are already in contact with reality.
The Christian idea of divine Incarnation--Logos becomes flesh--is a call to remember your embodiment. Thus when Christian participate in the Eucharist, they are asked to remember whose body and blood they are consuming: the God who shared in their fleshly existence.
Towards the end of the lecture you spend a lot of time with superlatives, i.e. a pointing beyond a horizon.
Classical theism (and not the metaphysical speculation about God as the supreme being/ontotheology, which thinkers like Anselm and Aquinas regard as aids to faith, not as productive of real knowledge of God) wrestles with the how God makes himself known to mere mortals like ourselves. How does Being take it's place among beings? The Christian response is that Being identifies itself with the one being among beings for whom Being is a problem.
My take away is that all of those superlatives you identify at the end of the lecture ought to be identified with persons becoming themselves in relationship to other persons--not with some supposed horizon of meaning beyond subjectivity.
This explanation of Philia Nikia made me think of the realm of politics in the west. Competitive intellectual bullshitting
exist Insist instant intent instance extant extent extant
Almost sounds like Sokrates was just engaged in the deepest kind of bullshitting then.
Is relevance realization….God?…😮
I think thoughtful religious people do not wish to revive classical theism. For me, the panentheism of Matthew Fox was important in taking me away from classical theism (Matthew Smith, Unitarian minister)
obscure
Interesting for me...the definition of nihilism here seems closely related to an idea from the work of Robert Rosen. In particular, for those familiar with Rosen complexity and Rosen M,R systems as organism, the mistake of understanding reality in terms of a supreme being is the mistake of assuming that a complex ( non-synthetic as in non decomposable into discrete non overlapping pieces) reality( natural system in Rosen) has a unique largest model into which our relational model can be lifted( mathematically) so that everything in our model is entailed (no uncaused cause). If god is that unique largest and unchanging model, reality is simulable through God. This is different than the conception of God espoused by Whitehead for instance in P and R in very much like what which God is a vital participant in reality, but herself incomplete, with a critical role very much like what Johny V would call relevance realization in the being of Ontologies (processes).
I totatly understand Heidegger joining the NSDAP. If you don't understand why H. joined them - and why he was right to do so in the beginning - you don't understand H. at all. When he saw that the NSDAP did not fullfil his expectations he left them.
Six minutes into this, man is an awful lecturer, and I'm getting nothing. He's talking to himself.