Heidegger and religion: this idea "works" for people today

[@physics1518]

@8:17 Eckhart may not emphasize those aspects of Christianity which people have problems with today, but he was Catholic through and through. He simply took those elements as the assumed background. You're not going to get Eckhartian spirituality without it.

[@pourquoicbon]

Very interesting and well explained video. What are the Heidegger texts being referenced, or which ones do you feel would be most relevant to the topic here (automatic/programmed thinking, God/Eckhart, etc.) Thanks!

[@traviswadezinn]

Very engaging, lots to think about, thank you

[@goodtothinkwith]

Glad you enjoyed it!

[@mountbrocken]

This is an interesting perspective as to associating everydayness or Alltäglichkeit with habit. This everydayness, which is the inauthentic , ineigentlichkeit mode of being, seeks to avoid thoughts about the possibility of not being IN Dasein, or Jemeinigheit or even the Seinsvergessenheit. This angst which arises from the consideration of not being pushes us into this everydayness. It seems you are associating everydayness or alltäglichkeit with habit. I like this connection. Though at first it seemed something Pierceian or Royceian with the idea of habits of nature, as opposed to laws of nature. But the ONLY way to get at the deeper fabric of Dasein for Heidegger is by embracing the possibility of ceasing all possibilities, or death. As to Eikhart's views having similar perspectives as Heidegger, this should come as no surprise. Heidegger of course was wrestling with Kantian themes, as was most of German thinkers subsequent to him. And of course, Eckhart's work established the standard for German philosophy and theology, focusing on being or ontology in a purely unbiased, almost proto-phenomenological sense, as was Kant. But I would like to hear more on how mechanistic reductionism may be associated with this inauthentic habitual thinking and how this may reflect an American pragmatic view on scientific naturalism and positivism. May be something to explore there.

[@goodtothinkwith]

Oh wow, I love this question… yes, insofar as habit is an unthinking or unreflective form of inauthenticity, awareness is a necessary first step to interrupt such habits (clearing away images as hindrances that we aren’t fully aware of). I like the connection to mechanistic reductionism. That’s one that I will take a note to think more about… as part of the current cultural milieu, it is a habit of thought that presents a hindrance and is thus inauthentic in the Heideggerian sense. I tend to view American pragmatism in a more positive light though. James pointed to the possibility of polytheism through pluralism. Likewise, he seemed aware of the impact of habits… still, you’re right. I need to explore this further.. thanks for the idea!

[@mountbrocken]

@@goodtothinkwith There is a great deal in Heidegger to wrestle with as concerns the intersection between theology and philosophy, in spite of the language employed that seemed quite indifferent to any religious language or even the semblance of an ethical theory. This is what inspired Emmanuel Levinas to distance himself from Heidegger's thought. I am currently working through Heidegger's later work which reflects the turn, or die kehre for one of my final doctoral classes. A large part of my dissertation on religious epistemology explores Heideggerian thought. As to the pragmatists, I would agree they are more positive. I was just referring to the use of the term habit, which is a term used by Pierce and Josiah Royce. I would love to read whatever you are working on. If you have the time, check out this new academic journal that I am an assistant editor for. Has some interesting articles on religion, particularly theological themes in the Lutheran tradition. verba-vitae.org/index.php/vvj/issue/view/1

[@mountbrocken]

@@goodtothinkwith Also, the mechanistic push-pull causal model of the universe seems to illustrate a connection to the habitual, mundane, repetitive behavior associated with the inauthentic attitude many exhibit. And of course, what is meant by habit with respect to the pragmatic philosophers regards the habitual as an alternative to natural law concepts, giving space for potential change in a routine. This isn't an escape from the authentic, but simply a regular pattern of behavior. As to nature, for a theist, this pattern would allow for the possibility of divine intervention and thus not violating supposed laws of nature.

[@Chase_Istre]

Is there any writings or sermons given by Eckhart on the second coming of Christ? Chapters like Matthew 24, Mark 13, etc. Books like Thessalonians, Revelation, etc?

[@goodtothinkwith]

That’s actually a really interesting question. No, he didn’t talk about the second coming, at least not that I can remember. He was concerned about union with God here and now. The second coming is more of an apocalyptic prophesy, precisely the kind of thing that he didn’t emphasize. I’ll have to look in greater detail at the passages you mention though, because it would be really interesting if he addressed normally apocalyptic passages without mentioning apocalypticism.

[@zweer13]

Hi, the world is totality, and what Heidegger has discovered in dasein is enlightenment. When we communicate with other people we break ourselves in falsehoods and psychological blockages. When we pull to ourselves and rediscover our energies of joy, we are living life like for the first time. I wouldn't say it is an ego, since it is not to be showed off in front of anyone, it is pure living. I think the world is infintie receptiveness of love/aesthetics or infinte giving of these. Death is mistaken with natural peace and beauty. Overcoming death is rather about internalizing this greater plane.

[@FriendlyEsotericDude]

This was good!

[@goodtothinkwith]

Thanks!!

[@frederickanderson1860]

We can't escape our imagination from things we can't see.

[@Iwasunaware]

feelings and emotions are not habits.

[@goodtothinkwith]

We do have habits of feeling and emotion.. I addressed this in my 2010 paper on stress

[@Iwasunaware]

@@goodtothinkwith We do have habits of feeling and emotion because of our horrible history and not in natural way. Peoples were forced to live in fear for thousands of the years. Entire philosophy served Theology since the 15th century.The old testament was about following your feelings.Life was about eating,drinking and f=ing. People with such behavior is difficult to control and enslave and that is why they wrote new testament forcing people not to follow their feelings.There is nothing positive about Heidegger. A Jew pretended to be a German. But I understand that you are a believer. That is good,belief is important.

[@ANTON76TR]

🎉

[@atnafuzewdie8714]

A common village boy.

[@alanx4121]

if Eckhart the Catholic only read his bible, Luther did and it caused a revolution.

[@stephanscharf5524]

He was far ahead of Luther in terms what religion is meaning in its deepest sense. Evangelicals mostly seem to prefer a superficial explanation and we see now how this leads to in politics and society in general. Meister Eckhart may be the real direction for future religion.

[@alanx4121]

@@stephanscharf5524 doesnt matter how spiritual or religious someone is, the bible has the final authority.

[@stephanscharf5524]

@@alanx4121 you can think what you want, but the bible is just one book which tries to convey deeper spiritual truths and there a lot of other books that do that too and can inspire people to explore deeper spiritual knowledge. If the bible is enough for you that’s Ok, but it’s problematic to say that other books or ways to express the relationship of humans to the divine are not in the same way helpful for others.

[@goodtothinkwith]

@stephanscharf5524 Ah yes.. Your use of "superficial" there is precisely what I'm gearing up to record the next video about! Of course, I plan on having a nod to Huston Smith. If it's unpleasant for someone to hear that their interpretation is "superficial," then they will probably like Smith calling it "childish sentimentality" even less...

[@MinnesotanMysticism]

@@stephanscharf5524amen, awesome analysis/opinion friend.

[@zeroonetime]

01 religion IS n0 religion.

[@homolix]

what eckhart has to do with the subject announced in the video? how come do we expect that someone that believes in a mythology, like the christian god can understand and see what really happens in the universe? you are so naïve.

[@goodtothinkwith]

I wouldn’t say “believes in mythology”… that’s very much what Eckhart isn’t doing…

[@byrondickens]

You are the one who is naive. This is the kind of comment made by somebody who doesn't know what mythology is.

[@homolix]

philosophy creates arbitrary concepts and then validate them, standing up as a highest authority in that matter...that is like to play tenis without net...nothing that you are mentioning here is real. it is just a mental masturbation.

[@goodtothinkwith]

Is it better to play tennis without even thinking about what game you’re playing?