Heidegger: "Death is the Utmost Testimonial of Being"

[@clumsydad7158]

Thank you, this helped me find the perspective between the ontology of being and that of death, and how they are contrasted and how death pushes meaning towards being, and also the implicit nature of time in this process, and da sein withdrawing in this process. I still need other flavors of thinking to help frame all this, but I got a lot out of this talk. And of ereignis and concealment and our coming into this flow of da sein and always trying to get behind what's go on, which we can't, but finding those mental leaps where we can find the openings and clearings in thought.

[@Sohail-FB]

This is amazing! Thanks, Johannes.

[@JohannesNiederhauser]

Thank you, Soheil! That’s what the course will be like

[@odysseusjones2413]

Genuinely enlightening. Psychiatry cannot approach ontology, for its commitments lie with ontic accounts. It is a dramatic move from the latter to the former, and impossible for many for one has to suspend an entire body of "habits" (borrowing form Kierkegaard's Concept of Anxiety) and begin thinking about presuppositional questions. The ontological question at the most basic level of analysis, that "feast of thought," seems to be lost on the students of Dreyfus, likely because these philosophers want to bring analytic philosophy's standards into Continental themes and issues. Simply cannot and should not be done! It is a perversion of philosophy. Just brilliant, prof. Niederhauser.

[@82472tclt]

Appreciating the distinction between thinking and representing. And thinking without beings.

[@zappzapp00]

That was some high-level stuff, Johannes! I would even say a philosophical tour de force. The conflation of the topic of death with a "psychiatric condition" is of course utterly ridiculous. This is still the standpoint where we still suffer from the "sickness onto death", where we have not yet managed the transition from the Great Death towards the Great Life, to use Buddhist language. I loved that you brought up the staring into the abyss, because only if we dare to face it we can achieve a fundamental transition from an opposition to a befriending of death. Why? Because the abyss (der Ab-Grund) self-realizes itself when we stare at it. This is perhaps what Nietzsche meant when he said that "if you stare into the Abgrund the Abgrund stares back at you." The Ab-Grund only lights up if you look at it. This little passage by Nietzsche is often framed as a psychological endeavor, which may be true as well, but we should try to read it in the Heideggerian way with the notion of Ab-Grund as a groundless- inexhaustible- ground. In Nietzsches passage one "fights" an Ungeheuer, which can be translated as "monster", but also as the "eery". Your hint towards the end of thinking negativity as "the unsupported eery" goes into a similar direction. Translating Abgrund here as "abyss" destroys the nuances that the original German word carries with it, I believe. If one stares long enough into the Ab-Grund, it will loose its horrifying nature of an utter vacuum (the horror vacui comes to mind) and become a font where one can truely befriend death. I think the logical structure you mentioned before (Möglichkeit-sive-Unmöglichkeit, Entbergung-sive-Verbergung) where one is thinking two oppositional poles as interpenetrating each other is called "soku-hi" in Japanese. (de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sokuhi) In the English translations of the Kyoto school texts this is called "circuminsessional interpenetration" (German: wechselseitige Durchdringung). This terminus technicus from the English translation is only used for the Christian περιχώρησις, the interpenetrational unity of Father, Son and Holy Ghost, which is a state where they are deeply united and interrelational but can still keep their particular nature. In Buddhist philosophy it goes back to the diamond sutra and Indras net. I don't know if you meant that, but your elaborations strongly reminded me of this logical structure.

[@JohannesNiederhauser]

Thank you Daniel. I will have to think through your comment. This talk is based on my book and the upcoming course.

[@zappzapp00]

​@@JohannesNiederhauser Great! I'm already very excited for the course

[@DJSTOEK]

💕😷

[@82472tclt]

What is the relationship between death and origin?

[@yuriarin3237]

What are your thoughts on Haugeland's Heidegger? Do you see it as also trying to tame Heidegger's thought taking it away from the real purpose that it had?

[@JohannesNiederhauser]

Good question! To some degree, yes, that seems to be the common programme

[@thomassimmons1950]

At times it "appears" to me that Heidegger is the genius of hard-headed, good, German-common sense. That don't make'm all bad.

[@82472tclt]

Dasein's being becomes something that withdraws from reification....Right!?!

[@JohannesNiederhauser]

Ja. Dasein becomes itself I’d say

[@82472tclt]

The end upon which the being unfolded.

[@billnmaree]

At last, someone else who thinks the Dreyfus school has completely missed the point on death!

[@JohannesNiederhauser]

They’ve missed the boat on everything. But in academia there’s the rule of omertà. You must not point out the liars and the frauds or else you will lose access to the club.

[@82472tclt]

"Everything is destroyed and utterly covered over!"....and all that's left is our antidepressant and ideology

[@82472tclt]

"Death structures"

[@82472tclt]

Be easy on those Berkeley professors! Some of your friends live near by them and the last thing Berkeley needs is authenticity! It's sure to bring a non representational world collapse...

[@adrianlawrence5208]

All those Trans people who self-identify as 'They' will be delighted to discover that they are immortal when they read Being and Time.😂🤣🤣😂