HEIDEGGER PART 2 BY GEORGE PATTISON

[@orwellhuxley6301]

Prof. Pattison gives an outstanding interpretation of Heidegger's principal idea expressed in Das Sein. The Professor's choice of language and examples are ideally suited for the proper unreeling of Heidegger's dense and convoluted prose. Beautifully done, to be sure. "What is it for a 'Being to be?'" asks the professor; "How's language responsible for uncovering or covering' up our understanding of ourselves and the world?" he continues. How technology shunts and dilutes, most of the time, our ability to find our own and unique authenticity during our brief passage in our space-time continuum; and how we might, thru awareness, attenuate technology's grip. Terrific lecture!

[@eternaldelight648]

The best ever presentation of Heidegger that I've come across! Big thanks to Mr. George Pattison!

[@stangilmore3859]

Hi

[@Jide-bq9yf]

Simply sublime .I’ve never witnessed Heidegger’s thought so fluently articulated . Even Heidegger fell short genius he may well have been ,he was an atrocious communicator of his own philosophy .

[@Tucknrollgrampa]

Haven't read Heidegger but have been trying to read around to see what I'd be getting into, and this guy, whether accurate or not, gives the best, un-obscure sense of what I may encounter.

[@Jide-bq9yf]

I hear you . I bought Being and Time a few months ago . Never got beyond the murk entangling the first page .

[@OH-pc5jx]

try out the two introductory chapters! with this primer, i don’t think there’s anything unmanageable (although sometimes the ‘Being is not the being of a being’ stuff can make your head spin a little)

[@drchuacaikleng5111]

Love his insights & the way he expressed them.

[@53aleksandra]

Fantastic lecture. Sein und Zeit through the perspective of planetary homelessness,poetry and theology is a very interesting addition to my humble study of Heidegger via Polish philosopher Prof.Michalski's work"Heidegger and modern philosophy". Thank You very much

[@dexblue]

Yes, a wonderful presentation....thank you...

[@frankfeldman6657]

Really wonderful. Concise, articulate, immediately graspable.

[@BrotherWoody1]

Thanks for this. Extremely helpful.

[@newyork1401]

Excellent lecture! Heidegger is such a great writer.

[@kylebyron6404]

Thanks for the summary.

[@ronfowler4864]

Thank you for helping me better understand Heidegger.

[@alextupou4992]

Superb summary. Many thanks.

[@michellegilder1558]

Brilliant..thank you!

[@MrResearcher122]

I read Being and Time as a young man. It sounds here as if his 'being' in time is really similar to the Hindu understanding of the witnessing self, an idea opposed to the Buddhist anatta- non-self, even non-being. Maybe he was speaking about the conventional self, another Buddhist doctrine, linked to the two-truths doctrine. In searching for authenticity, he was really caught up pursuing the witnessing self, but encountering everywhere the conventional self or inauthentic being.

[@johnpollard3241]

Importance of the experience of anxiety/angst is missing here and how this can lead to authenticity or, more often, a falling back into the inauthentic everyday world of ‘the they’.

[@Wax_cola]

Where can I find some decent english versions of Holderlin's work?

[@mariusdavidescu4252]

Heidegger is that kind of philosopher that doesn t gives you any answer, but makes you put more questions. This is existentialism at his best. To understand Heidegger you must be familiarized with his language, and the best way to understand it is to read him in his native language, german, and I think this can be applied to any philosopher. If you want to truly understand Plato, read him in ancient greek, if you want to understand Spinoza, read him in latin, etc. this is the biggest problem in philosophy, you must know many languages, some of them died languages like ancient greek or latin, to deeply understand this great treasure of wisdom wich is philosophy.

[@johnhannon8034]

Marius Davidescu Some wit once remarked that Heidegger is untranslatable, even into German.

[@vsavage9913]

Marius Davidescu Marius donde estas, Romania ?

[@vsavage9913]

Good point about many languages philosophy connection. There no known philosopher who doednt speak two at least. Cant be just a coincidence

[@mitchellkato1436]

Perhaps we must take one small step back. The forest of Heidegger is not exactly ours. But it is a thinkable environment. Even if its not exactly what you think as your own home. And this Heidegger's world is one that is intense. Like a large water fall that can invoke awe. Or may be, there are moments of our lives, corner of our lives that seem a very human needs that seems unusual, for example we need to eat and we need to defecate.

[@fraidoonw]

Thanks Sir Pattison, part 3?

[@Leibo07]

4:57 did the publishers not think at all, or too well, about the book's sleeve being a soviet, constructivist ( ! ) design ??

[@peterelmer9114]

Leibo07 ; or a Bauhaus one !

[@RinatNugayev]

Magnificent! In my humble opinion the gist of the lectrure is an idea that "Sein und Zeit" is an extremely rich philosophical mix. Hence Martin Heidegger was a philosopher for philosophers and not for Nazi peasants!

[@aquababy2012]

No. It's not a rich philosophical mix. It's a formal inquiry into being for Da-sein.

[@RinatNugayev]

@@aquababy2012 It merely looks formal since it is free of quotations!

[@vsavage9913]

Rinat Nugayev it’s a formal inquiry mix without quotations

[@OnerousEthic]

The discourse on the hegemony of technology, starting ~19:30, rings for me, and brings perspective to the Nazi connection.

[@FroggyJumps747]

3:54 Note to self: Language as covering or uncovering

[@beingsshepherd]

That's pretty much a _covering_ statement in itself.

[@CoreyAnton]

Great vid. Thanks.

[@donoflee]

Given that Professor Pattison is attempting the impossible, a comprehensive overview of Professor Heidegger's work in under 50 minutes, this presentation is worth viewing if you're new to Heidegger. That said, I think I've spotted two errors in the presentation. Or rather than call them errors, they are over simplification to the point they they mislead. 1. When Professor Heidegger speaks of “death” (an existential phenomenon of dasein), he’s not talking about croaking, or what happens when the body fails (present-at-hand), he called that perishing. Death is always with dasein, not something that happens at a so called clock tick (present-at-hand) “end”. excerpt: {@07:09 (HEIDEGGER PART 2) we haven't yet lived all our possibilities these still lie ahead of us how can we live as a whole and then something else and that is of course all of us are going to die} 2. The Augenblick isn’t a snaps shot or time slice. In both Heidegger’s and Kierkegaards writings, an Augenblick can take decades to unfold. excerpt: {@11:49 (HEIDEGGER PART 2) using a term he borrows from Kierkegaard calls the moment of vision [Die Augenblick] the moment in which translates literally as the gaze of the glance of the eye the moment in which we look around we see ourselves we see our lives for what it is }

[@beingsshepherd]

oO(Strange that at 15:37, Pattison pronounced _"neither"_ first in American English, then seconds later in English.)

[@OnerousEthic]

ipso facto he is multilingual in English dialects

[@karl-ottonagel4587]

16:39 ff. Hölderlin is better known under his third name as (Johann Christian) Friedrich Hölderlin.

[@Kurtlane]

This is all very good about "Eigen" (one's own), but ... But here is what Goethe said, "You are... exactly what you are. Put on a wig with thousand locks, Or put your foot in ell-high sock, You're still yourself." One is what one is, and if one changes, so one changes. So what? It is very sad that Goethe became so ossified in his country that this was forgotten. This Volkgeist (folk spirit) business got out of control in Germany after Goethe's death. Even before Heidegger was born, people were judged authentically or inauthentically German depending on whether they called a train ticket a "Billet" (French origin word) or a "Platzkarte" (newly invented word based on German roots). In Russia, where similar things were going on, Tchaikovsky's music was attacked for being "non-Russian in spirit," until he died, and then it redefined what "Russian music" means. Just like today there is some idiot in Poland, telling Polish people who is "genuinely Polish" and who is not. One is what one is, and it does not matter whether one fits the established "national" definition or not. It was established by others without his consent.

[@jakecarlo9950]

Wow.

[@Cormagh]

It certainly is a great lecture on Being and Time, and perhaps not the most radical religious cast that could be used, either, a moderate historical-religious reading, in other words: Not exactly what Heidegger wanted, but reasonable given the source. Heidegger was lucky in being part of the first generation of Germans able to openly declare themselves as not being religious.

[@MrResearcher122]

Schopenhauer and Nietzsche were atheist, long before Herr Heidegger. Then we have Marx and Engels and thousands of German socialists.

[@sagebova]

you are a bad ass

[@jeffreyarmbruster4670]

"And make of ourselves a whole, authentic human being". Heidegger loses me, a Christian, with the "make of ourselves" anything beyond natural being. "How do we stand before Being?" Heidegger famously asks. H, replies, look towards one's own death. Ah, geeze, that gets us nowhere. No. we're dependent on God. H. missed his calling when he abandoned Christianity. He could have been a theological contender! As it is, he's a nihilist. Nietszche's influence on his generation--including Rilke--is obvious. And understandable. Too bad! It ruined a good theologian.

[@vsavage9913]

Heidegger was born, he wrote some nazi shit, then he navi died. I like Robert, he seems nice but theism soils everything he says. Religious like Heidegger but that’s because he liked them also. Or rather it was the one thing old nazi moustaches knew well in his heart, that where religion is there to look for philosophy also. Let’s say that because the converse doesn’t seem any better, that the religious would fancy the old tyreless rant, because there is something nazissistic about God 😬 A big shoutout to all the Heideggerizans out there ✌️

[@BlindEyeJones]

Heidegger is too much of a romantic nationalist. The history of the human race is that of being forcefully rejected from your lands and language and having to confront a new situation and adapt. Every conquest is a human displacement. technology is neither here nor there, a distraction from the real problems of human adaptability. Secondly, the German language is not insular, does not live in some ahistorical realm of pristine importance to Germans -- like the humans that use it, it too adapts and changes. Heidegger is the W.C. Fields of philosophy, especially with Catholics. He plays a shell game with words, a now you see it now you don't trick. The Catholic Church is either naive enough of or corrupt enough to fall for this con man. The expression, "You can't cheat an honest man" sums it up perfectly. The Catholics overlook the fact that nothing has come from his questioning of Being in the last hundred years; and, secondly, they overlook his political and moral character -- the man was a disgrace. The expression, "You will know them by their fruits" comes to mind. Just remember when Heidegger talks about present-at-hand it has more to do with sleight of hand.

[@beingsshepherd]

Whatever his flaws, Heidegger correctly prophesied that Being was to reach the literally unspeakable limit of its withdrawal (2008); leaving the Occident in a dystopian nihilistic darkness that it conceives of as enlightenment. For this alone, his ideas are compelling to those of us who remain unaffected.

[@BlindEyeJones]

This almost sounds christian, waiting for the apostasy. He also was waiting for the gods to come which suggests something pagan. Heidegger was juggling many balls IMHO and nihilism should be a concern for the Church rather than philosophers. The Being of philosophy cannot disappear... people wouldn't be able to talk if it was true.

[@beingsshepherd]

They'd be capable of _idle chatter_, as mentioned in this video, but nothing deeper. Imo, nihilism is far from parochial and ought to concern us all. Who wants to be a victim of acceptable adultery or required to work seven days a week?

[@jayraskin]

I love your comparison of Heidegger to W.C. Fields. I'm not sure if this isn't a disgrace to W.C. Fields.