Heidegger's Turn against Humanism 25/36

[@jessicabsable]

Such an awesome lecture!! It helped me to prepare for my PHD entrance test. Thanks from Brazil!!

[@MMradnane]

Glad you liked it

[@PKAnon]

I've listened to this full series multiple times and I feel this is the most important lecture. It's also one of the few audio sources discussing heidegger's turn. Everyone focuses on his verbiage (dasein, etc.) from before the turn and his involvement with the Nazis. The turn never gets discussed.

[@xxcrysad3000xx]

Me too. Professor Cahoone's course on the history of modern political theory is equally impressive and challenging.

[@PKAnon]

@@xxcrysad3000xx it's a great course, no pun intended!

[@Impaled_Onion-thatsmine]

Wait I don't want this book to be humanist, deconstructs dasein...just leave it on the categories

[@owretchedman]

Excellent lecture on a difficult thinker.

[@jimhedinger3648]

Great learning experience - thanks.

[@ivanmatancevic9565]

yess...

[@user-cc2bl5fk7t]

Muy Bien!

[@anhumblemessengerofthelawo3858]

_what a fine brain you have_

[@gnosis555]

Do you think Heidegger in a way became a modern western Neo-Zen master?

[@beingsshepherd]

I feel that there's something gravely missing from Heidegger's characterisation of modern man. Putting aside the _errors_ of: enframing, nihilism, will to power, calculative thinking etc, he had (as far as I know) no explanation for Western society's dutiful complicity with the mainstream media's central messages, nor the public's unconscious loyalties to both: to the Occident's imperial war effort and deep-seated status quo. Even the supposedly enlightened lecturer here (like Heidegger himself) is conspicuously wearing an _inauthentic_ necktie; that I suspect both would deem criticism of which to be unworthy of serious consideration. As I believe Heidegger rightly propounded, one cannot fulfil their (human) potential as a manifestation of Being's truth, whist still wilfully _conforming_ to societal nonsense.

[@beingsshepherd]

With regard to the impractical necktie, subscribers never discuss the issue; tending to answer sincere enquiry with ridicule. Nevertheless, there's a pretty obvious elitism that unites proponents.

[@beingsshepherd]

@@Impaled_Onion-thatsmine Depends on the company.

[@Impaled_Onion-thatsmine]

​@beingsshepherd man's beyond comprehension so I technically withdrew from that section in the world of daseins interpretation and its all reversed and the significant act that's the real at any point of view or not but is specific to his present sense terms as the significant relay of the mind and theory management in philosophy on my philosophy of the mind

[@owlnyc666]

Do humans do the revealing or do the non humans do the revealing?

[@owlnyc666]

The lectern may be "being". But not a living being. A lectern can t reveal itself to another lectern. Humanism is seeing, perceiving things from a human perspective. We cannot see things from the perspective of chimpanzees or a lectern. 🤔😎

[@saimbhat6243]

I don't think Heidegger can, by his own ideas, come up with anything prescriptive. Why is pre-socratic idea of techne any superior that modern technology? Lol If there isn't any THE BEING, well then every being is equally real and equally superior to its dasien.

[@Lee-os5jq]

Lawrence Cahoone, Heidegger does not see Dasein as the humanist or anthropocentric mistake as you point, but rather the others saw his first work of Being and Time, which was incompleted work of the "Being and Time", as humanist or anthropocentric, because Heidegger send so much time on Desein. This was the reason why others misunderstand his first work as Heidegger point that out. The mistake is not on Heidegger but others with his incompleted work and Heidegger will correct that. Heidegger II, he will and complete the work of "Being and Time" and makes "Being" the main issue, which in lack of best the terms, it is the soil of Dasein and beings. Heidegger is not against the Humanism but that Humanism is always incompleted and not the soil of human, because it lacks the ground of for human but only by understanding of "Being" can human have the ground. Humanism cannot be the ground for human because the Humanism is the shadow of Being, because the Human(ism) is idea and we humans have idea, but not an idea, which Plato never understood.