Martin Heidegger Being And Time Part 1/9

[@host228]

Ignore the introduction by whomever, amd listen to the translated words of a genius Heidegger. Rule 1 in philosophy is do the best you can at reading the original and avoid interpretation until after you have spent significant time with the original.

[@Rabmcm32]

Thanks you took the words out of my mouth.

[@almightylovelord]

§1 - 15:40 §2 - 23:50 §3 - 35:50 §4 - 45:25 §5 - 56:30 §6 - 1:11:10

[@IsaacWstawac]

you’re a fantastic human being.

[@anhumblemessengerofthelawo3858]

14:12 starts

[@myinfo9406]

Thank you! 🙏

[@stevenwillbethere]

A Brilliant poet in thought

[@kzazazazk]

This makes reading Foucault sound like a walk in the park 😅

[@IsaacWstawac]

at least this guy has something slightly clever to say

[@xMarryxPoppinsx]

I wouldn’t say his support for hitler is a stain on his reputation. Most of Germany supported him too, they were not all fools.

[@rafedrafed8396]

في البداية كانوا على حق للدفاع عن بلدهم والدول الأخرى المعادية مثل روسيا وانكلترا وأمريكا لم يكونوا حمامة سلام كلهم اشرار لا ألوم الألمان لتأييدهم لهتلر ولا حتى هيدجر العظيم مارتن هيدجر أعظم فيلسوف عرفه تاريخ البشرية على الإطلاق نحن العرب نحب الشعب الالماني والفلاسفة الألمان وخاصة هيدجر ترجمت بعض كتبه المهمة للعربية وخاصة كتابه العمدة الوجود والزمان تحياتي لك من مدينة بغداد العراق

[@michaelpeterson8843]

I would read Michael Gelven's Commentary on Being and Time before reading Heidegger. Heidegger's work requires a guide. Try it without and you'll be lost in a few pages.

[@TennysonLouis-s6p]

Williams Nancy Miller Betty Young Ruth

[@mustyHead6]

idk if this is the most profound thing or the most stupid but im all for it

[@holgerjrgensen2166]

Being, is the Sready Point, Time is the 'shadow' of Motion.

[@IsaacWstawac]

OK….. I’M LOST!!!!!!!!! 😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂

[@themobilizer]

Thank you.

[@IsaacWstawac]

WAIT IM LOST!!! IM LOST!!!!!!!!! OK…. 😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂

[@IsaacWstawac]

OK. I’m lost…!!!😅😅😅😂😂

[@BrettonFerguson]

“It depends on what the meaning of the word ‘is’ is. If the-if he-if ‘is’ means is and never has been, that is not-that is one thing. If it means there is none, that was a completely true statement. … Now, if someone had asked me on that day, are you having any kind of sexual relations with Ms. Lewinsky, that is, asked me a question in the present tense, I would have said no. And it would have been completely true.” -Bill Clinton 1998

[@AhmedAbidelli]

bill clinton must have read the tractatus by Ludwig Wittgenstein to use metaphysical assertion to get out of trouble lol

[@thenowchurch6419]

Heidegger is small potatoes. You need to read Hegel.

[@AhmedAbidelli]

hegel is small potatoes you need to read schaupenhauers roasting hegel. In pretty much every book of his.@@thenowchurch6419

[@doclime4792]

​@@thenowchurch6419small potatoes? 🥔 let me make one thing to you clear my obviously infirmed friend, you have potato and then you have pototo. There can be not one without the other! One side of potato is hot and otherside of pototo is freezing cold. It must be cooked and cooked to perfection to be a 🥔 and even then without the right ingredients it's but a simple thing. But go on enjoy simple things, only life is simple.

[@thenowchurch6419]

@@doclime4792 Nice. I see what you did there.

[@arlieferguson7442]

Begins at 14:16.

Reading the first sentence in ancient Greek I already started questioning my being

[@keegster7167]

1:18 “Aristotle and lived and died and that’s all you need to know about him.” What’s important is not the man than the work.

[@keegster7167]

11:00

[@keegster7167]

17:00

[@keegster7167]

23:00

[@keegster7167]

55:00

[@anhumblemessengerofthelawo3858]

Jacob Klein makes the same remark in his famous and incredibly lucid lecture (ie paper) on Aristotle.

[@IAmSplate]

I don’t know what that monologue at the start is for but I gotta tell ya, I don’t care for it one bit

[@IsaacWstawac]

I only care for it after I’ve begun to think about things myself and even then i don’t take anything literally. There’s interpretation in everything and anyone that says “this is what this means” runs the risk of being an idiot. I don’t think even Heidegger got directly to the bottom of what he meant when he wrote this

[@IsaacWstawac]

Ok wait…………….. I’’M LOSST!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! 😅😅😅😅😂

[@IsaacWstawac]

The problem with an introduction like this is it doesn’t tell us if it means everything it’s saying literally, it makes some bold claims, like that a house stops existing once it has turned into vapor and ash after burning down. Am I ridiculous for asking a similar question about a house that has been painted? In other words, when does a thing stop being the thing it was before? I think Heidegger might agree that the way that an entity is is that it stops being as soon as its temporal nature takes over, annihilating it with each new moment and making it new, bringing into view an entity that I am tempted to refer to as its more general being, the average of its being, or its narrative being. You can’t just say that something stops existing because it leaves one state and enters another, or if you do, you would need to explain the function of this dynamic. It makes sense to say to your family “our house is burned down. It’s gone.” and does not make sense to say “our house has been painted, it’s gone.” but if we are to take an ontological approach to this idea then we must not be so focused on our social relationships to things and entities in general. The only reason we say the house is or isn’t there is because its ability to do what we recognize as its function has changed. This becomes more complicated with a person, animal, or Dasein, because, what is the function of a person but to be, have been, and be a projected being into the future? In other words, is the purpose of Dasein not to remain temporal? Does a thing that existed within the space of time stop existing simply because that time has passed? In other words, does a thing that existed in one moment truly become an annihilated thing in the next, in other words, not being able to “be” as it was? In other other words, what is annihilation if not the essence of temporality? The ability for a thing to change its function and become something else? For a Dasein this happens constantly, as we orient ourselves are we but constantly searching for a particular entity or entities which orient us towards an entity that will fulfill whatever desire we have for the moment? The ability for us to be oriented towards a grand entity, such as the Tao, God, or any smaller entity that expresses itself as being Being (but it is either not Being or not an entity, and we are never sure to know such a thing until we are sure of it, and once that happens we must realize we have only reached a kind of assuredness about it and the ability to transcend through this dynamic in such a grand Being-like being should be seemingly infinite is something which is afforded to us as we transcend through accordance with certain entities and become more able to agree with Being’s indifference to our being. Idk just spitballing here but it would follow that the house itself might transcend, changing its function and become a different entity but can I even say that the house had any purpose in the first place? It didn’t ask to be lived in and it certainly didn’t care if it was lived in so what is its purpose to itself if it can have one? To be. Our purpose for it is meaningless to any entity that doesn’t believe in purpose outside of being. This proves to me that the house has not changed its purpose but its organization, and this organization does not affect its purpose except to us. Unless Purpose has priority which defines our purpose as more than the purpose of an indifferent being in Being we cannot say that the house is not the house anymore, but we can say that to call it a house and define it in such a way is to comport oneself towards the entity which says that our priority in regards to the house’s being is closer to being Priority, and it is not. We cannot even conceive of the priority of Being in relation to a structure like a house, its components, its conception. If it is to have an essential being as a house, is it that being which is closest to Being or our own being? This would have to depend entirely on a seemingly arbitrary entity which controls Dasein’s organizing of prioritized entities. This becomes confusing as it is difficult to decipher where this prioritization of entities comes from, if not from Being itself. This might seem to imply that Being itself has a priority in being, but it does not. Being is merely an observer of being, and allows it to exist by seeing, which becomes a kind of being for it which we can never possibly conceive of. The highest form of being might be the being that Being has, which I am tempted to consider might be the being of entities as Being fills them to become entities. This makes me think that the distinction between Being and being is arbitrary, but again, it cannot be that way. For Being to exist, it must have infinite ways of being, in a sense of a superbeing which ignores or does not reflect certain aspects, properties, or entities of the being within Being. For Being, however, it may be possible for it to transcend the necessity for ignorance to being entirely, manifesting dissonances in being which seem to defy the laws of physics and life itself. Where am I going with this? I don’t fucking know I’m just saying shit I guess how’s everyone’s day going? My birthday was yesterday I’m 25 now

[@IsaacWstawac]

OK. I am so lost! 😅

[@IsaacWstawac]

OK IM…. GUYS I…….. I’m lOSSTTTTTT!!!!!!!!!! 😢😢😢

[@ddaws3344]

Chill we all are lol

[@Flammenhagel]

45:00 timestamp

[@IsaacWstawac]

I know they can be helpful but I am annoyed to hell by introductions. Time stamps please, for the love of god

[@IsaacWstawac]

i like the introduction a lot now

[@sabrisaad8858]

56:24

[@joshua_finch]

Reader is not so bad at Greek pronunciation. It could use some work, though.

[@IsaacWstawac]

OK GUYS IM LOSSTT!!!!!!!!!!!!

[@yp77738yp77739]

I don’t understand the purpose or the value of trying to describe the human condition as something special or unique. For me it is all very simple, we are just another living organism whose particular evolution has provided us with certain pattern solving functionality. But beyond the hormonal drivers of survival through to the point of transferring our genetics through to subsequent generations, there isn’t anything more of actual significance to say about us beyond that of the trees or insects.

[@sholoms]

In a larger sense &/or put into a visual metaphor, & not I think irrelevantly as a part of my overall intelectual framework, I agree with u. None the less; as well as more comfortably, I often find it valuable to explore invitingly different points of view than my own, & in this instance (& potential case) maybe important to explore those quite connected differences among, yet specific to my species, from the inside, while surveying & acknowledging the other differences from outside them in order to try getting a bette, generalr grasp of Consciousness. In brief, please keep talking -- cuz I'm listening & (may even) get it...

[@IsaacWstawac]

It isn’t so much about a human being so much as it is about a being understanding itself and thusly questioning being from my understanding. In other words, it is the way that a self-understanding being lives in accordance with entities, and this is indeed what a tree and an insect does

[@multiplescrotums774]

Skip the first 14 minutes. It's not the book, just some inconsiderate persons opinion. Waste of time

[@anhumblemessengerofthelawo3858]

Just some inconsiderate person LOL

[@misterpibb108]

Thanks.

[@jamesgorman7846]

Lies told by a Nazi full of rebarbative prose signifying 'the Nothjing that Nothings' ( best self reference)

[@AhmedAbidelli]

engage with the material not the philosopher

[@skiphoffenflaven8004]

This is pathetic thinking.

[@FrogsofAristophones]

Dasein