Martin Heidegger | On the Essence of Truth | Existentialist Philosophy & Literature

Get the Heidegger Basic Writings book - amzn.to/2uHiAFp
Support my work here - / sadler
Philosophy tutorials - reasonio.wordpress.com/tutori...
Take classes with me - reasonio.teachable.com/
In this video lecture, I examine Heidegger's classic essay "On the Essence of Truth", analyzing and explaining its key themes. We start by looking at typical conceptions of truth as correspondence or accordance, and then progresssively move to deeper, more foundational conceptions, involving language's capacity to disclose or reveal being and beings. We also examine various forms of untruth and their possibility, truth's intrinsic connection with freedom, truth as aletheia or un-covering, Dasein (human existence) as ek-stasis, the essential inextricability of truth and untruth, and finally philosophy and the question of truth.
Warning: may cause headaches, vertigo in the face of nothingness, or existential angst! Remedy: more Heidegger
If you'd like to support my work producing videos like this, become a Patreon supporter! Here's the link to find out more - including the rewards I offer backers: / sadler
You can also make a direct contribution to help fund my ongoing educational projects, by clicking here: www.paypal.me/ReasonIO
If you're interested in philosophy tutorial sessions with me - especially on Heidegger's thought and works - click here: reasonio.wordpress.com/tutori...
You can find the copy of the text I am using for this video on Heidegger's lecture "On The Essence of Truth" in Martin Heidegger Basic Writings, available here - amzn.to/2uHiAFp
My videos are used by students, lifelong learners, other professors, and professionals to learn more about topics, texts, and thinkers in philosophy, religious studies, literature, social-political theory, critical thinking, and communications. These include college and university classes, British A-levels preparation, and Indian civil service (IAS) examination preparation
#metaphysics #philosophy #Heidegger

[@GregoryBSadler]

now that the semester is drawing to a close, I'll have the time to resume shooting videos in the Existentialism series. This is one I'm particularly happy with

[@GregoryBSadler]

@@arashpouyaa You can often find surface connections or similarities between any two thinkers you like. Is there any significant connection here? I don’t see it

[@GregoryBSadler]

You're welcome -- and, this is dense, tricky stuff, no doubt. It took me a good 8 hours of rereading and notetaking to get ready for this particular lecture -- and I've been reading this guy for years! So, letting things "settle" might be a good metaphor here

[@GregoryBSadler]

Well, I've leave you with that view that we're splitting hairs. I don't view it that way myself -- if I did, I wouldn't have bothered writing the comments, given just how much work I've got on the plate and how little time I have for it. I'm glad you enjoy the videos. Yes, indeed, we do need a lot more public philosophers -- not sure why most of my peers are so reluctant to engage in much more than just giving talks

[@theamici]

Gregory B. Sadler, I think these videos are a tremendous gift to people and the world (at least those who understands sufficiently english). I come from Norway, and I must say that this style and medium you've chosen to spread the message of individual books from is of great value. I like reading but philosophy... very difficult to read. And takes a lot of time understanding; these videos bridges the gap between just reading articles about people and their work and actually reading the book. GJ!

[@nelsoncerqueira6882]

Last comment was 7 years ago? Who reads philosophy? Who reads Heidegger? Have you ever read at least part of Essence of Truth?

[@GregoryBSadler]

Well, that's a big investment of time and study, Being and Time. I'll be discussing some selected portions of it in this series as well

[@GregoryBSadler]

You're welcome. I'll be talking a bit about that in one of my "Personal Talks", hopefully later this week

[@GregoryBSadler]

Thanks. Glad that the videos are helpful for you.

[@SyntheticFragments]

Awesome and thank you for putting your lectures online

[@GregoryBSadler]

I'm glad the videos and other materials are helpful for you. I have to lay my cards on the table, though -- I'm not a Thomist. I do like Thomas, and Aristotle, and draw on them, but I also do so with phenomenological thinkers as well. Metaphysically, at bottom, I'm actually more of a Christian Platonist

[@seanericanderson3666]

What you did here is no easy feat! Very impressive as well as interesting. I've been struggling with Heidegger on a personal level for years. I'd love to hear more lectures on him, but I don't know if he's primary for you in terms of focus.

[@YitzchokLowy]

Thanks a lot for this lecture. i was finally able to get through this essay with your help.

[@GregoryBSadler]

Glad to hear it!

[@GregoryBSadler]

I am planning to get to the Question Concerning Technology, and the Origin of the Work of Art pieces, as well as a few other key essays, as part of the Existentialism series

[@jimn8108]

Thank you so much for this lecture. Its definitely elucidate Heidegger's 'comportment' to his essay's on Humanism and thinking and technology. Cant say thank you enough for posting this.

[@GregoryBSadler]

+James Neale You're very welcome

[@ekteboi4179]

Awesome video! Thank you for putting the time and effort into making it. Right now, I'm tackling Being and Time with a roommate and we just got past the section on truth. This very helpful towards understanding that better.

[@GregoryBSadler]

Glad it was useful for you

[@GregoryBSadler]

Thanks!

[@allybrenneise4806]

Thank you so much for this. I am working through a section on materiality and your lecture was critical in my ability to TRY to address the materiality of concealment.

[@GregoryBSadler]

Glad the lecture was helpful for you

[@GregoryBSadler]

He also has us within freedom, rather than freedom as our possession. We are able to move in freedom -- and that can mean to truth or into untruth Keep in mind that, throughout this essay, Heidegger has carefully distinguished a number of senses of "truth", showing how they are progressively grounded upon each other through analyses. Also, remember that, at the deeper levels, as I discuss closer to the end, truth is inextricably bound up with untruth as well.

[@akram4139]

I'm very grateful to you, Thank you very much Dr. Salder.

[@GregoryBSadler]

You're welcome

[@GregoryBSadler]

It is pretty tough and tangled, isn't it! I'm glad the video helped

[@adn8099]

This is so much more engaging and human (for lack of a better word) than the common takes in analytic philosophy I've studied. Heidegger fundamentally changes how you look at the world. Crazy

[@GregoryBSadler]

You'll want to read some of the good analytics, like John Wisdom

[@adn8099]

@@GregoryBSadler I'll check him out too, thanks! And thanks so much for the work you do.

[@GregoryBSadler]

You're very welcome!

[@GregoryBSadler]

How the translate Heidegger -- yes, there was actually a similar problem raised for the French philosopher, Maurice Blondel (who Heidegger admired, as it turns out) -- they said that his works needed to actually be translated into French!

[@TheRegie78]

Thank you very much for the lecture. It is really helpful for me. I come to clarity of understanding better after watching you lecture and it is the best. Peace..

[@GregoryBSadler]

You're welcome! Glad that it helped with understanding this guy, whose work is pretty dense

[@GregoryBSadler]

You're welcome!

[@jacko3630]

Thank you. I have spent many hours trying to 'let this be' and partially I think it has disclosed itself from concealment to myself. Thanks for sharing your expertise.

[@GregoryBSadler]

You're very welcome

[@shylockshekelsteingoldmanb763]

Very good! This was absolutely great.

[@GregoryBSadler]

Thanks!

[@GregoryBSadler]

Well, to start with, Anselm doesn't actually have an "ontological argument" per se -- you might check out some of my work on that. The "third man" problem, in any case, in its textual location, doesn't have to do with the One (i.e. the form of the good beyond being), but rather with conceptions of forms like that of "human being". Yes, I'd suggest spending the time to read a lot of Plato and then Christian philosophers. It'll be well worth the effort

[@DallasRomig]

Very helpful video. Thank you!

[@GregoryBSadler]

You’re welcome

[@seanericanderson3666]

Bravo! Well done.

[@kavehai7361]

I Thank you. I hope someday I can do more.

[@GregoryBSadler]

You're welcome!

[@TheJudgeandtheJury]

Great upload!

[@GregoryBSadler]

Thanks!

[@gere108]

Your lectures are truly great! Thank you for sharing your knowledge! Even though I am German speaking your lectures help me a lot to understand Heidegger better. But I still wonder how it is possible to translate Heidegger. Even in German his language is unbelievable difficult and a normal reader does not understand a sentence. Please go on to post Heidegger lectures, as you have Austrian audience allready!

[@AmidstTheLight85]

Just watched Interstellar. After the movie I was left with a high I could only attribute to the existential philosophy that is woven throughout the story (besides the emotional experience, of course). I can say that Nolan was definitely bringing Heidegger's ideas here on the essence of truth to the forefront of his film.

[@GregoryBSadler]

I'll have to check it out

[@mathforphysics]

I will do that. That's exactly what I need because I don't have enough time to study Being and Time in detail right now.

[@Paljk299]

Thanks, I will persist with Heideggers' work, despite the difficulty. I was very impressed by the ideas from secondary literature. Glad I'm not the only one who finds this tough at times. I would be skeptical of anyone who claimed they got this straight away though. It's an interesting take on truth, I'll have to consider it further to get it, I think. I've not read any Anselm or many philosophers from that period; too many philosophers too little time I guess.

[@Piatasify]

I like your lectures.

[@DualistofG4]

I know this video is two years old, and while I have gone through the other essays later Heidegger wrote, there is one letter that still confounds me and that is his "Letter on Humanism". It's pretty densely packed. Do you have any future plans on creating a video lecture on this letter, Dr. Sadler? I know you probably have other projects you are working on. Thanks again for the videos.

[@GregoryBSadler]

+DualistofG4 Yes, I do intend to discuss it eventually. But, right now, yes, I've got a lot of intensive projects underway

[@rklight33]

Yes, I'll second this hope that you discuss this essay at some point. Love your lectures. It's worth pointing out, a smart Straussian prof once informed me there's an implicit conversation between Heideggers' "Letter" and Strauss's lecture "German Nihilism"... interpretationjournal.com/backissues/Vol_26-3.pdf

[@halo2thekaz]

great video, thanks !

[@GregoryBSadler]

You're welcome!

[@br6274]

Dear Gregory B. Sadler, Thank you for your enlightening and brilliant work !! Indeed it is quite valuable and inspiring to understand the concept of Truth in Heideggerian terms. Hail Alethia !!

[@GregoryBSadler]

Glad you found it useful

[@SyntheticFragments]

Great lecture Dr. Sadler. I was wondering if you would be willing to take a request and perhaps sometime (when you are not busy which I am sure you almost always are) and do a lecture on Heidegger's essay The Questions Concerning Technology which is a personal favorite of mine (well that and The Origin of the Work of Art ). Keep up the great work!

[@claudiabottom4086]

awesome lecture

[@GregoryBSadler]

Thanks

[@Blitch66]

always more Heidegger. I have an exam on this tomorrow. I'm the only one who choose this topic. This video was a God send. Or maybe it was thrown into Being by Being itself right around the spot where I am Standing. Or maybe you just have a knack for recording every video I ever need to get A's in philosophy.

[@GregoryBSadler]

Hahaha! glad it helped with the exam!

[@nutronhammernutronhammer]

Loved your lecture, many thanks from india.

[@GregoryBSadler]

Well, that just means that you're gauging its difficulty correctly! -- it IS a very difficult piece, even for me, who's been working with this sort of stuff full-time for decades. A rewarding essay to tackle though -- between this, "What is Metaphysics" and a few other essays, it's really a skeleton key into what's valuable in Heidegger's thought

[@rustycrawfish]

I am currently pursuing an M.A. in Philosophy, and, every so often, take a few looks at your videos for a slightly different perspective on highlighted thinkers. I thought that, perhaps, you might be encouraged by that regarding your web based works (I have also been won over to the A-T philosophical system of thought/metaphysic ; )

[@Paljk299]

Thanks for decoding some of this, appreciated. I have to admit the essay started to confuse me by about section 5. I find this work difficult. Whilst there's a lot of difficult philosophical writings out there, I find them more systematic in some way. It's easier for me to get a start on what they're saying. It'd be nice if he used some examples. I'm still not sure what's the core problem is with something like propositions to express truth, though I do appreciate that they miss a lot out?

[@seanericanderson3666]

Wonderful! He's not primary for me either, but endlessly fascinating nonetheless.

[@MrMarktrumble]

thank you very much. I will review a couple more times.

[@GregoryBSadler]

You're welcome! Glad you found it useful. It is indeed a dense text!

[@MrMarktrumble]

I want to follow up on comportment as an attitude that sidesteps any innate or apriori preconception , or the ossification of language so that we may be open to the things themselves. I want to regain the sense of mystery and openness to being.

[@GregoryBSadler]

The work is difficult, and I myself start to find it confusing sometimes even earlier on! He does use some examples -- the gold, for instance. You're right: it would be helpful if he continued doing so throughout. There isn't a core "problem" with propositions (or any other kind of sign) expressing truth -- what Heidegger is pointing out is that a number of different theories of truth privilege that sort of truth, which is really not the most basic (a point, btw, Anselm also makes)

[@copsarebastards]

This was a decent lecture although there wasn't enough explication in my opinion. I do think you did a good job of pointing out the important sections of the essay though, and your take on Comportment is really helpful. Thanks!

[@GregoryBSadler]

You're welcome

[@GregoryBSadler]

Well, you're in luck. I'm going to be doing more Heidegger, right now as part of the Existentialism series. I wouldn't say that he's primary for me in my work, but he is a strong secondary!

[@ItsJaseShawty]

Thanks

[@GregoryBSadler]

You're welcome

[@Folgemilch21]

0:42:20 how can you say that heidegger didnt talk about gratitude much? he explicitly calls "Danken" (thanking) the essence of his "Denken" (thinking) ? (Cf. "What is called thinking?" )

[@MrMarktrumble]

comportment seems to be an attitude that lets things be in their being, independent of imposed expectations or loaded traditional terms. IT does suggest a transformation of the subject in order to be open to the "object". This raises the concern with me for magical thinking. What prescriptions does Heidegger give to facilitate this openness to being ( besides anxiety which makes everything unhandy)

[@GregoryBSadler]

"comportment" is a general term that can mean all sort of different types of action, perspective, orientation, etc. There are different kinds of comportment, and many of them can be structured in terms of affects/moods

[@cooljeansguy]

I think we are splitting hairs here. I was once a grad student. You are doing a great job with your videos by the way. This world needs more public philosophers.

[@watchingseeing5088]

thanx

[@GregoryBSadler]

You're welcome

[@mathforphysics]

Thanks. I found this essay very difficult..

[@ronnieryanpc]

Note Part 5 is at 39:40

[@TheOSullivanFactor]

In your opinion, is this a fair piece to start Heidegger with? His thought seems fascinating.

[@GregoryBSadler]

+TheOSullivanFactor It's a good a place as any, I suppose

[@dmitryandreyev8579]

So is it that when one Being unconceals itself it conceals another thing??

[@GregoryBSadler]

Yes -- for Heidegger, whenever there is unconcealment, there is still concealment going on. Since that then sounds like it really doesn't matter what's concealed and what's unconcealed. . . I think we'd need to think about what sorts of unconcealment get us closer to the heart of existence, and which keep us just circling around

[@MrMarktrumble]

first distinction: between true and semblance, which assumes a standard (Platonic form)(edios). This assumes language, and the primacy of language to be the criterion of being . This priority of language is challenged with truth as a-lethe ( the river of forgetfulness) -ia, which is our pre-linguistic, pre-self-aware active engagement in our practical concerns. "worldly reason" is stoicism. "that's whats wrong with this account of truth. they leave humans out of the picture". only if you assume a distinction between reason, world and man. "logos with pragma" the pragmatic as "the matter" is primary, and the logos is derivative. Heidegger is consistent with this priority. His bottom up search for essence is as individualistic as the stoics....searching for the "general case" as the essence of humanity ( as criterion of authentic humanity, and thus prescriptions of reality and virtue and thus happiness...)"the statement cannot be the thing" well. if you are Platonic, the definition is the thing, and more than any instantiation of that definition ( where the principles of being are unity and timelessness). Language makes the thing present at hand, (if we are philsophers) and ready to hand ( if we are unself-aware of our words in talking to others....or even ourselves...) and I have to go. Ended video at 20 mins. Thank you

[@GregoryBSadler]

You're welcome. I wouldn't tie it so closely to Platonism.

[@MrMarktrumble]

I see him as a challenge to Platonism, or even Aristotle's universals. His central example for analysis is not the Platonic form, or the universal ( of things ousia), but our care that each of us is "mine". There is no nature as rational that would be our final end that would specify our species. Man is the mortal animal. ( we are the only creatures that can be aware that we can die at any time, and that death is inevitable...?). While common to all of us, it is not our only possibility.

[@GregoryBSadler]

Heidegger challenges pretty much every previous metaphysician at one point or another. He also draws a lot from Plato. But that's a side point. The issue here is that in criticizing the understanding of truth as correspondence, it's not Plato he's particularly got in mind.

[@MrMarktrumble]

okay. I can see why you would say that. Plato is no the only one who would have a correspondence theory of truth.

[@GregoryBSadler]

I think you're confusing "not much" with "not at all" or "never". Your complaint would make good sense if I'd said Heidegger never addresses gratitude.

[@cooljeansguy]

Christian platonist? How do you deal with Plato's third man argument, the regression problem?

[@GregoryBSadler]

I don't, since it doesn't need to be dealt with. It's not a real problem for most Platonists, and certainly not for Christian Platonists (like Augustine or Anselm). It's more an issue that you find in Philosophy textbooks or encyclopedias, not one that remains a real issue from within the actual practice of Platonic philosophy.

[@MrMarktrumble]

17:09 the statement itself is not the thing: criticism of truth as propositions, and maybe against the platonic ideos. Reminds me of the painting "this is not a pipe". how can something so dissimilar ( a statement) correspond to the coin? Statements and coins are different types of being, that must correspond to each other. Language as representative, or re-representative? Do we re-present the presence of coins in the realm of "matters" (pragmata), or do our grammer and words parse the indeterminate into completed forms, and like a Rorschach test, project our expectations onto an object reality that will lend itself to different interpretations? if so, then the way to truth is stop projecting, and to be empty, and let being be, in order to hear what it has to say. "the open field of opposedness " lets the being be so that we can see its reality. 20:05

[@MrMarktrumble]

I meant that language either presences or re-presences (represents) the thing. If presences, then language , though not the thing, is partially constitutive of the thing, at least for man. The indeterminate while not an absolute emptiness and capable of all interpretations , does lend itself to different interpretations (abstractions). Whatever framework (gestell) we bring to it will reveal that aspect to us. But to show one aspect is to hide another. To find all aspects, or the ones we are forgetful of, we must be silent, and let beings be. If language re-presents being, then we have a copy theory of knowledge, which is more optimistic, as it assumes the complete objectivity of the real world, and our subjective re-creation of the object in our minds.

[@MrMarktrumble]

Part 5 attunement: not just beings but to being as a whole: not experience or feeling. "On the contrary where beings are not very familiar to man and are scarcely and only roughly known by science, the openess of beings as a whole can prevail more essentially than it can where the familiar and the well know has become boundless and nothing can no longer withstand the business of knowing since technical mastery over things bears itself without limit." When everything is not just ready-to-hand, taken for granted, and we have our closed and pat understanding of things we can actually see and question what is around us.

[@MrMarktrumble]

All revealing is a concealing: best description I read is looking for something with a flashlight. To shine a light on one area one can see, but the everything around what is illuminated is dark. We can only see some aspects at once, not all things at all onces.

[@GregoryBSadler]

Yes, that work very well as an analogy

[@jaw0449]

I love your lectures, and they help out a lot to a person like me who loves philosophy but it's not my career. However, can you take a little bit more time when writing?

[@GregoryBSadler]

No. I write the way I write. It's not going to get better, unfortunately.

[@jaw0449]

Lol...ok, understand, mine's not much better

[@cooljeansguy]

I must be missing something, but then I am unfamiliar with christian writers. But the inference or the knowledge of the One as a variation of Platonic Form seems like pushing the original problem just to a different level. Anselm's ontological argument is altogethe different.

[@dmitryandreyev8579]

This is a great lecture. I see why the Post-modernists were so influenced by him. Dmitry.

[@GregoryBSadler]

Thanks! Yes, he probably ought to be "required reading" for making sense out of quite a few of the post-moderns/deconstructionists

[@sandrosocial1989]

dude you are cool! thank you :)

[@GregoryBSadler]

You're welcome1

[@kizzMyBuzz]

Thanks Greg, You sure had my attention, I'll give it another spin when it settles in my silence. tveina 5513

[@MrMarktrumble]

What is the concealed essential ground of man? What is the essence of freedom? Freedom reveals itself as letting beings be.not a withdrawel from beings. To engage with beings, nor the management (subordinating beings to us), but to respect them.Truth as alethia. The undoing of the forgetfulness. of the disclosure of beings. Its not to lose oneself in them. (fusion or mystical ecstasy). Presentative correspondence takes its standard from them, the beings. This is some sort of realism, but conditioned by the comportment of man.n is ek-static means man goes out of himself, and in this case, this means instead of being closed off into himself, or weaving the chatter in his head into fine coherent and self-referential systems, his ek-stasis is his openess to what stands beyond him....the being of beings that his openness makes possible their stand for man. ( in being and time , ek-stasis has to do with the future, not with the things around a person). Freedom essentially means engagement in the disclosure of beings as such. The key question is "what is being?"( the real of the real, the true of the true). Man does not possess freedom as a property., the essence of man is freedom. ( is Hiedegger getting this from Aristotle's statement that the mind can in a sense become all things?)end of part 4

[@MrMarktrumble]

39:55

[@copsarebastards]

at 16:50 Heidegger is missing a G. Oops!

[@GregoryBSadler]

If that's the least thing wrong, I'm not going to sweat it.

[@MrMarktrumble]

"to free ones self for abiding directness is possible only y being free for what is opened up in an open region" 25:12 Freedom is part of the essence of truth. I can't frame questions that imply only a limited sort of answer. I can't come to a conclusion without consulting "the thing in itself" (not KANT!). I have to listen and let it unfold as it will. This realism of letting beinging be is a comportment perhaps as practiced as the comportment of the scientist who must remain clearly detached and emotionless in constructing his interrogations o f nature in the lab.The comportment of the human is a means to the truth obtained. BUt there is also the charge of sympathetic magic

[@MrMarktrumble]

t has been said that the theory of sympathetic magic was first developed by Sir James George Frazer in The Golden Bough (1889); Richard Andree, however, anticipates Frazer, writing of 'Sympathie-Zauber' in his 1878 Ethnographische Parallelen und Vergleiche. Frazer further subcategorised sympathetic magic into two varieties: that relying on similarity, and that relying on contact or 'contagion': If we analyze the principles of thought on which magic is based, they will probably be found to resolve themselves into two: first, that like produces like, or that an effect resembles its cause; and, second, that things which have once been in contact with each other continue to act on each other at a distance after the physical contact has been severed. The former principle may be called the Law of Similarity, the latter the Law of Contact or Contagion. From the first of these principles, namely the Law of Similarity, the magician infers that he can produce any effect he desires merely by imitating it: from the second he infers that whatever he does to a material object will affect equally the person with whom the object was once in contact, whether it formed part of his body or not.[1]

[@MrMarktrumble]

I become open and natural, and the thing becomes open and natural, thus being reveals itself as being.

[@MrMarktrumble]

If freedom is the essence of truth, can the unfree ever see truth? If only the free can see truth, and most of us are unfree, then truth is the domain of only a very small, aristocratic, and privileged group.

[@MrMarktrumble]

"what is thus said is the correct, the true. " BUt is the correct the final say regarding truth? We let beings be, and we constitute presence of the knowing subject and the object known in the correct statement? The openenss of our comportment means more like silent and patient observation of beings in their being, and then effort in the transformation of observations into language., letting the objects inthier being to guide correctness in speaking. I agree. Truth does lie in the proposition. (uh oh....my logic teacher is now mad at me.....though he is dead now....)Section 3 24:58 Time for a hike.

[@MrMarktrumble]

I just lost all my detailed NOTEs up into the about the 10 minute mark!! RATS! I am going to hit enter more often, even if I want to continue. Matter( as thing, not hyle) to intellect to language. For Plato, all are are united in the divine mind. THERE it is Adequatio: the adequation of the mind to the thing. 11:22( or if you are a Kantian, the adequation of the thing to the mind) Yes, Kant took the divine mind and put it in the Background of normal humans. For Plato the thing is the logos, and that unites language, intellect and matter, and then explains away the recalcitrance of matter ( not as hyle, but that the essences of things elude us unless they are clearly geometrical or mathematical), as not really "being", or not really the essence, or only a copy---participation instead of identity. 13:12 God as the great underwriter of the cosmic adequation. Go memorize the Timeaus.

[@dmitryandreyev8579]

Your elitism* in "Heidegger for Dummies" I find solace in. :-] *Positive connotation.

[@MrMarktrumble]

is it not the case that Kant located the Greek Divine mind in the mind of man as a species, and then had the problem of the "thing-in-itself" to indicate something outside of the human species perception? Plato in the Republic with his metaphor of the sun makes the sun a) the invisible precondition of sight (or knowledge in general) and b) the actual generator (who is not generated) of days, seasons, plants, food. God underwrites both the intelligible and the "material" sphere. The ad equation of mind to thing is found the preconditions of both....and suddenly I hear Anslem's ontological argument. "let's take God out of the picture. But do you really?" Do we fill the gap with something else? So against Thomas, who said truth resides in the intellect, now truth resides in the statement (like writing "Now is noontime" on a piece of paper, and looking at it at night...)This is not a pipe painting is not a pipe, but the linguistic definition of a triangle is a triangle ( if you are Plato). Language will be presentative. it will educe and create the being of beings first listening and then speaking. The field of openness is where one is silent, so instead of telling things what they are(memorized essences), one is silent to listen to them, to let them speak so that they can oppose one presuppostions or prior learning. Comportment is this silence and respect that flees chatter and slogans of essence . One could argue it even involved in scientific experimentation, because even in the active interrogation one still has to listen to what the object says in the resulting data. The open stance of comportment is the essence of truth, because it lets truth be. Perhaps this open stance of humanity is what is most human, and not the that we are uniquely aware of our own death as our ownmost possibility...

[@GregoryBSadler]

Mark Trumble Well, there's one one thing I'd call the "Greek Divine Mind", so the question is rather a non-starter for me.I'd avoid conflating these sorts of "big ideas" together, since it makes a mess out of the history of Philosophy, where we need to read thinkers and understand their systems fully in their own rights. So, as for the Heidegger-focused stuff that follows, yes, mostly right. Again, though, as I've pointed out, there's no necessary relation between "comportment" and any particular attitude. It's a general term for all sorts of comportments.

[@dmitryandreyev8579]

This will seem inane, but Heidegger's philosophy makes me inexplicably of ravenous appetite.

[@danielrosler527]

I'm confused why Heidegger doesn't want to see his dialectical move as dialectical. As Foucault said, "We have to determine the extent to which our anti-Hegelianism is possibly one of his tricks directed against us, at the end of which he stands, motionless, waiting for us.” Is Heidegger not wanting to confront Hegel? Excellent lecture as always. I really enjoyed this essay as well, but, as it stands for me now, Hegel remains inescapable.

[@GregoryBSadler]

Well, you could always read Heidegger's book on Hegel, I suppose. And Foucault is writing in a very different setting

[@danielrosler527]

Gregory B. Sadler Thanks for the reply, Dr. Sadler. Indeed, I recognize that Foucault is writing in a different setting, but a setting nonetheless inspired by Heidegger-especially Derrida when it comes to the postmodern thinkers. I will certainly look into his book on Hegel. And, again, I’m not trying to dismiss Heidegger in any way. But I, too, found the analysis dialectical, which is why I was wondering if you had any input as to why Heidegger says it isn’t. I think he explicitly says so in the essay I read before your lecture. The reason I mention any of this, including the Foucault quote, is that I wonder if we have ever truly gotten beyond Hegel.

[@GregoryBSadler]

@@danielrosler527 Well, as someone who has studied all of those thinkers for a couple of decades, and who works on Hegel pretty consistently, I'll say: yes, we have gotten beyond Hegel Good luck with your studies.

[@danielrosler527]

@@GregoryBSadler Thank you, sir! I bring these questions because of your expertise. I'm but a novice! I hope my comments don't seem to suggest I believe any differently. Thanks for all the work you do here.

[@MrMarktrumble]

26:19 1.Truth implies untruth....I do want truth "to hold sway beyond man" I do not like arbitrary measurlesssness yes which leads to 2. truth as immutable, permanent...therefore greater than us ( and perhaps that which nothing greater can be conceived...) 3.The essence of man is that opening space.....meaning man is a "negativity", but not as a nasty rebellion,and then attack and consumption, but as a silent receptiveness...c;oser to philosophical Taoism than the intellectual equivalent to Star Trek's "the Borg".Whatt is the essence of man? 29:26. Time to do a chore.

[@4gelassenheit]

Im always very apprehensive when people try to elucidate heidegger, so many people misread and misinterpret... Also, if heidegger doesn't completely dislocate your mind and make you break down and cry... You did it wrong...

[@GregoryBSadler]

Yeah. . . . I don't think you're getting it right. That's quite silly: "if heidegger doesn't completely dislocate your mind and make you break down and cry... You did it wrong"

[@Folgemilch21]

what you call "metaphorical language" is in fact the most essential of this text. it is not metaphorical.

[@4gelassenheit]

I'm not convinced you entirely comprehend heidegger

[@GregoryBSadler]

I'm not convinced about whether you do either, nor whether your assessment has any real merit. But, hey, we all get to express our opinions, right. Post a link to your own videos, blog page, or research profile, and then there's perhaps something to discuss.

[@copsarebastards]

how about explaining why? philosophers aren't in the business of hurling ad hominems at each other without argumentative support.

[@MrMarktrumble]

13:54 Worldly reason Replaces god ? Really? So now you don't have some sort of personal theistic god as a craftsman making the world, ( willing it to be) , now we have a cosmic reason ( sounds vaguely stoic) , but it is still a god.( I like the Enlightenment by the way, but the tragedy is is that not all truths are completely knowable). The problem is that the human is left out of the picture while assuming that they are central. Concieveling the whole world as entirely rational can be understood as a will to power: I know the essences of real things: thus they are standing reserve. Reason is transparent to me, I give myself laws, and I obey my intrinsic nature., which means I obey nothing else but myself. The real world is only essences that I have masterliness over. I am slipping towards Foucault....15:00 minutes, got to go.

[@GregoryBSadler]

"Concieveling the whole world as entirely rational can be understood as a will to power" - Yes, precisely why in the Genealogy, Nietzsche (rightly, I think), views the "man of science" and the Enlightenment as a new permutation on the "will-to-truth" that previously was developed through religion

[@rustycrawfish]

NOOO!!!! ; )

[@seanericanderson3666]

Bravo! Well done.