Martin Heidegger, What Is Metaphysics? | The Nothing, Not, and Negation | Philosophy Core Concepts

[@metatron7515]

you're doing amazing work at presenting Heidegger in a way that can be grasped by most anyone, which must be near-impossible on a format like KZbin. thanks again for making a positive difference!

[@GregoryBSadler]

You're very welcome. It can be tough with thinkers like Heidegger, or Hegel. . .

[@metatron7515]

@@GregoryBSadler also saw your video on Lacan and appreciate the linked articles

[@BTinHD]

This is somewhat similar to Sartre in 'Being and Nothingness, but I'm still working on my understanding of the difference and the significance of Nothing...Maybe it is in order to have knowledge of something, there is a nothing (a kind of distance) behind that making that knowledge knowable as knowledge. I will keep reading...

[@GregoryBSadler]

Yes, you always want to go to the primary text. I'm also producing additional videos on this work. And after that, if you're still stuck, you might want to book a tutorial session - reasonio.wordpress.com/tutorials/

[@koolword7477]

Thank you so so much. So enlightening

[@GregoryBSadler]

Glad you enjoy it

[@ndkiwikid]

Thanks for posting this, Gregory.

[@GregoryBSadler]

You're welcome!

[@ndkiwikid]

Gregory B. Sadler Hi Gregory, is there any secondary literature which explicates this that you recommend? Cheers.

[@mandys1505]

I am trying to understand what he means in Being and Time, as far as the subject-object relationship no longer existing when dealing with Dasein. So, in my mind's eye: Dasein is like an ether. Not even a mist nor a fog, because those have boundaries which you could assign "objecthood" to. I am trying not to make the mistake of misunderstanding both Dasein and the Nothing. Maybe I can't relate it to anything, but it's very hard to just "see" a new concept. Thank you~

[@GregoryBSadler]

You're welcome. Keep in mind that Dasein is human being - and is a being that calls itself and other beings into question. If it's still confusing after going at the material a few more times, you might consider booking a tutorial session - reasonio.wordpress.com/tutorials/

[@mandys1505]

yes, i'm going to read some more. I'm glad that you are doing this topic !

[@mandys1505]

Just checked out your sessions page- one hour! that sounds great. Maybe next month. Pretty exciting :)

[@MatterStorm1]

Thank you so very much Gregory. You are amazing and so helpful

[@GregoryBSadler]

I’m glad you found the video helpful

[@HushGod]

There is some ideas of Schelling hidden somewhere here.

[@pomod]

What would Heidegger make of the zen void?

[@GregoryBSadler]

You mean the notion of emptiness, existing in Buddhism before later Mahayana schools like Chan/Zen, right?

[@MrMarktrumble]

thank you. Good lecture.

[@GregoryBSadler]

You're welcome!

[@JabezVidz]

var collection[] public class Not { void Negate (item) { collection.remove(item) } } var not = new Not() Nothing = not.Negate(everything)

[@JabezVidz]

Ha! Ya there are a few things semantically wrong with it but thought it still got the point across. At least my understanding of the topic from an object oriented perspective :-)

[@jurjenvanderhoek316]

Where does everything come from?

[@KozzmoKnight]

I think a logical positivist would argue that this concept of nothing as being the process of negation is a syntax error that is being deconstructed by Heidegger. Its very reminiscent of the arguments of Zeno and the infinite in this regard. Modern mathematics has clarified the paradox of the infinite by defining the infinite as a series that is complete unto itself, there bye creating multiple instances of the infinite, eg, whole numbers as a set, as opposed to even numbers. While the law of negation is certainly defined by mathematics, and a very important concept, that doesn't mean that it is the only possible definition accepted by science. To this extent, Heidegger is correct in his argument that nothing transcends beyond the concept of negation, however he does not adequately prove that science and logic can only understand nothing through negation.

[@GregoryBSadler]

Logical positivists did argue that. Old news, philosophical speaking. . . .

[@KozzmoKnight]

If I were to add my own two cents to the debate, I would say that nothing is infinite. If one were to look at the entire universe, it turns out that most of it in fact consists of nothing. Take an atom, electrons spinning around the nucleus of the atom, in empty space. Between every atom, there is nothing. In the vacuum of space, there is a lot of nothing. So nothing must exist. If so, then it is a complete set unto itself, and hence it is infinite. As my philosophy teacher once said, the infinite is the distance between two fingers. That's going back a ways, old guy, greatest generation out of New York, smoked non filtered lucky strikes. Must have retired early 90's

[@GregoryBSadler]

Thanks for your two cents

[@realtrickybilly]

What would make an ever negating person affirm ? Let me explain: If i negate EVERYTHING, for e.g. even "I am not", "Thoughts are not", "Negation is not" etc. is there a philosophical argument/statement that would stop the ceaseless negations? Please give a simple explanation. Philosophy is only my hobby.

[@GregoryBSadler]

You don't need to address such a person, quite frankly. Leave them in their pretense of "negating everything"

[@dave.h4075]

sweet!

[@GregoryBSadler]

Thanks!

[@jurjenvanderhoek316]

Obviously it is meaningless to speak about "the" nothing, because it does not refer to something. It is an intensional concept with a pure logical meaning: "i have nothing in my pocket" means there is not anything in my pocket. So this is just a lot of talk about nothing. The most important thing to understand is that something cannot come from nothing (by definition) and therefore Absolute Reality is necessarily eternal.

[@GregoryBSadler]

I guess Heidegger isn't for you, since you've already got the nothing entirely figured out

[@Havre_Chithra]

Is it just me or is Heidegger's philosophy trash?

[@GregoryBSadler]

It's you