Episode

Today we look at Heidegger's critique of metaphysics and the traditional subject-object framing in philosophy. How multiple framings are necessary for a fuller picture of our being. His challenge to thinkers like Nietzsche and Descartes. Dasein, the limitations of objectivity. Phenomenology as an alternative focusing on the importance of lived experience. And his ideas on temporality and death as a horizon of our being. Hope you love it! :)
Thank you so much for listening! Could never do this without your help.
Website: www.philosophi...
Patreon: / philosophizethis
Social:
Instagram: / philosophizethispodcast
X: / iamstephenwest
Facebook: / philosophizethisshow

[@27horses231]

I hate you. 12 years of deep Heideggerian study, and this is the best 'plain English' explanation I've heard. Actually, well done!

[@reellifeoutdoors2905]

I have been watching you for years. You helped me get my degree in philosophy. You've helped me with understanding the many books I live. You have helped me with writing my own. Best philosophy KZbin channel hands down.

[@xCessivePresure]

Hell yeah more on Heidegger please!

[@stephanscharf5524]

I would appreciate an episode about Kenji Nishitani on Heidegger and his book „Religion and Nothingness“.

[@philosophizethispodcast]

coming soon! :)

[@BrennanWayneLuther]

I just found your channel and can’t believe how much content there is. Why haven’t you popped up in my algorithm sooner???

[@caffeineandphilosophy]

Excited about this one

[@jasonhill9247]

Cool show. Next one should be great. Dont let anyone make you rush it though.😌

[@orthostice]

Yes yes!! All according to my plan to get Gadamer episodes!

[@clubedamelancolia2221]

32:25 I feel this in my bones... Nice episode!!!

[@GazRatcliff]

Great stuff great to see you tackling Big H in fine style. 👌

[@st_magna]

Heidegger is one of the most interesting philosophers imo, would love to see more episodes on him

[@ghostc1pher]

Based on this, Heidegger is the first Western philosopher whose thinking doesn't seem to fall frustratingly short of the point (as far as the nature of reality), to me. Descartes, for instance, has all of Western thought wrapped around his finger with "I think therefore I am", but no one seems to consider that this statement is still the thought and there is no reason to make any kind of leap from the thought to proof of something outside of it. Please talk more about dazein!

[@ivanaznar6495]

The best notification I could get right now, thanks for your work!

[@DigitalSolutionsLLC]

So glad i found a new podcast!! Thank you for your work. So well done.

[@Agi_87_21]

It’s both grounding and soothing to think that we are what we are first and that’s it, with all our thoughts being secondary and actually kind of resulting from what we are in the first place, like the lily of the valley which I try to remember about when zoloft isn’t helping. ;)

[@OftheRefrain]

The best recognition is the one that arises from the facts themselves, when the shock comes through probabilities. --Aristotle, _Poetics_ 55a: 16-17. Elsewhere, I am reading Heliodorus (of Emesa) for the first time. Turns-out, he left a really sophisticated text. I had to call in a couple critics to assist in 'my' comprehension. "It's a common belief that blind or partially sighted people will pick up on sounds first and foremost, but that isn't the case with me. The first thing I perceive is time. I sense it as a slow, cruel current of enormous mass passing constantly through my body to gradually overcome me." --Han Kang, _Greek Lessons_ Mad Respect, West. Literacy registers along a spectrum. You read the work that I only wish I had the time and adequate training for--and you are an undeniably phenomenal writer, West! No one can take that away from you. For what you love, you will want to have inside you. --George Steiner. Mad Respect.

[@greyrabbit2157]

Please do one on the later Heideigger!

[@newmadhatter6906]

I’m an on and off listener… I didn’t realize this series was in dire straits… thanks for keeping it up despite how much you’re paid by KZbin.

[@jojohorvath8538]

Who said it’s in dire straits?

[@Bringadingus]

Where are you getting that idea from?

[@benjueabba9480]

Thank you for your work Mr west 🙏

[@_Honorius_]

That was a great one! Unto the Philosophy of the Future (2024).

[@newmadhatter6906]

It is weird… I have felt where Heidegger is coming from for years now. It’s a fantastic, yet vexing worldview

[@christinemartin63]

Tough concepts to track with the fact that from birth, we are the objects of conditioning--by family, teachers, employers, technology--you name it. Add to that the subconscious, which acts upon us in its own irrational way. (I wonder what a debate between the Freudians and Skinnerians on one side and the Heideggers, Husserls, Sartres, etc. on the other would sound like....)

[@djetinjstvo_u_boji]

Well, I will be aware of my keyboard from now on! In fact, I am aware of it right now, as I am typing ahahha. P.S. Please continue with Heidegger. By the way, CC option transcribes Heidegger as High Digger. :))

[@fbwthe6]

This reminds me so much of Robert Pirsig

[@Bringadingus]

Pirsig was a Heideggerian, so that makes sense

[@muhsyukronhidayatsafaa4469]

Change being is not change society, change being is to become who you really are,

[@davidblanchard8529]

I don't know if I've heard the ontic vs. ontological distinction described quite in this way before. The interesting thing is that you seem to be saying the ontological comes before the subject and object distinction, and maybe that it's pre-theoretical. Is it pre-language though? And it sounds like you're saying that meaning for Heidegger is also in this pre-theoretical ontology but that it's perceived through our theoretical knowledge in some imperfect form. But how can you tell the difference between finding aspects of a pre-theoretical meaning through imperfect ontic understandings of things and simply constructing meaning where there was none before? Is it because action and motivation can be seen in pre-theoretical, ontological instances? Then in that case I would wonder about things like habits which are often consciously formed over time before they become more automatic. Such a thing would seem to be very artificial, not arising from a pure space without subject and object thinking.

[@skemsen]

Will you ever cover the philosophy of Bernardo Kastrup (Analytical Idealism)?

[@TennesseeJed]

❤

[@jeroentenhoeve1086]

I can advise you all to read " The Matter with Things" by Ian Mcgillchrist he explains Dasein or To Be ,in another but also the same way namely through the eyes of our asymmetrical hemnispheris (Brain) . To me it was a realy powerful and beautiful eurika 😮😳.......! Beautiful explaining of Heidegger thanks.

[@GMGMGMGMGMGMGMGMGMGM]

It's worth noting that all these 'unprecedented philosophical insights' you described Heidegger as having were already taken as uncontroversial truths for well over 1000 years before he wrote, in Eastern Orthodox Christian theology.

[@GMGMGMGMGMGMGMGMGMGM]

Some basic starter intro books: "Mystical Theology of the Eastern Church" by Vladimir Lossky "Byzantine Theology" - John Meyendorff "Orthodox Dogmatic Theology" - Michael Pomazansky "Thinking Orthodox" - Eugenia Constantinou The lives & works of modern Orthodox saints such as St. Porphyrius, St. Sophrony of Essex, St Silouan, St. Paisios.

[@شهریار-ز2ج]

Another interesting show, thanks 🙏 I would say to Descartes - I am, therefore I think 🤔

[@jasonhill9247]

Heidegger got tricked into signing stuff too.

[@juls5347]

Yep, singing like a bird

[@jasonhill9247]

@@juls5347 🤨about what? To who?

[@nacetroy]

Trying to present this with humility: I've been trying to understand gnosticism. Gnosticism has influenced the worst of progressive politics = communism, nazism and fascism. Nietzsche and Heidegger take their metaphysics from a gnostic-hermetic view. So, whereas Marxists, the woke, nazis or fascists may provide criticisms or justifications for becoming like god (undifferentiated from the whole or knowledge of the eschaton), which provide the narratives or mythical ideals for praxis, where do they have their limiting principles?

[@Bringadingus]

Word salad

[@BotlheMolelekwa-ju2se]

This Dasein sounds like a it's meaningful to the person involved in the present. But as far as meaning in what I would see it is what was the purpose of having to live, struggle, have pain, grow, connect and die for? As far as evidence is concerned we are not going to use what we gained from when we were alive after dying. And after all life ceases to exist the universe is going to continue doing what's been doing for billions of years making life insignificant. And to top if off if you buy into this concept then you have no right to tell drug addicts or people who don't want to grow that in the long term things will be good for them while also having to also use the same concept as them "it's good for me now". Because both are saying it's important for me now and not later. Life is meaningful to us yes. But purpose of having to die and no use of what we did when were alive is still unknown. And we're still insignificant that if we cease to exist there will be little to no impact to the universe. So in that sense he also has error in logical reasoning too.

[@BotlheMolelekwa-ju2se]

Can anyone please send me to where I can get feedback because I really want to know if my reasoning needs improvement.

[@noahbrown4388]

I think you're right. There is no real meaning to existence/the universe in any way that we can comprehend. It's unfathomable to the human mind. We're tiny ripples in the ocean -- might as well sit back and enjoy the ride as much as you can 😉

[@BotlheMolelekwa-ju2se]

@@noahbrown4388 I know right 😁

[@Bringadingus]

Heidegger's whole idea is that you do *not* just live in the present, but are always "pulled ahead" and "thrown," meaning you are an unfolding involving past, present, and future. For Heidegger, our finitude and death is precisely what gives life meaning. While your musings here might have some content, they are musings entirely unrelated to any thought about Heidegger.

[@Bringadingus]

@@noahbrown4388 For Heidegger, meaning is precisely what Dasein creates by having a world. Being in the world is fundamentally defined by care, so everything in our world always already has meaning.

[@Walter10065]

Ok five minutes in, so far it’s all nonsense, vague but grandiose claims that though completely counterintuitive are presented without explanation or evidence. A familiar confidence trick, a la Carlos Castaneda. Does it improve? Somehow I doubt it. If there’s a revelation, why not present it immediately?

[@Walter10065]

Yes this notion of “being-in-the-world” as distinct from “subject object” relations is nonsense. That is, two kinds of abstract terms that describe the same kind of experience. Think about it plainly: is being told you’re a person living in a society of other people and established social behaviors a revelation? Of course not. The details are well covered by sociology, psychology, even physics - in other words, scientific developments have eliminated any value in classic philosophy.

[@OftheRefrain]

@@Walter10065 Nonsense. Numbers themselves are philosophical abstractions. But without them the James Webb satellite would have never got off the ground. To this day, there's no science that accounts for why two microscopic sized particles separated by hundreds of miles still interact with one another. On the theoretical, and on that particular example; there is no measurement in science to account for the exchange. Theory will always precede Science. Always. Thus, philosophy is requisite.

[@GMGMGMGMGMGMGMGMGMGM]

@@OftheRefrain if numbers are philosophical abstractions & not actually real, then theres no actual real distinction between 1 of something and "many" or "none" of something.

[@brianrainosek1178]

heidegger mad Hegel did geist first

[@Bringadingus]

Their work is not related in this respect. Heidegger doesn't do "Geist" at all.