I think a testament to how brilliant your lectures are that you retain audiences even without visuals. Thank you so much x

Lots of context on Heidegger, and a very clear and detailed exposition.

@colingeorgejenkins2885

3 жыл бұрын

Those that seek inside for the being transepts sand dna

If you stare at the picture of Heidegger long enough, you start seeing crazy visuals. It's kind of fun. By the way, I enjoyed this lecture.

@musatebi486

6 жыл бұрын

too much mushrooms, you will see anything anywhere.

Never heard anyone make Heidegger fun before.

Thank you very much Wes. That part about dwelling reminded me of this beautiful poem by Emily Dickinson. I dwell in Possibility - A fairer House than Prose - More numerous of Windows - Superior - for Doors - Of Chambers as the Cedars - Impregnable of eye - And for an everlasting Roof The Gambrels of the Sky - Of Visitors - the fairest - For Occupation - This - The spreading wide my narrow Hands To gather Paradise -

this lecture is incredible and has inspired me to want to know more. thank you so much.

I love your lectures thank you so much for making them public ❤️

This lecture is nothing like the Berkeley lectures - humor is such a delicate thing and well....

The question of being is solved when you realize that you cannot find yourself anywhere in space and time, and yet you undoubtedly know that you are. Thus, you are a timeless and formless being, which is a very good thing because it means you are indestructible and immortal.

New favorite channel for procrastination. Fascinating, albeit confusing. The material defies the internet 30 second attention span mode of existence (logical, it is a lecture, after all). Refreshing, nonetheless.

@jackharley8564

9 жыл бұрын

there's a surprising amount of "deep thought" videos on youtube for those willing to explore ;) Documentaries, lectures, heaps of great stuff. You could almost get a degree by studying YT these days.

@a.n.c.australia

2 жыл бұрын

30 second attention could also be due to the chemical hormones in my pork... and the chemical fertilizer under my house. It is highly likely an unintended yet "welcomed" effect of technology, but it could also be due to physical matters.

@bradmodd7856

Жыл бұрын

Simply the art of storytelling in the lecture format, the first an ancient tradiition, the second very old. Nothing to do with the internet and he could not really make this history less confusing.

@TheVeganVicar

4 ай бұрын

🐟 03. WISDOM & TRUTH: PHILOSOPHY DEFINED: Philosophy is the love of WISDOM, normally encapsulated within a formal academic discipline. Wisdom is the soundness of an action or a decision with regard to the application of experience, knowledge, insight, and good judgement. Wisdom may also be described as the body of knowledge and principles that develops within a specified society or period. For example, “The wisdom of the Tibetan lamas.” Etymologically, the word originates from the Greek “philosophia” (meaning “love of wisdom”) and is the systematized study of general and fundamental questions, such as those about existence, reason, knowledge, values/ethics, mind, and language. Some sources claim the term was coined by Pythagoras (c. 570 - c. 495 BC). Philosophical methods include questioning, critical discussion, rational argument, and systematic presentation. Philosophers generally divide their field into the two kingdoms, the Eastern branch, which covers the entire Asian continent, and the Western branch of philosophy, which mainly includes European, though in recent centuries, embraces American and Australian-born philosophers also. GENUINE WISDOM: Unfortunately, in most cases in which this term is used, particularly outside of ancient Indian philosophical traditions, it tacitly or implicitly refers to ideas and ideologies that are quite far-removed from genuine wisdom. For instance, the typical academic philosopher, especially in the Western tradition, is not a lover of actual wisdom, but a believer in, or at least a practitioner of, adharma, which is the ANTITHESIS of genuine wisdom. Many Western academic (so-called) “philosophers” are notorious for using laborious sophistry, abstruse semantics, gobbledygook, and/or pseudo-intellectual word-play, in an attempt to justify their blatantly-immoral ideologies and practices, and in many cases, fooling the ignorant layman into accepting the most horrendous crimes as not only normal and natural, but holy and righteous! In “The Republic” the ancient Greek philosopher Aristocles (commonly known as Plato) quotes his mentor Socrates as asserting that the “best” philosophers are, in actual fact, naught but useless, utter rogues, in stark contrast to “true” philosophers, who are lovers of wisdom and truth. An ideal philosopher, on the other hand, is one who is sufficiently intelligent to understand that morality is, of necessity, based on the law of non-violence (“ahiṃsā”, in Sanskrit), and sufficiently wise to live his or her life in such a harmless manner. See Chapter 12 regarding morality. THE REPOSITORY OF WISDOM: One of the greatest misunderstandings of modern times is the belief that philosophers (and psychologists, especially) are, effectively, the substitutes for the priesthood of old. It is perhaps understandable that this misconception has arisen in the popular mind, because the typical priest/monk/rabbi/mullah seems to be an unschooled buffoon, compared with those highly-educated gentlemen who have attained collegiate doctorates in philosophy, psychology, psychiatry, et cetera. However, as mentioned in more than a few places in this book, it is imperative to understand that only a miniscule percentage of all those who claim to be spiritual teachers are ACTUAL “brāhmaṇa” (as defined in Chapter 20). Therefore, the wisest philosophers of the present age are still those exceptionally rare members of the Holy Priesthood! Anyone who doubts this averment need do nothing more than read the remaining chapters of this Holy Scripture in order to learn this blatantly-obvious fact. POPULAR PHILOSOPHERS: At the very moment these words of mine are being typed on my laptop computer, there are probably hundreds of essay papers, as well as books and articles, being composed by professional philosophers and Theologians, both within and without academia. None of these papers, and almost none of the papers written in the past, will have any noticeable impact on human society, at least not in the realm of morals and ethics, which is obviously the most vital component of civilization. And, as mentioned in a previous paragraph, since such “lovers-of-wisdom” are almost exclusively adharmic (irreligious and corrupt) it is indeed FORTUITOUS that this is the case! The only (so-called) philosophers who seem to have any perceptible influence in the public arena are “pop” or “armchair” philosophers, such as Mrs. Alisa “Alice” O’Connor (known more popularly by her pen name, Ayn Rand), and the British author, Mr. Clive Staples “C.S.” Lewis, almost definitely due to the fact that they have published well-liked books and/or they have managed to promulgate their ideas via the mass media, especially on the World Wide Web. ACADEMIC PHILOSOPHERS: To proffer merely one example of literally tens of thousands, of the assertion made in the previous paragraph, the 1905 essay paper by the famed British mathematician, philosopher and logician, Bertrand Russell, entitled “On Denoting” was described by one of his most notable contemporaneous colleagues, Frank P. Ramsey, as “that paradigm of philosophy”. Notwithstanding the fact that less than one percent of the populace would be able to even comprehend the essay, it is littered with spelling, grammar, punctuation, and syntactic errors, and contains at least a couple of flawed propositions. Even if the average person was able to grasp the principles presented in that paper, it would not make any tangible impact on the human condition. Currently, this planet of ours is doomed to devastation, due to moral decay and environmental degradation, and such overintellectualizing essay papers can do nothing to help improve our deeply harrowing, frightful, and lamentable predicament, especially those papers that deal with exceedingly-trivial subject matters, as does Russell’s paper (an argument for an acutely-abstruse concept in semantics). The fact that Russell’s aforementioned essay paper falls under the category of Philosophy of Language, and the fact that he was a highly-cultured peer of the House of Lords, in the parliament of the United Kingdom of Great Britain, yet his own writings being composed using far-from-perfect English, serves only to prove my assertion that philosophy ought to be restricted to genuine members of the Holy Priesthood. Furthermore, that Bertrand was fully intoxicated with adharmic (leftist) ideologies and practices, including sexual licentiousness and socialism (even supporting Herr Adolf Hitler’s Nazism, to some extent) indicates that he was no lover of ACTUAL wisdom. The fact that, after THOUSANDS of years following the publication of Plato’s “Republic”, not a single nation or country on this planet has thought it wise to accept Plato’s advice to promote a philosopher-king (“rāja-ṛṣi”, in Sanskrit) as the head of its social structure, more than adequately proves my previous assertions. Unfortunately, however, both Plato and his student, Aristotle, were themselves hardly paragons of virtue, since the former was an advocate of infanticide, whilst the latter favoured carnism (even stating that animal slaughter was mandatory). To my knowledge, the only philosopher in the Western academic tradition who was truly wise, was the German, Arthur Schopenhauer, because he espoused a reasonably accurate metaphysical position, and he adhered to the law (that is, the one and only law, known as “dharma” in Bhārata) to a larger degree than most other Westerners. Hopefully, someday, I will discover another philosopher, without India, to join Arthur! Cont...

Superb lecture. Thank you!!

I love your channel keep up the good work

Thanks Wes This is yummy entertainment. I love doing my dishes with Heidegger, he makes it so much fun ! Thanks from Olympia :)

Wes is one of the first people I've seen who endorsers translations of Heidegger's work over the original German.

Lecture was held in front of a group of girls preparing for a career on the catwalk.

@garymorgan3314

3 жыл бұрын

Not a great idea to show your misogyny so obviously. I agree that the sycophantic laughter is very irritating but characterising it this days more about you than about them. NOT a good lecture.

Wes...you are funny.I enjoyed your crab thing and a lot of the other stuff. The positive thing is that in one hour you have gotten people interested and made H user friendly. You could have gone deeper with dasein but hey...this is one short lecture. I like your introduction to later H and the impact of his thought on the environmental movement. (dwelling and caring in time). Thanks for bringing this forward. I also like the way you handle H's political seduction by the National Socialists..... not an easy thing to pull off. It's philosophy's darkest moment for our most important 20th century guy (along with Wittgenstein). PS So many parallels to our present political situation....scary.

Fantastic series dude! Mange tak skal du have! =)

Heidegger, the man who did not mention Schopenhuauer on purpose, just like a grumpy child. Schopenhauer's ideas on the relation between man and the world is similar to Heidegger's; Schop's ideas on phenomenon, too; his concept of Will and discusstion on the principle of sufficient reason ... any of these Heidegger mentions.

@TheVeganVicar

4 ай бұрын

🐟 03. WISDOM & TRUTH: PHILOSOPHY DEFINED: Philosophy is the love of WISDOM, normally encapsulated within a formal academic discipline. Wisdom is the soundness of an action or a decision with regard to the application of experience, knowledge, insight, and good judgement. Wisdom may also be described as the body of knowledge and principles that develops within a specified society or period. For example, “The wisdom of the Tibetan lamas.” Etymologically, the word originates from the Greek “philosophia” (meaning “love of wisdom”) and is the systematized study of general and fundamental questions, such as those about existence, reason, knowledge, values/ethics, mind, and language. Some sources claim the term was coined by Pythagoras (c. 570 - c. 495 BC). Philosophical methods include questioning, critical discussion, rational argument, and systematic presentation. Philosophers generally divide their field into the two kingdoms, the Eastern branch, which covers the entire Asian continent, and the Western branch of philosophy, which mainly includes European, though in recent centuries, embraces American and Australian-born philosophers also. GENUINE WISDOM: Unfortunately, in most cases in which this term is used, particularly outside of ancient Indian philosophical traditions, it tacitly or implicitly refers to ideas and ideologies that are quite far-removed from genuine wisdom. For instance, the typical academic philosopher, especially in the Western tradition, is not a lover of actual wisdom, but a believer in, or at least a practitioner of, adharma, which is the ANTITHESIS of genuine wisdom. Many Western academic (so-called) “philosophers” are notorious for using laborious sophistry, abstruse semantics, gobbledygook, and/or pseudo-intellectual word-play, in an attempt to justify their blatantly-immoral ideologies and practices, and in many cases, fooling the ignorant layman into accepting the most horrendous crimes as not only normal and natural, but holy and righteous! In “The Republic” the ancient Greek philosopher Aristocles (commonly known as Plato) quotes his mentor Socrates as asserting that the “best” philosophers are, in actual fact, naught but useless, utter rogues, in stark contrast to “true” philosophers, who are lovers of wisdom and truth. An ideal philosopher, on the other hand, is one who is sufficiently intelligent to understand that morality is, of necessity, based on the law of non-violence (“ahiṃsā”, in Sanskrit), and sufficiently wise to live his or her life in such a harmless manner. See Chapter 12 regarding morality. THE REPOSITORY OF WISDOM: One of the greatest misunderstandings of modern times is the belief that philosophers (and psychologists, especially) are, effectively, the substitutes for the priesthood of old. It is perhaps understandable that this misconception has arisen in the popular mind, because the typical priest/monk/rabbi/mullah seems to be an unschooled buffoon, compared with those highly-educated gentlemen who have attained collegiate doctorates in philosophy, psychology, psychiatry, et cetera. However, as mentioned in more than a few places in this book, it is imperative to understand that only a miniscule percentage of all those who claim to be spiritual teachers are ACTUAL “brāhmaṇa” (as defined in Chapter 20). Therefore, the wisest philosophers of the present age are still those exceptionally rare members of the Holy Priesthood! Anyone who doubts this averment need do nothing more than read the remaining chapters of this Holy Scripture in order to learn this blatantly-obvious fact. POPULAR PHILOSOPHERS: At the very moment these words of mine are being typed on my laptop computer, there are probably hundreds of essay papers, as well as books and articles, being composed by professional philosophers and Theologians, both within and without academia. None of these papers, and almost none of the papers written in the past, will have any noticeable impact on human society, at least not in the realm of morals and ethics, which is obviously the most vital component of civilization. And, as mentioned in a previous paragraph, since such “lovers-of-wisdom” are almost exclusively adharmic (irreligious and corrupt) it is indeed FORTUITOUS that this is the case! The only (so-called) philosophers who seem to have any perceptible influence in the public arena are “pop” or “armchair” philosophers, such as Mrs. Alisa “Alice” O’Connor (known more popularly by her pen name, Ayn Rand), and the British author, Mr. Clive Staples “C.S.” Lewis, almost definitely due to the fact that they have published well-liked books and/or they have managed to promulgate their ideas via the mass media, especially on the World Wide Web. ACADEMIC PHILOSOPHERS: To proffer merely one example of literally tens of thousands, of the assertion made in the previous paragraph, the 1905 essay paper by the famed British mathematician, philosopher and logician, Bertrand Russell, entitled “On Denoting” was described by one of his most notable contemporaneous colleagues, Frank P. Ramsey, as “that paradigm of philosophy”. Notwithstanding the fact that less than one percent of the populace would be able to even comprehend the essay, it is littered with spelling, grammar, punctuation, and syntactic errors, and contains at least a couple of flawed propositions. Even if the average person was able to grasp the principles presented in that paper, it would not make any tangible impact on the human condition. Currently, this planet of ours is doomed to devastation, due to moral decay and environmental degradation, and such overintellectualizing essay papers can do nothing to help improve our deeply harrowing, frightful, and lamentable predicament, especially those papers that deal with exceedingly-trivial subject matters, as does Russell’s paper (an argument for an acutely-abstruse concept in semantics). The fact that Russell’s aforementioned essay paper falls under the category of Philosophy of Language, and the fact that he was a highly-cultured peer of the House of Lords, in the parliament of the United Kingdom of Great Britain, yet his own writings being composed using far-from-perfect English, serves only to prove my assertion that philosophy ought to be restricted to genuine members of the Holy Priesthood. Furthermore, that Bertrand was fully intoxicated with adharmic (leftist) ideologies and practices, including sexual licentiousness and socialism (even supporting Herr Adolf Hitler’s Nazism, to some extent) indicates that he was no lover of ACTUAL wisdom. The fact that, after THOUSANDS of years following the publication of Plato’s “Republic”, not a single nation or country on this planet has thought it wise to accept Plato’s advice to promote a philosopher-king (“rāja-ṛṣi”, in Sanskrit) as the head of its social structure, more than adequately proves my previous assertions. Unfortunately, however, both Plato and his student, Aristotle, were themselves hardly paragons of virtue, since the former was an advocate of infanticide, whilst the latter favoured carnism (even stating that animal slaughter was mandatory). To my knowledge, the only philosopher in the Western academic tradition who was truly wise, was the German, Arthur Schopenhauer, because he espoused a reasonably accurate metaphysical position, and he adhered to the law (that is, the one and only law, known as “dharma” in Bhārata) to a larger degree than most other Westerners. Hopefully, someday, I will discover another philosopher, without India, to join Arthur! Cont...

Really great lecture.

Thanks for These lectures mister Cecil ! :D

You made it fun!

Understanding the problem is first then a solution can be possible...

I find Heidegger waxing nostalgic for man's relationship to nature after the war almost nauseating given that he embraced one the most monstrous regimes ever.

Great, great lecture! :)

Great again👏

Part of the main problem today with our existence is, one, Science and two, the Idea that we need to constantly be growing. We also seek power which of course is normal who doesn't? But my point is that science makes it possible to fuel the constant growth and the Idea of constant growth.

This is an excellent and progressive lecture. Did Heidegger know Rudolf Steiner in person and did he know Steiner's works? I have the feeling he probably did because they were about the same age and Steiner taught about the importance of nature and the protection of the ecosystem.

The lecture is a good example of the phenomena of dismissiveness.

@ChrisMMMMerritt

9 жыл бұрын

Dennis McClure Agreed! I still like it somehow...

Recursion. Complex adaptive systems. Emergence. Convergence.

sir please make a video on Carl Jung ! love to hear your lectures

@aWorkInProgress11

6 жыл бұрын

I second that

@JeffreyPappas786

6 жыл бұрын

Marie Louise Von Franz on Jung kzread.info/dash/bejne/fWp7t5OIhsK1lag.html

@garymorgan3314

3 жыл бұрын

Yes after all, the old goat was a terrible and turbid stylist.

Awesome to listen to while drunk. Thanks!

Its a good start but obviously there is a lot more to Heidegger.

Wesley Cecil. Thus is the first time I've seen philosophy maxed out on a subject. It seems that is all necessary to understand or have the capacity to make sence. Heidegger is like the centre of being. It's a place that's surrounded with conjecture . But on approach will progressively transform and reform. Which I think is heidegger 's point. So if you take philosophy (in general) and overlay it with other tools, the nature of "being" will enviably become clearer. So it comes as a motivating factor also to an adiction in exploration. Have you any more on the subject Wesley?

@anhumblemessengerofthelawo3858

10 ай бұрын

See "circling" with guy semstock. He uses Heidegger's elucidation of the movement of thought in such a way that the truth of one's Being reveals itself in a simple conversation.

@darraghosullivan2366

10 ай бұрын

@@anhumblemessengerofthelawo3858 Much appreciated, I can't find any reference to this, can you direct me.

Correct me if I'm getting things wrong. The bit at the end about nicer buildings to live in is O.K. but pretty obvious. But Heidegger refuses to go into the socio-economic factors that destroyed or replaced such dwellings. Sorry, but otherwise I got nothing from this lecture but the concept of Being being turned around in circles without any content. H. seems to neutralize experience.. Maybe he became popular because after the crash of most belief systems he offered a cosy alternative with his sanctimoniously uttered babble about Being- without being, a false sense of liberation from real historical experiences which could be put aside. He rejected dialectical philosophy, Freud and modern art. Habermas who was interested in H. was asked not to come to Freiburg because he was not' eigentlich' enough which is translated imperfectly by seffly plus genuine. Is that not enough to disgust us? The lecturer pictures himself at a restaurant awaiting a friend, but friend and restaurant dissolve into the false ether of Being.They are annihilated.

Hubert Dreyfus puts everyone else that talks about Heidegger to shame.

Liam wheeler, heraclitus said that not Heidegger

When I see that face of Martin Heidegger I see W. C. Fields and hear the expression, "Ah my little chickadee." There is more sleight of hand than present-at-hand with Heidegger. He is the con man extraordinaire with his shell game of words and textual obfuscation: the now you see it, now you don't of meaning. Politically and morally he was a disgrace and nothing has come from his questioning of the meaning of Being in the last hundred years. You might as well be questioning the meaning of "Running" for all it matters to philosophy. "You will know them by their fruits" comes to mind...

@zenica12

8 жыл бұрын

the aim of philosophy, to heidegger, is not to give definite answers to needs of factial life (social-political realm), but to question, to know how to ask questions wich are worthy of it. and that is quesion of Being. if it is to hard, go read chomsky, he knows all the answers

@aion5837

5 жыл бұрын

Existentialism, Deconstruction and European philosophy for the past 60 years is entirely dependent on Heidegger. He is THE most important philosopher of the 20th century. His thoughts on technology speak to exactly where we are today. His warning is very clear: technology will replace Being ie technology will create existence [ reality ]. It's already happening. I think you would be happier with logical positivism except that advance technologies will make it redundant. I understand your dislike of his politics but his philosophy contains almost none of it and that's why he was totally rejected by the National Socialists. Also, it is very different thing to view something from a distance. What he saw quite correctly was the total disintegration of Germany and he thought rightly or wrongly that the only way that Germany could be saved was by having a united sense of WILL in it's survival. Although, he did not support the invasion of other countries.

@jackquinn9535

5 жыл бұрын

john smith Chomsky debating Foucault in Dutch TV. That was hilarious. The man and his serious belief in the rational order of things :D

@garymorgan3314

3 жыл бұрын

@@jackquinn9535 Foucault is genuinely worrying in that exchange: did he miss the minatory shadow of homosexuals hanged from from cranes? His Sado-masochism may provide a clue.

"Hiedegger goes nationalist-socialist - HAAARD. *bang*" then continues by recovering his professionalism

This lecture sounded like liberal gramscism

@garymorgan3314

3 жыл бұрын

In what respect? And what distinguishes the liberal variant from the other?

Ok. What I do think is we've got enough of their Theoretical Ideology (Zoroasterism and Hermetism and everything else) and that is a good thing, though we kind of spent too much on it... The rest of Theoretical Ideological stuff when the battle is over... The language they speak however is of uttermost practical importance.

Not bad!

Being and time, in fact is the very dificult lectura on the Philosophy Books in Western, for me

El monstruo de la filosofía existencialistas contemporáneo

Now that’s a Gnatzi I can get behind

Who is talking please?

@TheVeganVicar

4 ай бұрын

Hubert Dreyfus, apparantly.

Now... if you truly managed to do the Dictionary, I think that would be one certain Book that many people would actually like to read these days, cover to cover :))

Heideggers's philosophy is hard, so let's skip that part and talk about his biography instead.

According to Martin Heidegger's page in Wikipedia: "A few months before his death, he met with Bernhard Welte, a Catholic priest, Freiburg university professor and earlier correspondent. The exact nature of the conversation is not known, but what is known is that it included talk of Heidegger's relationship to the Catholic Church and subsequent Christian burial at which the priest officiated."

@owlnyc666

Жыл бұрын

I guess he converted back to God, Christianity, died saved?🤔😉😎

@annakimborahpa

Жыл бұрын

@@owlnyc666 One can only hope. All I could gather from various websites was that he had a Catholic funeral/burial and I viewed his headstone inside the Messkirch, Baden, cemetery. He is buried alongside his wife Elfride who survived him by more than a decade, as he died in 1976 and she in 1992. According to German law where citizens are obligated to identify and support a particular religious organization with taxes paid to the government that are then distributed to the ecclesial bodies, either he or his family paid for the services related to his send-off and burial. He definitely was no saint but could have received the grace of a sincere repentance in his old age, as so often happens with many of us.

@owlnyc666

Жыл бұрын

@@annakimborahpa Fact, he has raised a Catholic. Fact, he reverted to Atheism and criticized Roman Catholicism. Fact, before his death he met with a Roman Catholic priest. Fact, he was buried in a Roman Catholic cemetery. Assumption, he converted back to Roman Catholicism. Assumption, hope he is in heaven with his wife. As many people hope, assume.

@tarhunta2111

Жыл бұрын

So what?

@tarhunta2111

Жыл бұрын

​@@owlnyc666 He hated Roman Catholicism.And quite rightly too.

Recasting Heidegger in the language of connectionism. . .

I love this audience's hysterical laughter at 6:00

@mettikhoramshahi

9 жыл бұрын

the laugh at 14:27 is even better!

When you look into the future your physical body does change tho

@garymorgan3314

3 жыл бұрын

Explain. It is not evident to me.

40:55 I mean... that's basically what happened.

33:00

An incident occurred in April 1926 and became known as Der Vorfall Haidbauer (the Haidbauer incident). Josef Haidbauer was an 11-year-old pupil whose father had died and whose mother worked as a local maid. He was a slow learner, and one day Wittgenstein hit him two or three times on the head, causing him to collapse. Wittgenstein carried him to the headmaster's office, then quickly left the school, bumping into a parent, Herr Piribauer, on the way out. Piribauer had been sent for by the children when they saw Haidbauer collapse; Wittgenstein had previously pulled Piribauer's daughter, Hermine, so hard by the ears that her ears had bled.[191] Piribauer said that when he met Wittgenstein in the hall that day: I called him all the names under the sun. I told him he wasn't a teacher, he was an animal-trainer! And that I was going to fetch the police right away![192] Piribauer tried to have Wittgenstein arrested, but the village's police station was empty, and when he tried again the next day he was told Wittgenstein had disappeared. On 28 April 1926, Wittgenstein handed in his resignation to Wilhelm Kundt, a local school inspector, who tried to persuade him to stay; however, Wittgenstein was adamant that his days as a schoolteacher were over.[192] Proceedings were initiated in May, and the judge ordered a psychiatric report; in August 1926 a letter to Wittgenstein from a friend, Ludwig Hänsel, indicates that hearings were ongoing, but nothing is known about the case after that. Alexander Waugh writes that Wittgenstein's family and their money may have had a hand in covering things up. Waugh writes that Haidbauer died shortly afterwards of haemophilia; Monk says he died when he was 14 of leukaemia.

@garymorgan3314

3 жыл бұрын

Terrible anecdote I knew but not in detail. Why is it here though? Wittgenstein was “ the purest type of the genius” as Russell noted. Certainly a very difficult customer.

@JimOverbeckgenius

3 жыл бұрын

@@garymorgan3314 Genius is God's gift & neither Russell - whom I met - nor Wittgenstein received it. My maths philosophy far outstrips this pair of godless chumps. The rich bourgeoisie always polish their rockets in public.

@garymorgan3314

3 жыл бұрын

@@JimOverbeckgenius Bad tactics employing an ad hom: what has their alleged "godless" position to do with it? Not sure you know LW was godless and, in any case, you begged the question you invoked. Poor.

@JimOverbeckgenius

3 жыл бұрын

@@garymorgan3314 Argumentum ad hominem is legitimate & was taught by the Stoics as an unfair means of winning. Try not to be philosophical & teaching your grandpa to suck eggs. If God doesn't give one genius - as with the godless - you've fucked it by self-referential mortality. Ludwig was a Cambridge Apostle as were many other nonces. Only Establishment bourgeois types get to be recognized as philosophers in the UK. Richard Burton said the real master-race were Oxbridge trainees [= excluding the Welsh].

(40:39 - 41:23): A familiar feeling, I don't want to show complicity with "my" politicians either and not just because of the Brexit stuff.

I think

"Sort of"

Being and Time. Well, Heidegger, let's sent you to spent soem Time in Nothingness Auszvitch, were being human is being a builder, and look at the Sky. Heidegger's Being, Hanna moved to the US and covered the trial of Adolf Heinchmann. She realized, jezzAdolf Being is Nothing but a representative of "The banality of Evil." Never mind, she lecture our young college students as political philosopher - Princeton University, appointed a full professor in 1959.

Suppose I come to you and say "Hey, did you hear the latest? They've found the oldest Dinosaur remains in Nairobi... I really think they're onto something here." We can all see how weird, semantically frightening, and fascinating this type of language is... I say frightening because if I do broadcast that joke to you, your duty is to go straight to Nairobi and cover-up the case...

A neural network emerges from an evolutionary process to be recursively self-reflective. . .

do you want to know more about philosophy come and take a look at my database

Would've been much more enjoyable without the trigger happy cacklers going off every 15 seconds when anything remotely resembling a humorous sentiment is injected. Great coverage of Heidegger and his ideology though.

@MT-2020

3 жыл бұрын

Yeah, the lady brownoser.

I remember when Heidegger suddenly clicked for me and I realized how utterly useless and confusing words are at conveying ideas and understanding. He's practically a Daoist in approach to understanding reality.

Naimul haq... What in the world? Maybe there was no big bang and Aristotle was right all along :)

How dreadful. The "sort of..." talk among teachers, professors? As for content--nichts.

"you can never set your foot in the same river twice" -Heidegger

@brunischling9680

9 жыл бұрын

no, heraclitus

@honestpeoplearescum8401

6 жыл бұрын

Actually it was Heradegger.

@garymorgan3314

3 жыл бұрын

I was going to say Heraclitus. I WILL say that that is a truly embarrassing error.

@garymorgan3314

3 жыл бұрын

@@honestpeoplearescum8401 if so then he was quoting the Greek. Or do you believe it was a coincidence?

@tomswan3401

3 жыл бұрын

The river is the same. Only the droplets of water around the limb are different. What if its a lake and not a river (it doesnt flow)? What philosophic relevance does it have?

the audience seems like a bunch of snobby people who come to these lectures to feel better and smarter then everyone else and every laugh is a pat on their own back. Just cause something is mildly interesting doesnt mean you should break out laughing like the funniest joke of the year was told, they make the videos almost unwatchable. The Professor is top notch.

@stevenpham6734

3 ай бұрын

Might be a step too far. Agree that the laughing is annoying though

@christopherhamilton3621

Ай бұрын

Ok, you do know universities host a lot of things for adult education etc? Your snobby & superiority comment is merely your projection and opinion which really says more about you. Sad.

@ongobongo8333

Ай бұрын

Actually it's because of Wes. His delivery is excellent. He is signalling to the audience that it's okay to laugh. Same way a comedy show works. Ever notice how people laugh out loud at a comedy club much more often than when watching at home?

Good lecture that left your Being with a Bad Taste....

looks more like history class than philosophy.

@RT-yv5qj

4 жыл бұрын

Isn't it necessary to know the age he was living in to further understand his ideologies?

@garymorgan3314

3 жыл бұрын

Not exactly philosophy is it?

Is there any decant lecture on Heidegger without 2/3 of it wasted on booo hooo nazism. We all know that part, so can you please focus more on his work.

@garymorgan3314

3 жыл бұрын

“Decant” is a marvellous Freudian slip and worth taking your cue from it. Have a look, love to know if this works.

@MT-2020

3 жыл бұрын

Yes, his tenure as Rector, full committed as Being Beyond Adolf....

@garymorgan3314

3 жыл бұрын

@@MT-2020 And treating (was it?) Husserl terribly in order to keep in with the Nazis. Oh dear. Amazing he had a fling with Arendt!

I don’t understand why the class think they are in a stand up comedy show? I don’t understand it!

@christopherhamilton3621

Ай бұрын

It’s not a class: it’s a public lecture and a lot of people attend. Prof Cecil is very popular in the city.

@christopherhamilton3621

Ай бұрын

It’s a public lecture, not a class. All sorts of people there. He’s a popular speaker.

Heidegger tried to organize the philosophical works of church and at some point it doesn't go very well. He realizes that he doesn't believe in God nor in church 🤣🤣🤣

What is it with the trend of making everything from being a ditch digger to abstract thought "fun" for kids. Are we so helpless, undisciplined and passionless?

@TibusHeth

7 жыл бұрын

We Are Doomed.

@andriuszurba6124

6 жыл бұрын

Mark I understand that I am three years late, but what is the actual problem of making subjects easier to understand while encouraging to persue the said subject on your own? Maybe its a trend because it works.

At 27:43, I'm pretty sure he means Christian Wolff the philosopher, not "Hugo Wolf," the composer. Btw. all you people who can't think of anything better than to criticize the laugh-track? You're all more annoying than this guy's students. So just go break your fingers. While you're convalescing, read some philosophy, Maybe you can come back and say something halfway intelligent.

@TheSteinmetzen

8 жыл бұрын

+Andrew Jeffery Hear Hear.

@garymorgan3314

3 жыл бұрын

Right, definitely not Hugo!

@garymorgan3314

3 жыл бұрын

On that day will you say something graceful and pleasant. Frankly you sound like a bit of a humourless keyboard arse.

Correction at 42:00. Liberalism does not say anyone can do or think what they want. Look at politically correct speech codes and even so called 'hate speech laws' in liberal Europe! Liberals , in a modern sense, when given their way, let everyone who agrees with them think what they want. Sweden , the most stereotypically liberal country on Earth, is trying to pass a law , actually has voted to pass it in legislature, to make criticism of mass immigration and politicians who promote is, illegal. There is nothing essentially free about liberal democracy. Liberal democrats only believe in free speech when it is they who are talking. They would love to silence their opponents, and all over Europe and Canada have used legislation to do just that.

@Dude2012iffy

10 жыл бұрын

Liberals , in a modern sense, when given their way, let everyone who agrees with them think what they want. Hello.

@lilyonthehills

9 жыл бұрын

MWFleming Yes, freedom can be a bitch.

@nickirhododendron7569

9 жыл бұрын

Sweden is the most progressive country in the world and one of their strong points is in particular to Not silence anyone.

@FarFromEquilibrium

9 жыл бұрын

Nicki Rhododendron fa real? Well then why is there a law that is supposed to go into effect in December this year to make it a crime to challenge open third-world immigration policy and the lawmakers who support it? www.thenewamerican.com/world-news/europe/item/18116-new-swedish-law-criminalizes-anti-immigration-internet-speech

@lilyonthehills

9 жыл бұрын

I was reacting to MWFleming, and I was being ironic, or cynical, which ever you choose.

Comparing Heidegger to a fucking crab... lol He knows how to present philosophy to his students but that's not exactly what I'm looking for

@garymorgan3314

7 жыл бұрын

I'm not sure he manages that. He's a mediocre college lecturer, not as good as the ones I had in Canterbury.

@koroglurustem1722

3 жыл бұрын

@@garymorgan3314 can you name some ?

@garymorgan3314

3 жыл бұрын

@@koroglurustem1722 R.J. Crampton, David MacLellan, Richard Norman, Tony Skillen, Colin Redford. Shall I go on?

@garymorgan3314

3 жыл бұрын

@@koroglurustem1722 And your point was? Be careful, I was insinuating he’s poor not that they were great. Still, as an expert on Heidegger, you of course appreciate nuance.

@koroglurustem1722

3 жыл бұрын

@@garymorgan3314 I appreciate that. I haven't heard of them. This lecture series is intoxicating for me.

How vulgar. Enjoyable still.

"imagine Obama made things worse, then we voted in someone else that made things even worse, and then voted in someone else who made it even more worse" dated quite poorly, or was quite prescient, depending on how you look at it.

I think he predicted Biden administration at 41:00 LOL

If I laugh at all his jokes then daddy will like me and I will feel less inadequate that I don't understand what he is saying

@karlplaza9977

4 жыл бұрын

​@Rappa Kalja ?

Come discuss philosophy with us: discord.gg/ueCUWdz

To call the Jesuits "monastic" is absolutely wrong. I wonder if that is only the first big mistake this guy makes. To talk about Jesuit Philosophy as "Medieval" is one emote absolute wrong. And his characterization of the Jesuits is only a bad caricature. And so on. And yeah...the guy seems to be fishing for a laugh more than communicating the complexities of a thinker, his education and the period in which he lived.

@Havre_Chithra

9 жыл бұрын

Your childishness is showing.

@user-se3kx3sn2f

7 жыл бұрын

seems pedantic and splitting hairs...

this lecture is just abysmal. the problem with understading link between nazis and heidegger lies not in social-politicall paradigm per se at that time as this lecturer is trying to potrait, but in gross misunderstanding of the nazi movement itself. nazi movement in the eyes of heidegger, in early stages, was promising something very different, new direction which did not want to subejct to old ways of political telos. lecturer used word "values" but this is not nietzsches transvalution of values, but rather abolishing values at all. " existence" and "factical life" is not the same thing as heidegger points out,. but existence is a way of radical possibillites of dasein in face of angst of nothingness, that coz of it dasein must (conscience) act in every situation, as if it were question of life or death, resoulte, active, from a new angle without old ways of doing things( habit,values). that form is what heidegger saw in nazis. but nazis did raise "new", fixed value, that vaule was cored in antisemtism. the vocal point in "Being and time" is aristotel and from him heidegger drew comparison of oreintation of dasein in radical new ways( Nichomacen ethics)

@zenica12

7 жыл бұрын

that is oversimplifying things in question, its a ideological point of view. first of all when nietzsche is writing about "will to power" and "Übermensch" he is not talking about world domination or anitsemitisem, like nazis understood, but in a same manner like heidegger did (Although heidegger recognize nietzsche as last methaphysican and criticize him for that), that in order to understand what human is we must begin from facticity itself not of some universal values. second of all is that nietzsche when writing about jews, he is talking about first christians, like saint paul, which he despised, he in even held jesus in high regard in "Antichrist". will to power concept is nothing but aristotels entelecheia, perfection of our own being.

@zenica12

7 жыл бұрын

+‫فلاسفة الشيعة shia`s philosophers‬‎ fichte also put in his writtings antisemitic remarkas,he was know about that,but nobody today is saying he was a antisemitic. further more nietzche consider him self a polish prince,he hated everything german. yes,there are antisemitic remarks in his work,but his work is not based on that. marx is one of the best philosphers,but his dialectic materialism+ is way to rigid and naive in a matters that can be different (history,politics). well wittgenstein is great, alot in common with heidegger

@zenica12

7 жыл бұрын

+‫فلاسفة الشيعة shia`s philosophers‬‎ ok,but not every philosophy is methaphysics. heidegger is philosopher,phenomenological,but not methaphysic

@garymorgan3314

7 жыл бұрын

But that itself implies a metaphysics. I don't think you quite get the idea. By the way Wittgenstein has almost nothing in common with Heidegger, whom he studiedly ignored; I reckon he's have thought his thinking non-sense. Which is a view.

@garymorgan3314

7 жыл бұрын

Metaphysical Philosophy I'd say though you might call Wittgenstein is am empiricist he does not concern himself with materialism much, with critical method and analysis. Not sure what his Jewishness has to do with it; an ascetic but religiously VERY spare. As for style, well W's style is also very spare and elegant, Heidegger turbid (well he was inventing the tools for his unusual job!).. Best, Gary

Why is this man screaming at the top of his voice /

@garymorgan3314

3 жыл бұрын

Well he’s not, is he: I’ve told you a million times not to exaggerate, Michael. Best wishes, Gary.

@garymorgan3314

3 жыл бұрын

P.s. He’s annoying but less so than the bloody audience.

The deeestj

audience's exaggerated laughing is REALLY annoying

The deeest

Heidegger Heidegger was a boosey begger who was rarely ever stable. Emanuel Kant was a real pissant who could drink you under the table 😅

Why are they laughing this much?

@christopherhamilton3621

Ай бұрын

Because it’s a public lecture… Not a class.

Well. This is a rather superficial and lecture on Heidegger. It's worth pointing out that Wes Cecil has a Ph.D. in English, NOT in philosophy. Also, if you are not bi-lingual in German and English, or at least completely fluent in German, I am not going to take seriously your lecturing on Heidegger.

@garymorgan3314

3 жыл бұрын

“At least completely fluent in German” is an impossibly high bar though isn’t it? Decent point and a genuine question.

@vienna11215

3 жыл бұрын

@@garymorgan3314 Not at all. I am not fluent in French, and it would NEVER occur to me to lecture on French philosophers! Sick with what you know!

@garymorgan3314

3 жыл бұрын

@@vienna11215 Actually that was slack of me, I somehow thought of learning and not teaching. I taught French philosophy at school and might try at college but NOT 'linguistic turn" types and if writing the Fontana Modern Masters tome was given to George Steiner to write after it proved too much for Stanley Carell, I'd not think of teaching Heidegger who seems an obscurantist to me. I'd like to study him to test this, not a good one this. The laughter was disconcerting and worth a study in itself (by Adam Phillips, perhaps). Thanks, Gary.

They are getting up early indeed... Bailouts, more and more military bases and spending... My dollars seem to be worth about half of what they were worth before Obama got into office...

These sychphatic hyyena students are surely not missed by me....in fact nothing about academe is missed by me. There is nothing this guy has said that is humorous. I'm so glad I'm free of this bullshit

Heidegger better read in translation because of his 'word games'???!!! These 'word games' are in fact a masterful demonstration of how "Language speaks" - and one reason why perhaps the only way to appreciate the inner depth of Heidegger's thinking is through the German language. This schoolboy lecturer is a philosophical pygmy in comparison with the man he speaks of. Just the tone of his voice is enough to show that he is not in the least attuned to the fundamental mood and tone of Heideggerian thought, but instead intellectualises about him in the very way that Heidegger saw as most foreign to the essence of meditative thinking. Painfully unbearable listening - as is most American academic discourse, particularly on Heidegger.

@timothyhirman4928

5 жыл бұрын

A reply two years later: Yeah, you could be right Peter W, but your comment is so vicious and arrogant that I honestly feel sorry for you. Your own mind must be a bitter and hateful wasteland. I hope you find some way to feel happy some day. This lecturer expresses himself using a lot of humor. That's like adding spice to food. So much more tolerable that way ... and most people see humor as a sign of intelligence. None of that takes away from your point about reading Heidegger in German. I agree with that. Just suggesting that you lighten up a little, that's all.

That science and mathematics has proved there is no god, as a designer, fine tuner etc., is not true. The question is, what is the purpose? Beginning with "no purpose" we are led to believe in a purpose, that leads us to self-organizing property of nature, that leads us to Heidegger's "being". The complicated genome that produces life (with a trillion bits of informations), evolved from a simpler genome (20 numbers of the standard model) begs the question of some simpler genome that is responsible for universal evolution . Hegel's two dimensional parameter space of opposites called "dialectics", was claimed Hegel, 200 years ago. How true was his prediction. At our big bang ,dark matter and dark energy with opposite properties were produced, followed by production of particles and anti-particles, then matter and anti- matter etc., even opposite of all physical laws are true-!!! Hegel's "universal spirit' is Heidegger's Being of Vishnu's "EVOLUTION", or the divine knowledge of Meno's Slave.

@wsbursch

9 жыл бұрын

Guess what. You are so out to lunch, that it is beyond funny.

@naimulhaq9626

9 жыл бұрын

Wayne Bursch I love evolution, and do not mind going extinct one day.

@wsbursch

9 жыл бұрын

Evolution may be something you love, but it is simply a theory. Period.

@wsbursch

9 жыл бұрын

Evolution : A Theory not proven in over 60 years. Nothing more...

@wsbursch

9 жыл бұрын

Evolution may be something you love, but it is simply a theory. Period.

These students of his are such "brown noses"! They annoyingly laugh at every thing he says...and more annoying is that he loves it.

@MangledMarionettes

9 жыл бұрын

fineartist Well shit, shit.

@kristinasimms9411

8 жыл бұрын

+fineartist actually the man is very clever

@TheStrataminor

8 жыл бұрын

+fineartist maybe they are laughing because they are actually saddened they don''t understand Heidegger and are trying to hide it...ohhhh it's a symbol of in-authenticity.....lol...they lecture gives you an intro to Heidegger though...so it achieves something.

@Jide-mx3wm

7 жыл бұрын

+Mike Sexton neither did I . Heidegger is virtually incomprehensible there's nothing wrong in using humour to break through the monotony of such dense ideas.

@bluegiant13

6 жыл бұрын

It is the first time I encountered the term brown noses, upon realizing it's meaning, I almost died of laughter!