Another great entry from you. I came to Heidegger (and indeed Western Philosophy in general) AFTER a childhood & adolesence spent reading through and about Eastern Philosophy. Christopher Isherwood, Jiddu Krishnamurti , Christmas Humphreys, Alan Watts, Paramahansa Yogananda, and Shunryu Suzuki, among others. So when I discovered Heidegger while studying at Glendon (York U) he fell easily into place for me. (Of note, I had a much more difficult time with the work of Hume, Kierkegaard, Descartes, et al.) The great thing is, you're refreshing my memory. Thank you.

@ClearLight369

Күн бұрын

I think that's a great preparation for Heidegg. I always had a sense that his conception of being was beyond concepts, hence mystical zenlike, beyond thought.

Keep up the awesome videos. I'm learning about philosophers I've never heard of (I wonder why). The younger generations are hungry for philosophy that has stood the test of time and has grounding in reality.

Thank you. You have helped clarify something that I first began to struggle with 61 years ago! It never bothered me daily, but periodically and so will now bother me less.

THANK YOU MICHAEL MILLERMAN

I understood something of Heidegger from the Introduction to Metaphysics to Being and Time... Where I started to feel lost was with The Event...

i think i’ll watch and rewatch all of your heidegger videos several times over a couple of years before i attempt Being in Time.

Great job, thank you, Michael.

thank you very much Michael Millerman

A short read of Being and Time caused my fontal lobes to overheat, but thanks to you and Aleksandr Dugin, the depth of it became more accessible to me without the need for a mini submarine. Quite literally, the title of the book is the proof of Heidegger's proposition.

Enable subtitles

Thank you so much!

Thank you for these videos

Thank you, MICHAEL. Appreciated.

I understood being as that which causes beings to be. Every being has a cause except the uncaused First Cause. And there must be a First Cause because otherwise there would be an infinite regress. That would be true even in an eternal universe. So a supreme being follows from the logic. I’ve never been sure whether Heidegger was on to a real problem with traditional philosophy or was making problems for himself.

That was helpful! Thanks. I think I can sketchily see how Heidegger’s thought could align with Dugin’s. It doesn’t seem like Heidegger would endorse, for a basis of a political theory, anything that would be normative (ought / right) or ontotheological (the good). That means liberalism is out and de Maistre is out. I don’t know much about Heidegger, but it seems like he could endorse Carl Schmitt’s interpretation of legality and legitimacy. Carl Schmitt influenced Dugin, so there might be a connection to be drawn there. In addition, in Inside "Putin's Brain" you write about how Dasein exists as ‘the people’ and compare Heidegger’s volk with Dugin’s narod. Perhaps Heidegger offers another critique and alternative to modernity that fits in with 4PT. Technology and modernity alienates, uproots and homogenizes the volk, whereas a certain kind of authenticity can be derived from being rooted in a historical context of the volk. Lastly, realizing that the way one thinks about ‘being’ influences so much of a person's outlook gives a new meaning to noomachia; perhaps as a war for ‘being’ itself.

No! Followed you for the Strauss

@millerman

2 күн бұрын

Even Strauss recognized that Heidegger is the greatest thinker of our time.

@michael1699

Күн бұрын

@@millermanNonetheless! I’ve got a fever and the prescription is not more Heidegger

The problem with Heidegger's ideas is they are often very self defeating-its just a black hole of thought that I have found to be essentially meaningless. It has no form, it has no direction, it has no objective. Sure we cannot ignore or deny its existence, but it is a very static form of thought-it reminds me a lot of the work of Godel in Mathematics-he was just there to point out how flawed everyone was lol.

@ClearLight369

Күн бұрын

I love your analogy with godel. Godel was pointing out the logical limitations of mathematical systems.

@MrJanes-cl5sj

Күн бұрын

@@ClearLight369 Well I look at it like this: Both theoretical mathematics and philosophy are not static entities they are evolving as we dive deeper into them. The discovery is the benefit and the challenge is the reason we do it. I feel that both Godel and Heiddy want us to form a static and immutable frame work and objective before defining terms and procedure. Sure, thats important and logically valid no question-its just not the point of what we are trying to do lol. We don't know what math defines-we don't know what the grand philosophy is. To hold us to that standard is irrelevant.

No. Next

CURING TIME; BECOMING SOKO