Begins at 9:39.

Very informative lecture. I had hoped something more about the relation of the ideas of Heidegger with those of Buber. As it is, it was more a kind of historical -even a bit biographical- conference. Not that that is bad, in fact it is good, especially in face of lack of data about this issue. But in a way, I think the lecture also falls very much in the trend of repproaching Heidegger for his leaning and sympathy toward Nationalsocialism, and I even sense a bit of repproach toward Buber for attending an academical event which, in a way, to some paranoid intellectuals, would seem to give an impression of sympathy or even a gentleness toward (ex)Nazis. I sense two kinds of, I don't know how to call them, awkwardness or clumsiness, two kinds of feelings: that of Heidegger to face and comprehend the weight of his leaning toward Nazism, which was a bad thing, let's face it, all excuses given. A damn bad thing. And the second feeling: the denial of some thinkers, not only jewish but of many cultures (African and our Southamerican would give good examples of this) to go over the guilt of others, in order to build communication. This feeling, of course, is not only less blamable than the other, but even very spontaneous: who would be so readily eager to look with sympathy to whom has been prone to approve the killing of oneself, not for any particular crime but just for being different from him? A saint would be? Maybe. But intellectuals must think, that's their duty, and saintliness is only a trait or a work to which one is invited, not obliged. Anyway, the lecture lifted the image of Buber in my eyes. Just going to Germany to talk, and talk with Heidegger, must have been pretty hard even at those times (at least for some people). Would it be easier now? What would mean such 'easiness'? Heidegger, we are sorry, he was not so brave a man. Buber was.

Just fabulous

i wish i could goto uofc, too much trouble to get into, but they are the foremost school for philosophy imo...

Should add that I have read Mende-Flohr's selection of Buber, "A Land of Two Peoples". Vital. In my "day", we read "I and Thou" and puzzled over "Paths in Utopia" (who are these utopians Buber talks about??), and there were rumors from grad students -- who read German -- that Buber and "another guy" (= Judah Magnes) had penetrating insights into how Zionism could co-exist with the Palestinians. Sadly, Magnes and Buber were right, but have been ignored.

Perhaps UC has improved since I started there in 1966. We had great students and terrible -- bored and arrogant -- profesors who hated teaching undergraduates. Even more disappointing, since we had chosen UC for its core curriculum, the professors were too narrowly centered on their professional topic to teach anything broader. I took Soc I (Aristotle, Hobbes, Locke, Rouseau, Jefferson) from a teacher who knew nothing about classic Athens...had never read Thucydides, for instance.

An existentialist Zionist damn posmodernity (sarcasm)