Thank you for these lectures. I’m a college student and wish I had a professor like you
@cpolychreona Жыл бұрын
Have you noticed how, recently, it has become fashionable to avoid using the word "Nazi", a simple word, whose meaning everyone understands, and use instead the official name of the party, "National Socialist" which was rarely used in the past and many people may not even know that this was Hitler's party? I seriously suspect that the social media have been flooded with this term by the American right, to associate it with the Democrats, whom the Jewish-Space-Laser crowd also associates with the term "socialist". The fact that neither the USA Democrats nor Hitler had anything remotely to do with socialism meaning in the fantasy world a good part of the USA lives.
@EricDodsonLectures Жыл бұрын
Well, I suspect that a bigger reason has to do with how using the simple term "Nazi" can easily get your content censored, demonetized, de-platformed, etc. At least that's why I favor, "National Socialism," which seems a lot less susceptible to all of that.
@cpolychreona Жыл бұрын
@@EricDodsonLectures Interesting alternative explanation. Is the name "Hitler" also banned? If not, why?
@EricDodsonLectures Жыл бұрын
@@cpolychreona ... Well, the name "Hitler" doesn't seem to be subject to as much censorship as the word "Nazi" is. I'm not sure why that is; you'd probably need to ask the people who are doing the censoring. Maybe it's because Hitler was a historical personage who came to a definite end in 1945, rather than a virulent, ideological movement that's sometimes manifest in the present. But that's just a guess. There seems to be a certain capriciousness to today's censorship that's not terribly coherent or rational. So, there may not actually be an explanation as such.
@voxbardamu9472 жыл бұрын
Thank you Prof. If you don't mind of course may you share with us the docs that display in the screen ? Thank you again .
@glovestv4 жыл бұрын
Thank you, this really helped!
@inthesetimesspeakingforthemind5 ай бұрын
There are at least a threefold philosophical problem with his Nazi gig. 1) His actions (of which there are many) in purging German universities of Jews (see the documentary on YT by Jefferey Van Davis) and his refusal to apologise afterwards (the meeting with Paul Celan) points to the ethical and moral vacuum that is at the core of his "structure of Being" which rests on futurity and potentiality at any cost. 2) Derrida ("Of Spirit") notes that the linguistic/textual flaw appears when he turns to the image of "fire" as the metaphor for Being. This screams at you in his 1940s/late 1930s lectures on Heraclitus. For Heidegger, fire "lightens" a clearing and opening of Being. He didn't spot that it also consumes and destroys. 3) His own admission of philosophical collapse in the Der Spiegel interview when he was grilled a little on his Nazi involvement. Heidegger's conclusion: "Only a god can save us." Being has evaporated into thin air after the Nazi atrocities and there is no answer to the will of technology that he decided the Nazis came to symbolise. So it's not about "hey, we all get things wrong, he's not such a bad guy". The philosophical problem is: what went wrong with his ethics in his assertion of pure individual existential existence? This goes back to his rejection of Kant when he tried to establish an ontology without any Kritik, a word that he never understood in Kant while he spent years rejecting (and missing) the Kantian thesis on the ideas of reason and the refutations of cosmology.
@marcomiranda9476 Жыл бұрын
Thanks
@pendejo64664 жыл бұрын
What's this? Defending Heidegger and Manson with a nuanced take, while extolling their virtues and positive contributions? I'm complaining to your employer, KZfaq, Mrs. Dodson, and your three cats until you've been summarily de-platformed from life--Soviet style. Heidegger's critics act as if they couldn't have been Nazis in the 30's. I admit I don't know much about his foray into the weird-mustache of the month club, but I don't think it was an act of bad faith UNLESS Heidegger knew about Hitler's genocide of the Jews, and yet still supported the Nazis against his good conscience. As a non-white person, I can sympathize with the Germans of that era: they were a proud people beaten down after WWI. And after producing intellectual powerhouses for hundreds of years--much to Nietzsche disappointment I suppose--I can see why German society was down with a man they thought would restore them to their former glory. Oops! Great lecture old friend.
@EricDodsonLectures4 жыл бұрын
Well, I think that part of what I'm reacting to in this video is the whole tendency to divide the human race into two binary categories: Heroes and villains, and never the twain shall meet. That seems like a completely distorted and unrealistic way of seeing human beings. The fact is that we're all bearers of both darkness and light. The people we're desperate to see as villains always have threads of the heroic running through them (even Charles Manson), just as our resplendent heroes always end up having feet of clay (as in the Biblical Book of Daniel). Because of that, each of us has some tendency toward totalitarian dictatorship... basically a kind of God-complex. And the dishonesty of castigating Heidegger for his involvement with National Socialism is that it's essentially a form of what I call, "Derogatory Virtue Signaling," which is basically a way of implicitly puffing ourselves up... by putting other people down. I bet the truth is that if his critics were in H's shoes, 99+% of them would have done the same thing (or worse). But of course that sort of thing is true of Monday morning quarterbacks in general...
@shootfilmnotguns20232 жыл бұрын
Heidegger was well aware of the atrocities. Plus he never condemned the Nazis even decades later when the whole world knew about the genocide.
@pendejo64662 жыл бұрын
@@shootfilmnotguns2023 Post hoc condemnations and public expressions of contrition are performative and insufficient for those who call for it, and merely serve to encourage demands for more acts of propitiation, especially by the resentful. His Nazi involvement was unfortunate, but his contribution to philosophy is immense. I don't see why anything else should matter, given he had no involvement with the Holocaust.
@persevere4 Жыл бұрын
@@EricDodsonLectures He dug his own grave when he turned on Husserl.
@Liliquan Жыл бұрын
@@pendejo6466It’s not about being performatively anti-nazi. It’s about Heidegger being human and reflecting on his past mistakes whilst feeling empathy and remorse. Which he clearly didn’t. Which means to him even decades later, that it wasn’t a mistake. The lengths you go to distort this basic expectation of humanity is absurd.
@user-zj1qk6jn6g Жыл бұрын
Powerful
@adaptercrash Жыл бұрын
Same thing as a utilitarian republic being in the world towards death In ontic dualism of a delay, do you want me to retranslate that for you? I gave it back to the bookstore.
@persevere4 Жыл бұрын
He makes a mistake and calls Heidegger's book "being in time" which is more to the point, as I interpret the idea of being and existence.
@2009Artteacher2 жыл бұрын
Sartre found himself in the same hole when he openly supported Marxist communism . H e as lured by the Freedom banner ( Marx borrowed from Hegel) .that Sartre well walking down that road realized it in fact was not freedom rather you surrendered your freedom to the state . Heidegger as mentioned fell into the same hole . Thus both having a dark shadow cast over their projects . Heidegger cold blooded stare and Sartre look does not have the cause of trust . On the archetype of forgiveness .Forgiveness that being a Theists thing does not enter their domain of thought ,so they as atheists have to take responsibility for their action from the perspective that they knew what they were doing . Relative to theism , from a human encounter of bad to good archetype is Saint Augustine .... a human who lived in the shadowy world of sex .drink and party on later on as a adult confessed and lived by the book . HIs mother of course was a devout Catholic so never gave up on him . Soul , spirit or elf ,so is not a part of existential thought , often twisted up in the soup bowl of desien ., So they feel nothing personal . Just another academic in the moment "good experiment" gone bad ! .
@persevere4 Жыл бұрын
It's Dasien.
@shootfilmnotguns20232 жыл бұрын
Given that he never ended his party affiliation until the party ceased to exist and he never apologized for his involvement (until he died he always minimized the atrocities of the regime), i think it's safe to say that his Nazi passion wasn't short lived.