I thoroughly enjoyed this video. I love Richardson segment on discussing alethea. I love that idea of truth as an unveiling. I feel Heraclitus piercing through much of Heidegger and I love it

Thanks again! William F. Richardson is certainly a great scholar.

This is great, thanks for recording it.

Krzysztof Michalski introduced me to Heidegger. Babette Babich introduced me to William F.Richardson.Thank You BOTH,

Wonderful explanation of Being and Time.

This is wonderful. Thank you thank you.

This IS art in words

The man is just emanating good vibes!

Bravo!

thank you

grateful.

I just finished a seminar with Bill, he's as sharp as he ever was!

"It depends on what the meaning of the word 'is' is." -Bill Clinton

Don't try this alone -- read these authors with others! Follow your own mind in every case, but a class offers the guidance of others who have read these texts sometimes hundreds of times, and the experiences of others taking the plunge for the first few times.

Thank you for the video, it also helped me get a clearly picture of Husserlian phenomenology. I hope you don't mind me asking, I was wondering, with all the different variations in today's new age spiritualities, some being more superfluous than others, while containing some major themes like getting rid of the world of duality etc. is it fair to say, much of this began with the work of Heidegger? Thank you

I myself certainly see the connection with presocratic thinking. But I nonetheless find that Richardson highlights important dimensions in Heidegger's thought not least Heidegger's relation to Aristotle per se.

What a wonderful interview. I would've loved to hear his opinion about the older Heidegger's philosophy. Are you planning to do another interview, or was this just a one-time event? Thank you.

Currently, the IS can say of you, IS THERE, but at sometime, the IS can only say of you, WAS THERE.

Interesting!

Prof Babich, as I studied Heidegger, I noticed his return to the pre=Socratics. At some point, I concluded that Heidegger integrates Heraclitus and Parmenides in his ontology.. Like Heraclitus, he did not believe in essences but rather modes of being such as Dasein or Vorhandenheit .Like Parmenides, he sought a unifying principle underlying all reality and for Heidegger, this principle was Sein (Being). I wonder if this is a correct interpretation of Heidegger?

Thank you for this informative presentation! Very nice. Prof Babich, would you consider yourself a Heideggerian with respect to ontology or hermeneutics?

at some point i don't see Richardson speaking here, but philosophy itself.

For a lifelong friend's account of the circumstances and details of Bill Richardson's rather famed thesis defense in Louvain (Leuven), see the interview Patrick Heelan gave, posted on KZfaq: kzfaq.info/get/bejne/rq-JncqhqtvSnnk.html

I recommend Cornford's translation of Plato's Republic, firstly because it is elegant (this is not the same as contemporary but Plato does go back the odd 2300 years or so after all) English and because he offers context as well as summary and commentary, can't beat that. Then Aristotle, then I would avoid Plotinus (unless one is a mystic, but then one will never leave Plotinus) etc for Descartes... After Descartes there is nothing for it but to read Hume and then Kant.

dear Babette, i am brand new to philosophy as such but would like to have your opinion on what i should read first? I came to this after listening to derrida. I am a little put off by the background knowledge that one seems to need to have to discuss these things in relation to other ideas. odd thing to say but there it is. Is there a book that may point to some of the key threads in ideas in philosophy that also acts as an initial bridge. Indeed, are philosophical ideas built on each other

Most priests who teach philosophy, especially Jesuits, have a doctrinal bias toward Aristotle, for Thomism, which is the basis for modern Catholic philosophy, is primarily Aristotelian. Thus Richardson's question to Heideggar was the implication that he took the concept of being from Aristotle. Actually, the idea of being first took form with Parmenides. Heidegger's lectures on Parmenides (1942-43) clearly show that Parmenides and Heraclitus, who preceded Plato and Aristotle, had different conceptions of being that precluded reason as the means to its truth. Richardson's statement that Heidegger found the Greek word for truth in Aristotle might be true, but the meaning of truth as unconcealment is shown in the fragments, namely, a didactic poem spoken by a "goddess" which Heidegger equates to truth. "The goddess is the goddess 'truth'. The truth itself is the goddess." He goes on to explain in the lectures what Parmenides meant by this personalization of truth. Philosophy took a turn with Plato, viewing truth not as unconcealedness, but as certainty, correctness, and justice, which the Romans established as the basis for philosophy and Western philosophers up till Heidegger never questioned.

Over 53,000 views, Fr. Bill Richardson on the central thematics of Heidegger's #BeingandTime. kzfaq.info/get/bejne/l8hni86SqJywhok.html …

The objective world starts in thought. Concepts are the first objects and yet the mind in the limited function of the everyday (which thinks that experience), is also an object, Mental awareness also has the possibility of losing itself in the unity of experiencing silence, called being or subjectiveness. It is possible for awareness or consciousness to accomodate the impossible and have duality and unity states both to be present at the same time - this is the supreme experience "truth"and the "earlier experience" he is discussing.

Desmond, both...

To be or not to be that is the question

What is the noun of the verb? It's poetry, obviously...you've spent your life writing an incomplete poem and now we are stuck studying it as if it weren't that (poetry) but something else, because we don't know any better, and we like it that way.

Following Alfred North Whitehead's observation that philosophy amounts to so many 'footnotes to Plato' it is best to read Plato.

Negation of itself is simply negative capability, which is an ability, nothing more...it is included in poetry, so...

Sadly it felt the introduction to this talk. A bit more.

Sorry make that William J. Ricardson