Er starb am 26.05.76, aber dem Kern der Aussage stimme ich völlig zu!

Zur Atombombe Corona-Ausschuss! Gibt es leider nicht aber Martin empfand ja auch anderes als wichtiger. Bodenständig da nicht Sohn von Tuchhändlern wie Husserl und dennoch den Lügen der Psychopathen-Clique auf den Leim gegangen. Es fehlte ihm wohl ne echte Frau neben Studentinnen und Mutti, die ihm ein Haus baute? ;)

🤮

Here's a full translation, enjoy. video title: “Science does not think” - Heidegger about the destiny of thinking Interviewer: “Most people expect everything from science. But especially in our times, in which in worldwide as well as unrealistic TV shows people are being shown what mankind planning is able to accomplish by technology, your thoughts on the nature of technology are quite disturbing to most people. To begin with, what do you want to claim by saying ‘Science does not think‘?“ M. Heidegger: “To start with the disturbing part, I think it is pretty healthy. I even think there’s still far too little disturbing today in the world and there is a big thoughtlessness which is connected to the oblivion of plain being. This sentence ‘Science does not think’, which caused a lot of turmoil when I was stating it on a lecture in Freiburg university, means that science does not share the same dimension as philosophy although without knowing science is dependant on that very dimension. For instance, Physics deals with space, movement and time, but what exactly space, movement and time is cannot be decided by science as science. So the science does not think, science cannot think within its methods thus I cannot explain what Physics is by any physical methods: I can only think about what Physics is. The sentence ‘Science does not think’ is not an accusation but only an observation of science’s inner structure, which is part of its nature and which is dependant on what the philosophy thinks while at the same time tends to forget and not consider it.” Interviewer: “And when looking at mankind nowadays, what do you mean by saying that the law of technology is more dangerous than the atombomb, that the ‘frame’ you called the 'basis of technology' threatens the being as it strives for making everything possible or available on pressing a button.” Heidegger: “First of all I have to say that I am not against technology. I’ve never spoken against technology nor have I spoken about the demons in technology, but I try to understand the nature of technology. Speaking about my thought which you quoted here on the atombomb’s hazardousness and an even greater danger of technology … I thought mainly about upcoming developments in so-called bio-physics in foreseeable time when we are able to make a human in his or her organic nature according to our own will, which means to create a human as one deems suitable: skilful and unskilled, smart and ignorant. It will really come to that, the technological possibilities are there and were already addressed by Nobel Prize winners on a conference in Lindau which I quoted a long time ago on my lecture in Meßkirch. So the misunderstanding of me being against technology is invalid, on the contrary I see in technology’s nature a force that influences and challenges the human, a human which is not free in the face of technology. Thereby a relation between technology and the being of a human is announced (inevitable). This relation hides within technology’s nature and will one day be evident in its full glory. Though I don’t know whether that will happen. So I see in the nature of technology a first glimpse of an even deeper phenomena which I call pretty distinctive.” ( 4:47 )Narrator about Heidegger’s house and philosophies : “The disability of the eye reaching what needs to be thought[...](Heidegger thought about) what changes the human being through the power of thought. That which Heidegger calls a shift in thinking is not a reversal nor a conversion, but it is an expression of the way to a state of being which is also already the way coming from a state of being.” ( 5:20 )back to Heidegger in the interview: “One of our great dangers of thinking nowadays is especially that the philosophical thinking has no original connection to its tradition anymore. Nobody knows how the fate of thinking will turn out to be. In the year 1964 in Paris I attended a France lecture on, roughly translated, ‘The end of philosophy and the quest of thinking’. I differentiate between philosophy including physics and thinking how I understand it. This thinking is in itself way simpler than philosophy, but in application way more difficult and requires a new diligence of speech. It does not need an invention or new termini as I once thought, but it needs a going back to the original content of our own changing (, dying) language. Then hopefully comes a thinker who is up to the task in search for providing this kind of thinking, he or she will have to submit to a word written by Heinrich von Kleist which says (*Heidegger grabs his notepad*): ‘I resign before one who is yet to come and bow down one millenial in advance to his or her mind.’” Narrator: “The end of philosophy is there when philosophy dissolves in sciences. The thinking continues.”

@@juliancarax8949 Thanks man

What a question. I cannot believe it.

@@TheJonagold ?

Martin Brunnemann Evtl. richtig und auch nicht gerade untypisch durch die extreme deutsche Geschichte, aber da wir hier Klarheit suchen und nicht nen Ehepartner, sei das mal absolut egal! ;)