Podcast: Play in new window | Download (Duration: 1:51:38 — 102.3MB)
Discussing Martin Heidegger’s Being and Time (1927), mostly the intro and ch. 1 and 2 of Part 1.
When philosophers try to figure out what really exists (God? matter? numbers?), Heidegger thinks they’ve forgotten a question that really should come first: what is it to exist? He thinks that instead of asking “What is Being?” we ask, as in a scientific context, “what is this thing?” This approach then poisons our ability to understand ourselves or the world that we as human beings actually inhabit, as opposed to the abstraction that science makes out of this.
This is Seth’s big episode: this was his primary concentration in his later grad school years. Plus: Nazis, trying to figure out things by free associating about their origins in ancient Greek, and whoopee cushion record breaking news!
End song: “Find You Out,” from the brand new New People album, Impossible Things.
Five Stars after 100+ iTunes Ratings.
#1 by Luke on February 8, 2011 - 10:02 am
You guys are killing me with this fluffy mind-wanking stuff.
The ancient Indians said that priests invented religion to secure a living for themselves. I’m suspicious that most philosophical “problems” are invented by philosophers to secure a living for themselves in armchairs.
Here’s hoping you eventually get around to talk about people who said meaningful and useful things, like Quine, Kripke, Jaynes, or Fodor.
Anyway, hopefully you can see the big grin I have on my face as I write this. Obviously I enjoy and respect you guys, or I would have stopped listening long ago. But, well, I’m one of those hardcore reductive naturalist types…
#2 by Seth Paskin on February 8, 2011 - 8:25 pm
Luke–
Maybe you’ll find this useful:
http://maverickphilosopher.typepad.com/maverick_philosopher/2009/11/the-copula-adorno-contra-heidegger.html
Mark’s been pushing for a long foray into your preferred domain and I’ve been resisting, so blame it on me
–seth
#3 by Graham on October 14, 2011 - 2:12 pm
Don’t miss this important critique of Philosophical Being:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=F2kAnTZBnTg&feature=fvwrel
#4 by Mark Linsenmayer on February 8, 2011 - 10:16 am
Well, Luke, our next recording (after Montaigne, which is already recorded but which won’t be edited for a couple of weeks), we’ll be doing Frege, so hopefully that’ll get your analytic juices flowing.
#5 by Luke on February 8, 2011 - 11:46 am
Rock on!!!
#6 by Alexis on February 8, 2011 - 6:47 pm
One of my favorite episodes yet –
from 60:00-80:00 or so was especially good.
And I laughed out loud at this: “old men sitting around the fire talking about how in my day…being disclosed itself”
#7 by Daniel Horne on February 8, 2011 - 7:55 pm
Agreed, one of my favorite so far!
#8 by Daniel Horne on February 8, 2011 - 7:56 pm
Agreed, one of my favorites so far!
#9 by Wes Alwan on February 9, 2011 - 1:35 pm
Thanks all; @Alexis, see http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Xe1a1wHxTyo
#10 by David Buchanan on February 10, 2011 - 2:50 am
I’m torn. Sometimes the question seems deep and ominous. Sometimes it stirs me but sometimes I scratch my head and wonder if the term has any real meaning. If “being” means existence then it is a category that literally includes everything and excludes nothing. How can a meaningful question be asked about such an infinitely broad abstraction? Maybe I’m a bit dense but I wish the question could somehow be more concrete and specific.
Thanks for the show, gents. Way to be.
David B.
#11 by Seth Paskin on February 10, 2011 - 8:26 am
David–
I think you’re struggling with the central problem. My reading is that Heidegger felt the ‘question of the meaning of Being’ was somehow fundamental, unasked and at the same time, inaccessible via traditional rational analysis and questioning. Right now, we can make it more specific and concrete because to do so requires a) a method appropriate to do so and b) an appropriate language. Thus he doesn’t say ‘what is Being’ or ‘what is the meaning of Being’ – he asks ‘what is the question of the meaning of Being’. In other words, how do we make the question specific and concrete?
His first answer was to do the Existential Analytic of Dasein in Being and Time, which of course he never finished and abandoned later in favor of a more language-centric approach. He never found an answer to his question of the question, but he never gave it up.
This doesn’t answer your legitimate concern whether the question itself is even worth asking or whether the answer would ultimately be vacuous. I can only point to his creative output and influence on others to say that regardless of the result, the undertaking seems to have been productive.
–seth
#12 by Amir on February 10, 2011 - 10:14 am
Hello. So, my understanding of Dasein (via Being and Time and Dreyfus’ lectures is) ‘a being for whom being is an issue’ more or less. This kind of being is distinct from that of a rat. However, the way Seth describes Dasein in the podcast, using the potato peeling example, Dasein is a being who has goals or a ‘towards which’. We use the peeler to make mashed taters to eat mashed taters to enjoy mashed taters with family…Well, how is that definition of Dasein distinct from that of a rat, who uses it’s senses, or tools at hand to get food? My understanding of Heidegger was that a ‘being for whom being is an issue’ is precisely that Dasein is a self-reflexive being. That, yes, we become absorbed in potato peeling or hammering and at those moments, we are not reflecting on those particular activities, but the point seems to be that we have the ability to stop and reflect and become ‘un-absorbed’ at will, and that seems to be Dasein. (my disclaimer here is that I did not edit my post because I’ve got to go teach a class in 15 minutes. We are making digital exquisite corpses today. I apologize for incoherence.)
#13 by Daniel Horne on February 10, 2011 - 1:42 pm
Hi Amir,
I agree with you that Dasein can be defined as “a being for whom being is an issue.” But the “potato peeler” example you cite does not _define_ Dasein, but rather _besorgen_. The German is tricky, but I think besorgen describes a care toward entities with the purpose of acquiring or accomplishing something. But besorgen doesn’t define Dasein itself; it rather constitutes an essential aspect of Dasein.
Why care about sorge, besorgen, etc.? I think Heidegger spent so much time describing care, concern, etc. because he was trying to distinguish his phenomenological approach from that of Husserl. Husserl (and his predecessors) tried to break from the Cartesian description of consciousness by describing all consciousness as always directed toward some _thing_. But Heidegger added a new dimension to intentionality by describing consciousness as only rarely directed toward a thing as such. For example, a carpenter is only rarely conscious of his hammer as he uses it, unless the hammer should break, etc. Another example Heidegger used was that of students walking into his classroom, never noticing the doorknob they twisted in order to enter the room.
In other words, contra Husserl, not all consciousness is directed toward _something_. It is more often directed toward a purpose. Thus, the desire (care, concern) to use, say, a tool comes first, and is primary. The awareness of the tool qua tool comes later, and is secondary. I think Heidegger felt his revised view of Husserl’s intentionality more accurately explained how human beings fundamentally interpret their world.
That was my takeaway, anyway. I welcome correction.
#14 by Amir on February 10, 2011 - 2:43 pm
Thanks for the clarification. I understand better what you were trying to say. I will listen to the section again, but it did sound like you guys were discussing Dasein when the potato peeling came up. In any case, it’s great so far and I was looking forward to it, to help round out the Dreyfus lectures
#15 by Seth Paskin on February 11, 2011 - 10:00 am
I agree with Daniels explanation and that was going to be my response, Amir. We do talk about Dasein’s being ‘being an issue for it’ later in the podcast and I think we agreed that this is where the horizon of time (the future) comes into play. We didn’t read/have time to discuss Being towards Death (Angst vor dem Tod), which I think it an essential component to understanding how Dasein’s being is an issue for it.
All animals have an instinct for self-preservation, but only Dasein exists fundamentally in a position of always projecting towards and being aware of it’s own inevitable end. As such, it’s being becomes an issue for it (it makes plans, tries to leave a legacy, works out and eats right to live longer, has a family, etc.) in a way different from other beings.
That’s my take anyway.
–seth
#16 by Anders on February 22, 2011 - 8:40 pm
I liked this a lot guys. You should defently read Phenomenology of Perception by Merleau-Ponty if you like Heidegger’s (and Husserl’s) examinations of experience.
Cheers!
ps. Do you let people know which texts you are reading, so we will be able to read along with you?
#17 by Mark Linsenmayer on February 22, 2011 - 10:02 pm
Hi, Anders, Yes, the topic announcements are posted here (you can see the next one by clicking “General Announcements” on the category list to the right.
#18 by Jackson on March 3, 2011 - 7:29 pm
Thanks for the episode. It was the first adequate replacement I found for actually getting someone to discuss Heidegger with me (no takers in this part of the country, it seems).
Thanks!
#19 by Seth Paskin on March 5, 2011 - 11:37 am
Not many anywhere
Glad we were able to fill a void.
#20 by The Byrd on July 11, 2011 - 2:39 pm
http://ontology.buffalo.edu/smith/articles/LASK.PDF
#21 by Ameet on September 4, 2011 - 5:33 am
Hi guys. Great episode. I did want to make a comment with regards to why perhaps what Heidegger is doing here goes beyond sociology to something deeper…
Our ordinary intentional stance to objects of experience isn’t as crystal clear as first appears… say I’m looking at a book (regardless of whether or not it is a “real” book… I take it to be a book the way Dreyfus says). Can I have any doubts about this, that I take it to be a book? I think there is a space for doubt here with regards to the temporality of the experience… If I ask, at what point in time am I look at the book…. if I answer, “right now”… what exactly does this mean, what exactly is the present moment… is time composed of instant moments… without a complete understanding of temporality, how can I say anything at all with certainty, even about objects in my experience? I saw this mentioned somewhere in a set of lectures here:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IJCH-VN_5uI&feature=related
Perhaps it was the episode on Heidegger, I can’t find it there though. But on some episode, the lecturer mentions the simplification done when narrowing down statements to moments in time… so say I say, “I’m seeing a book.” then I say I’m certain of this, regardless of the ontological status of the book, I can’t doubt that I take this in my experience to be a book… then you ask, “When exactly are you seeing the book?”, and I say “right now”…. there is doubt about what right now means… If there is doubt about that, isn’t there doubt about the entire experience itself?
I’m guessing this is why Heidegger examines a more fundamental mode of being… because he thinks that as the only of way of getting at an understanding of temporality… And that the properties of dasein, having goals… projecting itself into the future… are in actuality fundamental properties of time itself… In our ordinary intentional stance, we take temporality for granted… we assume that there are “static” facts about our experience…
Not saying that Heidegger achieves this understanding of time, but I think his approach deserves merit… temporality is so fundamental… to understand it literally requires a fundamental understanding of being…
#22 by Ameet on September 4, 2011 - 6:19 am
Ah, here’s the video where he mentions it:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=b503hZke2Ao&feature=related
At around 20:50… talking about the lectern.
#23 by Donald on September 8, 2011 - 1:14 pm
This is my first episode. I found the site a few days ago via youtube. I’ve found the blog useful. Thanks.
Here’s a suggestion for the PEL site. Add a corrections tab (or a sticky comment #1) to every episode to acknowledge places where speakers have misspoken.
These are a few “nails on chalk board” like “misspeaks” I’ve noted in Episode 32.
1. T 00:42:01 Seth: “… that have goals in sight …”
The overall point was correct, but it’s very Un-Heideggerian to use the term “goal”. Goals are something a mind would have. The skill (or know-how or understanding) gives “sight”, and the equipment “solicits” is a more accurate way to put it. No goals are required.
2. T 00:57:10 Wes: “… care is the analog to intentionality …”
This is a very strange misleading statement. In Husserl, intentionality is about connecting the inner to the outer. With Heidegger, there is no inner and outer. There’s no analogy to be made.
3. T 01:32:05 Wes: “… everything is just ideas …”
This is not Heideggerian. Prof. Dreyfus’s slogan to describe the Heidegger position is: Being depends on us, but beings don’t.
4. T 01:37:10 Seth: “… elsewhere outside …”
Like the items above, it’s misleading to talk about “inside/outside” when Heidegger spends so much effort to demolish the entire notion of an inside and outside.
5. T xx:xx:xx There are numerous places where the group makes fun of Heidegger’s efforts to read poetry. This misses the important point that the poets, artists and authors are in a sense, phenomenologists. Oscar Wilde and R.W. Emerson are seeing and pointing out phenomenon as in this example from Mark Wrathall’s book “How to read Heidegger”:
“few people ever ‘possess their souls’ before they die. ‘Nothing is more rare in any man,’ says Emerson, ‘than an act of his own.’ It is quite true. Most people are other people. Their thoughts are some one else’s opinions, their lives a mimicry, their passions a quotation. (Wilde, p. 105)”
The same phenomenon referred to here by Wilde and Emerson figures prominently in “Being and Time”.
As an aside, I’m sure Professor Heidegger using the ontology of “Being and Time” would refer to this blog (not disparagingly) as “Idle Talk”.
#24 by Daniel Horne on September 8, 2011 - 3:25 pm
Hi Donald,
These are interesting points, but I have to ask: How are we to assess whether or not Seth and Wes “misspoke,” or whether you have?
#25 by Donald on September 10, 2011 - 1:39 pm
Daniel:
The PEL guys early in this episode refer to the ’80′s BBC series “The Great Philosophers” (http://goo.gl/2jRIS). The excellent episode with Magee and Dreyfus can be found on youtube here: (http://goo.gl/9JQeE) (WARNING: It’s a 46 minute program in five sections) . I would recommend that anyone new to the discussion of “being”, or “Heidegger”, or “Being and Time” go there first before trying to sort through episode 32 of PEL. Magee and Dreyfus just cover the basic points (nothing advanced are controversial) and there are several quotes that support my earlier post (items 1 and 4 for example):
T 00:18:03 Dreyfus: “… he [Heidegger] can’t talk about subjects or persons or minds …”
T 00:22:29 Dreyfus: “… it’s important not to speak about goals and life plans …”
Please listen to the excerpts in context. If this doesn’t help, I can give some quotes from “Being and Time”. But I certainly can’t promise that the quotes will be easier to understand.
#26 by Wes Alwan on September 9, 2011 - 1:19 am
Yes I’ll need more sustained explanations (and preferably some ALL CAPS berating) before I ever admit misspeaking. Or put it in a Tab.
#27 by Donald on September 10, 2011 - 3:35 pm
Wes:
I’ve got a suggestion for an episode on a related topic. A few months ago Errol Morris (Oscar winning director) wrote a fascinating well researched article for the New York Times entitled “The Anosognosic’s Dilemma: Something’s Wrong but You’ll Never Know What It Is” (http://goo.gl/4j1MS) The article does a great job of explaining why the topic is so important and pervasive. Although Mr. Morris researched the topic well, he struggles in identifying a language to talk about it. He struggles to place the topic in context. He spoke with a research psychologist, and a neuroscientist. He didn’t know to speak with a philosopher. The phenomenon he identifies in the article is covered quite well in Being and Time. It’s the same phenomenon underlying our discussion. I’d love to hear what other philosophical might the PEL team would bring to bear. Give it some thought.
–
Regarding points 2 and 3 in my post above, after listening to the episode again I realize that it was you who led Seth astray.
To support point 3, I’d simply refer to “UC Berkeley Philosophy 185 (2007) Lecture 2: Dasein” which includes Being and Time quotes. (http://goo.gl/61WL1)
I’ll add to point 2 by saying, if you can point out any element in the Being and Time ontology that’s analogous or equivalent to a mind, or mental content, you will have proven the entire Being and Time project a failure.
You cope with your everyday existence without thinking. That’s the phenomenon that Heidegger is pointing out in great contrast to Husserl. In fact, the way you know you have a skill (from the simplest to most complex) is no thinking is required. Therefore no mind (or mental content) is required. A typical example is: Yuja Wang plays Rachmaninov without thinking (http://goo.gl/8LnoP). If she pauses to think about notes and keys and fingers and hemlines, she’d spoil the piece. You’re an empty head Heidegger would say.
#28 by qapla on October 17, 2011 - 6:05 pm
23. Heidegger’s Being and Time.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bPoBsJkuYR8
Maurice Marleau podcasts (many of Heiddegger’s ideas)
The Seer is Seen
Still
Grande finale
Joyful Seeing and Bergson
http://danielcoffeen.podomatic.com/profile?p=2
#29 by solly on November 18, 2011 - 5:53 pm
I am new at your site. Heard about it from fellow traveller on a plane. You guys rock!
I had great trouble with understanding Heidegger. Still not sure whether I understand him totally but it certain ‘cleared out the woods’ somewhat.
Another topic on Heidegger would be greatly appreciated!!
Well done. I cannot recognize all the voices but all of you did great!!
#30 by Seth Paskin on November 19, 2011 - 10:10 am
Thanks solly. Heidegger’s a tough one to get in just one pass. I think we did a pretty good job but I’d echo others in this thread that you check out the Magee & Dreyfus conversation and the Dreyfus lectures. Welcome aboard!
–seth