Heidegger & the Truth of Being

over the past several decades Heidegger's thinking has been appropriated or expropriated as it were in a myriad of different ways and all these various approaches testified to the extraordinary reach and richness of his thought even so this afternoon I'd like to bring us back to the core matter of his thinking my teacher and mentor bill Richardson tells a story and the late Manfred Frings from whom I also learned a great deal related to me a similar story bill Richardson tells of the story of his visit with Heidegger in 1959 and at one point in their discussion Heidegger gazing out the window of his study and contemplating the sloping wooded landscape which I see there's no opportunity to do in this room here I expressed his desire his eagerness to say it yet again but what was the it that Heidegger for a whole lifetime had his eyes upon this it the German s that gives gift so richly and so inexhaustibly is being itself designs out in the German as the temporal spatial finite and negative manifesting of beings in their beingness gathered in the ensemble and I'll say more about this but it's being as Manifest nacelle flick or matter which in heidecker's work is often referred to as dasarhas ELPS the core matter the matter itself of Heidegger stall which remarkably enough is at risk of being forgotten all over again as I ins Ferguson height another key word used by Heidegger this folk botanist of being is settling in anew and in Heidegger studies of all places the core matter not meaning or any comparable variation on this theme that would understand being in terms of design sense making and this is a position that has recently been put forward very boldly by Thomas Sheehan who is out at Stanford University and a good friend of mine but he's been making this case for quite some time now among other Heidegger scholars and and others who would understand being in terms of designs everyday coping activity and that's basically the position of Hubert Dreyfus at Berkeley and his many students or all around the country now and and so it it's the case that I'm making that it's not design but Zion being qua manifestation in relation to designs disclose it miss than is the core matter of heidegger's thinking you know even the distinguished Heidegger scholar Ted Geisel who will be here I think in just a few weeks even he wishes to make the case that the core matter is design design tactical throne existence and I am suggesting it is not it was and remained being qua manifestation now in the 1960s Heidegger repeatedly emphasized in his work and in his personal correspondence that it was the manifest nostalgy the point in 1973 three years before his death in a seminar with French colleagues in sharingan Heidegger made the observation that whereas Hosur Road was primarily influenced by the Brentano of the 1874 work psychology from an empirical standpoint he himself from the very beginning of his dink thing had been propelled propelled forward by brentano's 1862 study on the manifold meaning of being in Aristotle which of course Heidegger had also prominently mentioned in other places including in the well-known preface to bill Richardson's book in the seminar Heidegger added with a smile as the protocol has it but with emphasis my Brentano is the brentano of Aristotle when Heidegger was pointing to was that in his view huh Cyril despite his breakthrough to the things themselves and let us grant that there was indeed a break out of the Cartesian mind enclosure to the things themselves I quite agree with professor Sokolov skiis reading of who Cyril there still who Cyril could not fully appreciate the proper character of the things themselves because he continued to address what we encounter from within the framework of a modern subject ISM that is primarily from the side of the conscious subject heidegger's discomfort with Husserl's view is evident as far back as his 1919 lecture course given a tribe or during the so-called war emergency semester in which began to take his distance from Husserl's phenomenological approach here Heidegger criticizes Husserl's reflective theoretical phenomenology for addressing the things that we encounter as inert objects appearing for and before the sense giving I or I poll but for Heidegger what we encounter what there is s gift he uses this in this 1919 lecture course very early on of course it reappears again much much later in his thinking and very prominently so but what there is has the character of an air likeness a happening or any event within lived experience and here he is employing his signature term air hike miss happen to us and address us in their significance they are events of showing that we appropriate as belted he says things world everywhere and always now I speculate that with this expression as vel tipped Heidegger was tapping into the meaning of the old verb form the old German verb form vel tent we know the noun belt world but the verb form belton is very old and no longer used but to world which in the German but more evidently in English once conveyed this idea of to furnish and fill up with and to come into existence so in other words things abound about us in their significance but the important point is that in his reflections here we detect that Heidegger very early on was inspired and guided by an exceptionally vivid sense of how things are manifest to us in an eventful way and address us and even speak to us as it were especially notable is the poetic example he gives from Sophocles Antigone and a very favorite text of heidecker's of just such a vibrant resonant happening in our lived experience the splendor of the rising and shining Sun that's the example he cites and this is a perfect prefiguring of his reading in subsequent years of this Greek word finally not just I think I can step away can you hear me I just write this on the board this is a perfect prefiguring of his reading in subsequent years of this Greek word phenomenon in terms of finest thigh which ultimately derives he says from the Greek word foes light so things shining forth manifest necessity Ideker was not so much that things are made present by us Puss rules position as that things present themselves to us but it was Heidegger study of Aristotle in those early years culminating with his elucidation of metaphysics theta 10 on the on host Olathe the being as true that is truth as belonging most properly reading curiata tone to the being itself and also his study of the Greeks more generally and this confirmed his insight that to renew the question of being was to recover the experience of being as meta festive as showing itself from itself as unconcealed as shining forth as opening and offering its as addressing us and claiming us this is the meaning of being that Heidegger sought after even if originally this seeking worked itself out largely within a her sir lien phenomenological framework but even in those early phenomenological years let's say in the 1920s the word meaning in that early formulation the meaning of being arguably served more as an indicator a pointer a marker for his primary concern with the manifest necessity design or that is certainly how the later Heidegger understood it in 1946 in remarks to jean beau fray who was heidegger's french colleague and a very strong advocate of heidecker's work but in this first meeting with beau fray in 1946 there is a little piece titled the fundamental question of being itself and here Heidegger insisted with that question concerning being I have old ways and from the very beginning remained outside the philosophical position of Oh Cyril in the sense of a transcendental philosophy of consciousness now that's quite a remarkable statement to make and I think it's very instructive but I do not think that it is a pejorative comment at all I mean it is simply Heidegger's realization some years later that what he had his eye on from the outset was very different from Husserl that is while who Cyril was primarily concerned with clarifying the activity of making manifest from the side of consciousness he had been chiefly concerned with being qua manifest station insofar as being makes manifest design in the first place along with designs activity of making manifest now some years later in Luthor in 1969 he explained further that already in being in time meaning here he uses the German word tin did not have for him the sense of significant Bedoya dome as Oh Cyril understood this in terms of sense giving acts of consciousness and he added quote beam and time does not attempt to present a new significant of being but rather to open a hearing for the word of being to let this hearing be claimed by being in order to be the DA of design it is a matter of becoming claimed by being unquote now also Atlas law he emphasized to the seminar members that in being in time meaning against sin was never intended to refer simply to a human performance or achievement and he uses the word German word life stone which of course is central to Husserl's project and Heidegger adds thus it was never intended to refer only to the structure of subjectivity rather meaning is to be explained from quote the region of projection which in turn is explained by understanding which itself is to be understood only in the original sense of force day and that is quote a standing before residing before holding oneself at an equal height with what one finds before oneself and being strong enough to abide there unquote in other words his point is that meaning must be understood most properly as a response to being by design and not as a performance or achievement by storm of transcendental subjectivity we might capture his position this way only insofar as there is being is their meaning now nonetheless his early talk about the meaning of being proved to be sufficiently problematical for him that he turned to the expression the truth of being in the 1930s and also then to the place of being even later but then back again to the meaning of being in the very late for seminars which run the late 60s into the early 70s but with that expression the truth of being he was indeed only drawing out more fully his own fundamental insight that had been there all along again during the 1920s he had repeatedly emphasized that the proper locus of truth is the being itself in its manifest mistake part in the beings on concealment its truth those are his words SIA vide its truth the beings truth and for our purposes today I'd like to focus on just one text to illustrate this point it is from his 1928-29 winter semester lecture course introduction to philosophy and that's text number one that you have on the sheet there are some more here on the side if you don't have it so I will read it along with you get the manifest necessity R but but as you all know the language of a philosopher is so very important to that philosophical work so I just call your attention here to heidegger's words here it's on Eames Alps the being in itself and I've translated it more literally as in it itself on aims helps now what's interesting here is that he doesn't use the purflex of pronoun z he could have simply said UNH's except he uses the personal pronoun m here now why is that well one thing that immediately comes to mind of course is that he wants to be clear that he is not referring to the being in itself in any kind of content or neo-kantian way and by using Anzhi here that could cause some confusion it could be misleading or he simply wants to emphatically state that the being in itself is not some unknowable thing in itself the content unknowable noumenon no no the being in itself is is manifest to us and so he uses the personal pronoun here I think to emphasize that now later on he even avoids the preposition on altogether and he uses the expression more more generally Fonzie here more more explicitly more emphatically from itself so the manifest necessity in in some later texts but even here in these early texts I think the language gives us a good indication of how he wants emphasize that it is the being itself that is true that is showing itself that is manifesting itself that is presenting itself to us so the manifest is the being in itself is made vividly clear to us if we describe this fact negatively and say this being as it is here in this context present at hand in itself is not concealed to us as what it indeed could be it is in itself unconcealed because it is unconcealed in itself can we make propositions regarding it and also verify these propositions the manifests of the being is an unconcealed adness moon from Borg and height of course this is a very famous high daguerreian expression the manifest necessity being is an unconcealed it nests unconcealed this actually means in the Greek Alafaya which we customarily but inadequately translate as truth true that is unconcealed is the being itself thus not the statement not the proposition regarding the being but the being itself is true only because the being itself is true can statements regarding the being be true in a derivative sense now he also then says in the tradition of metaphysics in the Middle Ages there is however also a conception of truth Veritas according to which truth belongs to the being itself to the ends one thesis reads on the end zest theorem every being is true but this statement has an altogether different meaning namely that every being insofar as it is is created by God but insofar as it is created by God ends create Oh it must be thought by God insofar as it is thought by God as the one who does not air and who is the absolute truth the being is true by virtue of being thought by God because every being is a created being it is a being of a kind that is true of Ihram kwacha top tomb Audeo a true insofar as it is thought by God therefore this concept of truth of the being rests on entirely different presuppositions from those in our exposition of truth he wants to distinguish what he's saying here from this medieval view now as I noted earlier on this point Heidegger drew his inspiration from Aristotle not Pizarro and specifically from Aristotle's metaphysics theta 10 at 10:51 B and it's an admittedly a difficult text to decipher where Aristotle states that being is spoken of not only in terms of the categories and with respect to the potentiality and actuality of these but also in the most proper sense again Heidegger reading curiata tone as the true Heidegger understands this chapter to be the culmination of Aristotle's teaching in theta and as the completion of the discussion of truth in Epsilon for in his view Aristotelian scholars who have questioned or dismissed the significance of theta 10 such as Feiler and Yaeger most notably are simply displaying the modern habit of thinking the truth has nothing to do with being and is to be regarded only as an epistemological or logical phenomenon but Heidegger calls theta 10 the Keystone book of theta which is itself the center of the entire metaphysics his words and he elaborates on how in this chapter aristotle speaks of the being as true the on host olathe is as what is most proper curiata tone to the being in other words for Aristotle the primary and proper locus of truth is the being as manifested as showing itself as it is this is precisely the Aristotelian insight and ancient Greek insight and experience more generally that Heidegger thought was forgotten thereafter in the metaphysical tradition including in the Middle Ages in an earlier lecture course during the winter semester of 1926-27 he had paid close attention to Aquinas discussion of truth in de verte and especially de Vera taught day 1 questions 1 and 2 as we are well aware Aquinas understands Aristotle to maintain that the locus of truth is in thought or more precisely in the judgment that composes and divides but more to the point Aquinas asserts that strictly speaking being is true only insofar as being is brought into relation with thought with the intellect human and divine therefore as Aquinas States in his respond deo in one one being may be said to be manifest eight manifest at evil or shown or stand at or only as the consequence of truth the effective consequent 'm the effect following upon truth in other words manifest at co manifestation Austin taught CEO a showing or display do not belong to being itself but only to being in so far as it is declared or displayed in the judgment and accordingly in the first reply Aquinas refuses the apparent sense and force of Augustine's words that quote the true is that which is theorem a seed quo test and proposes that Augustine was not identifying truth with the act of being the optimist nd but rather was referring to being as the foundation the fundamental of truth and that truth properly resides only in the judgment for Heidegger then what was regrettably lost from view in Aquinas is philosophical account is the Greek experience of being as emergence as a rising as showing itself as displaying and declaring itself as manifestation as truth being as a lay thea and of course this pro godness became more cute in des cartes thinking which rendered things as static objects for a subject and in the subsequent unfolding of the modern philosophy of consciousness in which things took on the character of mere mental objects or entities and for Heidegger who surles treatment of the things themselves no matter his teachers important breakthrough nonetheless retained this modern subjective philosophical coloring so let me cite one other text in this regard act because I think it's quite fascinating the philosophical relationship between high degree and Husserl all other things aside the philosophical relation is always fascinating in an observation that he made much later in his thinking in 1965 most students of heidegger's work are familiar with his 1964 address the end of philosophy in the task of thinking which appears in the basic writings volume but not long afterwards he delivered a similar address this time on the occasion of a birthday celebration for the Swiss psychiatrist Ludwig Gonzaga this talk was later published in 1968 in a Japanese translation and not until 1984 in German under the title on the question concerning the determination of the matter for thinking and a complete English translation by Michel translator Marie Kerbal and I has only recently appeared in the journal M okay now in some respects I consider this address to be a more substantive and significant statement of his later thinking than the slightly earlier and much better known lecture but to the point Heidegger makes an observation that restates and reaffirms and yet one more way his long-standing position the position that I have been laying out here that it is the manifest Nostromo stood our attention so that we may break through the imminent ISM of the modern philosophy of consciousness so he invites us to think back to homer and that this is text to he writes we may recall a scene during the homecoming of Odysseus with the departure of Eumaeus Athena appears in the form of a beautiful young woman the goddess appears to Odysseus but his son Telemachus does not see her and the poet says God pulls Pontus Ethio a final tie in Argos this is from The Odyssey book sixteen for the gods do not appear to everyone in Argos this word is usually translated as visible yet Argos means gleaming what gleams shines forth from itself what shines forth thus presence is forth from itself Odysseus and Telemachus see the same woman but Odysseus perceives the presencing of the goddess later the Romans translated NR Gaia the shining forth from itself with evidential every dare a means to become visible to someone evidence is fought in terms of the human being as the one who sees in contrast and our Gaia is a feature of presencing things themselves now the complaint here is a familiar one to those acquainted with Heidegger's thinking the later Greek and Roman thinkers subtly shifted the philosophical focus away from being toward the human being as perceiver and knower and it was Descartes who decisively moved the human subject as the ego cachito to the center of philosophical reflection but in heidecker's critical remark on evidence and he dens the German word we also hear once again I think a distancing from Husserl's position evidence the principle of evidence evidencing truth this is the language of Xhosa rules phenomenological project that for Heidegger revealed his teachers inability to break free and clear of the AYGO subject ISM of the Cartesian tradition of thinking in other words Husserl's called to return to the things themselves was a promise unfulfilled or at least only partially fulfilled what remained preeminent importance to her Cyril was a consideration of the subjective or Apple fan tech poll of the presentation of things and what remained unarticulated and unaccounted for and certainly unappreciated as such was the gleaming of the being itself the truth of the being itself and to this I would add in passing that in one of the few instances where Heidegger mentions Vidkun Stein he levels a similar but even harsher criticism in Lahore in 1969 he characterizes Vidkun Stein's first proposition from the Tractatus the real is what is the case that's how Heidegger rendered it as and these are highly resorts it truly an eerie statement the German here is dispensed assure and I think Erie is adequate to to translate that truly an eerie statement he understands Vidkun Stein's proposition to mean that a being is no more than quote that which comes under a determination is fixed in meaning the determinable unquote and such a formulation for Heidegger it is an eerie testament to how utterly and profoundly removed our contemporary philosophical thinking about beings is from the Greek experience of beings as he puts it leaping into view as top phenomena as La Fea as what shows itself from itself the presencing the manifest the true thus let me pick up the thread of the narrative that I'm unfolding here Heidegger had a very early insight into the truth of the being and it is this insight I propose that moved him and guided him along his path of thinking during the 1920s into the famous turn in his thinking de cada after being in time and then through the turn to his reformulation of the core matter as the truth of being in the 1930s the expression the truth of being thus made explicit what was implicit or liminal in his earlier phrase the meaning of being namely that the focal point of his thinking was again in his own words the manifest necessity lecture course from 1941 he pushed his own hermeneutic phenomenological perspective to the very limit and went so far as to say this quote truth is independent and he puts that in quotation marks because he doesn't mean that in the older traditional metaphysical way I mean he's still he's stretching the limit of the hermeneutic phenomenological perspective so he's willing to use the word independent but qualify utley truth is independent of the human being since truth means the essence of what is true in the same of unconcealed in the subjectivist perspective he continues truth is dependent on the human being and caused brought about made produced but the human being is dependent on the truth if truth is properly understood as the lighting or the clearing of being as beings essence since to depend means to be determined and thoroughly attuned in essence but not caused unquote now in 1956 in lecture course on the principle of ground Heidegger put it more simply quote for we are never the ones who we are apart from the claim of being unquote and in less or in 1969 he gave clear testimony to the inner development of his thinking and here I refer to text 3 on the sheet that you have here's Heidegger saying that the thinking that proceeds from being in time in that it gives up the phrase meaning of being in favor of truth of being henceforth emphasizes the openness of being itself rather than the openness of design in regard to the openness of being this signifies the turn in which thinking always more decisively turns to being as being now of course it is true that for Heidegger design is always the Shepard of being the guardian of being that is he always reminds us that our access to being is only through our design and for this reason it is fair to say that Heidegger's thinking remained phenomenological to the end but heidegger's enrichment of phenomenology lay precisely in his giving a full accounting of the claim of being on a human being the being of the DA the being of the there so heidegger's original and sustaining concern was with being as manifestation as shining forth as finest I the spontaneous and ungrounded temporal flow of what appears beyond which there can be no phenomenological seeing and we might recall in this respect high degrees fondness for quoting angelus silesius is poetic line the quote the rose is without why it blooms because it blooms unquote and over the years guided especially by Aristotle's insight into the kinetic character of things he unfolded his understanding of being itself signs elves which is a technical term in Heidegger I think many people are a labor under the misconception that Heidegger wasn't very careful or systematic think or know perhaps systematic is too strong but he's extremely careful with his language and being itself being as such being as being these are technical terms in hydras work and they mean the same thing each time and there's a clear distinction that he makes between being itself and being ness which we'll talk about a little bit more in a moment but I think heidecker's language is very very careful very very precise even as it is also poetic so being itself signs helps this is the fundamental unifying and originally meaning of being that he was always after and being itself is this being process as Bill Richardson and some others have called it I prefer to call it the being way wherein and whereby beings emerge linger in their full look or presents the a das that Plato speaks of Wayne and pass away yet as he saw Plato and particularly Aristotle remained close to this originally experience of being in other words the full look the a dose or morphe that Plato and Aristotle determined to be the on toes on the really real represented only a separating out and privilege of this one aspect of the whole arc of the presencing that is being itself consequently for Heidegger the temporal spatial emerging of beings in their beingness was still at least in the background of Plato's and Aristotle's proto phenomenological thinking unlike in later metaphysical thinking in which the variations on the formula being itself equals essence or in heidecker's language constant presence simply became commonplace now if the question is whether Heidegger himself withdrew or abandoned the name being in speaking about his core concern and this has been raised by some Heidegger scholars recently and I think that the textual evidence is compelling and convincing that he did not and if we hew close to this question then I think that we uncover this engaging story of how heiliger struggled mightily from beginning to end to retain the name of being while distinguishing it from metaphysical being Ness that's Heidegger's word being as iong tsiyon height in order to distinguish it from being way that he's trying to make manifest to bring into view and I try to work this out in the book in a greater detail and depth but his perseverance in this effort is simply remarkable really and a measure of how important it remained to him to safeguard the originally word of Western philosophical thinking being right to the very end of his lifetime of thinking and I think this is awfully disappointing to a lot of post modern thinkers right who who would like to say that Heidegger abandoned this name being you hear this all the time but there is simply no textual evidence to support that that view for Heidegger there is no beyond being only a beyond being Ness and this expression beyond being you know loving us talks about this other French thinkers in the so-called French theological turn you hear a great deal about Heidegger moving beyond being well no not at all Heidegger certainly wanted to move beyond being Ness but not beyond being in fact this is how he read Plato's well-known phrase epic a night SOC us from book seven of the Republic that is for Heidegger Plato was pointing beyond the ideas beyond beingness to a realm that enables and empowers the ideas in the first place a realm that Heidegger identified as being itself this temporal spatial being way but of course this said Heidegger also enjoyed that spiel round this this free play or leeway of a thinker to name the or phenomenon that he had in view in a multitude of different ways the many names that he put into play from the ancient greek words aller Theophilus logos to his own terms air hike nestle stone gate net is shipped all attempt to say and show with varying emphases the several dimensions of the one fundamental matter what he properly named again being signed with the why you may be familiar with that especially in his work 30s early 40s being with a why will translate it being itself being as such being as being all technical words for hiding saying the German Hagen is ultimately a showing Zygon but it is also a playing and Heidegger reveled in this play of saying and naming and indeed we might surmise on those very afternoons when he hosted visitors such as Richardson and Frings and he gazed out the window of his study and turned over in his thoughts how he might say it yet one more time our discussion today cannot be complete without a few clarifying remarks on two of heidecker's terms of art a ripeness and lick though as I mentioned earlier he employed the term aridness very early on in his 1919 lecture course and in a few places thereafter but by his own testimony it was in the years 1936 to 38 during which he composed the private manuscript that we know is by traiga to a philosophy from Eric eNOS contributions to philosophy from Ignace that he became intensely concerned with working out this notion new specifically in historical terms now I would add that Heidegger never thought of this dense and cryptic private manuscript to be publishable and it was not published in the Ghassan tous gob a write the collected works of Heidegger during his lifetime not until 1989 in fact now in my view since its publication the Heidegger scholarship has tended to overstate the significance of this text and to overstate in particular the significance of the term or I'd miss in his thinking and this is something that I have tried to work out more carefully as well nonetheless it was not until the late 1950s and early 1960s that Heidegger brought his notion of fairness into fuller you yet his discussion of a ripeness in his later thought is much more serene than in by Trager and the bight Trager related reflections of the late 1930s all of which are marked by a somewhat disturbing quasi apocalyptic tone this was a difficult decade for Heidegger in his later statements though he no longer speaks of awry Ignace in terms of the dramatic and even traumatic momentous Nisour event fulness of history but rather now he calls it the most gentle of laws that allows the gathering of each being into what it properly is and into a belonging with other beings a characterization we might note and emphasize that is remarkably similar to his long-standing description of being as the primordial logos and I would argue remarkably similar to his earliest use of the word erotic Ness in the 1919 lecture course which I mentioned earlier the later Heidegger ultimately found in the word rightness a way of bringing forth in a particularly vivid way the manifold features of being itself from the beginning of his path of thinking he was concerned to ground that's his own word the beingness of the metaphysical tradition by making manifest being as time temporal spatial way the movement the way in which by which through which beings emerge abide in their full look wane and depart the word in rightness brings the being way into view by virtue of the three fundamental resonances of the word itself the word is a very rich history and resonates very richly so the three resonances help Heidegger get being way into view so first resonance the event or happening that is the efflorescence and effulgence of beings coming in to to the second sense their own here the eigen of Eric then and thereby 3 the third sense coming out into full view to design here arrived and related to air ignant which literally means to come before the eyes from the german word for i our game so this arrived nosov beings this unfolding process Heidegger referred to as the single RA tongue to him in the late 1950s that is the singular as such which no more that echoed his frequent characterization of being itself as the head that Greek word him das eine a in the German the one or as the singular one does is a fine a and of course the singular unfolding of beings is finite and negative but just in case this might be overlooked he sometimes had recourse to pair air ike miss with the word and tightness as a reminder nonetheless in the later work and ike miss conveys the simple and quiet but also profound and astonishing coming to pass of all things such as the tree coming into bloom suddenly or so it seems I'd like to add a comment on his well known but often misread 1962 lecture time and being cyclone sign nearing the end of the lecture Heidegger states the sole purpose of this lecture is to bring into view being itself as a ripeness this one line would certainly be decisive and definitive were it not that he does not helpfully clarify his conclusion here he immediately shifts to a consideration of how this is not to be thought that is he warns that the as in this statement is especially treacherous because the metaphysical habit of thinking reflexively construes what follows the as to be only a mode of being so he observes that if his statement is considered in this more traditional manner there Icke miss would be no more than a subset of being and therefore subordinated to being as the main concept and he emphasizes that this is certainly not his meaning so he he says this traditional thinking this traditional metaphysical thinking simply misses the fundamental matter he wants to speak about in talking about eric eNOS but even though this may be the case he doesn't offer no careful elucidation of how we are to understand then being itself as a ripeness although it may be apparent enough that what he has in mind here is that being itself as a ripeness names the same and that is the giving of these epical or historical renderings of being qua being-ness yet more to the point he does not directly address the apparent tension in the lecture between two claims on the one hand he states throughout that a rightness gives design gives the sign is skipped sign but on the other hand he concludes with the indication that the whole point of the lecture is precisely to bring into view being itself as agnus now the problem here lies with his uncertain use of the word design being now Heidegger could be very very precise and very very careful as as I will say here in a moment but but we have to admit that especially in the later work there is a difficulty in reading any of the text because he often leaves the reader uncertain about the meaning of Zion being and in certain contexts it can be confusing and misleading and here's a particularly of it in this lecture but even in this lecture Heidegger is very careful with his use of the name Zions elves being itself being itself throughout his work he's very very careful in reserving this name for the fundamental matter for thought so in time and being we find that he does not state that a ripeness gives or grants being itself in fact as far as I can determine there is no place in any of heidegger's texts early middle or late where he allows that arrived miss gives being itself nowhere in other words where he uses the phrase escaped signs Elst therefore if we sort out the language of the lecture then we can make better sense of his fundamental position aright miss as as gift gives grants allows enables beingness but a rightness and being itself the same does Elba that's a favorite Heidegger Ian rhetorical turn where he says that the same not identical in a formal logical sense because each term is something slightly different or maybe emphasizing something just a little bit different but they are the same does Elba arrive nests and being itself so carefully considered then the lecture time and being does not reveal any departure in his thinking at all but rather only a reformulation of the fundamental matter for thought in terms of erogenous as as gift in fact I suggest that this formulation itself may be regarded as a retrieval and Restatement of his discussion of the lived experience of the S gift remember way back at the beginning of the talk he uses this in section sections 13 and 14 of that 1919 lecture course but the key point is that the task for thinking called foreign tiny beings rather well-known lecture of 1962 remained what it had always been namely to get interview what earlier Western philosophical thinking simply could not the pure appropriating putting into place giving granting letting of what appears and I don't want to take up too much time am i approaching the limit well good good I wanted to I will summarize this this next section here really which is another term of art of heidecker's let go let me just write that on the board this term is used very often but I think with very little understanding and I think in particular even in the Heidegger scholarship there's this tendency to want to identify leaks too with design again with designs disclose admit and what I wanted to simply leave you with here this afternoon is that I simply do not think that that position can be supported by the texts granted in being in time Heidegger says something something like that in Section 28 but by 1946 Heidegger was very clear that that kind of reading of delicto the clearing the lytic clearing depends on the period in heidegger's thinking early on he prefers to translate it more in terms of alighting playing Unleashed later on more clearly as a spatial clearing but by 1946 Heidegger is very very clear that identifying the clearing with designs disclosing this is is untenable and in the letter on humanism he says it very emphatically but delicto itself is being and he says it again here if you just look at text for there on the on your handout very quickly he says thus it may be appropriate at this time to indicate at least broadly the clearing is the distinctive matter for another thinking this is called four because four decades ago the hermeneutic analytic of design spoke about the clearing with the aim of unfolding the question of being and being in time yet it required a decade's long walk along those forest paths that lead only so far the hopes vague to realize that the sentence in being in time the design of the human being is itself the clearing perhaps surmised the matter of thinking but in no way considered the matter adequately that is in no way posed the matter as a question that arrived at the matter the design is the clearing for presence as such and yet design is at the same time certainly not the clearing insofar as the clearing is design in the first place that is insofar as the clearing grants design as such and this is from 1965 now and I go on here just to talk a little bit about how this is a beautiful example of a retort Axio of the Augustinian kind it's not a retraction as such but it's highly good trying to restate reword refocus what he considered to be always his position and that is that design as disclosing as the clearing must always be kept in view and acknowledged but the focal point of his thinking had always been the clearing itself being itself which clears or lets be designed in the first place and in a conversation with metod vos in these same years Heidegger talks about the clearing in the same language that he had talked about period being so he talks about the human being design is the guardian of the clear remember the guardian of the being or he talks about design is the shepherd of the clearing recall of course the shepherd of being and finally in 1973 again three years before his death text 5 that you have there I think spells it out about as clearly as possible this clearing this free dimension is not the creation of the human being it is not the human being on the contrary it is that which is assigned to him since it is addressed to him it is that which is dispensed to him so in Heidegger's universal terms being itself awry Ignace licked on the same does alpha well let me try to bring my thoughts to a conclusion here this afternoon so being itself then is the unconcealed of beings Alethea the emerging arising appearing shining forth of beings who sees the laying out in gathering of beings the primordial logons but also the appropriating their hike nosov beings and the clearing leaf dome of beings and here Heidegger is always trying to convey not the presence of things but the presencing of things and he often refers to Aristotle's term penises heidegger's translation of that is vivek tight this this move admissible beings into and out of presence and Heidegger meditated at length on Aristotle's notion here of kenosis and especially in his commentary on Aristotle's physics beta1 so let me bring it all to a conclusion and then we can have our conversation to sum up then heidegger's expression the truth of being says the same as being truths now this remains odd sounding and alien to many philosophers and even apparently to some more contemporary Heidegger scholars but it is meaningful and compelling language nonetheless it is Heidegger's distinctive way of calling us back to the experience of being as manifested and indeed as festive because at its heart Heidegger's experience of being is celebratory he's calling us back to the experience of things as they rise up and meet us and as we say in English fill our senses to the experience of ourselves vibrating back from things as Walt Whitman put the nearness and freshness and vividness of what is in the joy and Thanksgiving that this calls forth in us the dynamism of all things both made and found both of the exuberant city and of the serene wooded path all things as they emerge linger and while in their appearance but also wane falter and pass away and there is for us to discern to that deep reserve inherent in the showing of things that Laith a dimension of alia fááá that Heidegger spoke of so often a reserve that keeps us unsure and unknowing and humbly reserved in our telling to ourselves and to others of what is so with these observations taken together we are in view again of the core matter of heidecker's thinking and we are reminded of the essential task that he left for us to release ourselves to the things themselves to their coming abiding and going so that we may be once again amazed and astonished and enthralled or again in Walt Whitman's words till rising and gliding out I wandered off by myself in the mystical moist night-air and from time to time looked up in perfect silence at the Stars thank you very much and so yes well yes that's a very good question and that's it I think that is an issue in Heidegger studies early on he does tend to emphasize designs role as the clearing but again by the 1940s Heidegger is very clear that yes design belongs to the clearing but is not the clearing is not the whole of the clearing is not entirely the clearing and he repeats that from the 40s right to his death in 1976 because he believes that he was misunderstood in being in time that even in being in time he did not intend to say that design is simply the clearing or that design is the core matter of his thinking well that is a very very interesting point and and I think that in this respect hydaker as I say here did remain phenomenological in that broadest sense and that our only access to being is through our design so design is an essential ingredient in thinking the clearing for us but is not to be identified with the clearing because that would be again to fall back into the kind of subject ISM that he was determined to counter and overcome from the very beginning I think it was thinking at least from that 1919 electric cords so yes we must think design as part of the clearing but not the entirety of the clearing the focal point is that it is things that are manifest to design that can then be made manifest by us thank you yes yes soften somehow the transition from the early Heidegger to the late 3rd Heidegger let what you're trying to say when you're analyzing meaning a scene and saying that the reason why there is mean is because being has yes yes in being a time where you find such aberrations of this you know center stage for being as opposed to design one place that came to my mind but I'm curious to know if you would think about it in those terms would be the idea that the horizon is primordial to the projection you need a horizon in terms of their horizon something similar might be with the notion of the pole when the call calls does having happy a school and who is the caller it comes from me but it comes up from beyond me so you might have the calibrations of this idea that you know being has already made some claim on does and it doesn't is there I think I think you say that very very well and I would indeed agree with you and I think that this is something that so concerned Heidegger in the later work that he kept coming back to how he had been misread in being in time that his project was not what it had been taken to be by many either those who thought of it as a simple continuation of Husserl's project or others who went even further well I take him to be both I take him to be misconstrued but I also take it that Heidegger was also deepening his own thinking about what he was really after there that he himself understood that by adopting whorls phenomenological frameworks he could only say so much he could only say it in certain ways that would lead to those kinds of mists readings or misinterpretations so I think it's fair to say of of those who would take a different view that sometimes perhaps Heidegger is not as as fully forthcoming as you might that indeed his own thinking deep in his own insight into what he wanted to say early on was somewhat disguised somewhat covered over by the kind of language he was adopting in working with in whorls classical phenomenological framework right yes thank you but thank you very much I I would agree with you completely yes but I appreciated your talk very much because this is what what you were saying is what I understand is some Heidegger's insights for us on nation philosophy yes some of the scholars would say that hire only began the nation philosophy and you know as we see like an introduction to metaphysics he talks about shortcomings once you get very far beyond the pre-socratics and that he actually kind of abandon ancient philosophy and regarded it as justice limiters all the other periods of philosophy later on but I don't see you saying that and in fact it seems somewhat connected to the issue of how to understand being AI kind of understood you to be talking more about the being of beings rather than being itself but what would you say about well I I think I took valorized ancient philosophy what he valorized it I mean he championed it it's the very very sources of his own thinking and his own insights as he says repeated and he keeps coming back to the Greek thinkers and while he may be critical of Plato and Aristotle in places as representing a step away from what he understood to be the originally insights of the pre-socratics nonetheless it's a lifetime of meditation on Plato and Aristotle that he continues to bring forth he continues to work over and work through and I think his principal criticism is that in Plato and Aristotle we begin to find a consolidation of an understanding of being in terms of constant presence that the temporal dimension has fallen away so when Heidegger uses the word being itself it is the being way it is a temporal spatial finite emerging of beings forces which was translated as nature not were about the Romans so his principal criticism is simply that that that somehow that that the pearl dimension of being seems to have been been lost from view in Plato and in Aristotle but only to an extent to a degree because it's always there he says nonetheless it's in the background they did not lose that originally insight into being way being itself being as such being as being those technical terms I was talking about it wasn't lost entirely at all so he has this tremendous respect for the Greek thinkers for Plato and Aristotle in particular and so I think unfortunately for some Heidegger scholars or unfortunately for those who have come after Heidegger in the postmodern move and it's become it's become something of a habit to simply utter these conclusions or these statements that hydaker rejected Plato and Aristotle criticized them roundly or condemned them or or found them to be not philosophically interesting or that we must move beyond the ones abroad there's nonsense other nonsense it's not in Heidegger and it's certainly not in the thoughtful way I would engage Heidegger's thinking yep yes one has to do simply with Heidegger and a small but it was on Plato's Peking Opera - yes and is pretty hard on they though he's talking about a change that takes place in the philosophical I understand yes I'm hidden this around concealed right I was not fit in I think that's that's a very good way of asking their questions I think that's the text that most people are familiar with in that oh yes professor wibble was referring to a high leaders text on Plato which is normally translated as plato's doctrine of truth which was published in 1942 was composed in 1940 however what many people don't realize is that that there are at least five or six versions of that that preceded the one that is well known the one that is published in the the basic writings or a path Marx I think it's in path Marx and I deal with a number all of the the previous iterations of his criticism and I think that last statement is perhaps the most critical in the earlier statements it is qualified in in many ways and so he he often find him saying no no Plato had a glimpse into this the insight was still there the epic Anytus will see us he understood that that even beingness was not the final movement that there was something beyond and of course he reads Plato to be retaining or recovering or sustaining this idea that being is this this temporal spatial emergence of beings so he's very charitable very generous to Plato in many other places but in that particular text and that's the text most people know yes Heidi does begin to state that in a more sharply critical way and and that's the text that many people then if they're simply familiar with that text would would perhaps take away that Heidegger had a more critical stance toward Plato but I don't think it's borne out by the by the body of work or the body of heidegger's reflections on Plato yeah no I think I think he always had a lover's quarrel with Plato that on the one hand we find here so much that we can retrieve so much that we can recover so much that we can continue to to turn over for ourselves in philosophical thinking but at the same time he's troubled by the trajectory of Plato's thinking toward identifying being with this constant presence this timelessness the space lessness worthlessness that is the play know that he always did quarrel where that is the Plato he always remained critical of but that's not to say that he's not appreciative of the richer dimension of Plato's thinking where he even finds some of the this originally thinking of being still in place still there are Clues there are there are these important instructive elements and Plato's thinking that we can point to to show that no I mean this is a great thinker trying to work through very difficult philosophical problems my other question has to do simply with the pie makers of discontent of acquaintances Daivari thought a breakfast in one and I guess they're I'm quite fascinated by that as to how thoroughly how carefully theoretical climates on that very text because it's quite complicated Aquinas there as you know I don't want to go through the whole text because but he's trying to explain how it's possible then for being to be divided because it can't be divided by itself it can be divided by something outside itself from its knowledge equally divided so he says it can be divided from within by certain moves and then he has special moves these would be the categories first and one of those trends in dollars is a property of and that's why the first he was talking about but what I'm interested in is because we're a - what is prime that primary there among the transcendentals is being and then as he gets to down to the relative transit levels and that would be the true and the good then as you bring valve innocently how that review Aquinas is saying when we consider being in relationship to the soul and especially to the intellect and we refer to it as for the practice but at least Thomas has two senses of truth even in that discussion so he's talking about the truth count in being as a property of P so Epps president wherever the being is found that is very clear there's no real distinction between truth and being contradicted in that particular sentence and it's that truth which we could today call intelligibility which enables them for us to arrive truth in the mind or truth in the intellect and if we look at it from let's say the Georgian philosophic are going to be order of discovery we can make those distinctions without bringing in God or relationship to God as far as far as I would be Thomas remember the less in the order it being ultimately for a full account of truth as you brought out there - I abuse that nevertheless them that truth of being enjoyed them by as your particular being ultimately rest upon its if you like that equation or that's enough of you where the uses we are well it does have correspondence to be divine idea and other works to God's knowledge of that truth I think it's important though to note that - the divine idea is God's understanding of his own being and as a consequence another divine idea is simply their way of which God understands himself as indicated by so the divine idea is ultimately grounded in an identical divine so that's where the relationship was ultimately arrested but now the question arise well the definition of true candycam comes up with several different proposed definition that including the one we mentioned by a guest another by understand and finally this one which brings true theater as an ADD equation between what is an example that did what was the thing that a scorpion fiqar logic go through and he does say and you used to work directly he does say in that true proprietary speaking strictly speaking he's calm in the impolite but on the other hand he doesn't deny in fact yesterday that troop is also found when we speak broadly in being himself and that's a very important well and of course I would agree with you that a much more careful look at the text would be in order but I think I let me put it this way and see if you would agree with me here that I think what Heidegger is trying to highlight though is that Aquinas wishes to say that we cannot speak of truth apart from an intellect human or divine so he doesn't quite see Aquinas saying that truth is a property of being he doesn't see that at least in those texts he doesn't say that there and that's what I think he's focusing on oh that Heidegger's mistake it translated president but only as thought by god right ultimately the truths that have let's put it this way movie being that the creature materialized according to Aquinas exist only insofar as it is created by God right and then we refer for instance to the truth of the being well that being is ontologically true because it's created by God to correspond to an idea which is identical with the divine essence so even that divine idea is grounded in the divine people so the problem is he does when he last is through it's appropriate again using that particular term therefore present get being or in the intellect he says in the intellect when we speak most quickly most right right right but he also says that cooking broccoli inappropriate as president be its founder River being itself astound now I might say that you're not too high because not the only one who becomes as as you find Heidegger reading him apparently I can welcome to Mystics college today who recently wrote an article saying that Thomas abandoned that position not in the Daivari topic but in the Summa theologia that was called alarms alarms kablamo but he was then corrected I think correctly so by our say the world's leading authority on the transcendental sometimes they do I'm a person who is a duck scholar got a very nice bit of the book on the trends and battles action I was a long section so it is a it's a very subtle point with a very important yes oh no I would agree and of course I'm I'm certainly not saying that Heidegger necessarily read the text correctly but it is how he read the text and I think and and maybe maybe I you know I understand what you're saying but I think that I'm not sure that Heidegger is entirely simply wrong on this I mean it's maybe something that would need more nuanced hits get be kids there's a great difference I think between design courses of mystic s like that's another reason yes yes it doesn't well I think he does but I think he criticizes it only because it is always related to essence and so it always has that sense of constant presence and and so he does take account of it but he doesn't find it as very helpful in his only elucidation of what he understands by being itself as the being way so but I think that this is an important dialogue to continue to have was on our faculty for many years main Thomas yes I guess I did I did not know him but I did say leaders throughout the eight years and he was a specialist in Aquinas that he had also be new Heidegger inside and out about my diggers consumption he gave another simple explanation and I've never forgotten that he said you felt that Heidegger I actually wanted to have truth of being without God well would you agree well I just don't think that Heidegger makes any claim about God at all yes I'm just moving into the account exactly I mean it doesn't mean that he's closed the matter at all and I think that that's another miss reading of Heidegger an unfortunate miss reading of Heidegger he doesn't close the matter at all he says that as far as we can consider this logically or hermeneutic we phenomenologically it remains an open question but we cannot see past the being way this temporal spatial emergence of being against thank Thank You professor Whipple yes yes it was a certain time touching on the end is the issue of covering out for concealment as being a kind of equally important heartbeat but he always goes together with on concealment cruces is restless strode a lot of on concealment and then Ronnie even says that freedom is the shimmering veil that covers up as well as revealing itself as being and covers up in the theory now it's just wondering kind of one of the more lucid expositions he gives dual nature of being is consuming and consuming is the some thought design being in time it's her own of a past its future is cut short by ethnic kind of indefinite moods that we have about those two parts of our lives or about our existence it reveals an expression well being that's a direct means by which we start to understand being and I was wondering how in the later ones their writings that he kind of eclipses that understanding digital nature of being is consuming and consuming by moving past the description of God's existence does that make sense already no no no that's that's quite all right I don't think he moves past it I think he always emphasizes that does this dimension of life a to la Thea so this dimension of of concealment as you say to the showing of things I would perhaps be a less inclined to refer to that as the dual nature of being because that gets us into all sorts of other problems that we don't need but but that but that being itself as a life they are is the showing of beings which always retains a reserve this deep reserve he's always talking about so it is not a a transparent showing do you understand writings or in the earlier stuff when we have a concrete ripping of design by that type of being in the treatment like work it works well I think I think he says it in different ways over the course of his own lifetime of thinking and I think if you find it more in terms of designs facticity and throne nests in being in time I think that's that's fair enough although the section and truth and section 44 and being in time he does come back to talking about this length a dimension of life Thea but then he continues to restate it throughout his lifetime of thinking in all sorts of different ways poetic and philosophical but I think you're absolutely right that was what I wanted to end with there that it is always a dimension of heidecker's thinking which keeps us from a kind of bold claim that we simply have the truth of the being or that we have the truth of being itself as manifestations as Miss right yes yes thank you sir yes yes Holger thank you very much with you I have two questions as well so one concerns Heidegger's way of thinking the innovation between Israeli fried adventures of 1919 for the food being a scientist as later for that too and two interesting questions here what is it is very puzzling and interesting that many scholars covers from this one volumes came out in the 1990 election for electric motors but they realized well what we took basically some of the later hydras basic ideas they're already there you will eat the world world's biodiversity this language the interesting question is what is happening then on the way to being in time that seems to be very different that it seems to speak the different languages of them and I natives are criticized being in time has to be indebted to a certain kind of subjectivism yes it is reading advances or it is rebooting but being in time or at least he said what being time has an ambiguous character perspective so the interesting things what's happening from here to being a time and then divided by look at there's another interesting question is you completely right but later adding rules emphasize emphasize the influence of Brentano and that pressing the question of being was the big overarching question if you read the earning private lectures it is there but it's not as prominent as you would expect it to be in case you start religious electricity facting the live that historical but for some fundamental ontological questioning becomes more prominent in design in the course of 1920s so there's something interesting here as well I mean do you think he's construing a sort of narrative here constructing a certain narrative against the evidence he didn't want these lectures would be published yes right to begin with yes so how do you explain these two phenomena a certain loss on the way of being in time what is it a loss and then it's the question of being well I I think that that's a very difficult question right to to answer it's related to the question that you were asking it seems clear to me that that hydaker at least beginning in the 1940s did begin to construct a certain narrative for himself about what he was always concerned about and from that point of view it would seem that some of these early lecture courses some some of this early language was somewhat disturbing to him somewhat he was somewhat uncomfortable with it because it did appear that he had adopted this more narrowly phenomenological view that he was working with in Husserl's phenomenological framework and in that 1946 piece as I said he's quite decisive he's quite emphatic of course I was not I was from the very beginning not working within that framework and he complains bitterly why is it that people keep reading me as why do people keep reading even being in time as a kind of phenomenology of natural consciousness I'm not doing any such thing this isn't this was not my project now we could ask the question is he being entirely fair to the texts is he being entirely forthcoming about his own development as a thinker I think these are legitimate questions but for me as I read a Heidegger that emerges around 1940 I think what's interesting to me is to go back and to try to discern Oh what is he talking about you know what are the clues in this early were from 1919 into being in time what are the clues that would lead us to agree with Heidegger that that was not his project that was not his primary concern that it was always with being qua manifestos and so I think if we look at it like that as I'm trying to do I think certain things begin to spring forth in let's say the 1919 Elektra course and even in being in time but but I think Holger you're right there is there is a rather significant change in tone too and being in time and then into the 1930s for instance I point out in in the in the book that most people associate Heidegger with this mood amongst but Heidegger spent very little time talking about this maybe from 1926 to 1930 it plays a major role in his thinking but after that that that mood is not privileged by Heidegger ever again and he moves entirely away from it to astonishment to wonder to all what I was emphasizing here at the end paper so many people are are fixed on this hydaker who has this rabbit tragic vision of life we're all filled with this August before existence this is a very small part Heidegger's set of work and thinking and I don't think a significant part and I might be you know I might certainly be in the minority in terms of postmodern thinkers who want to play that up for all it's worth you know to keep us trembling in our existence there's no doubt it's maybe an element of that but it is certainly I think you'd be hard-pressed to say that that's the dominant theme what moved that Heidegger speaks about as a philosopher over the course of his entire philosophical work well I think that's the best I can do with the moment okay but we can talk more about it look professional boredom later on right so you would think that what he's doing is not that well the way which means boredom towards the end of his career and she talks about boredom as a movie he wants to bring to light the positivity important right certain kind of boredom so you could probably go back to anxiety in being at time and we hear what is actually positive about that it's not like a gloomy mood but actually if you would want to kind of continue in life and then read something in the area to do it is except that I think that in the later work the moons of August or boredom these become moods that are distinctive of the present age see they're no longer constitutive of design of the human being as he spoke about that and being in time and in the twenties he begins to talk about these more negative moods as somehow ingredient to the age of Technology and and that becomes part of his critique of the age of technology but he no longer says that these moods are constitutive of dots I know in fact he says if we can move beyond right this kind of in framing the sketch there if we can move beyond this technological and framing we can recover a kind of boat agenda kind of rootedness in being in being see I think that's what I would emphasize I know Ted ki sio we would would perhaps not go that far because he still wants to talk about rootedness in in a political community or a cultural community but I think it's it's far richer than that in heidecker's of rootedness in being in the being way and this is a recovery of this astonishment or amazement a very positive celebratory mood for the later Heidegger so I think that would be the key difference yet yes do we have time for yes yes yes Heidegger is there any analogy in truth I mean when he says that meaning of truth analogous to truth of a proposition were these clearly equivocal well while Heidegger distinguishes he thinks in in some respect the tradition became dominated by the truth of correctness propositional truth so the first thing he wants to do is step back to something more fundamental or primordial he says a truth of disclosure that design discloses what shows itself from itself and that's a more fundamental kind of truth from what he calls the more derivative understanding of truth is propositional truth is correctness the truth that belongs properly in the in the judgement so on the side of design right go he refers to on a soui that is the ways in which thousand discloses truth and he wants to make that distinction and point to a more fundamental kind of truth his truth of disclosure but designs disclosing this is itself dependent on the truth of being being as it manifests itself as it is shows itself from itself so he wants to extend that word truth to speak about being and his complaint is that he doesn't find there in that text in devera today he would like to affirm being truths and that becomes the like motif of his commentary there okay well thank you for much the truth may be a great way to begin and then pursue this year so thank you again thank you Thank You Dean next week Professor Richard vault from Xavier University who's a defender of fight Vega a translator yes indeed good friend - nice to have you all together and you've been do fit out and we're not going to do for that rather I would have you go to that leap boom they're clearing this bar boy yay so thanks for thank you thank you very much pleasure thank you it's like you thank you very much I know a lady

Channel: Philosophy Overdose

Views: 58,061

Rating: 4.8322849 out of 5

Keywords: Philosophy, Heidegger, Martin Heidegger, Truth, Being, Metaphysics, Ontology, Continental Philosophy, Aletheia, Unconcealedness, Dasein, Disclosure, Being and Time, Unclosedness, The Clearing, Worldhood, Being in the World, Ontological Difference, Existentialism, Das Mann, Present at Hand, Ready to Hand, Humanism, Dreyfus, Being qua Being, Existence, Existential

Id: w--vJoTogdY

Length: 108min 55sec (6535 seconds)

Published: Sun Feb 03 2013