Martin Heidegger | What is Metaphysics | Existentialist Philosophy & Literature

33 thoughts on “Martin Heidegger | What is Metaphysics | Existentialist Philosophy & Literature

  1. Heidegger's vernacular and terminology are endlessly frustrating and hard to unpack. These videos are extremely helpful, Professor Sadler. I wonder if it was appropriate for H to communicate his philosophy through such difficult language, though.

  2. Why would he say things that hints towards idealism? Why not say that science is just a experience of being in the human mind?

  3. @25 minutes… when you are talking about mood revealing the Nothing— i have to mention The Doors and their song, Riders On The Storm…. he quotes Heidegger in there….>>>to me, that is the best

  4. I read Being and Time in 2013. It was a really good introduction to What Is Metaphysics? 10/10 would recommend. I liked the part when he starts to talk about “temporal ecstatic unities,” it goes on for another 250 pages, you read a page and a half, realize you haven’t been paying attention, go back two pages, try to hang on to each word for dear life, inceptioning the translation with a “what the heck does this particular collection of nonsense words actually say” translation of your very own by filling up an entire notebook, occasionally getting a moment of elated epiphany when a bunch of stuff “clicks,” feeling really smart for a day or two, trying to relate all this cool stuff you’re reading to your friends, realizing you look and sound like you’ve had a psychotic break…I’m still traumatized…recently read Derrida’s 1967 books hasn’t helped, but Heidegger was a reading comprehension trial by fire, so it wasn’t as bad as everyone says.

    Anyways, read What Is Metaphysics? this morning, now watching this in the bath.


  5. Thanks for the enlightening video! Just a question about other manifestations of nothingness according to Heidegger. You mentioned boredom. Is that one? What about forgetfulness or nostalgia – as the past is annihilated?

  6. hi there. i wonder if you’ve considered creating a podcast, containing nothing other than the audio track of your youtube lectures. would make your content a lot more accessible to drivers& runners etc AND you can of course add advertising if you wish. anyway, thanks for your work

  7. I'm so delighted at this lecture. Dr. Sandler is a gifted teacher and superb guide to these materials. I don't think any American interested in Heidegger and metaphysics could do any better as an introduction. That the professor is so interactive–responding to nearly every individual comment shows a commitment and tenacity unparalleled to my experience (also, I'd venture, so much of it revealing a considerable degree of….self-aware anxiety ;). I almost never comment, but feel a strong desire for affirmation after listening. The real question, for me, is how might one apply these revelations in life, in coping, in interacting–ethically and otherwise, in 'living toward death,' as it were, etc. Certainly, there is a "scientific" approach here, rigorous method and a keen eye for discovering 'essences' (even if they are only "Existence" in long run), like the other phenomenologists, I always feel like I've been handed the supreme tool of tools–the tool for all tools, so to speak. And, just like science, I feel quickly outclassed, technically inferior and dimwitted because I don't know how to use it. I hope I just made some sense. Thank you for the lecture!

  8. who are those philosophers who investigated the Nothing, aside St. Anselm? And in which work did St. Anselm discussed the nothing? Thank you

  9. I thought the study of Being is ontology, not metaphysics? Metaphysics, or at least this is what I thought, is the study of the most fundamental principles. Being presupposes such principles to even be possible, so metaphysics would be prior to ontology.

  10. It's amazing to listen to that 'shift' with Plotinus in mind, that to say the intellect follows from the One could be challenged with the idea that it first requires the Nothing. It's so incredibly simple in terms of negation too!

  11. Thank you for helping me understand the anxiety aspect and the holding out inherent in Dasein! was very lost!!

  12. 13:41; St. Anslem and nothing. You obviously think Anslem has something to say about nothing. I will research and reflect upon that. What is the nothing? Grammatically, we are referring to nothing as a noun. Linguistically at least we are positing nothing as a "thing". But beyond linguistics, we may actually seem to be posting nothing as an existence. ( not merely verbal or grammatical, but ontologically ).To give a noun for something is to say "it is this,not that", or maybe "it is this in that this this is this constantly and permanently". BUt nothing has no limit besides the things that are, the things that are are the only demarcation that would specify the end of themselves, and the beginning of the nothing. The nothing would be a shadow whose outline (metron) would be the shape of which it is the shadow of, and would be as indeterminate in itself.yes, first you start with negation of say one concrete thing, and then one extrapolates to the negation of the totality of things. the nature of the "shadow" changes in scope. ( Author of the "Cloud of Unknowing…stay out of my head!).16:34 OR IS IT THE OTHER WAY AROUND ( the limit of the something is the nothing, and reciprocally, the limit of the nothing is the something: they share the same limit that demarcates and thus makes them ens, finite,complete, identifiable as that which they are(but nothing is a morpheus shadow, not an ens) . If identity is given by negation ( I am me because i am not you ) rather than by self-identification ( I am me because whenever I compare myself to myself I am always the same: I am my own standard: it is intrinsic to itself and is perfectly what it is).Nothing has an ontological priority, as it is the shadow qua shadow that demarcates things. The negation of the negation sets the limits of what was originally negated, and thus, creates the ens. 16;57

  13. To ask the question what is metaphysics is to ask the question what is being. What is real, what is true(not illusory). Has hints of trying to understand Exodus 3:14, but I suspect H would say |misguided", and would much more be related to the actuailty of Aristotle than the mystery of a theistic god. What is the essence of being human?what is the nothing? What is science? What allows science to be science? What is science really about?"getting at things as they really are". Hard to deny that. Detail and precision are okay, but without the truth of being, it is just another form of delusion. "submission to beings themsleves". Yes, but we have to identity where the being is. Is it in the permanence of a hieroglyphic icon, an ideos that transcends time that all tokens it represents are mere copies and thus to a degree, counterfeit? (one could get lost in imagination, or if one becomes grammatical, lost in grammar and come up with Being per say as the anchor and pivot of reality). Heidegger is going to find the path to being in immediate but forgetfully experience, and with his circling, carve away util the essence of things reveal themselves. 10:23 sort of trinity"man the investigator."helps beings to themsleves" Yes, I agree, there is something like idealism here. Heidegger gives primacy to language, but submits man to being by insisting that man must be an opening to being. I get the sense that before man develops the essence of whatever being being is entirely indetermnate, and forgetful. Nothing is parsed, nothing is named. THe human lives forgetfully in the ready-to-hand. To analyze and name, to give essences to things, is in a sense to create being (ens).BUt each interpretive ens ( and the achetechtonic system of relations each ens implies) is still measured by a reality that transcends man: Being (esse): the reality of reality. This is why man must always have the comportment of "openess", and realize his ens are approximation not to a ghost of reason or language, but to things.

  14. here we go again. Finished "The essence of truth" again, now "what is metaphysics." taking notes, and thinking about them is driving me deeper into the essays, and later I will read the texts again. Thank you for these lectures. BY the way, I listened to and read the Essence of technology. IN that book there are more essays: ( one on the danger that H talks about in technology, and another on Nietszche , and another on the world picture. You may like the one on the danger.)

  15. I know this would likely require a much longer response, so feel free to be short or curt.

    I accidentally read the entirety of Heidegger's "Introduction to Metaphysics" thinking it was this at first; what do you think of Heidegger's etymologies of Greek words like logos? As I can't read Greek it's hard to see how far he's stretching things at times.

    Thanks as always for the lectures.

  16. This is wonderful stuff. I've struggled a bit with Being and Time and listened to Hubert Dreyfus' lectures on iTunes U, and I find your lecture here to be very illuminating. Makes me want to make another try at reading Heidegger.

  17. Do you know if Heidegger ever mentioned  anything concerning undefined mathematical statements (e.g.  a number divided by zero )? Or what do you think he might say about them?

  18. Finished watching the Peter Sellers film "Being There". Much laughter-in-the-world. "All will be well, in the garden". Thanks for these lectures, great stuff.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *