Heidegger & Modern Existentialism

<p>Heidegger &amp; Modern Existentialism
William Barrett discusses Heidegger and Existentialism with Bryan Magee in this 1978 interview. Existentialists take human existence and the human condition to be a fundamental issue. They tend to be radical individualists who privilege our lived experience and the passions. They focus on themes such as: freedom, authenticity, anxiety/angst/dread, alienation, death, the absurd, and nihilism. They are often suspicious of any fixed human nature and objective/universal values. Some of the most important existentialist thinkers include Jean-Paul Sartre, Martin Heidegger, S&oslash;ren Kierkegaard, Friedrich Nietzsche, Dostoyevsky, Albert Camus, Karl Jaspers, and Simone de Beauvoir. (My Summary)
https://youtu.be/bkQjj0vDHDk</p>

<p>
00:00
[Music]
00:11
every now and again a serious philosophy
00:13
sweeps belatedly into intellectual
00:15
fashion usually as a result of some
00:18
particular set of circumstances between
00:20
the two world wars this happened to
00:22
Marxism mainly as a result of the
00:24
Russian Revolution after the Second
00:26
World War it happened to existentialism
00:28
the fashion for which began on the
00:30
continent of Europe in response largely
00:33
to the experience of Nazi occupation
00:35
when I talk of a philosophy being
00:37
fashionable and speaking of it's
00:39
catching on not only with a lot of
00:41
academics but with writers of all kinds
00:43
novelists playwrights poets journalists
00:46
so that it begins to pervade the whole
00:48
cultural atmosphere of the time in
00:50
post-war France there seemed to be
00:52
existentialist novels films plays and
00:55
even conversation on all sides the most
00:58
famous name associated with that
01:00
development both then and now is that of
01:02
jean-paul Sartre but the existentialism
01:05
of this century really began not in
01:08
France but in Germany and in the period
01:10
following the first world war and in
01:13
serious terms the most significant
01:15
figure of the movement is not Sartre but
01:17
Heidegger that's to say there's virtual
01:20
unanimity among students of modern
01:22
existentialism that Heidegger as well as
01:24
preceding Sartre in time is the more
01:27
profound and more original thinker so in
01:30
this program we're going to approach
01:32
modern existentialism chiefly through
01:34
the work of Heidegger though later on we
01:36
shall have a bit to say about Sartre and
01:38
how he fits into the picture Martin
01:41
Heidegger was born in southern Germany
01:43
in 1889 and lived in the same small area
01:46
of Europe for virtually the whole of his
01:47
life he studied under the famous
01:49
philosopher who saw before himself
01:52
becoming a professional teacher of
01:53
philosophy in 1927 at the age of 38 he
01:58
published his most important book called
02:00
being and time he was to live for
02:03
getting on for another half century
02:05
after that and he wrote a great deal
02:06
more some of it very interesting but
02:08
nothing else of his was ever to be as
02:10
big or as good or as influential as
02:13
being on time it's not an easy book to
02:16
read but we have here to talk about it
02:18
the author of what I think is the best
02:20
of all introductions to existentialism
02:22
for the
02:23
reader William Barret professor of
02:26
philosophy at New York University and
02:28
author of that excellent book irrational
02:30
man professor Barrett if you can imagine
02:33
for the moment that I'm somebody who
02:34
knows absolutely nothing at all about
02:36
the philosophy of Martin Heidegger and
02:38
you were going to start setting about
02:40
giving me some basic idea how would you
02:43
begin I I think I would try to locate
02:48
the man in this historical context to
02:50
begin with it would be a little bigger
02:52
context than the one you indicate namely
02:55
it wouldn't be measured in terms of
02:56
decades but centuries and I've tried to
03:02
locate him first in relation to the what
03:05
say the whole epic of modern philosophy
03:07
which begins with Descartes it was
03:10
rather interesting to place him in in in
03:13
that context because it relates him and
03:15
differentiates them from other
03:17
philosophers in the 20th century now as
03:20
you know the Descartes was one of the
03:24
founders of the new science that is of
03:26
modern physics and part of his scheme
03:30
for launching the science dependent upon
03:32
like the same kind of split between
03:34
consciousness and the external world the
03:37
mind schematized nature for quantitative
03:41
measures for calculation for the purpose
03:46
of manipulating nature and at the same
03:48
time the human subject the consciousness
03:50
doing that was set off against it so you
03:54
what came out of it was a second kind of
03:56
dualism between mind and the external
04:00
world
04:00
now most philosophy nearly all
04:03
philosophy in the subsequent two
04:06
centuries accommodated itself to the
04:09
Cartesian framework at the beginning of
04:15
this century a number of philosophers
04:17
began to feel that in some sense it was
04:20
uncomfortable and we find that the a
04:23
kind of revolt or rebellion against the
04:26
cartesianism takes place among different
04:27
schools both in England and on the
04:31
continent as a matter of fact with the
04:33
American pragmatist ill now Heidegger is
04:36
one of those
04:37
rebels against a car and if you stop to
04:40
think of it in this rebellion against a
04:45
car I think we would get the key idea of
04:49
hiding this philosophy with which I
04:51
would would want to start educating
04:53
somebody in the philosophy let me make
04:56
sure that that yes they're together up
04:58
to this yes right what you're saying in
05:00
effect is this that with the development
05:03
of certain science which really began in
05:06
the 16th century we get this the
05:08
development of the assumption that there
05:11
is somehow a split in reality between
05:13
subject and object there are humans
05:16
observing the world and there is the
05:19
world which they are observing and this
05:22
dualism this assumption that there is a
05:25
division in reality between subject and
05:27
object goes all the way through our
05:29
science and all the way through our
05:31
philosophy though in fact contrary to
05:33
what probably most Western men and women
05:35
suppose it's really a view of reality
05:38
which is peculiar to the West and
05:41
peculiar to the last four or five
05:43
century right right now now it's an
05:46
uncomfortable view because there is in
05:48
some sense we don't live with this view
05:51
I don't I don't consider you as a mind
05:54
attached to a body or I don't consider
05:56
them I'm conscious of you there but I
05:58
infer your existence your existence is
06:01
is doubtful in ordinary life we move
06:04
back and forth between mind and body is
06:07
perfectly recognizable fashion without
06:11
proposing to ourselves any particular
06:12
philosophical puzzles in these
06:15
transactions so that it becomes somehow
06:18
contrary to our ordinary feel of things
06:20
to proceed in this way as if the mind
06:24
and the external world was set off
06:26
against each other in this way and this
06:28
revolt against dualism I think is one of
06:30
the features of 20th century philosophy
06:33
Heidegger has his own mode of dealing
06:35
with it I think you and I are together
06:40
in the same world I mean you're not a
06:43
mind attached to a body and I'm not a
06:45
mind attached to a body primarily we're
06:48
two human beings within the same so you
06:51
me how would you start introducing
06:53
somebody someone to heidegger's
06:55
philosophy I mean I would say you start
06:58
with this fundamental concept of being
07:01
in the world that we are beings of of
07:04
course now the word being makes us
07:06
recoil because it sounds very
07:07
far-fetched in highfalutin but in the
07:10
primary cases in this case we have to
07:12
understand that the most mundane factual
07:15
ordinary everyday sense the way in which
07:18
average ordinary or extraordinary human
07:20
beings are concretely in the world
07:22
that's where we start from and that's
07:24
where we begin to philosophize but may I
07:27
say that I find this a very congenial
07:28
starting point because the notion that
07:30
reality is split between observer and
07:33
observed or subject and object isn't
07:36
something that ever presented itself
07:37
naturally to me it was something I have
07:39
to learn so to speak in school or as a
07:41
student and at first I thought it a very
07:43
strange idea I think that the experience
07:47
of the individual accords much more with
07:49
what you are now saying that is to say
07:51
we we emerge from the unconsciousness of
07:54
early baby hoods let's be to find
07:56
ourselves as beings in a world which is
07:59
the phrase you just know if we just find
08:01
ourselves here in this world and this
08:04
split that's where we start well the
08:06
split between subject and object doesn't
08:08
appear in philosophy until you get
08:09
really at formulating they kinda said
08:11
known to the Greeks and the medieval
08:13
philosophers no having having
08:16
established the difference between
08:18
Heidegger and the tradition mmm-hmm
08:21
how does Heidegger then proceed what
08:23
does he how does he proceed to formulate
08:25
his problem well you see the once you're
08:28
planted in in the world we are being to
08:32
the world then the task of philosophy
08:33
becomes primarily one of description
08:36
you are the philosopher then aims to
08:40
describe the various modes of ways in
08:42
which we exist within this world now in
08:46
in this respect to see highly this
08:49
approach is a little different from some
08:50
of the anti Cartesian rebels in British
08:54
philosophy let's say more Vic and Stan
08:56
who start with very definite problems of
08:59
knowledge and perception how do we know
09:01
the external world
09:02
now what I would like to say is that you
09:07
see that in in this respect when you
09:10
propose an epistemological question you
09:13
are already in the world to propose it
09:15
your ticket of admission to the ordinary
09:18
world is not contingent upon your
09:20
solving that puzzle when you say
09:22
epistemological do you mean anything to
09:24
do with the cereal aisle I can't believe
09:26
the reception and so yes so that
09:29
knowledge is is simply one other mode of
09:31
our being in the world and the various
09:35
modes in which we are in the world I
09:36
mean some of them are a much more urgent
09:40
and less theoretical knowledge we're in
09:45
the world in various fashions we're
09:47
anxiety-ridden sometimes worse
09:50
essentialism imply that the
09:52
existentialist philosophers see
09:54
existence as a problem it's a problem
09:59
since we have to cope with it but it's
10:00
it's the given in any case I mean it's
10:03
not inferred but the the problem is then
10:06
to characterize it descriptively i think
10:09
it's quite important to to emphasize
10:10
that both Heidegger then his his aim is
10:14
descriptive he is not a speculative meta
10:16
physician he's not he's not erecting any
10:19
abstract speculative theory about what
10:24
ultimate reality is if his if his ideas
10:27
stand or for they stand a fall in terms
10:30
of whether they're adequately then they
10:33
adequately describe you see our actual
10:35
interfere what would you agree with this
10:36
formulation that throughout the history
10:39
of Western philosophy
10:42
the central problem really of our whole
10:44
philosophical tradition has been the
10:46
problem of knowledge what is it to know
10:49
what do we know how do we know that we
10:51
know how can we be sure etc that is the
10:54
the key problem all the way through but
10:58
Heidegger isn't concerned with that
11:00
problem centrally he's concerned with
11:02
the problem of what it is to be right
11:04
what it is to exist how is it that
11:07
anything exists at all what is this
11:09
existence that we find ourselves in
11:11
and that's a quite different kind of
11:13
problem isn't it which is there
11:15
fascinate some people but I think it's
11:17
hard for other people to get hold off
11:18
because it's unusual in my say there's a
11:21
you know a tradition but I'd like to
11:22
point out that the the pre-empting of
11:25
the central role in philosophy the
11:27
problem of knowledge is really something
11:29
which is characterized philosophy more
11:31
or less since Descartes I mean it was
11:32
discussed by earlier philosophers but it
11:34
didn't have quite that that absolutely
11:37
central place that it had after they
11:40
caught so in some sense it's a returner
11:42
Heidegger thinks of himself in some
11:44
senses a follower of the Greeks you say
11:50
that what Heidegger is trying to do is
11:52
to give a description of the reality in
11:54
which we find ourselves to do the
11:56
description of being of existence of
11:58
what there is human existence human
12:00
existence but I mean a layman might ask
12:03
well what's the point of this I mean we
12:05
have this existence here we are we are
12:07
living it it's it's it's in a sense all
12:09
we have what is the point of describing
12:12
that which we are already having all
12:15
that with which we already uh turley
12:16
familiar what could can a description of
12:19
this give us that we haven't already got
12:21
well it's the familiar that usually
12:23
eludes us in life I mean what before I
12:25
knows is what we see last it's true that
12:28
the features of human existence which he
12:31
describes up in many ways commonplace
12:34
when you get through with his analysis
12:36
but you haven't seen them quite in this
12:38
way before and I I think it's the case
12:42
that people don't see what's before them
12:44
they look past that or look through it
12:45
and in one way or another and adequate
12:50
description of of experience with in
12:53
some sense enlighten our eyes to what
12:54
what there is and which is not a easy
12:59
easy to see in all cases but uh does
13:01
this mean that that there is throughout
13:03
Heidegger an emphasis only Everyday on
13:06
the ordinary beginning familiar yes and
13:10
it's for many things but there's also an
13:13
emphasis on the extraordinary the
13:15
unusual you see if I compare hiding in
13:19
this respect with another philosopher of
13:20
the everyday use
13:22
in general sense let's say the later
13:24
victims died the the comparison is
13:28
rather interesting in one respect
13:29
because Vic and Stein envisages the task
13:32
of philosophy to be unraveling the
13:34
snores of our ordinary language so that
13:37
then we can continue functioning on the
13:39
same plane let's say that sort of level
13:42
plane of fishin communication within the
13:45
world now and in this sense we almost
13:50
envisage with Vic and sound possibility
13:52
if we unraveled or with snails and
13:55
language philosophy would disappear so
13:57
are the problems or questions which set
13:59
us into philosophy would disappear but
14:01
now you see in heidegger's case we move
14:05
along that plane of ordinary reality and
14:08
there suddenly or extraordinary gaps
14:11
kinds of experiences which are very well
14:15
now I think we are getting Heidegger in
14:16
our sight so yeah but I think people
14:18
watching this discussion will be
14:20
beginning to ask themselves well yes but
14:21
what does he actually say what does he
14:23
talk about what are his doctrines now
14:25
what are some of the central themes with
14:28
which he is concerned and let's start
14:29
going into what he has to say
14:32
well for example the one characteristic
14:36
of human existence in them
14:38
we've talked a little bit about you and
14:40
I this notion of what he calls the
14:44
thoroughness of human existence the word
14:48
in German looks very imposing give
14:50
orphan height literally throwing us but
14:52
it's a simple notion we're thrown into
14:55
the world and this is a case of where
14:58
what is most ordinary man how it is
15:04
nevertheless a quite extraordinary fact
15:05
about our individual human destiny what
15:08
do we simply find ourselves yeah without
15:11
as it were a by-your-leave or anybody
15:13
does we didn't pick our parents we are
15:16
born of those parents we are born at
15:18
this particular time we are born with
15:20
whatever genetic structures given to us
15:23
and this is the load we take upon us in
15:26
order to fashion a life in this sense we
15:28
are thrown or projected into a world so
15:31
that human life starts at birth
15:34
very beginning is a cast of the dice its
15:37
contingency is rooted in the very fact
15:39
of the inescapable facts of your
15:43
individual birth and parentage your
15:46
individual time in history we're born in
15:49
the 20th century and not in some other
15:50
and what is right I don't have to say
15:52
about that
15:53
well we begin our existence as a task in
15:56
the sense is something we take upon
15:58
ourselves because you see existence is
16:02
not a neutral fact when you concern with
16:06
human existence existence is ongoing it
16:08
has to be we are always involved thus in
16:12
the task of as a were creating ourselves
16:15
always from this contingent moving back
16:18
into an open future right all the time
16:20
the future is the predominant tense and
16:23
hide again he sees what he sees man is
16:26
essentially a so to speak an ongoing
16:28
right creature yes and as a matter of
16:31
fact is is a count of we construct the
16:34
notion of clock time we make watches and
16:37
other chronometer because we're planning
16:40
to use that time so we're projecting
16:42
ourselves into the future and on that
16:44
basis we can calculate time so then
16:47
again with the the dimension of time
16:51
that is is most compelling for him as
16:54
the future in the sense that the present
16:59
has meaning only insofar as it opens
17:02
toward a possible future he was saying
17:04
just now that Heidegger in his attempts
17:06
to give an illuminating description of
17:09
our actual everyday experience of life
17:12
is aware you said of the sudden holes in
17:15
it yes what will you think I mean were
17:17
you thinking of death yeah this would be
17:20
one case yeah what would the others well
17:22
now in death anxiety he gives an
17:25
analysis of conscience but if we stop
17:27
for a moment them and death I think
17:29
that's because you asked me how does
17:34
this description give us something which
17:36
we don't already know it's very
17:38
interesting that the description of
17:41
death it gives us is something which
17:42
rather turns over our usual notions
17:45
because our usual notions
17:47
try very much to escape from the fact of
17:50
death now this is something very
17:52
peculiar about deaths we usually think
17:58
of death is a fact in the world we read
18:00
about people dying we read obituaries
18:02
and so um it happens to other people to
18:05
be sure it'll happen to me
18:07
but not yet so it's something out there
18:09
in the world as yet external to me but
18:13
the curious thing is if I start to think
18:15
of it as my death now my death is will
18:18
never be a fact in the world for me I
18:20
will never read my obituary which is I
18:23
think very significant little fact so it
18:26
can never be a public event in the world
18:28
for me well as Vidkun stein says death
18:31
is not an experience right in life
18:33
that's because we don't live to
18:35
experience death it's not live yeah and
18:38
therefore not an experience we have yes
18:40
it is it's not in lesson my death is as
18:44
an assent has essentially mine is
18:48
something which cannot be invented an
18:54
event in the world for me but it's a
18:57
compelling possibility for me now I mean
18:59
the meaning of death is that it is a
19:02
present possibility I may not be at
19:05
anytime that the meaning of death is
19:07
that it's the possibility of not being
19:09
or as he puts it it's the possibility
19:12
which cancels all my possibilities now
19:15
in this sense is the most extreme of
19:17
possibilities but his point is once you
19:21
realize that this particular possibility
19:24
inhabits your existence it's sort of the
19:27
Walker dwarf of it in some way that then
19:30
you can either collapse and scurry away
19:34
from it and fear or you can face up to
19:38
it and then you ask yourself the
19:39
question there is that possibility in
19:42
the face of that possibility what
19:44
meaning does my life have yeah I think
19:46
for hiding yeah he would agree with
19:49
Tolstoy that the fundamental or at least
19:51
at this stage of how to just think you
19:54
would agree with Tolstoy that the
19:55
fundamental question that philosopher as
19:57
well as every man has to put is this
20:00
since there is death what meaning does
20:03
my life have and I'm and that I think is
20:07
is where suddenly if you think of it
20:09
death is this interior possibility it
20:11
takes on a new dimension from what and
20:15
Oertel ordinarily carries you see when
20:17
we refer to someone so died and and so I
20:22
must say again this is something that I
20:25
find deeply congenial although I was
20:27
trained in philosophy and in an entirely
20:29
different tradition from this watch
20:32
everything you're saying makes very much
20:33
sense to me I have I'm very strongly
20:36
this feeling and I suppose large numbers
20:38
of people must have it that our everyday
20:40
life is at one in the same time sort of
20:42
banal over familiar and platitudinous
20:47
and yet at the same time mysterious and
20:50
extraordinary I have that double feeling
20:54
about life and I certainly have very
20:56
strongly the feeling that in the face of
20:58
death one wants to see some meaning in
21:00
my existence now having reached this
21:02
point does Heidegger call in aid a
21:05
traditional religious explanation of
21:09
existence so what does he do no he has
21:11
no no and said all he's pointing out is
21:14
the structure of human existence or the
21:17
framework within which one has to pose
21:19
these questions he's showing them this
21:21
is a dimension of human existence which
21:24
has to be faced what answer you give to
21:26
the question what meaning do I have will
21:29
depend upon the particular individual I
21:31
mean Heidegger has no ethics in the
21:33
sense one feature of human life which he
21:35
does draw a great deal of attention to
21:37
in addition to this what you called give
21:39
often highly effect but we are flung
21:41
into it and find ourselves in the middle
21:43
of it is the fine it to dove it isn't it
21:45
I mean not only do we just kind of wake
21:47
up in the world and find ourselves here
21:49
but the whole situation lasts a very
21:51
short time I mean we've scarcely got
21:53
used to finding ourselves here then it
21:55
all stops again and the fact that it all
21:58
stops again is for most human beings as
22:00
you were just saying very frightening
22:01
and very alarming what how does he
22:06
recommend that we proceed from there no
22:09
recipes the point is he points out that
22:13
whatever
22:14
whatever decision you take to give your
22:17
life meaning or to encounter death it is
22:20
the human condition that must be faced
22:22
in one form or another and I've said I
22:26
mean he doesn't say this but there's
22:27
suggesting Tolstoy and others perhaps
22:30
over philosophy there's a response to
22:32
this question of death there Socrates
22:36
remarked that all philosophy is a
22:37
meditation on death which we might
22:39
interpret liberally in this fashion that
22:42
man wouldn't philosophize if he didn't
22:46
have it to have to face the fact of
22:47
death if we all had him living eternally
22:50
in the Garden of Eden we just saunter
22:52
along and death ruminate about this or
22:55
that but not any serious philosophical
22:58
issue one thing that Heidegger and the
22:59
existentialists face which I think
23:01
previous philosophers didn't face is the
23:03
fact that our knowledge of death induces
23:06
anxiety it's terrifying we are
23:08
frightened right when we try to look in
23:10
the eye the fact that we are gonna die
23:12
and so anxiety in the face of our own
23:16
finitude or mortality becomes one of the
23:19
central themes of existentialist
23:21
philosophy yes
23:22
and I think it's important to see that
23:26
this place is a what I consider a
23:31
fundamentally a sound and healthy
23:34
assessment and the fact of of anxiety
23:37
anxiety is sort of led a checkered
23:41
career in modern culture I mean it
23:44
became fashionable of a few decades ago
23:47
remember when or denote his book the age
23:49
of anxiety well it seemed to be the
23:54
thing that was fashionable it was the in
23:56
thing people went around cultivating
23:59
their anxieties and so on which is
24:00
rather silly because if we've followed
24:03
our previous description of deaths we
24:07
realize that anxiety is there anyway as
24:09
my fact anxiety is is simply our human
24:11
existence in its contingency coming to
24:15
the level of consciousness it is the
24:17
sheer contingency of human existence
24:18
sort of vibrating there through it on
24:21
the other hand you see the other modern
24:24
attitude which is partly the result of
24:26
our being
24:27
technical society which commands certain
24:30
instruments we have a command of drugs
24:34
or remedies of various kinds we imagine
24:36
that there should be some instrument or
24:38
means by which we can simply press a
24:41
button and get rid of our anxieties that
24:43
they're not something which which have
24:46
to be faced and live through and I think
24:50
either extreme is rather unfortunately
24:54
it is simply a part of the condition of
24:56
being human and in the certain sense at
24:59
one point Heidegger says well there are
25:01
all sorts of modes of anxiety and then
25:04
in some forms it has the kind of
25:06
peacefulness of a creative yearning if
25:09
we weren't anxious we would never create
25:12
anything but man's men's attempt to
25:16
evade to said speak run away from his
25:18
own anxiety to evade the reality of his
25:21
own mortality leads doesn't it to the
25:24
next existentialist the namely
25:26
alienation that we we avert our eyes
25:29
from the from the stark reality of our
25:32
own existence and in a sense cease to
25:35
participate in the realities of our own
25:37
existence now this is something that
25:38
existentialist philosophers had a great
25:40
deal say about too and another term like
25:42
act like the term anxiety which has
25:45
become much misused by sort of
25:47
fashionable and trendy writers would you
25:49
agree with that yes as a matter of fact
25:51
alienation is unfortunate well in terms
25:53
that's been tossed around so that if the
25:56
word is used people will say oh that
25:57
boring subject you see because but it
26:00
does happen that'll s to be one of the
26:01
deepest things in modern culture and and
26:05
preoccupied Hegel Marx and I think has
26:09
been their main item and contemporary
26:12
literature literature of the 20th
26:14
century I think is a point you say
26:17
perfectly valid they the mere fact that
26:19
we have civilization which has a great
26:24
deal of means of information and its
26:27
disposal so people know what do you know
26:29
what's out what's going so the word
26:30
alienation is tossed around and the mere
26:34
fact that we make it into an empty
26:36
banality in a sense promotes origination
26:39
it's one cause I mean one
26:41
way of escaping anxiety is not to take
26:43
it seriously I make it frivolous or
26:44
trendy or yes it's so what but but see
26:52
animation occurs for height against
26:54
several levels one that one is this
26:56
level which we may lose ourself in the
26:58
impersonal social self a man buries
27:01
himself in his persona is social role
27:03
and so I know like Sasha took that from
27:06
them and develop them the world is too
27:11
much ladies get in spending with a waste
27:14
our powers it's a trap
27:16
but you see animation is really quite a
27:18
real problem in this sense I I must say
27:21
I I have a feeling of very acutely for
27:24
the moment I'm putting this slightly
27:27
humorously but I think you will
27:28
understand this here I descended from
27:30
the skies into London I haven't quite
27:33
found myself and it seems rather strange
27:35
the alienation feels slightly detached
27:38
and I said walk the streets these are
27:41
strange people in certain ways yeah a
27:43
couple of more days and I probably feel
27:44
at home yeah fundamentally the word
27:47
alienation of course means something you
27:50
all feel like that strange cities yeah
27:52
some people feel like that in the world
27:55
they inhabit their own skins as
27:58
strangers now I want to move on we've
28:02
been talking so far about the basic
28:04
themes of being and time and I think it
28:07
will strike people listening to this
28:09
discussion straight away that this is a
28:11
book which deals with very fundamental
28:14
themes which to exercise people at a
28:16
very deep level and even if there are no
28:18
answers I think the fact that it
28:20
illuminates the questions which it
28:22
certainly does at least it certainly has
28:24
for me is of it in itself something of
28:26
enormous value but like so many other
28:29
philosophers having worked out a big
28:31
philosophy
28:31
young he then moved on and in some sense
28:34
away doesn't he from his early concerns
28:37
for example being on time is the first
28:39
its presented as being the first volume
28:42
of what is to be a two-volume work but
28:44
the second volume never came out so all
28:47
we ever have is this first half of a
28:49
book why didn't he finish that initial
28:51
why did he then going to do unexpected
28:54
unforeseen things this is a subjective
28:57
both discussion and speculation it turns
29:01
out from recent information I've had
29:03
just a month or so ago in United States
29:06
that Heidegger has left the manuscript
29:08
of the second part which he does exist
29:13
and it will be published I don't know
29:14
it'll be published as a kind of knock
29:17
Lhasa as to something he's left behind
29:19
but I don't think it was publishable
29:22
I myself tend to think that I know what
29:24
he was going to say and that he said it
29:26
in this book on Canton and fewer seasons
29:28
but then there cuz this thing which is
29:31
the high daguerreian sky was called the
29:34
care of a turd
29:36
he felt in some sense that in being in
29:40
time he had riveted his attention to
29:43
exclusively a man and that this this
29:48
philosophy was a powerful form of
29:51
humanism but there was no there was no
29:54
systematic grasp of what the human being
29:58
is rooted in and though of course the
30:01
world of nature
30:02
yes material the cosmos the common sense
30:04
yes you see in the sense Heidegger I
30:06
would say is a fellow of Parmenides you
30:09
see the the this Greeks age who had this
30:12
electrifying idea you see the all is one
30:16
for the first time in human history the
30:20
notion of the the totality of being as
30:22
one thing you see which to which we have
30:26
to relate ourselves and our thinking and
30:28
I hide it was written bearpaw minutes
30:30
but now in in this sense he feels that
30:34
precisely what has happened with modern
30:37
cultures we've lost those cosmic roots
30:39
in the way that we've been detached from
30:42
this sense of a connection with the
30:44
whole or the well why should this have
30:47
happened specifically in modern culture
30:48
isn't it part of the human condition as
30:50
such in it is part in the sense that man
30:54
is a being who flies away from truth
30:56
even as he pursues it but I think one of
31:00
the reasons it happens specifically
31:02
modern colleges of course what we we
31:04
build up a much more
31:05
in technical society were more encased
31:08
in the Shia human framework of things
31:11
than people worry because we live in a
31:14
much more complex complicated we live in
31:17
my acting this nightmare to borrow
31:19
but we live more and more in a man
31:23
created environment if we consider it
31:25
all down the line from my air
31:27
conditioning to everything else and our
31:29
urban complexes I mean I can't help but
31:32
think coming to London that the London
31:34
is a very different city from
31:35
Shakespeare's London which existed that
31:37
much closer to the countryside about ya
31:39
know very sure they walk out yeah well
31:42
what are the main themes then of the
31:44
later Heidegger as distinct from the
31:46
earlier yes well you see the later how
31:49
to get is is not systematic or not even
31:53
systematic in in the way in which he
31:57
attempts to be in being in time the
31:59
later heilige is primarily all not
32:01
primarily but very centrally concerned
32:03
with the problem of poetry and art and
32:06
in some sense you see and and the
32:09
problem of technology
32:12
Heidegger feels that were felt since
32:16
he's dead now the one of the tasks of
32:20
philosophers in in this period is to try
32:22
to think through what technology
32:25
involves they felt I think modern
32:27
thinking is either too superficial to in
32:30
inauthentic with regard to the subject
32:32
of technology you know in one hand you
32:34
find people very flippant attitude there
32:36
against machines or they for technology
32:40
makes no sense he said for man at this
32:42
particular juncture of history too
32:44
before against technology we obviously
32:46
committed to technology I mean if you
32:48
removed it the whole thing would
32:50
collapse we are that's that's part of
32:52
the stake of our existence is part of
32:54
our gamble on the other hand you see
32:57
there is a point which I think the
32:58
atomic bomb has brought forth for human
33:03
consciousness generally that technology
33:06
has drastic possibilities is hidden to
33:09
people in protest against his local
33:11
nuisances or causing unemployment
33:12
sabotage and so on
33:14
but the notion that suddenly mankind
33:19
could self-destruct suddenly showed us
33:22
the the fearful possibilities within the
33:25
the technical complex and now he hi to
33:29
get was concerned with the thinking
33:31
through we're in the historical destiny
33:35
of man the the roots of his technical
33:38
being lie lies and where it may possibly
33:42
be carrying him but how does how does
33:46
his concern with poetry relate to his
33:48
concern with technology unless he sees
33:50
these two opposites they are rising
33:52
because the thing well as you well know
33:57
from other branches of contemporary
34:00
philosophy there's a certain disposition
34:02
I'm part of some philosophers when
34:04
they're examining language to treat it
34:06
as a calculus it's an instrument which
34:08
can be manipulated and controlled it's a
34:10
form of calculus and so on and in this
34:14
sense this represents an extension of
34:16
technical thinking you see even to the
34:18
domain of language now the thing about a
34:21
poem in Heidegger's view is that it lose
34:26
the demands of our will we cannot the
34:29
poet cannot will to write a poem he
34:31
cannot will and it comes and actually we
34:34
as as readers can't we'll our response
34:36
we have to submit to it and be passive
34:38
do it you see a law and what Heidegger
34:41
connects the the technological the
34:47
center of this civilization is with it's
34:49
a Faustian wheel which becomes
34:51
eventually the man's determination by
34:55
master made right which is the basis of
34:58
our whole modern culture modern
34:59
technology modern science and so on
35:01
which is in rebellion against and and if
35:04
I if I I think we'll he quotation here
35:07
would be Francis Bacon we must learn the
35:09
overall ways I'm really a prophet of the
35:12
new size and this I always think I'm
35:15
bacon in this respect is being a
35:17
publicity man for the new science but a
35:19
publicity plan of genius this is we must
35:22
put nature to the rack to compel it to
35:24
answer our questions which is a very
35:26
dramatic way of
35:28
of endorsing the experimental method but
35:31
now you stop to think you know even if
35:33
we put poor nature to the rack Port
35:36
Orchard nature we have to listen to
35:38
responses we have in some sense to give
35:41
ourselves that we receptive there's a
35:42
point at which our twisting you say has
35:45
to submit to to whatever is there to be
35:47
this really does though our gender basic
35:50
break with the tradition doesn't it
35:52
because even as it were revolutionary
35:55
philosophies within the tradition like
35:56
Marxism for example take it for granted
35:59
that the conquest of nature is man's
36:02
business it's what human life is all
36:03
about and what social line is all about
36:05
I must say that speaking just purely
36:08
personally for government that in all
36:11
the preparation that this television
36:14
series has involved me in the
36:16
preparation I've done for this
36:17
discussion and this program has taught
36:19
me most because I found in Heidegger who
36:23
I knew very little about before all
36:26
kinds of illuminating insights in these
36:28
very fundamental themes we've been
36:30
discussing and that being so this is
36:32
leading me to the point I want to put to
36:33
you I can't help wondering why it is
36:37
that other philosophers including very
36:39
able and prestigious ones like AJ Aeron
36:42
Karl Popper or Rudolf Carnap all sorts
36:46
of people pour scorn on Heidegger and
36:49
the kind of philosophy that he's trying
36:51
to do they dismiss it they've dismissed
36:52
it from their published writings as
36:54
nonsense rubbish garbage it's all a lot
36:56
of rhetoric it's all a lot of worms it
36:58
seems to me you've only got to read the
37:00
stuff for five minutes see that it isn't
37:02
just all a lot of words now why has it
37:04
been so derisively dismissed by so many
37:08
such able people well I don't want to
37:14
make an invidious remark about a
37:16
philosophy in the state of flux but
37:18
there is a certain kind of professional
37:20
deformation the man has a certain vision
37:23
then he carries with this sort of
37:25
blinders to somebody else's vision and I
37:28
think one of the things is that hidings
37:30
vocabulary you see is initially rather
37:37
jarring
37:39
and but if I think if you read him in
37:41
German he writes a fairly
37:43
straightforward German and it was
37:46
certainly if you compare that him as his
37:48
German prose with that let's say of a
37:51
hand go this it seems to me how to give
37:53
lucidity itself but I I think what we do
37:58
find in philosophy is that the same
38:01
prejudice for certain chosen
38:03
vocabularies now you mentioned con if I
38:05
was a student of Carnap for severally as
38:07
you say I'm I didn't I got interested
38:11
partly in how I could find out what the
38:13
fuss was could it be as bad as they say
38:16
what you came to hide ago through car
38:18
naps attack somehow and when you read
38:24
Heidegger you discovered tell professor
38:29
bad I in when I was introducing this
38:31
program I promised our viewers that we
38:33
would say something about Sartre and I
38:35
think that before we come to an end I I
38:37
really do want to ask you if you if we
38:40
can move on to him just for a moment um
38:42
although Sartre has become as it were
38:45
the most famous existentialist his is
38:47
the name that most people associate with
38:49
existentialism he's not as original
38:52
thinker as Heidi there is he but
38:54
nevertheless he has made a contribution
38:55
what would you characterize as being
38:57
such as main contribution well of there
39:01
a number of ways which characterize that
39:04
but I'd like to contrast them first
39:07
that's that mind that's point the
39:09
direction which is his contribution is
39:12
Kevin this is Santa's big book is mainly
39:17
a philosophical work and I'd personally
39:19
think by the way some of his novels and
39:22
plays are more important but than any of
39:24
his philosophical writing but I think
39:25
he's still a philosopher of considerable
39:27
brilliance but his major work is called
39:30
Being and Nothingness
39:31
it's a gigantic misnomer it's not about
39:36
being and it's not about nothingness as
39:38
softer doesn't have much of a feeling
39:40
for being whatever whatever one may
39:42
object to in the hiding that one has to
39:44
acknowledge the man is really saturated
39:47
with the sense of being in some sense
39:49
what sort this book is a rat is
39:52
is really the kind of melodrama of to
39:55
Cartesian consciousnesses and naturally
39:59
they are Cartesian because he's French
40:01
every Frenchman is a Cartesian I think
40:02
when he said he's pushed far enough and
40:05
these these two consciousness never
40:08
understand each other that is there are
40:10
two subjective mystic Minds who
40:14
misinterpret each other I as subject
40:17
impose upon you and convert you into an
40:20
object and so on and you reciprocate and
40:23
so this fiendish dialogue of
40:25
misrepresentation goes on a
40:27
misunderstanding and so forth in the end
40:30
it becomes impossible for us to
40:33
communicate sin sincerely this big book
40:36
of Sartre is really a book under this
40:38
problem of sincerity which is the staple
40:41
I think of French literature from Montag
40:44
right through Moliere and Proust and so
40:47
now the but to come to do you say
40:52
soccers and then most famously positive
40:54
doctrine is its notion of Liberty and
40:57
it's the doctrine which actually I think
40:58
caught on most in public guard that as
41:02
as human beings we have an absolute and
41:05
total freedom nothing prevents us at the
41:08
second moment from from doing is I'm
41:12
very precipitous I am an interesting I
41:14
am in the literal sense free now to take
41:16
all my clothes off and jump out of the
41:18
window I can actually do these things
41:20
and one thing Sartre keep stressing is
41:22
that by pretending that I am not free to
41:24
do them I'm falsifying the reality of my
41:26
own situation yes so I stand on a
41:28
precipice at any moment and I can hurl
41:30
myself often and in this sense the
41:33
characteristic of this total freedom is
41:35
that it's it's very genus or dizzying
41:39
and he carries through this metaphor of
41:41
standing on a cliff and having this
41:43
dizzy sense of being able to cash this
41:46
out know if revenge isn't he right to
41:48
dramatize in this way the fact that the
41:50
realities of choice which we have in
41:52
earth and the realities of freedom that
41:54
we have in life are in fact much greater
41:56
than we ourselves wish to face for most
41:58
of the time except now here's where you
42:01
see I think I think it has an insight
42:02
which is beyond
42:04
him in this respect because the
42:07
individual hurls himself into this
42:09
precipitous choice May in tearing off in
42:13
that sudden direction be remained
42:17
utterly as blind as when he started
42:19
you see then is a rather curious endure
42:21
hiding his view of a freedom is a very
42:24
quiet and subtle and soft our
42:28
fundamental freedom is and freedom if we
42:30
can manage it to become open to let
42:33
truth happen and most of us in our lives
42:37
so shut off and our personal lives in
42:39
one way or another
42:41
doesn't matter which from truth in our
42:44
dealings with other people we have
42:46
resistances which can't be breached one
42:50
but sometimes there is a fissure and
42:52
this wall that shuts us off and we are
42:54
able to let be we no longer seek to
42:57
compel you see the whole of height the
43:02
later high to get is really a prolonged
43:05
attack and the will to power as
43:07
characterizing Western civilization this
43:10
this urge we have to dominate Russia and
43:12
the dominate time and even the dominate
43:14
our own personal lives or dominate other
43:16
people the view being that you only
43:19
really understand reality when in some
43:21
sense you submit yourself to write
43:25
something up professor Barrett taking
43:28
Heidegger and such and indeed the whole
43:30
existentialist tradition together if you
43:34
were asked to say well now what
43:36
contribution has this made to human
43:39
thought in our time what would you
43:41
stress what have we got from it all our
43:47
stress an academic point first and then
43:50
the more important human ployed fellows
43:52
I think and from the point of view of
43:55
the history of thought or the history of
43:57
philosophy existentialism has brought
44:00
forward a kind of revaluation of 19th
44:03
century so for one thing it has exhumed
44:06
Kierkegaard it was virtually unknown and
44:08
famous speaking countries it's
44:12
established him as a as a major thing I
44:15
don't know whether you'd call him a
44:16
philosopher but I
44:18
think of considerable proportions and
44:20
power in the 91 of the major thing is a
44:22
bit of the century as a matter fact Vic
44:26
instead of kid guard he thought he was
44:27
the greatest rat of the 19th century
44:29
it's rather interesting kick Vic and
44:32
Stein who discovered kick got quite
44:33
early before existentialism to the end
44:38
of the World War one
44:40
but then the second point I think that's
44:44
made aware of many people where of like
44:47
that modern society tends to be
44:52
personalized to a certain extent that we
44:54
it gets larger and larger more
44:57
intricately organized and so on and that
44:59
the problem of the person the individual
45:02
as a unique being who cannot be
45:06
completely assimilated into any
45:08
framework whether it's bureaucratic or
45:11
conceptual a systemic something of him
45:13
is left out I think this is this kind of
45:16
emphasis is what thank you very much
45:25
professor Barrett</p>