Heidegger and Existentialism with Bryan Magee (1977)

<p>
Heidegger and Existentialism with Bryan Magee (1977)</p>

<p>In this program, world-renowned author and professor Bryan Magee and William Barret of New York University examine the basic theory of existentialism as founded by Martin Heidegger, and later propagated by Jean-Paul Sartre. Barret discusses Heidegger&rsquo;s notions of being, existence as task, cosmic roots, and alienation. Sartre&rsquo;s concept of absolute human freedom is discussed as having promoted human dignity and individualism in the impersonal modern society.</p>

<p>https://youtu.be/27bo4FMP3vo</p>

<p>&nbsp;</p>

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

<p>English (auto-generated)</p>

<p>&nbsp;</p>

<p>&nbsp;</p>