Heidegger & Descartes: Being-in-the-world, Care, Anxiety & Existentialism

What did Descartes know for certain? That he is a thinking thing, a cogito. But what does it mean to think? Descartes lists a few modes of thinking: Doubting, affirming, denying, understanding.

Heidegger embarks upon a similar project to Descartes. What, he asks, is the fundamental nature of our experience? Of our existence? Heidegger agrees with Descartes. If we want to live life well we need to be clear about its most fundamental components. Descartes answer is summarised by his phrase cogito ergo sum, which translates as thinking, therefore, being.

For Heidegger, Descartes has it the wrong way around. He thinks that Descartes has neglected the sum, the being. What is it to be something? Heidegger’s answer comes in a number of forms: he says as well as being thinking things we have care for things, we have an anxiety about the world, we are existential, but most importantly, we are beings-in-the-world.

Or send me a one-off tip of any amount and help me make more videos:

Buy on Amazon through this link to support the channel:

Follow me on:

Subscribe to the podcast:

Sources:

Matthew Shockey, Heidegger’s Descartes and Heidegger’s Cartesianism
Heidegger, Being and Time
Stephen Mulhall, Guidebook to Being and Time

Credits:

[O.G.Rose.Michelle.and.Daniel]

Great as always: I like how you make a convincing case that Heidegger is not a hard Anti-Cartesian (as I think he is often depicted). I never heard Heidegger ask, “What did Descartes care about?” – that really frames the situation nicely. Also, I like your drawing attention to the idea that “I think, therefore I am” still leaves open the question of “how” I am—what kind of “being” is in question—and I like your argument that Heidegger rests his thoughts about Descartes on this point.

Thanks as always for the insightful work.

[BatOrgilBatsaikhan]

This is great! I like how you are connecting the separate areas sections in my brain for Descartes and Heidegger. Heidegger is such a mental pleasure to understand.

[bobgreen]

Your videos are simply gold.. Never stop 🙏

[nilanjanaghosh]

Simple and comprehensive and comprehendible. Thanks.

[TheMjsanty]

Fantastic episode. Really thought provoking. I always enjoy hearing about Heidegger’s philosophy of Being.

[dionysianapollomarx]

This gets into the beginning of representationalism vs anti-representationalism. The conversation there is so multi-faceted, so interesting, and involves several big name philosophers of the 20th and 21st century. Would be cool if you get into that in the future. Now, looking forward to this one.

[StrangeCornersOfThought]

Awesome video as always. You're an inspiration for my own work.

[theelderskatesman]

what Damasio and others completely ignore is Descartes' Passions of the Soul, which explicitly addresses the unity of Body and Mind.

[gastonlagaffe]

Really great video, please give us more about Heidegger 👍

[johnarbuckle]

YES, I like where you are going with this.

[johnbevan]

FYI - In Latin, "g" is never pronounce as a "j" - it is a hard "g" as in "garden". Therefore, the correct pronunciation of "Cogito ergo sum" is "cogeeto ergo soom", the "e" is pronounced as the "ai" in "air", and the "o" is always a rounded "o" as in "octagon". In the word "cogito", the stress is on the first "o", so "cOgito" and not "cojEEto". And by the way, this video's translation is incorrect. "Cogito" means "I think" and not "thinking" (which is cogitare in Latin). "Sum" means "I am" and not "being" (which in Latin is "quod").

But your video is very good. Thanks.

[StrangeCornersOfThought]

I was totally about to make a video about this exact topic.

[alexsarullo]

I was literally writing a paper on this when this was uploaded!!

[kelvikpineda]

Cool vid. Being and TIme is my favorite book, i think :)

[hellajeff]

Wow, somebody managed to discuss Heidegger without saying anything about his politics isn't that something.

[TheGatewayProductions]

Huge thanks for this upload! Anxiety is terrible but we can crush it!

[anhumblemessengerofthelawo]

_you can tell Descartes is totally trolling us. Look at that smirk_

[thesuperboscar]

I appriciate so much for your attempt to draw the parallels between Descartes and post-romantisicst philosophy, like Heidegger. I have always found that in Descartes philosophy, there are some apperent contradictions in terms of his method and in the way he reaches his doubtfulness about what he can know for certain. I find it hard to understand why exactly his philosophy and rationalism in general gained so much validation compared to his empericist counterpart. Also a thing I find frustrating about Descartes is, whether he is an exponent og metaphysical idealism or metaphysical materialsm? Like which one of the positions does he claim to be fundamental in terms of knowledge or perhaps the evolution of our though?

[gonzogil]

Yes, beings and the world iff I can register such, but that is preceded by being able to differentiate at a substantive distance from the object, however fast the speed of thought may be, in order to reach that conclusion. I cannot be inorganic matter, and arrive at that same conclusion.

[hellucination]

"Stimmung", "Gestimmtheit" - we have to relearn to experience atmospheres and think in situations.