Heidegger's Being and Time: Dasein, Being in a World

Martin Heidegger's Being and Time (1927) centers on the concept of Dasein, "there-being," or "being there," being in a world. @PhiloofAlexandria

[esser]

first! Thanks professor i'm Venezuelan and a really poor 17 years old guy. i only have internet to learn and your channel is a gold mine! so thanks!! a question: is there a place where you have published a recommended book list? because i already watched almost all your videos

[meghnasingh]

The only video I was able to understand on being and time. Thank you so much

[klammer]

Amazing explanation as always! Thanks for ‘being there’ !🤔🤓😉

[torinmccabe]

Excellent mini lecture. Dasein is a nice tool to balance out Plato's forms. Too often in philosophy and modern life we get lost in words and concepts and forget the very real but often forgotten reality of ourselves / our bodies / our subjective consciousness / our being in time and space / Dasein. We can dehumanize others and ourselves if we think only of abstract individuals rather than of actual people we care about and who care about us.

[kpit]

Hi Prof,

Hi from India. I have watched dozens of your videos (the classroom ones) and have one unsolicited suggestion - if possible you should upgrade your audio recording equipment. Some of the newer videos have a crystal clear audio and the expectations have been upped in general.

Thanks a lot for being a source of free teaching for years!!

[Yuurei-Ressha]

I know this video is a few months old at this point, and I have only just started the series on Heidegger's thought, but his thoughts on ethics being based on pragmatic caring based on our immediate relation to the world sounds a lot like Aristotle's or Aquinas' thoughts regarding virtue ethics.

[Robinson]

I started reading Heidegger and it turns out it reminds me of Gibson's affordances which I love, so Gibson was probably inspired by him. Now I have to actually finish the book haha 😅

[Eta_Carinae__]

This may be a bit related: as far as reflecting on being goes, when I was much younger, I was concerned with a similar question - to explain the existence of the self, but the question seemed immediately malformed, and I figured that it was coextensive with an explanation of the existence of the universe (apparently Steven Wolfram begs to differ). Though, like Heidegger's particularisation, I thought of a transformation of the question such that it was of the form of a counterfactual: "why is the self so embodied?", "could _I_ have been something else, or someone else?", etc. which I thought was odd, since it being a counterfactual, it should have been answerable, but I wasn't able to do it. The problem word seems to be 'self', but there are innumerable approaches to deal with it, but none which can satisfy the question (or it may be the case I'm mistaking a relation for a predicate). Do you know if Heiddeger made a similar attempt here, or does he write it off as intractible? Thanks for the upload!

[efron]

Hi professor

I hope you are well

If I study Hegel first and then heidenger, would I grasp heidenger's concepts better. If so, what secondary lit do you recommend to understand hegel, and then what secondary lit do you recommend for me to understand heidenger. I'm a Law student in the UK, not a philosophy student, but I'm familiar with philosophy, but only limited to YouTube philosophy, like this video. But im really really craving to understand heidenger and hegel, they seem like great mystical sages, as opposed to just regular philosophers. I'd appreciate any advice you can give me, if there's any advice you can give me on how to skip kant and move straight on to hegel I would appreciate that also.

[Richardwestwood-dpwr]

You got it all wrong, your lecture is a good example of the simplistic American way of understanding philosophy.

[kallianpublico]

Is "Being There" by Jerzy Kosinski an example of Dasein? Please refer to the movie with Peter Sellers.

[lordawesometony]

But where do we draw the line on what we are?

[immanuel_]

Is it necessary to read Husserl before Heidegger? Or atleast recommended?

[timothywise]

You keep saying “being in a place at a certain time” but I can be in a place at a certain time but I have never being in a place at a certain time. Those two uses are semantically and syntactically different. So, your explanation quickly devolves into a word salad that I cannot understand. Perhaps holding a conversation with someone using the word “being” in a way your intending to help us all understand your point, so we can learn from your wisdom instead of being confused.

[andreyrussian]

Can you be pragmatic when there is only pain and pleasure? LOL

[gmoeteeman]

Pretty rich that Dasein takes caring as fundamental given Heidegger's Nazi collaborationism. I think I'll stick with the analytic philosophers ignoring him.