cAdqytOHSE0.txt

Speaker 1:          00:00          Heidegger thought that Western philosophy have gone wrong basically since the time of socrates, which was quite a long time and he said that we were, we became interested in what the world was made of and how we knew things and what we should have been interested in stead was the nature and quality of being and what he meant by being isn't the objective world. What he meant by being was the manner in which you have experience and so there were elements of being that aren't objective elements and so I would say pain is a phenomenological reality, right? It's not something you can. You can index it objectively, but the index is not the phenomena and you know, is your pain real. See this as this is a question for people who think there's no such thing as meaning. Like you try to argue yourself out of pain and see how far you get.

Speaker 1:          00:56          You might think, well, that's not the sort of meaning I meant. It's like, you know, a negative meaning is a place to start, right? Because if something's negative and it's real, it does imply that there's something positive that's real. It might be harder to get ahold of, at least it's not pain, but pain descartes, and I'll close with this. You guys can have a great day. Cart implemented a method he called radical doubt when he went on his philosophical journey and what descartes looked for was one thing he couldn't doubt because he was probably clinically depressed and he was just doubting everything. It's like, well, why? How do I know the world isn't just been Mirage made by an evil demon to, you know, to, uh, to obfuscate reality from me. While his conclusion was the one thing that he could not dispute was that he could, he was an could think.

Speaker 1:          01:48          Now, I don't think they cart really meant what we meant by think. I think he meant more what we would mean by experience because thought has become a much more narrowly defined, you know, term since the time of descartes. So I don't think he meant, I think therefore I am. I think he meant something like I experienced. I have experienced therefore yama. Regardless of that martyr. People think about it as thought heidegger was different. Heidegger basically said the one thing you can dispute is that that experience is your experience. It exists. You can't. It's almost by definition, right? It's like the definition of exist and then he was interested in what the fundamental elements of existence I've existed. This work and they're not outcomes like you know, like the fundamental elements of the object of world. There are more things like pain and for me that was the thing that stopped me from Delhi. It's like a candidate. The existence of pain, it seems real and I might say it seems more real than anything else. Now you might say you don't believe that, but I would say, I don't care what you think you believe, I'll watch you when you're in pain and every single one of your actions will indicate that you believed in it. And not only that, that you can't not believe in it. Right? It's there and it's there so much that,

Speaker 1:          03:12          well, that's a meaning and so that it's in that way that heidegger, at least in part thought of existence as or experience as composed of meetings. And so part of the reason that this course is called maps of meaning is because one of the things we're going to look at is the structure of meaning, and we're going to start with negative meaning because from my perspective, it's, look, you can doubt whether or not good exists, but once I'm done telling you about the things I know about human history, there won't be a single person in this room who thinks that evil doesn't exist and you might think that's a bloody horrible thing to learn, but it's not. It's unbelievably useful because once you can establish something that you cannot deny, then you can move from that. And I think you can hypothesize that if you're capable of detecting radical evil, I'll tell you about unit seven, 31 at some point, or you can look them up yourself. I wouldn't recommend it. By the way,

Speaker 1:          04:11          once you can identify radical evil and you think, well, that's. That's just beyond a doubt, that's reprehensible. There's no justification for that whatsoever, no matter what. Whenever, while then you've got something to stand on and you can start thinking, well, what's the absolute opposite of that? Then, you know, it might be, how is it that you could conduct yourself so that in your sphere of influence, the probability like that anything like that would ever happen is reduced to the absolute maximum. Well, that's a reasonable moral question. And, and, and I, I don't think it's something that you can dispense with, with like a casual nihilism. I don't think a nihilist can dispense with it because he even nihilists suffer. Thank God for that. You know, it's their only is their only source of potential salvation. Sometimes they notice it, oh, I'm suffering about all this nihilism. Maybe that indicates that there's something flawed in it. It's always possible.