Vidmission | Positive Videos

arsesto (June 30, 2008 at 6:19 pm)

Tradesman thinks

elieone (October 2, 2008 at 5:20 pm)

do you maintain your statement ?

rabmunch (April 11, 2008 at 11:25 am)

I think that in order to understand Heidegger's withdrawal from the visionary political hopes he had in 1933, and the development of his thinking toward a new universal religion (new gods), one must (I think) read the essays by Leo Strauss on this subject, & on Heidegger's radical historicism. These Strauss essays may be found at the "Internet Archive" at archive[dot]org under "Strauss on Heidegger". Strauss & Heidegger express the conflict of our time on the deepest level.

Krelianx (April 11, 2008 at 11:01 am)

No, you insist on everyone reading that paper by claiming that it is necessary to read Strauss to understand Heidegger. Your appeal to 'people choosing for themselves' passes over the question about whether what you are advising is in fact appropriate. Your obsession with Strauss, in favor of other commentators, is not claimed here as a mere 'suggestion', you claim 'one must read Strauss' in order to understand Heidegger. And that is blatantly false, not to mention often unrelated to the videos.

rabmunch (April 11, 2008 at 11:31 am)

Had you read the Strauss essays yourself, which you obviously have not done, your objection might be more interesting.

You are free to suggest your opinion about the matter, rather than hounding me about the fact that I think the Strauss essays are fundamental and necessary. It would be foolish of me to try to articulate that fully here. It would also be foolish of me to waste my time any further justifying my thought with one who is unfamiliar with the whole issue.

rabmunch (April 11, 2008 at 11:34 am)

Thank you Krelianx, however, for your responses, as they tend to show anyone who is sober & sensible that there is a blind and ignorant prejudice regarding Strauss that is mindlessly repeated ad nauseum (as there are such about Heidegger); prejudices which should not deter the serious student from his consideration.
You provide an ideal exemplar of that blind common prejudice.
Farewell.

rabmunch (April 11, 2008 at 11:42 am)

[I note: at the time of this comment almost these essays have been downloaded almost 600 times - which means there are quite a few students out there who would agree with this simple assertion: one must read something before one makes a judgment about it.]
You too are free to download them at archive[dot]org, under "Strauss and Heidegger".

Krelianx (April 11, 2008 at 9:25 pm)

No, it simply means a lot of people followed your advise and actually downloaded the essays; it does not mean they agree with you in that they are fundamental. And, contrary to what you think, I have read Strauss (I wrote my thesis on Being and Time). Do not appeal to my ignorance about the subject matter to substantiate your argument. I pointed out Strauss' reading is controversial and often UNRELATED to the videos at hand. You blatantly interject all videos of Heidegger with your plea...

Krelianx (April 11, 2008 at 9:29 pm)

Even worse, you claim I am rejecting Strauss on the basis of prejudice. That's a fine way of saying no one can disagree with Strauss' necessity without falling into prejudice. I asked you why didn't you direct viewers to other, more contemporary and less controversial, introductions about Heidegger and you haven't responded. It seems clear to me this is about your affinity with Strauss more than inciting an understanding of Heidegger. And you obviate the necessity which you attribute to Strauss.

theloniouz (June 5, 2008 at 9:19 pm)

I just wanted to express support for Krelianx.

To say that one of the most important philosophers of modern times can only be correctly interpreted via ONE other political philosopher's opinions is conspicuously narrow-minded.

But when the person making this claim is also returning to the same videos to repost it again and again and doing so on every video, then it throws considerable suspicion upon their motives. It has all the hallmarks of political zealotry not open-minded inquiry.