Existentialism: Martin Heidegger, The Origin of the Work of Art (part 1)

Existentialism:  Martin Heidegger, The Origin of the Work of Art (part 1)

In this video lecture, we begin examining Martin Heidegger’s seminal essay The Origin of the Work of Art. We follow his starting discussion of art, artists, …

22 Responses to “Existentialism: Martin Heidegger, The Origin of the Work of Art (part 1)”

  1. Zullala says:

    “Can anyone set themselves up as an artist?” All I can think of is poor,
    poor Squidward. Nope, not everyone can be an artist haha.

    Thanks for the lessons. These are very useful.?

  2. Gregory B. Sadler says:

    I’m back to shooting lecture videos in front of the chalkboard — though I
    definitely feel the effects in my knee today!?

  3. jordan beck says:

    You do a great job!?

  4. KingFrizzy92 says:

    These videos rock! You’ve saved my ass this semester. Keep on keeping on!?

  5. Jimmy Page says:

    Love these Heidegger lectures. I was reading his collection of lectures on
    technology and poetry. These help me to understand some of his dense text.
    He can put a lot in a small book!?

  6. Virginia Curran says:

    Existentialism: Martin Heidegger, The Origin of the Work of Art (part 1)

  7. Saved2theLight says:

    I disagree with Heidegger. Art is not out there and done for others but a
    reflection from in here; here being the artists mind. Picasso did not paint
    the women’s persona but expressed his own persona in the woman using
    abstractions due to his abstraction of life. His discontent and psychosis
    that was and is his and everyone’s art. It comes from our own minds and
    mental instability. Best example is Van Gogh and his psychotic mind visible
    in his brush stroke etc. his works are expressions of his internal
    discomfort firstly then a landscape secondly.?

  8. Chip Redihan says:

    great video, very helpful ?

  9. Far Unlit Unknown says:

    And then this distorted conception of equipment (again, as efficient
    causation comes to the fore in modernity, tacitly or otherwise) is taken to
    be something like the general structure of Being. So everything is
    incorrectly taken in terms of human dasein’s purposes, and even artworks
    are thought of as sort of like dasein in a sense “using” Being to represent
    the truth of beings? And he’s going to say it’s more the other way around?

  10. Lunatic232323 says:

    Great theme and great speech! (: I really like the way you explain
    philosophy in a simple, but not simplistic way. Are you currently working
    as a professor also?

  11. Gregory B. Sadler says:

    I don’t have anything at present on any Jewish philosophy or philosophers
    — but I will be shooting fairly soon on Lev Shestov’s thought

  12. Edmon Marquez says:

    I’d love to see some videos on William James especially his religious

  13. Far Unlit Unknown says:

    So to put in Aristotelian terms, is it right to say that H dislikes how
    modernity (and perhaps neo-orthodox Protestantism) stresses efficient
    causation (as the final cause fell out)?So things being less fixed in their
    essences causes the artist to be fancied as the “God” of the artwork, the
    source of its being, whereas “real” artwork calls attention to the
    “alethic” way things are actually given to us.And tools show how a thing’s
    being can be distorted when consciously thematized?

  14. Gregory B. Sadler says:

    You’re very welcome!

  15. Gregory B. Sadler says:

    That’s fine. This is a Heidegger video. That’s more something to let me
    know about by private message or in a comment on my main channel page

  16. John Wayne says:

    Is this the book Derrida uses in Into the Bargain (or something to that

  17. Gregory B. Sadler says:

    Yes, that sounds rather Derridian

  18. Gregory B. Sadler says:

    No — if we’re talking about it Aristotelian terms, it is the final
    causality, the fact that it’s quite clearly defined, that makes equipment
    equipment — and Heidegger’s not against that sort of being, just against
    taking it as the general type for being. We’re not yet into the aletheic
    manifestation of truth in the artwork in this video, this far into the
    text. There’ll be more about it in later installations

  19. Gregory B. Sadler says:

    Simply put, in tools, no efficient causality without there being a final
    causality — you make them to do something

  20. Gregory B. Sadler says:

    Thanks. Glad you enjoyed it

  21. Far Unlit Unknown says:

    It seems I have this notion that since the final cause as teleology doesn’t
    have to be taken in terms of dasein-being (the for-the-sake-of), H laments
    how things are increasingly taken that way (thus mangling truth). And tools
    are the one kind of thing that it is proper to take only that way, as long
    as you don’t confuse that with Being as such. But I mistakenly want to
    identify tools with efficient causation, probably because I see that as
    more endemic to modernity..everything in ref. to us.

  22. Eli Hilman says:

    Thanks for another great lecture. I couldn’t stop listening very intriguing
    philosophy. I was wondering if you have any lectures a Judaic philosophy or
    texts, such as The Bible(Torah), Talmud, and Maimonides, etc…

Leave a Reply

XHTML: You can use these tags: <a href="" title=""> <abbr title=""> <blockquote cite=""> <code> <em> <strong>