A 13min clip. I don’t know much about the guy, but interesting framing
Sure the music is nice,
but regarding the intellectual content, we’re back to looking at a discussion that keeps itself firmly within our mind’s bubble. Mind about minds. (don’t get mad at me for pointing out the same oversight, yet again, it remains significant.)
You mention “interesting” framing, because framing is important.
And it’s the framing of this greater intellectual discussion that I’m complaining about. …
One of many in-progress commentaries - …
But life remains too busy, but it was brought to mind by an interesting article at Medium.com about Heidegger
Between Being and Thinking: Consciousness Reconsidered
Heidegger’s Reframing of How We Perceive the World and Ourselves
Stephanie Shen - Oct 3, 2025
"Martin Heidegger is one of the most influential philosophers of the twentieth century. In 1927, at the age of thirty-eight, he published his magnum opus, Being and Time, which received immediate acclaim. … Before Heidegger, Western philosophy centered on the individual mind and how each person perceives the truth about the external world. Plato claimed there is another perfect external realm, known as the Form. Aristotle believed that truth is inherent in objects and can be discovered through empirical studies. After detaching himself from the world around him, Descartes concluded that truth is revealed in the rational mind, which is distinct from the body.
Meanwhile, these philosophies have created dichotomies that are deeply ingrained in our thinking to this day: subject versus object, mind versus body, and internal versus external worlds.
Heidegger’s philosophy transcends these binaries. It focuses on more fundamental aspects of being human, particularly the essence of human existence in everyday life, which, he believed, had been overlooked by previous philosophers. …"
It was an interesting, thoughtful, well written article - still it seems she also misses something critical. Yeah, yeah Lausten same old stuff - just like the same overriding philosophical discussion, rehashing the same old stuff, over and over. Hoping to spot something that’s been missed before.
Stephanie Shen,
Interesting nicely written article, interesting man and ideas. While much that I’ve read by Heidegger seems fairly self-evident upon reflection - I also believe he was a success driven egoist, rather than some pure thinker. Which is why it feels to me like he wrote as much for affect, as for conveying purified intellectual ideals.
You wrote: “Heidegger’s philosophy transcends these binaries.”
Here, I don’t understand how people can engage with such discussions, and not start by recognizing the most fundamental observation we can make about our ‘human condition’?
That is explicitly recognizing the “Human Mind ~ Physical Reality divide”?
Our bodies are the product of over 600 million years of evolution and inherent knowledge.
Our body, brain interacting with life, (interior and exterior), is what produces our consciousness, and all our thoughts including God - which in actuality has more to do with human Ego, than anything else.
(Ego, as in sense of self)
Ergo, our mind is the product of all the experiences of our life as processed through our body.
Without a clear appreciation for this most profound “duality” and without reference to our evolutionary heritage and our mammalian forbearers, discussions of the human self and mind remain a muddled mess, no matter how many big words we can toss at it. (sorry hope that doesn’t come across as too harsh.)
With that appreciation, our relationship with our body evolves into an interesting partnership that offers strategies for dealing with our darker side and life’s emotional turmoils.
Also having a personal connection with Evolution* and this Mother Earth (go figure that wasn’t just an ancient peoples’ illusion - it’s the actual, factual, reality of our evolved existence) of ours, is a connection to the pageant of evolution and eternity, coddling my emotional need to belong.
- I am a thread in Earth’s Pageant of Evolution—and it is good.
Stephanie, thanks for your thought provoking article.
Did I?. I must have been drunk at the time (Pink Floyd)
That was a misread - I’m sharing the comment I made under Stephanie Shen’s article link quote box. This is about Heidegger and Stephanie Shan’s article. Just trying to keep the conversation going.
I’ll try to clear that us.
I watched the whole movie. I got tired of the Flamenco guy singing, but most of it was very well done.
Hiedegger lived long enough to comment on technology in the modern age. This doc presents how we got there with some entertaining characters. It starts with a review, from Plato’s ideal forms, to Descartes thinking, to Heidegger’s view that there just “are” forms, there is us interacting with them, like a jazz musician. There are rules, like a recipe, but the cook makes each meal and the handmade table where it is served makes the experience.
We in turn are shaped by how our ancestors interacted with the world and we can take risks, we can find our authentic selves by breaking the rules. By doing so, we open up new worlds. The form of the statue of David could be said to have been in the stone, but it took Michealangelo to see it and bring it into being.
The latest view of the world is that we bend it to our will. Standardization has replaced skills and craftsmanship. The last section explores what we have lost and how or if we can get it back.
Okay, but please notice it’s all about the human experience.
Not the slightest interest in reaching beyond.
That’s why when reading stuff I write, you should never forget I identify as an Earth Centrist - Earth is my ultimate touchstone.
From my reading and interactions with philosophers, it sure seems to me they believe their Minds are the ultimate touchstone.
That’s why I love science, it is also a product of our human mind,
but it is constantly reaching beyond our smug self-absorbed logic,
and checking in with physical reality to see how our ideas are shaping up..
Scientists are also unique in their unwavering dedication to intellectual honesty,
that is, scientists allow physical facts to carry the day, ego is to be checked at the door.
Does any of that help clarify the conflict?
(Oh and yes, I have also watched the entire video, and made notes.)