There's no need to review the copiously acknowledged importance of the late Dr. Dreyfus' contribution to debunking the canard of "Artificial Intelligence," (whose nonsensical hagiography has lately been resuscitated in our tech-infatuated Googletocracy) and also his important contributions to the understanding of continental philosophy in the U.S., where analytical philosophy has always enjoyed a more or less unchallenged primacy, in spite of it's self-imposed imposed limitations. The thing I want to say is that this archive should be praised for preserving these and other wonderful lectures and making them free to all. As many know Berkeley recently pulled all it's lectures from YouTube and iTunes on the thin and dishonest pretext of noncompliance with the ADA subtitle mandate, when in fact Berkeley is doing what every other University has done since the brief and truncated dawn of online education: stamp it out and erase it wherever possible before it becomes a real threat to the corporatization of knowledge and the selling of premium credentials by banks and universities at a ruinous cost to young scholars and their beleaguered families. You would expect this from Harvard, Yale, and MIT, but Berkeley? Sad. They will fail in the end, as knowledge wants to be free, and has a unique power to propagate itself that university administrators will ultimately lose control of.

favorite favorite favorite favorite

Lecture 3:

The professor doesn't want the equipment added to substance because it is not self sustained and yet nothing is really self sustained except for the suprasubstance (Being). So why not put the equipment into the substance grouping or add an additional category and call the category "Dasein Created" where all equipment is "Dasein infected". The hammer is created by Dasein for hammering, the eye is used by Dasein for seeing, booze or peyote are used by Dasein for seeing, the brain is used by Dasein for thinking (and sometimes being rational) and Dasein is used by Dasein for intellecting, etc. all of which could be consider as Dasein infected.



Intelligibility does seem holistic and immaterial, an essential quality for Dasein to possess in its being, but surely there must be a kind of being that is Being where all the small Dasein beings sit within the Being.



We don't understand the background of being MH says. But I would think that when the genetic potentiality for reason (substance) comes in contact and combines with the actuality of the senses (substance) it leads to the potentiality and actuality of equipment (Dasein-infected substance) and also the self awareness of Dasein with itself and for the very few the self awareness of Being itself (the truly fundamental ontology)



There is a mention of Dasein not having to think about negotiating the world because it possesses know how yet this seems incorrect. Dasein must always be thinking; be it overt or covert, consciously or subconsciously. Nothing that involves a calculation of being can occur with out movement and with movement thereby intelligibility and thinking.



When it is stated that Dasein eventually possesses forstanding isn't this just like saying that it uses the background (mentioned below) to predict the behaviour of being (not Being itself).



It might have been better if the translator had used rationalizing instead of understanding but maybe that's just a personal preference.



I do like it when he says that when we are lost in a task we become equipment and not Dasein. This makes me think being phenominologically and ontologically shimmers back and forth for a Dasein.



There is talk of the background to being and the claim that it cannot be described where MH will attempt to describe it. But isn't this background just the natural rational rules presented to us in contrast to the irrational conduct of human thought . All life is rational except Dasein because of its free will and so when you see Dasein use the rational background of substance it proves that it is describable. You must have the irrational set beside the rational to see the being of the rational because without the irrational the rational background would still exist but it could never be known or seen.

- July 30, 2015Lecture 3