The modulation of Heidegger's voice at 10:10 really seems to drive home the message of the apathy of society through technology. I felt as if i was being immersed into an artificial mode of pseudo consciousness.
@Dasein2005 ok we just did it in canada I read being and time the ontological graduate version... my personal. They are for interviews in the industry of capitalism. He just leaves it on, let's it happen, the question of being in existential life; resolved by investigation.. they don't like it.
Martin Heidegger is one of the greatest intellectual capacities of the 20th century - whose contribution to philosophy is often overwhelmed by the fact that he was a member of the Nazi party and did not denounce his involvement. BUT to the significance of a philosopher's biography he said in 1924 at a lecture on Aristotle referring to what Plato says in "The Sophist" (Stephanus, 246d): "Bei der Persönlichkeit eines Philosophen hat nur das Interesse: Er wurde dann und dann geboren, er arbeitete und starb," which would translate as follows: "The only topic of interest in the life of a philosopher is the fact the he was born and worked and died." And the point is clear: it seems fair to look into the mind of the philosopher by examining what he says and thinks disregarding his circumstances of his political involvement - rather than to make prejudiced opinions FOR or AGAINST his philosophy without even having read and understood his thought.
Even if he denounced his affiliation with the Nazi party, it really wouldn't change the fact that Hitler and WW2 happened because of much more complex social and political dynamics, also in the sense of historical facts and ideological crisis, completley independent of Heidegger's impact on the academic sphere at that time. Heidegger is mereley a scapegoat of today's western philosophy's moralistic approach to all things wordly. Im talking mainly about analytic's approach to problem solving today. What Heidegger saw in Nazism was the beginning of a new ground and potential for building on his theory, that is actually based around Nietzsche's idea of nihilsm, conected to the fall of big ideas and metaphysics. Such a tragedy brings forth new ways of understanding one's existence and history, and Heidegger did well to understand politics in terms of actual practice, which failed in the hands of reformists at the start of the 20th century, and which is also bound to fail some more in contemporary times, because it is still approaches major discourses of today through specific beliefs of universal good and rejection of dialectics. People like Habermas, who criticized Heidegger for never denouncing his involvment with the nazi party and also for being an obscurist, are political pragmatists, who understand the world through ontical approach. Even if the solution to most of the world's practical, material problems are of political nature, it still doesnt change the fact the the understanding of the human being is never solely bound to his life as a political, working or creating animal, but to a much deeper and unrecognizable level of our sole consciousness. Politics cant explain what we call an ''existential crisis'' and what every human being seems to experience sometime in their lives. Then again, the reallity of today's humanity is still clinging onto the ever sinking ship of ideological phantasms, which will disappear along with our existence, because, like Lacan said, the only real in this case is our abillity to self-destruct.
'D'ou venez vous?' Michel Foucault. 'By their fruits shall ye know them,' Jesus Christ. 'Actions speak louder than words,' popular saying. It is to M.H.'s credit however that he once wrote to Karl Jaspers of how deeply ashamed he felt. He is a great philosopher, from whom I personally have learnt a great deal, but, alas, he is deeply flawed. Paul Celan has written a poem about this, following his visit to M.H.'s hut.
René Xhristoph I may agree to that when it comes to some forms of art and sciences. But a philosopher discusses also the ethos, and even when not discussing it, he did not vocalise the terrible, colossal horror that he was so close of. His arrogance seems to have kept him laconic and vague about it.
Die Hälfte des Interviews war nicht zu hören bzw. zu verstehen, man mußte die Untertitel lesen. Was ist da los? Ansonsten bin ich immer dankbar, wenn solche Inhalte verfügbar gemacht werden.
For you Heidegger experts out there, a question? When he speaks towards the end of the interview about "our already dying language," is he referring to the conceptual language of philosphers generally, Kantian German philosophers, as he was immersed in, or the German Language per se, or the human language overall?
Hey, ja, das Problem ist, dass eine bestimmte Stelle vom Algorithmus erwischt und dann ersetzt wird, weil diese Stelle in einem modernen Song vorkommt. Als wäre der Song mit Heideggers Stimme das Original und ich würde daraus eine Stelle entnehmen. Aber wir können es gerne nochmal probieren mit der undistorted version. Vielen Dank!
@@kKpeaceKk Hi Ikarus! Eine PN-Funktion scheint es auf YT nicht zu geben. Vielleicht kannst du mir hier deine Email-Adresse durchgeben? Ich sende dir dann den Download-Link. :) Danke!
...vor seinem Geiste .... I am not sure, if the word 'Geist' has been translated correctly as spirit. that word usually cannot be translated 1:1 into another language like English. it is the same the other way around with the English word 'mind'. but in this sentence I think the more adequate translation would have been 'mind' especially considering that it is spoken by Heidegger
heh Heidegger says Geist as spirit all the time - it's one of his major concepts, though you wouldn't know it reading heidegerrians. check out of spirit by derrida
Has Heidegger ever spoken of any experiences of 'ecstatic openness' or the like? Somehow I would expect him to be 'silent' on these personal experiences but I'm curious. This interview makes me think of the popular dictum, 'follow the science!'.
The openness of beyng is not about experiencing it but clarifying it as a possibility. Read: On Time and Being, especially the part which is about his relationship with phenomenology.
Could someone clarify Heinrich von Kleist's phrase mentioned in the ending of the video, i think it to be crucial to Heidegger's last point but i am yet to fully comprehend it
To fully understand, or if not, accurately grasp in the right sense the nature of being that the spirit of the farthest individual is to be held into account and "bowed down to". Or in a purely "thinking with relation to philosophizing" matter, to think so exactly in heidegger's meaning of "to think" that again even the farthest -millennium behind- being is considered, that is to say, roughly speaking, to take into account the nature of man independently of time and circumstances, which seems a godlike thing to do. This is how I imagined what he said and I wrote it down because it wouldn't be fitting asking the question without first contributing an answer. Come to think Heidegger didn't seem to have done that, and doesn't hide it
I interpreted it as something (surely unintented) in my view very metaphysically loaded, right after declaring what is not being done is metaphysics. If this is a fair interpretation, then I suppose a metaphysics could have normative implications which suggests no further metaphysics are relevant, useful, true, or something more apt. I think this is maybe somewhat analogous to the unmoved mover. No metaphysics but this piece of metaphysics, and we’re done. Or no metaphysics except for this. Probably not what he meant but this is what a thought and it differs to what you are saying (from what I can tell), and your explanation certainly reads more heidegerrian in style. The language this man used and developed is certainly obscure to me often, but seems (truly) profound, and feels mystical. Thinking about distinguishing philosophy and thinking, I like the idea of the simpler being more difficult. Maybe it relates to being (I try to use "being" here in a common sense) in such a way that our thoughts with our language pay their respects to their contents. Probably many rough inconsistencies between my use of many of these words and what H purportedly meant, but for me it feels viable as of now. But thinking understood as normatively positive in this way, I have a hard time of understanding as removable from metaphysical postulates, so to speak. I do like the basic idea of it being easy to make complex thoughts and hard to make easy ones-at least in non-scientific, practical terms.
It is a call to direct one's inner ear to the wisdom of past voices to be able to project them into the future being of man. For this to be possible, the contemporary 'I' must step back (maybe even backwards) to project a future in which the Sun again dawns on humanity.
I take that the phrase being quoted from Heinrich von kleist to be "as such" that it is an attunement toward the preparedness of the kind of "thinking" that Heidegger once postulate and see, that is, the kind of thinking that is not calculative.
I don't comprehend why _thinking_ requires language (careful or otherwise). My internal use of the latter aids: memory, bearings and preparation for communication with others. I probably think primarily in images with emotional associations.
I think it is important to distinguish between "thinking" and your own observation of psychological processes. Probably not all psychological processes should be termed thinking, where is the boundary? I do not know, but that is a different topic. I will try to tell how I understood what Martin Heidegger tries to convey. I have read some of his works, so I hope this will be helpful. The philosophical thinking of the West, is based on the Logos (meaning Word, Speech). That is how thinking would be defined in the terms of the unique history of philosophical thinking of the West. For example, if we take Parmenides, one of the oldest pre-Socratic Western philosophers, he said something in the terms of "thinking and being are one and that one can think of nothing else." So authentic western thought (based on its own unique history) is the asking of the question of Being and trying to understand the meaning of Being as the meaning of the word (Logos) that is a part of speech (Logos). To give a different example in the Eastern Tradition of Zen Buddhism, true thinking is defined as no thinking. In this way Eastern thought is focused on the question of Nothing instead of on the question of Being as Western thought. This was understood by the Japanese philosopher Kitaro Nishida.
You clearly have, then, very weak abstract thinking capabilites. And very little thinking habilities. That is why, as Heidegger himself puts it, this capability of thinking is not developed in everyone and in the same degree, but there's always communication and education to explain in a simple way to people like yourself what is, in itself, very complex processes of thinking.
Thinking is an internal dialog. Images and emotions are mental representations and affections. If you want to communicate any line of thought, mental representation or affection logically, you'll have to use the instrument of language. The problem with that is that the structure of language is such that language can only ever be about " some thing" and never be about being as such. Thinking and language always have an object, but being in itself is not an object, it is about why that object can "be there" in the first place.
@@bobmn5702Interesting; thank you. I don't wish to be pedantic but a _dialogue_ by definition requires two parties. Didn't Charlie Chaplain effectively convey thoughts by way of mime?
13:44 Seems to describing what we are going through this very moment. "event of appropriation"...amazing that this man foresaw this in 1969. No wonder he was "canceled" from Academia...even before the term existed. He foresaw that too.
WHOOSH, and his philosophy goes right over your head. Not canceled at all. He took himself out of the game after 1933. Here he simply keeps telling the interviewer, you can't ask that question until you've answered four other questions, and then he proceeds not to answer the question.
Some people also try to discredit him and his works for the simple fact that he was a member of the Nazi party. He wasn't a Nazi, he was just incredibly based
@@severinocicerchia7668 The essence of technology, for Heidegger, is Metaphysics itself. But of course Heidegger also looks for the essence of Metaphysics, and according to him we ourselves are Metaphysics, thus we must go back to the origin itself. Kant was an earthquake, Enlightenment is a smack in the face and Thought woke up to itself for the first time in millennia. I think it is apparent that we are in the cave again, the knowledge and harmony of the Whole has dissolved. We individual humans have very finite memory, and a very long past. If one thinks of Plato's discussion of the forms of State as he describes them in the Republic, it is uncanny how much we mirror the final decay of the polis. And those were thought and written by those deep thinkers who had access to the eternal ideas. The Ouroboros devours.
@@kKpeaceKk analysis of history is what is totally lacking in Heideggers approach. Marxism, if to be criticized, is to be too concentrated in the analysis of history and very little with the Dasein.
holy fucking shit i saw that first answer and i almost fucking died dude. the origin of science is lost. holy fucking shit oh my god. im high. excellent start to 4/20 week. this guy is a GENIUS
Of course philosophy is our purpose look at socrates sacrifice his death for philosophy thats the real knowledge, you didnt have to knkw what is society because we are society itself and it differs from individual to individual, we have to go with the ship/kapal of philosophy to understand ourself/our society because we have to, if science is our purpose it becomes only chaos, but with philosophy there is chaos and order, critic to heidegger,
The modulation of Heidegger's voice at 10:10 really seems to drive home the message of the apathy of society through technology. I felt as if i was being immersed into an artificial mode of pseudo consciousness.
As a German native speaker I felt annoyed by having to look a the screen to get what he is saying...
I think my man didn’t like this interviewer’s approach to him and the tenor of the answers reflects this.
Great!!! Thank you. The moment of explanation of: why there is something instead of nothing it's gold. Thank you
11:50 : "Alles und jedes auf einen Knopfdruck hin abrufbar machen"
How could someone in 1969 so accurately predict the present?
It really isn’t “predicting”, for it had existed in Heidegger’s time.
@@jsuisdetrop Was war denn 1969 alles auf Knopfdruck abrufbar?
@@otisobl zum Beispiel der Start von Mond oder Atomraketen
@@hjm4364 Das ist aber nicht "alles und jeden". ;-)
răspunsurile lui Heidegger sunt admirabile.
14:27 is extremely important for understanding Heidegger's thinking. "Ecstatic openness."
Homeless people and people within daseins temporality all over some questions of their being on a trancdental metaphysic
@@Impaled_Onion-thatsmine
Pure gibberish.
@Dasein2005 ok we just did it in canada I read being and time the ontological graduate version... my personal. They are for interviews in the industry of capitalism. He just leaves it on, let's it happen, the question of being in existential life; resolved by investigation.. they don't like it.
@@Dasein2005 ecstatic thinking a form of thought disorder reversal transition of your being through the they
@@Impaled_Onion-thatsmine 😂
Martin Heidegger is one of the greatest intellectual capacities of the 20th century - whose contribution to philosophy is often overwhelmed by the fact that he was a member of the Nazi party and did not denounce his involvement. BUT to the significance of a philosopher's biography he said in 1924 at a lecture on Aristotle referring to what Plato says in "The Sophist" (Stephanus, 246d): "Bei der Persönlichkeit eines Philosophen hat nur das Interesse: Er wurde dann und dann geboren, er arbeitete und starb," which would translate as follows: "The only topic of interest in the life of a philosopher is the fact the he was born and worked and died." And the point is clear: it seems fair to look into the mind of the philosopher by examining what he says and thinks disregarding his circumstances of his political involvement - rather than to make prejudiced opinions FOR or AGAINST his philosophy without even having read and understood his thought.
René Christoph ,
I could not agree more with your statements. Politics are ontical.
Even if he denounced his affiliation with the Nazi party, it really wouldn't change the fact that Hitler and WW2 happened because of much more complex social and political dynamics, also in the sense of historical facts and ideological crisis, completley independent of Heidegger's impact on the academic sphere at that time. Heidegger is mereley a scapegoat of today's western philosophy's moralistic approach to all things wordly. Im talking mainly about analytic's approach to problem solving today. What Heidegger saw in Nazism was the beginning of a new ground and potential for building on his theory, that is actually based around Nietzsche's idea of nihilsm, conected to the fall of big ideas and metaphysics. Such a tragedy brings forth new ways of understanding one's existence and history, and Heidegger did well to understand politics in terms of actual practice, which failed in the hands of reformists at the start of the 20th century, and which is also bound to fail some more in contemporary times, because it is still approaches major discourses of today through specific beliefs of universal good and rejection of dialectics.
People like Habermas, who criticized Heidegger for never denouncing his involvment with the nazi party and also for being an obscurist, are political pragmatists, who understand the world through ontical approach. Even if the solution to most of the world's practical, material problems are of political nature, it still doesnt change the fact the the understanding of the human being is never solely bound to his life as a political, working or creating animal, but to a much deeper and unrecognizable level of our sole consciousness. Politics cant explain what we call an ''existential crisis'' and what every human being seems to experience sometime in their lives. Then again, the reallity of today's humanity is still clinging onto the ever sinking ship of ideological phantasms, which will disappear along with our existence, because, like Lacan said, the only real in this case is our abillity to self-destruct.
'D'ou venez vous?' Michel Foucault. 'By their fruits shall ye know them,' Jesus Christ. 'Actions speak louder than words,' popular saying. It is to M.H.'s credit however that he once wrote to Karl Jaspers of how deeply ashamed he felt. He is a great philosopher, from whom I personally have learnt a great deal, but, alas, he is deeply flawed. Paul Celan has written a poem about this, following his visit to M.H.'s hut.
You got to read some Hegel he's the man to read Heidegger couldn't stand the test of time
René Xhristoph I may agree to that when it comes to some forms of art and sciences. But a philosopher discusses also the ethos, and even when not discussing it, he did not vocalise the terrible, colossal horror that he was so close of. His arrogance seems to have kept him laconic and vague about it.
Die Hälfte des Interviews war nicht zu hören bzw. zu verstehen, man mußte die Untertitel lesen. Was ist da los? Ansonsten bin ich immer dankbar, wenn solche Inhalte verfügbar gemacht werden.
10:10 coincidence that the technical sound signal is disturbed when he goes to the core of his Technikkritik ?
Thank you so much!!
Heidegger est indiscutable sur les points aveugles de notre époque
Amazing.
😮😮😮!!!
For you Heidegger experts out there, a question? When he speaks towards the end of the interview about "our already dying language," is he referring to the conceptual language of philosphers generally, Kantian German philosophers, as he was immersed in, or the German Language per se, or the human language overall?
human language overall
Hi Ikarus! I have an undistorted version of this interview on my PC. If you want I can send it to you for a reupload. Cheers, Simon
Hey, ja, das Problem ist, dass eine bestimmte Stelle vom Algorithmus erwischt und dann ersetzt wird, weil diese Stelle in einem modernen Song vorkommt. Als wäre der Song mit Heideggers Stimme das Original und ich würde daraus eine Stelle entnehmen. Aber wir können es gerne nochmal probieren mit der undistorted version. Vielen Dank!
kannst Du mir hier auf RUclips eine private Nachricht schicken? Vielen Dank schonmal.
@@kKpeaceKk Hi Ikarus! Eine PN-Funktion scheint es auf YT nicht zu geben. Vielleicht kannst du mir hier deine Email-Adresse durchgeben? Ich sende dir dann den Download-Link. :) Danke!
@@simongrolercher6263 klar, dann bitte an piano_player@gmx.de vielen Dank!!
@@kKpeaceKk Email abgeschickt :) Dir auch Danke
...vor seinem Geiste .... I am not sure, if the word 'Geist' has been translated correctly as spirit. that word usually cannot be translated 1:1 into another language like English. it is the same the other way around with the English word 'mind'. but in this sentence I think the more adequate translation would have been 'mind' especially considering that it is spoken by Heidegger
Yeahhh, I think you're right. 'Mind' would have been more adequate.
heh Heidegger says Geist as spirit all the time - it's one of his major concepts, though you wouldn't know it reading heidegerrians. check out of spirit by derrida
Has Heidegger ever spoken of any experiences of 'ecstatic openness' or the like? Somehow I would expect him to be 'silent' on these personal experiences but I'm curious.
This interview makes me think of the popular dictum, 'follow the science!'.
The openness of beyng is not about experiencing it but clarifying it as a possibility. Read: On Time and Being, especially the part which is about his relationship with phenomenology.
Originalton mehrmals unterbrochen
10:15 music starts 💃
Could someone clarify Heinrich von Kleist's phrase mentioned in the ending of the video, i think it to be crucial to Heidegger's last point but i am yet to fully comprehend it
To fully understand, or if not, accurately grasp in the right sense the nature of being that the spirit of the farthest individual is to be held into account and "bowed down to".
Or in a purely "thinking with relation to philosophizing" matter, to think so exactly in heidegger's meaning of "to think" that again even the farthest -millennium behind- being is considered, that is to say, roughly speaking, to take into account the nature of man independently of time and circumstances, which seems a godlike thing to do. This is how I imagined what he said and I wrote it down because it wouldn't be fitting asking the question without first contributing an answer. Come to think Heidegger didn't seem to have done that, and doesn't hide it
I interpreted it as something (surely unintented) in my view very metaphysically loaded, right after declaring what is not being done is metaphysics. If this is a fair interpretation, then I suppose a metaphysics could have normative implications which suggests no further metaphysics are relevant, useful, true, or something more apt. I think this is maybe somewhat analogous to the unmoved mover. No metaphysics but this piece of metaphysics, and we’re done. Or no metaphysics except for this. Probably not what he meant but this is what a thought and it differs to what you are saying (from what I can tell), and your explanation certainly reads more heidegerrian in style. The language this man used and developed is certainly obscure to me often, but seems (truly) profound, and feels mystical. Thinking about distinguishing philosophy and thinking, I like the idea of the simpler being more difficult. Maybe it relates to being (I try to use "being" here in a common sense) in such a way that our thoughts with our language pay their respects to their contents. Probably many rough inconsistencies between my use of many of these words and what H purportedly meant, but for me it feels viable as of now.
But thinking understood as normatively positive in this way, I have a hard time of understanding as removable from metaphysical postulates, so to speak. I do like the basic idea of it being easy to make complex thoughts and hard to make easy ones-at least in non-scientific, practical terms.
It is a call to direct one's inner ear to the wisdom of past voices to be able to project them into the future being of man. For this to be possible, the contemporary 'I' must step back (maybe even backwards) to project a future in which the Sun again dawns on humanity.
I take that the phrase being quoted from Heinrich von kleist to be "as such" that it is an attunement toward the preparedness of the kind of "thinking" that Heidegger once postulate and see, that is, the kind of thinking that is not calculative.
I don't comprehend why _thinking_ requires language (careful or otherwise).
My internal use of the latter aids: memory, bearings and preparation for communication with others.
I probably think primarily in images with emotional associations.
I think it is important to distinguish between "thinking" and your own observation of psychological processes. Probably not all psychological processes should be termed thinking, where is the boundary? I do not know, but that is a different topic.
I will try to tell how I understood what Martin Heidegger tries to convey. I have read some of his works, so I hope this will be helpful.
The philosophical thinking of the West, is based on the Logos (meaning Word, Speech). That is how thinking would be defined in the terms of the unique history of philosophical thinking of the West.
For example, if we take Parmenides, one of the oldest pre-Socratic Western philosophers, he said something in the terms of "thinking and being are one and that one can think of nothing else." So authentic western thought (based on its own unique history) is the asking of the question of Being and trying to understand the meaning of Being as the meaning of the word (Logos) that is a part of speech (Logos).
To give a different example in the Eastern Tradition of Zen Buddhism, true thinking is defined as no thinking. In this way Eastern thought is focused on the question of Nothing instead of on the question of Being as Western thought. This was understood by the Japanese philosopher Kitaro Nishida.
You clearly have, then, very weak abstract thinking capabilites. And very little thinking habilities. That is why, as Heidegger himself puts it, this capability of thinking is not developed in everyone and in the same degree, but there's always communication and education to explain in a simple way to people like yourself what is, in itself, very complex processes of thinking.
Completely unprovoked ad hominem; for shame KomissarLohmann, for shame.
Thinking is an internal dialog. Images and emotions are mental representations and affections. If you want to communicate any line of thought, mental representation or affection logically, you'll have to use the instrument of language. The problem with that is that the structure of language is such that language can only ever be about " some thing" and never be about being as such. Thinking and language always have an object, but being in itself is not an object, it is about why that object can "be there" in the first place.
@@bobmn5702Interesting; thank you.
I don't wish to be pedantic but a _dialogue_ by definition requires two parties.
Didn't Charlie Chaplain effectively convey thoughts by way of mime?
13:44 Seems to describing what we are going through this very moment. "event of appropriation"...amazing that this man foresaw this in 1969. No wonder he was "canceled" from Academia...even before the term existed. He foresaw that too.
WHOOSH, and his philosophy goes right over your head. Not canceled at all. He took himself out of the game after 1933. Here he simply keeps telling the interviewer, you can't ask that question until you've answered four other questions, and then he proceeds not to answer the question.
Some people also try to discredit him and his works for the simple fact that he was a member of the Nazi party. He wasn't a Nazi, he was just incredibly based
10:10 he argue grandious , well done Martin heidegger
Could someone explain me why, according to Heidegger, Technology can't be understood by a Marxsist standpoint?
Basically cuz it lacks the indepth examination/analysis of history...
@@kKpeaceKk Interesting. I thought it had to do with the fact that in some way marxism still thinks within the subject-object framework
@@severinocicerchia7668 The essence of technology, for Heidegger, is Metaphysics itself. But of course Heidegger also looks for the essence of Metaphysics, and according to him we ourselves are Metaphysics, thus we must go back to the origin itself. Kant was an earthquake, Enlightenment is a smack in the face and Thought woke up to itself for the first time in millennia. I think it is apparent that we are in the cave again, the knowledge and harmony of the Whole has dissolved. We individual humans have very finite memory, and a very long past. If one thinks of Plato's discussion of the forms of State as he describes them in the Republic, it is uncanny how much we mirror the final decay of the polis. And those were thought and written by those deep thinkers who had access to the eternal ideas. The Ouroboros devours.
@@severinocicerchia7668 Yes, within "natural attitude"...
@@kKpeaceKk analysis of history is what is totally lacking in Heideggers approach. Marxism, if to be criticized, is to be too concentrated in the analysis of history and very little with the Dasein.
Is the sound kaput?
Philosophy applied to usual things is a tragedy.
what do you mean?? Ususal things??
The sound gets really creepy
Daniel Venegas cool creepy though ; philosophical creepy 😎
where was this published?
Martin Heidegger im Gespräch. (Hrsg.) Karl Alber, Freiburg i. Br. / München 1970
Eugenics is dangerous. It fears me that this was a part of this clip.
What are you talking about?
Why hegel makes people materialist i do not understand,
holy fucking shit i saw that first answer and i almost fucking died dude. the origin of science is lost. holy fucking shit oh my god. im high. excellent start to 4/20 week. this guy is a GENIUS
Of course philosophy is our purpose look at socrates sacrifice his death for philosophy thats the real knowledge, you didnt have to knkw what is society because we are society itself and it differs from individual to individual, we have to go with the ship/kapal of philosophy to understand ourself/our society because we have to, if science is our purpose it becomes only chaos, but with philosophy there is chaos and order, critic to heidegger,