Download PDF In sich selbst gefangen - Demenz: Psychische Situation und Kommunikationstipps (German Edition)

Free download. Book file PDF easily for everyone and every device. You can download and read online In sich selbst gefangen - Demenz: Psychische Situation und Kommunikationstipps (German Edition) file PDF Book only if you are registered here. And also you can download or read online all Book PDF file that related with In sich selbst gefangen - Demenz: Psychische Situation und Kommunikationstipps (German Edition) book. Happy reading In sich selbst gefangen - Demenz: Psychische Situation und Kommunikationstipps (German Edition) Bookeveryone. Download file Free Book PDF In sich selbst gefangen - Demenz: Psychische Situation und Kommunikationstipps (German Edition) at Complete PDF Library. This Book have some digital formats such us :paperbook, ebook, kindle, epub, fb2 and another formats. Here is The CompletePDF Book Library. It's free to register here to get Book file PDF In sich selbst gefangen - Demenz: Psychische Situation und Kommunikationstipps (German Edition) Pocket Guide.

In short: pain is life. As far as pain is life, life begets pain. The Common Root Like Nietzsche, Heidegger assesses positively a phenomenon that we would normally value negatively. However different their conceptions are, for both pain is the expression of a rupture conveying our most intimate reality. Both challenge us with the idea that pain makes a positive difference to our life.

But does pain always make such a difference to our life? And does it make sense to claim that at bottom this difference is always positive? I shall try to answer these questions by first exploring in more detail the meaning of the Greek word for rupture: algos.


This is also how Heidegger interprets algos. And this is what he seems to have in common with Nietzsche. As far as Nietzsche ascribes to pain the status of a rupture that makes a difference to my life, he also sees pain in comprehensive terms as suffering.

  • Cloud Computing Simplified for Small Businesses: Five Steps for Successful Cloud Office Automation!
  • Out of the Earth : An Imperative Anthology.
  • The importance of being alone!

At first glance this is indeed what the term algos seems to express. But this is not the whole story. The term algos does not stand on its own but in apposition to at least four other terms. The first term is odune, which refers to hurts: a sharp or shooting twinge that is well localised, or an acute ache that causes humiliating suffering.

The second term is pema, meaning affliction, adversity, a scourge and suffering. As pema, pain is almost an independent being, which sporadically afflicts the subject, invades it and takes over. Rey, The History of Pain, The Greek tragedies as well as Plato and Aristotle use these terms in apposition to algos to refer to aspects of agony such as minor conflict or serious combat as well as anguish, trauma and grief. Once we see algos in apposition to odune, pema, agon and lupe, it attains spatial and temporal features.

This is in contrast with the comprehensive meaning it has if it stands on its own. What is the point of this etymology? It indicates that the contention that pain is a rupture that concerns our whole being underrates the spatial and temporal dimensions that belong to its etymology. The rich etymology of the word algos suggests that not every pain needs to be understood in terms of comprehensive suffering, as a rupture that tears asunder my being. This is indeed what we also learn from the Latin etymology. This means that, if my arm pains, I would not necessarily say that I suffer.

Instead I would suggest the term disturbance. Pain is at least a disturbance of my actual condition. The pain in my arm may disturb me while writing. Yet it must not disrupt my whole life. Nevertheless we can still also apply disturbance to comprehensive suffering. A disturbance can be insignificant as well as devastating. Of course, states other than pain can also be disturbing. Itching, noise, a sharp light, a bad smell: all these can be called disturbances. Not every disturbance is painful. Yet every pain is a disturbance.

Finde heute die Filme von gestern

Pain is a disturbance to the extent that it is a hurt, an affliction, or agony. But the question remains: what exactly does pain disturb if not my whole life? Nietzsche gives us a point of departure for answering this question by viewing pain as a form of perception. Disturbed Perception Pain is in our head.

The esse of pain is percipi. Now what sounds like a psychology of perception has, as is well known, a sound physiological base. What happens if we see something? To see means to organise the material that is seen into a discernible Gestalt. This means the eyes focus, limit, analyse, construct, and project. What is seen and what it is seen as, that is, our sensory impression and our act of thinking, fully conflate.

Physiology and perception thus coincide. Thus perception is primordially a bodily act. Nietzsche only analyses the act of seeing, yet his analysis also pertains to hearing, feeling, tasting and smelling. Those are not senseless physical sensations we need to supply with meaning a posteriori. I am not a cognising subject standing behind my eyes, ears, hands, tongue and nose giving sense to what I see, hear, touch, taste and smell.

We do not first see and then observe the sky, hear and then notice the music, read and then capture the meaning of the words. By sensing I make sense. I do this prior to any reflection and even on the most basic level of sensation. Instead sensation is a mode of perception just as perception is a mode of cognition. It is by means of my senses that my body directs me to the world and draws it close by. As sensing bodies we are perceiving subjects. What is the relation between pain and perception?

Pain, so I have argued, can be defined as a disturbance bound to hurt, affliction and agony. So we can more completely say: pain is a disturbance of bodily perception bound to hurt, affliction and agony. From within this definition we do not need to speculate about physiological, psychological or metaphysical pain; instead, pain is the sine qua non of bodily pain. When I am in pain, the body is in pain. Defining pain in perceptual terms as hurt, affliction and agony gives us a basis to address the two initial questions now. Secondly: how do we address the materialist claim to understand pain in physical terms?

The Materialist Claim Let us start with the materialist claim: all pain can be understood in terms of physical processes without the loss of meaning. This entails the unravelling of the neurological mechanisms of pain, for example, the description of nerve cells that confer pain sensitivity as well as the central nervous system pathways that transmit the information to higher centres. According to classical neurological theory, the processing of pain consists of: 1. The materialist claim goes further: even pain perceptions can be understood in terms of physical processes in the higher centres of the brain.

Can we explain a pain in physical terms? Contrary to the materialists, I have argued that even the simplest of sensations is a form of perception. Now, as long as we say all pain is bodily pain, we can indeed explain pain sensations in physical terms. And yet, we can do so without reducing them to meaningless physiological impulses. What happens when I get a cramp in my leg? I do not first sense the hurt and then react emotionally and cognitively. I do so by exclaiming emotionally and inquiring cognitively.

See Paul M. Churchland, Matter and Consciousness, Cambridge , 43ff. Now if we can explain the most simple of pain sensations in perceptual terms, there is no reason not to accept that this applies in particular to complex interactions as in the case of affliction and agony. As long as we take pain to be a form of bodily perception we can say: on the one hand, all pain, also affliction and agony, can be understood in bodily terms. On the other hand, this bodily understanding does not reduce pain to senseless physical impulses; rather it remains a perception, the way we qua bodies relate to our environment.

This relationship is clearly not reducible to internal processes of the body. Thus, on the basis of defining pain as bodily perception, we can deal with the materialist demand without reducing the meaning pain has for our life to physical processes. The Challenge Pain makes a difference to my life; in pain I see what my life is about.

This is what Nietzsche and Heidegger challenge us to face. How far does our pain convey such a challenge? To begin with, not every hurt makes a decisive difference to our bodily well-being. We do learn from hurts to avoid injuries or to endure them. Otherwise we would not be able to help our children to cope with theirs. In this sense we can challenge our children not to complain or exclaim because of every twinge or ache. Yet not all hurt makes such a difference to our life. But what about affliction, punishment, torture, torment, or agony, conflict, combat, and grief? They assess positively only pain that could be seen as a force of life itself.

In perceptual terms, this is pain that. Yet the question remains: how should we judge their advocacy of pain as a positive force? To what extent is pain a perceptual dynamo?

Pressearchiv 2015

The view that pain can be seen as a perceptual force does have merits. Pain may revive our perceptual capacities, yet it may just as easily disturb and even destroy these capacities. Furthermore, a perception can be painful, especially in the case of a change of perspective. But that is not always the case. A change of view can arouse joy rather than pain.

Finally, perception exceeding our limits does not need to be painful, but can be simply enjoyable. Not every ecstatic event needs to end with a Dionysian cry of pain. Instead birth may simply arouse joy or it can end in tragedy. As such, pain poses no particular challenge. Nietzsche and Heidegger bring to light the poignant way humans take up the challenge of pain, yet not every pain poses such a challenge, and not every person is able to meet it.

Why did Heidegger in the summer of , when he was most intent on distancing himself from Nietzsche, nevertheless defend him against the charge of biologism? One must guard against giving a political answer to this question, albeit it is one that Heidegger himself seems to have favored at one time. Just before the Nuremburg trials opened in November , in a letter to the Academic Rector at Freiburg University, Heidegger explained that the succession of lecture courses on Nietzsche that he began in constituted his confrontation with and spiritual resistance to National Socialism. This suggestion has been taken up in some of the secondary literature.

Between Good and Evil, trans. Rosenberg was, after all, not fond of Nietzsche, even if he was not a vociferous opponent of him either, as, for example, Ernst Krieck was. This shows that there was no uniform view about Nietzsche within National Socialism. Indeed, National Socialism was not a uniform movement.

Some, but not all, National Socialists were extreme advocates of biologism, but biologism was also widespread throughout Europe and North America. Heidegger had long opposed himself to Spengler and, although Spengler had at one time been seen as one of the intellectual precursors of National Socialism, he had died in in disgrace.

Wallraff and Fredrick J. Smith, Nietzsche. Stuart Hughes, Oswald Spengler. A Critical Estimate, New York , Reden und Proklamationen , Part1, vol. Speeches and Proclamations. See also John Farrenkopf, Prophet of Decline. In the lecture course The Fundamental Concepts of Metaphysics, Heidegger identified and dismissed four Nietzschean analyses of the contempo Perhaps this was to take advantage of some remarks Spengler made about the English there.

Krell; in: Nietzsche i, New York , James E. Faulconer and Mark A. Wrathall, Cambridge , Because Baeumler in his study, Nietzsche, der Philosoph und Politiker, criticized Nietzsche for his biolo According to Baeumler, biologism is the doctrine that everything, including consciousness, can be traced back to life-processes. He granted that if Nietzsche had considered life an empirical fact, as biology does, then his philosophy would have been a uniquely monstrous biologism.

Baeumler, Nietzsche, der Philosoph und Politiker, Capuzzi; in: Nietzsche iv, San Francisco , Heidegger, Wegmarken, GA 9, ; Pathmarks, However, although Heidegger thereby Heidegger, Sein und Zeit, 46; Being and Time, Heidegger, Sein und Zeit, ; Being and Time, However, this does not mean that Heidegger was engaged in an effort to segregate metaphysics from biology. He knew that Nietzsche not only employed the language of contemporary biology, but was also well informed about it. Indeed, in his notes for his seminar on Nie I shall show rather that Heidegger sought to demonstrate that an appreciation of the history of being provides a broader perspective from which to view not just biological thinking but the historical context which sustained it, a perspective that saw a certain necessity or logic in history.

In The Will to Power as Art Heidegger suggested that Nietzsche spoke the language of physiology and biology only in order to make his account of the aesthetic state accessible to his contemporaries. Heidegger, Nietzsche Seminare, GA 87, Alfred Baeumler, Stuttgart , sec. Even so, this account does not constitute a critique or even a confrontation in the conventional sense of those words.

What it does do is to offer a diagnosis of the contemporary situation that allows it to be seen more broadly. There is here a crucial example of that transformation of our relation to philosophical problems and alternatives, such as biologism and mechanism, that Heidegger sought to bring about in his later thinking through the introduction of the term Machenschaft. It was through an understanding of how the cataclysmic events of his time were organized around the notion of life that Heidegger came to understand Machenschaft.

But if the condition becomes unconditional, then what comes to power is not-wanting a goal and cutting off any mindfulness that reaches ahead. This essay was not published until , but it was written and delivered as a lecture in And yet in claiming to offer a confrontation with and spiritual resistance to National Socialism, Heidegger plays on that ambiguity. By initially defending Nietzsche against the charge of biologism only to locate him within the history of Western metaphysics, Heidegger in a double movement elevated Nietzsche above his biologistic contemporaries the better to circumscribe him more forcefully in another way.

Neither Nietzsche, nor the philosophers of life of the early twentieth century, pointed far enough ahead of them. This becomes clear if one reads those lectures in the context of the contemporary manuscript, Die Geschichte des Seyns, in which he conceded that all attempts to refute biologism are worthless. In consequence, the motivation for saving Nietzsche from the charge of biologistic thinking by characterizing his thinking as metaphysical cannot Heidegger offered a powerful diagnosis of the ills of his time, but it left little or no room for a political response that was capable of combating it.

Introduction What it means to be human is rapidly becoming again the predominant question in academic discourse. As postmodernism, the great slayer of subjectivity, is tottering on its last leg, philosophers, theologians and cultural critics are once again busy discussing the essence of our humanity. Heidegger and Levinas have emerged as the two most prominent conversation partners in this discussion, because both chart a course beyond modernist ideas of selfhood by defining subjectivity as transcendence in terms of a post-metaphysical humanism.

Each, however, approaches this common goal from a radically different perspective. According to Heidegger, any effort to uncover the true essence of our humanity involves a return to early Greek thought with its openness to being. Levinas challenges this Greek paradigm by suggesting a post-metaphysical, theologically inspired ethical subjectivity.

Nietzsche fails to understand their proper relation because by assigning being a value, even if it is the highest value, namely the principle of the will to power, he still devalues Being by objectifying 2. This humanism defines subjectivity as transcendent freedom. For Heidegger, human existence is transcendent because it stands in the ontological difference as the only be8. Human existence stands out from any other as ek-sistence. This unique form of existence is reflected in human language, which is not so much a means of selfexpression as it is a correspondence to the event of being, to the ontological difference in which world and things show themselves.

In his lecture course Vom Wesen der menschlichen Freiheit of summer semester , Heidegger insists that a proper definition of our humanity depends on recognizing the question of being as the foundational question of philosophy. This recognition reveals that freedom and transcendence do not merely depend on but actually are our openness to being itself. Heidegger claims that the essence of our humanity cannot be derived from self-analysis, as classical humanism was wont to do, but from our relation to Being. Heidegger tells us that if humanism is to think the nature of our humanity Wesen , his philosophy classifies as a humanism because we are most essentially human when we pursue Being.

He then also reshapes another central humanist theme, concern for human dignity, in the image of Being because Heidegger believes that traditional humanisms failed in establishing human dignity. The truly human subject originates within social categories and is expressed primarily as ethical obligation to others and to the world. Existents are reduced to the neuter state of idea, Being, the concept. The ontological difference cannot be thought in theoretical fashion but only as the process of interpreting our historical modes of being. For Heidegger, transcendence is the openness of human beings to Being itself, the nature of which he does not qualify.

For Levinas, by contrast, transcendence is defined not by our relation to Being but the prior ethical relation to another human being. Heidegger remains fascinated with his primary insight that being itself gives rise to the ontological difference and so grants to human beings the central un Emmanuel Levinas, Totality and Infinity, trans. Conversations with Philippe Nemo, Pittsburg , Die Seinsgeschichte aber ist eben die Ge-.

He argues against our enslavement to abstract concepts and advocates a stance of freedom for responsibility in the face of death. By replacing responsibility to the other with responsibility to Being, Levinas points out, Heidegger allows for the rationalization of inhuman practices. As long as human being is in any way the reflective site for a greater, impersonal reality i.

CampusTV Mainz 186 - Servicestelle Demenz

Paradoxically, in Levinas self-identity and self-knowledge begin not Emmanuel Levinas, Otherwise Than Being, trans. Smitch, New York , We do not discover the essence of our humanity when we open our eyes or ears to Being but when we sense, in the midst of enjoyment and the cares of life, the ethical obligation to our neighbor. Levinas tries to show in detailed phenomenological analyses of consciousness, memory, and time that at the heart of human existence we find inexplicable limiting experiences rather than control and mastery.

Rather than correlation and sameness, we find disruption and breach, which point us to ethical transcendence as the origin of all human communication and meaning. Conclusion When we compare Levinas and Heidegger carefully by attending to their work as a whole, we find that both reject an autonomous self and timeless, universal reason.

Moreover, both strive to overcome subjectivism and define human being as freedom and transcendence. The crucial difference between them is that Heidegger grounds human identity in our relation to Being while Levinas derives human identity from our pre-ontological ethical relation to other human beings.

Yet one nagging question remains concerning this accommodating interpretation. Has not Heidegger himself attuned us to the power of language as an address of Being? And if language unveils, at least to some degree, how things are, whose language appears more human? Heidegger insists that the essence of humanity lies in our service to being. Are we to measure our dignity by an impersonal entity or by a deity whose primary concern is justice? After all, nothing less than the meaning of freedom, truth, and humanity depends on how we answer this question. I am no man, I am dynamite. The concept of politics then merges completely with a war of spirits [Geisterkrieg], all the power structures of the old society having been exploded, since they are all based on lies: there will be wars as there never yet have been on earth.

It is first with me that there is grand politics on the earth. It was in the aftermath of the outbreak of the First World War that the still very Catholic young Heidegger first had occasion to quote Nietzsche. Heidegger will soon translate this millennial mendacity of nihilism into millennia of the oblivion of being by way of the long Occidental tradition of a metaphysics of constant presence, where this metaphysics itself is to be overcome along 1. Friedrich Nietzsche, Wille zur Macht, Vorrede, 2.

I am indebted to Alfred Denker for this reference. The ultimate thrust of this meditation on the sense and direction of the present historical situation of nihilism is a redirection of historical humanity toward its grandest potential. Karl Jaspers, Nietzsche. Wallraff and F. Jaspers sent a copy of the first edition of his book to Heidegger in early Only in that way can historical Da-sein take root and flourish in the realm opened and identified by the goal. Heidegger, Nietzsche I, ; Nietzsche i, Cited according to Guido Schneeberger, Nachlese zur Heidegger.

Dokumente zu seinem Leben und Denken, Bern , What sets the standards for greatness? Answer: the grand style, which provides the standards for grand politics. Rather, it is measured by the degree to which the artist approaches the grand style, to which he is capable of the grand style. That style has this in common with grand passion, that it disdains to please; that it forgets about persuading; that it commands, that it wills.

Native to the Greeks is the holy passion of the heavenly fire; their allotted historical task is the binding of unbound rapture and 11 12 13 14 Nietzsche, Der Wille zur Macht, n. German historical Dasein has the opposite task. For its native endowment is the clarity of representation and the ability to order to the point of stringent systematic organization, so that its appointed task is to infuse this order with the fire of passion, of being affected and moved by archaic be-ing. Will we understand this mark? One thing is certain: history will wreak vengeange on us if we do not. The shift constitutes a counter-thrust to the totalitarian direction that National Socialism in fact took.

To this site of history belong the gods, the temples, the priests, the celebrations, the games, the poets, the thinkers, the ruler, the council of elders, the assembly of the people, the armed forces and the ships. All this does not first belong to the polis, is not first political, because it enters into a relationship with a statesman and a general and with the affairs of state.

Rather, what we have named is political, that is, at the site of history, insofar as, for example, the poets are only poets, but then are actually poets, the thinkers are only thinkers, but then are actually thinkers, the priests are only priests, but then are actually priests, the rulers are only rulers, but then are actually rulers. Are: but this says: to use their power as violence-doers and to rise to eminent stature in historical being as creators, as doers.

Rising to a supreme stature in the site of history, they also become apolis, without city and site, lonesome, uncanny, with no way out amidst beings as a 22 Poets and thinkers, statesmen and prophets are gathered together in lonely, untimely, tragic, and contentious dialogue at this core of history, Dasein. To be truly political is to be at the site of history, Dasein in its root facticity and possibility, which in each of its epochal instantiations is ours hereandnow.

Language here is the original institution of being in the violent words of poetic origin and not just a means of communication for the sake of quick and easy agreement, rhetoric. The community of creators is a combative community of agonistic struggle over the extreme issues of archaic being Seyn. Hearing from one another, listening to one another, reciprocally involves radically placing each other in question over the radical issues at stake. Rapprochement here is contention, contestation, war, a war of agonistic spirits. Coming to an understanding is combat. We will find this ground and at the same time the calling of the German people in the history of the West only if we expose ourselves to being itself in a new way and new appropriation.

I thereby experience the current events wholly out of the future. Translation by Frank W. Heidegger in in fact adjudged Hitler to be a phronimos or statesman capable of rising above narrow party interests to become a leader sensitive to the needs, desires, and tendencies of the German people as a whole. But there are other ways in which the essential bond of cooperation between leader and people are achieved and sustained, and Hitler immediately established himself as a master at not only reading, but also evoking and accentuating the fundamental moods Grundstimmungen of the German people to gain their active cooperation Zustimmung in the grand historical mission Bestimmung and commissions that he only gradually revealed to them.

The will of the leader first of all recreates the others into a following out of which a community arises. It is from this vital solidarity of followers to leader that sacrifice and service arise, and not from sheer obedience and institutional coercion. Other forms of effectuating the will of the state, like the administration of governance and of justice, reinforce political education.

A subtle but perceptible shift in Heidegger occurs between and it is the shift from the metontological to the seynsgeschichtliche concept of the political. Indeed, in the first week of summer semester , Heidegger sizes up this hope for a second, more philosophical revolution within a transformed German university by taking his bearings from the first upheaval two years earlier, still a fresh experience for his auditors.

Philosophy can never directly supply the forces and create the modes of operation and opportunities which bring about an historical state of affairs, if only because philosophy is always the direct concern of the few. Which few? Those who 37 38 39 Prominent thinkers like Max Weber and Max Scheler had recently played dominant roles as government counselors, joining a long line of German intellectuals going back to Goethe and the Humboldt brothers. This prevalence of malice is nothing negative, is not an incapacity and mere misstep.

It thus not only awakens the mood of mere displeasure and regret but also fills us with terror by virtue of its perverted greatness. Consternation over the Four Year Plan, especially among the younger faculty at Freiburg, led to a series of working meetings among them, independent of the party sanctioned discussions of the matter. In demanding undisturbed quiet for supratemporal science, one finds a new common ground for compromise: From the side of science, one concedes that there is no such thing as pure theory, that there is room for a worldview.

Running away solves nothing. Best to remain and exploit the possibility of meeting like-minded individuals. This is That what we have called science is running its course and technologizing itself, perhaps for a whole century, proves nothing to the contrary! At this point, Heidegger abandons his fading hope in a difference in the decisions made by narrow-minded party functionaries and by Hitler himself, the statesman whose originative deeds create a new state and a higher order.

After he develops a more refined sense of the essence of technology as completed metaphysics, Heidegger will characterize Hitler as the supreme technician of a system as much being imposed upon him as manipulated by him, by way of a shrewd calculative thinking totally devoid of any vestige of the meditative thinking required of the statesman.

XXVI of this collection of notes, a note that was written no earlier than late Some have regarded it as his first unequivocal critique of National Socialism. On the development of the concept of the greatness of Dasein in each case ours at this time, which we have followed only in part in this essay, see also the following: Martin Heidegger, Die Grundbegriffe der Metaphysik. Instead, he continues to pursue the pre-political Geisterkrieg of grand politics with great thinkers like Nietzsche in trying to come to terms with the planetary meaning of the Second World War.

Is this not a continued expression of hope for enlightened despots who would exercise their will to power Wieck and J. Glenn Gray, New York , One aphorism n. Melaney, Cairo, Egypt. Particularly as employed in the late work of Paul de Man, reading is a technical term that refers to our mode of access to texts, but also to the capacity of criticism to open up non-totalizing interpretations of traditional works.

In a famous public debate with Ernst Cassi1. Paul de Man, Allegories of Reading. For Heidegger, however, metaphysics itself acquires an entirely new meaning through multiple interpretations of philosophical and literary works during the period of Sein und Zeit and extending into the years following its publication. Instead of functioning in the traditional manner as a term that describes the attempt to privilege the intelligible over the sensible world, metaphysics is redefined as the properly ontological concern of Dasein. While the issue of art does not emerge strongly in the CassirerHeidegger debate, we can easily envision how the basic concerns of aesthetic experience might have figured in a more complete version of this encounter.

Martin Heidegger, Kant and the Problem of Metaphysics, trans. Bernard, Amherst At the same time, Heidegger does not merely criticize Nietzsche as an interpreter of Kant but readily admits that matters of philosophical originality are sometimes quite distinct from matters of scholarship. As a hermeneutical concept, the misreading of a text can constitute the basis for a 5. Marshall, New York From the genealogical standpoint, both Kant and Schopenhauer follow Platonic directives7 in elevating noumenal over phenomenal relations on the basis of an underlying ontological difference.

The death of the subject that his philosophy announces can be related to the attempt to retrieve a realm of being that has been denigrated since the origin of metaphysics. In calling attention to this movement away from the whole concept of the subject, Heidegger is able to suggest how Nietzsche came to perform a crucial role in contemporary thought. And yet, while approaching the problem of aesthetics in an original manner, Nietzsche also risks transferring the dangers of subjectivity into the work of art itself.

Heidegger suggests that, as a postWagnerian, Nietzsche often fails to recognize the importance of the 7 8. Plato, The Republic of Plato, trans. For example, in acknowledging that Nietzsche was always interested in clarifying the relationship between art and truth, Heidegger also contends that his concept of truth was never developed beyond the positions of Plato and Aristotle, which were later enshrined uncritically in the exemplars of early modern thought.

From this standpoint, Nietzsche does not represent a significant advance over the epistemology of Descartes. Hence, while defining truth in terms of error, he refers his definition to a notion of certitude that lies at the heart of the Cartesian theory of knowledge. The connection between Christianity and Platonism has been clearly established in numerous studies, but Nietzsche invites us to rethink this relationship, not on the level of historical influence, but in terms of shared patterns of denial that demonstrate mutual complicity.

It is true that Nietzsche distinguishes Plato from Platonism largely due to issues of historical influence as opposed to authorial meaning. However, Heidegger cannot be identified with this uncomplicated reading. Hence the craftsman allows things to become present as phenomena, that is, as appearances that in some way correspond to ideas. However, the nature of this correspondence remains difficult to determine. Since the craftsman does not produce the eidos, he is essentially estranged from the being of the thing produced.

From this perspective, the material thing can only detract from the original radiance of this idea. This does not mean, however, that Heidegger interprets Plato as providing the model for a basic discordance that Nietzsche simply ap12 Hence beauty and truth are distinguished but related as differently attuned to an experience of radiance that posits Being in nondiscordance. It is evident to Heidegger that Nietzsche interprets Plato as functioning in terms of a clearly articulated form of metaphysical dualism.

For this reason, Nietzsche cannot simply challenge traditional Platonism in a manner that leaves everything intact after basic structures have been displaced and perhaps dismantled. Heidegger argues that Nietzsche does not arrive at a full understanding of his mature position until very late in his career. Heidegger discusses this final, Nietzschean phase in terms of two related moments. This abyss is that of life, which is recognized as a contradictory phenomenon that integrates various perspectives in order to function as a coherent entity.

The perspectives that enable life to flourish coordinate an encounter with appearances, which constitute the core of reality itself. Reality is radiance. Nonetheless, Heidegger continues to refer to Nietzsche as a metaphysician who reinterprets the question of being in terms of a revised notion of appearances. Is Heidegger justified in describing Nietzsche as a metaphysician? Nietzsche turns the history of metaphysics into an allegory, and then Heidegger reads Nietzsche as opposing the traditional idea that reality is stable and unchanging. Heidegger therefore provides an allegory of reading in reading Nietzsche as an allegorist who overturns the metaphysical assumptions that generally govern our interpretation of reality.

Reality, when interpreted as will to power, assumes the status of a ground that ultimately exceeds the totality of perspectives that are applied to it. How can this inconsistent interpretation be acceptable? The way out of this apparent impasse has been perhaps most skillfully explored by Eric Blondel, whose work on Nietzsche has the hermeneutical value of deepening our reading of Heidegger. This scheme, if properly understood, should prevent us from turning the will to power into the text that underlies every interpretation. In confronting the strengths and weaknesses of his subject, he encourages us to place Nietzsche in an intellectual context that is appropriate to a major figure in the modern tradition.

But what has not received much attention, I would argue, is the way Heidegger will read this history from within the tradition of justice. Why does Heidegger seize upon the topic of justice as essential for rethinking the essence of truth within the history of Being? On what grounds does he decide to privilege justice as a lever by which to raise again the question of truth? In what sense does the Nietzschean conception of justice offer a measure by which to think of Being as physis? Heidegger did not have to look far for the roots of such a Verwindung.

Ratio becomes counting, calculating [Rechnung], calculus. Ratio is a self-adjustment to what is correct [das Sicheinrichten auf das Richtige]. It becomes decisive, rather, as a signature moment in the history of truth for the West. In both these texts, Nietzsche will point to the necessity of setting In this delicate art of balancing what is healthful and noxious, what is of advantage and disadvantage to life, Nietzsche will locate the problem of justice.

Later, in Thus Spoke Zarathustra, this art of judicious balancing will emerge in the fate of the tightrope dancer. What does he indicate to you? As Krell and Frank A. Capuzzi, San Francisco , For what comes to limit in dike is nothing other than the limits of the human being against Being itself. Justice as adjustment to Being constitutes tragic wisdom in a Sophoclean sense. But it is precisely this understanding of justice as adjustment that is lost on Antigone, Creon, and Oedipus as well as in the later technicians of planetary Machenschaft.

What Heidegger seeks to think here in his Auseinandersetzung with Nietzsche is a way of thinking the hidden, essential meaning of dike in its non-anthropomorphic sense. This involves for him a recognition that there is a limit that emerges from out of physis itself that is not equivalent to the limits imposed on physis by the will; rather, it exceeds them and does so in a way that overwhelms the human sub Heidegger, Nietzsche I, ; Nietzsche iii, What is fitting is that we fit in at all.

We do not make the fit; we accede to it. In one of his Heraclitus lectures from summer semester , Heidegger will think of this fit in a different way by bringing it into relation with the Heraclitean term ethos. Any reading of what this could mean would have to take up the question of technology and the problem of dwelling in the abode of an ecological order out of balance with the machinations of will to power. However, I would also argue that part of what comes to language in the barely articulated possibility of an originary ethics is the meaning of dike thought of as Fug, rather than as Gerechtigkeit.

For the question of ethics can only be posed in relation to the originary sway of dike as the Heraclitean jointure of what is. This disjunction between Being and human beings lies at the root of the homelessness that prevails in the age of technology. Within this disjunction itself, however, there lies hidden an untranslatable possibility of conjointure, or Fug, that barely comes to language in the translation of dike.

Heidegger never really develops a full-scale reading of dike nor does he turn to justice as an explicit theme, except in a few of the Nietzsche lectures from the late thirties and early forties and in his Anaximander essay from Yet this is not because it was not crucial for his thinking. What justice demands, however, is that thinking be carried on originally and in fugal counterpoint to what lets itself be thought of as originary ethics, a thinking that Heidegger himself can barely think.

But first: since much of what is to be said here will depend for its point on an awareness of given aspects of the work, it will be necessary to review certain of them preliminarily. The Parmenides is a lecture course of Winter Semester l that saw print only in It also marks crucial philosophical and political developments in his thought. Frings, Frankfurt am Main ; Parmenides, trans.

One would want to add to her list at least an additional twenty. In order to lay open the meaning of this term, Heidegger chooses as his point of departure one of its early and important appearances in the West, the Greek word aletheia. Parmenides quotes her apparently without concern for any risk his echoing her words might pose for his originality as a thinker.

Her name, on which Heidegger immediately focuses, provides a route to this understanding. He sees as well that it first of all encompasses conflict, a conflict between concealedness and unconcealedness. Truth, then, is, at its primary level, conflict, not to be overlooked if truth is to be understood comprehensively, since, without conflict, truth at its second level, the level of a given appearance, cannot come about. Before a truth can emerge as. Even truth thought as unconcealedness, if merely as unconcealedness, i. Truth at ground level is conflictual and fecund.

The aletheia theme proper, however, is but the first of three controlling themes in the work. A second is a way of thinking that is aware, and heedful, of being, a theme closely connected with the aletheia theme, at times flowing together with it and eventually seeming to have evolved out of it. Like the word aletheia, this way of thinking stands in conflict with its own opposite, the way of thinking that typifies the West: metaphysics.

Without yet mentioning meta3. For him, here is no human dignity to be had in following this way of thinking. Instead, it seeks to master, subordinate, surpass, even bypass Being. His path in the course thus 4. It must remain concealed in the open, represented in significant part by the name Nietzsche.

Interpreters of the Parmenides do overlook Nietzsche, however. In several studies of the Parmenides he in fact goes without mention. More typically he is but cursorily noted. But for a few exceptions, he remains more unremarked than acknowledged. What might justify his being overlooked? A number of possibilities suggest themselves. I name but three. Moreover, Soffer treats only those pages of the Parmenides deriding Rome, not commenting on their resonances throughout the Parmenides, and leaving the myriad other appearances of Nietzsche, also throughout, without comment see Review of Metaphysics 49 [], Here, these have fallen away.

Here, he is radically pared down, leaving him, though an undeniable power, much narrowed, highly formulaic, almost a caricature, typified by a few key terms that Heidegger has, also in the earlier works, already dealt with: will, will to power, superman. Though Nietzsche is unmistakably a theme here, he can seem no longer an investigatory theme, can seem to carry the work along no new paths of thought, open to it no new vistas. This Nietzsche can seem to have already been thought, already been decided. With these possible reasons for overlooking Nietzsche laid out, it will be useful to counter them with reasons that further support paying him the closest possible attention.

First: Because he is present in innumerable and significant ways throughout the work, ways that far exceed the occurrences, merely, of his name. Second: Because his role. Heidegger, Parmenides, GA 54, 63; Parmenides, Heidegger, Parmenides, GA 54, ; Parmenides, The Nietzsche of the Parmenides would then be, and in the same sense, a caricature of a caricature. Thus I note numerous ways Nietzsche is said in the work and the roles it casts him in. My account must necessarily be suggestive rather than exhaustive. Acute foregroundings.

Though occurrences of his name alone might permit a certain inattention except when Heidegger pounds away at it, as he does on several occasions ,10 it and the code words combined, even considering nothing else, guarantee him, if one is alert to them, an already commanding presence in the work.

EnhancedMedicalCare (@enhancedmedical) | Twitter

And these are only a beginning. They come associated with other words and phrases that, once their link with Nietzsche is established, call him to mind throughout the text wherever they occur. Heidegger, Parmenides, GA 54, ; ; ; Parmenides, ; ; Heidegger, Parmenides, GA 54, 73; ; Parmenides, 50; The case is similar with other main themes, such as subjectivity and historiography, historiography for Heidegger being calculative, balance-sheet history Historie as opposed to true history Geschichte ,19 history heedful of Being.

Here, where Nietzsche is anathema, resoluteness requires, and undergoes, a profound change of meaning. Heidegger, Parmenides, GA 54, 82; ; Parmenides, 56; Heidegger, Parmenides, GA 54, 74; 83; Parmenides, 50; The Nietzsche appearances identifiable as middle-groundings occur before the Rome diatribes which are two, the second occurring as a recapitulation of the immediately preceding lecture and before Nietzsche is named. That was you! Heidegger appears to want to establish these ways of being as misguided before revealing them as Nietzschean or linking them with other names in Western thought.

Though ancient in pedigree, they are ways of being prevailing as Heidegger speaks. Rather than consider it a foregrounding of him, however metaphysics, too, serving almost as a code word for Nietzsche , though understanding it as this as well, I locate it as background. They have a powerful contemporary meaning. I am indebted to Theodore Kisiel for this reference. They can be but briefly suggested here.

But Heidegger, in an irony until now not noted, in fact identifies Nietzsche with that very Rome that Nietzsche himself has criticized and that Heidegger vilifies. Heidegger in this way not only vilifies Nietzsche as well, but, by implication, the National Socialism inspired by him. The easy, comfortable, and presumed relation of difference, of opposition, between Rome and Nietzsche is, rather, for Heidegger, a relation of sameness, of identification between them.

If they belong together, we must be able to identify their opposites, so that we may know them. Heidegger shows in the Parmenides that we can only come to know a thing fully if we examine it across its See Heller and Bambach, footnote 5 above. With what does the Rome-Nietzsche-National Socialism axis stand in conflict? Heidegger scarcely dares say.

He cannot overtly identify Nietzsche and National Socialism with malign Rome. Nor can he then point openly to an opposite devoutly to be wished. What stands in opposition to them is in any event but a wish, and a forbidden one. Sigmund Freud, The Interpretation of Dreams, trans. I am assuming here in somewhat the way Heidegger appears to have done, that consciousness is capable of engaging in dissemblings and displacings similar to those practiced by the unconscious, of, for example, using supposed unconcealments to cover concealments.

This is indeed what Heidegger himself is doing here. Richardson, S. Opposite Rome-Nietzsche-National Socialism it is this that he envisions: another Germany, one echoing in part a former one. What would be new is that grounding the Germany to come would be the ways of thinking and being that Heidegger shows the way to as he seeks aletheia. Kisiel has, since the writing of the present article, shown that neither comment was delivered in the course as taught. Theodore Kisiel, personal communication. To undo the obstructions to understanding that prevail even here, Heidegger reflects, a certain license of translation and interpretation may prove necessary; and he acknowledges that he cannot, in this context, do justice to scholarly issues.

With this qualification, he undertakes an interpretation of the choral ode that follows out three trajectories: seeking firstly what is crucially at issue in the ode as a whole, exploring, secondly, the dimension opened up by its strophic order or sequence, and thirdly, taking the measure of human being as characterized by the poetic word.

The first trajectory follows out, as the key insight of the Sophoclean ode, the essential trait of human being in virtue of which man is spoken of as to deinotaton, the most awesome among the multitude of awesome things encountered. Firstly, it 4 5. Yet humans are in no way alien to to deinon in this first sense. This is presumably part of the violence that Heidegger acknowledges doing to the text. He understands the polis here as a nucleus of human agency, arguing that its poets, thinkers, priests, and rulers are what they are insofar as they exercise violative power Gewalt.

As creators, they lack limits, laws, and structures; for it is up to them alone to initiate these for the polis. As concerns the powers foregrounded in the second strophe: speech, thought, mood, law, political organization, and medicine Heidegger omits the latter but adds passion , Heidegger argues that they are not human inventions or achievements, but that they penetrate human being to its core.

Thus these powers, which are characteristic of man, introduce alterity or uncanniness into his very self. Not because of any failure of ingenuity, but because their very ingenuity entangles humans in semblance Schein , so that, as they turn every Moreover, and crucially, every ingenious pathway is also obstructed by death. Heidegger emphasizes that human beings come up against death not just when dying lies immediately ahead, but constantly, because essentially.

One must agree with Heidegger that here the Sophoclean projection of the power of mortals in relation to Being inscribes its own limits; but one must also ask whether these limits are the only ones to be marked. Heidegger ignores this further exploration of human disempowerment. Here he follows out three avenues of thought. The form of techne that outstandingly accomplishes this is art. In its very appearing Erscheinen , the art work renders being, thought as physis, or as an arising into presences, compellingly manifest in its radiance Schein.

Here then the violative power exercized by man, or techne understood as to deinon, brings to pass a disclosure of being within beings and counteracts entanglement in semblance. Secondly, whereas the Sophoclean chorus emphasizes the constraints of justice, Heidegger thinks dike or justice as the alter-aspect of to deinon: as that which both resists and encompasses human initiative.

He calls to deinon in this sense also by the names of jointure or fitting-. In the third consideration, Heidegger returns to the thought of to deinotaton as the interrelation of the two aspects of to deinon, that is, of techne and dike. This consideration leads on directly to the third trajectory of interpretation which, Heidegger admits, is itself necessarily violative, namely of the text, since it must show what is said without its having actually come to language, that is, it must penetrate into the essential unsaid.

Heidegger seeks to wrest the understanding of tragedy free of a speculative paradigm. Martin Heidegger, Nietzsche I, Pfullingen , Heidegger, Nietzsche I, For this reason, humans are not simply at home in their accustomed and homelike surroundings; but rather, they seek what, in the stream-like flow of presencing and absencing, dynamically but insubstantially abides. The nothingness das Nichthafte that man encounters cannot be thought adequately in terms of mere negation or negativity.

Moreover, Heidegger charges, metaphysical thinking cannot do justice to the negative, even when it tries, with Hegel, Schelling, and ultimately with Nietzsche, to overcome, redeem, or valorize it. It is to be heard as an ancient word for being. The polis is then polos, the pole around which all presencing turns. Main , In doing so, Heidegger notes, she does not hybristically tower above the polis, but rather, she leaves its stead altogether and so becomes radically homeless.

Her homelessness within the configurations of presencing gathered around the pole of the polis then reveals itself as a homecoming to a spaciousness beyond yet ultimately encompassing the polis which, however, cannot as yet be truly consummated and so is experienced as a painful refusal. Und das trifft auch noch heute zu.

Der erste und wichtigere Grund ist, dass Heidegger die Problematik der Macht und der Beherrschung, d. Es ist klar, dass Heidegger uns nicht einfach lehrt, Nietzsches Nachlass auf Kosten der publizierten Werke zu lesen, sondern dass er vielmehr davon spricht, wie man dem Willen zur Macht als einem Teil von Nietzsches Nachlass Sinn abgewinnen kann. Politics, Art, and Technology, New York Warum ist das so? Aber diese Antwort ist un-. Diese Aussagen hinterlassen das Bild eines Mannes, der nur seine eigenen Texte und die Griechen gelesen hat.

Vielleicht war dem auch so. Und wenn Heideggers. Was sie eigentlich bedeutet, ist alles andere als klar. Wie konnte Heidegger sich Nietzsche als denjenigen, der seinen Ruin verursacht hatte, vorstellen? Ruiniert in welchem Sinn? Chronik, Studien und Dokumente, Berlin , Ewige Wiederkunft. Wille zur Macht. Zu diesem Thema vgl. Abschnitte an. War es eine Bemerkung seitens des Autors, die auf die Notwendigkeit verwies, in der Zukunft eine Umstellung vorzunehmen?

So wie die Dinge jetzt stehen, geht das publizierte Buch von positiven Antworten auf beide Fragen aus. Dies ist Heideggers Leserschaft bestens bekannt. Ich betrachte sie als unangreifbar. Heutige Philosophen und Soziologen der Technologie sprechen zunehmend von technischen Wissenschaften und bezeugen damit Heideggers vorrangiges Interesse an den spezifisch modernen Ausdrucksformen von Wissenschaft und Technologie.

Heideggers Da54 55 Dieser Verlust, der jetzt im grenzenlosen Ehrgeiz des Westens den wir entsprechend heute als Globalisierung bezeichnen Ausdruck findet, spiegelt sich in dem gigantischen Ideal der Totalisierung. Der Fragestil, dem man sich zu widersetzen hat, ist der der wissenschaftlichen Untersuchung: antwort-gebundenes oder problem-gerichtetes Fragen. Sie ist die neue Religion. Nietzsche and the Sciences II, Dordrecht , So versucht Heidegger wie vor ihm Nietzsche, die Wissenschaft wissenschaftlich in Frage zu stellen.

Aber solch eine Frage ist schwer zu stellen, gerade weil sie uns als Nicht-Frage erscheint. Sie verweist auf Heideggers Ansicht, die moderne technischrationalistische Weltanschauung des Nationalsozialismus sei im Wesen dasselbe wie oder: nicht anders oder nicht bedeutsam anders als amerikanische oder russische Alternativen. Collected Papers of Herbert Marcuse, vol. Unter den neuesten Marktwirtschaften befinden sich Russland und Amerika; sie werden, dessen kann man sicher sein, wenn der aufgewirbelte Staub des politischen Konfliktes sich gelegt hat, Afghanistan und Irak, das ganze Korea, Pakistan, usw.

Friedmann, The Lexus and the Olive Tree. Understanding Globalization, New York Das ist Heideggers Frage nach der totalisierenden Mechanisierung von demokratisch nutzerspezifischen und nutzer-angeeigneten Technologien. Sheridan, New York , Indem sie modifizierte Bakterien und Viren als Vektoren verwenden, wie das heutige Forscher tun, ist das technisierte Tier selbst neu geboren als der virale Vektor von profitablen Mutationen, ebenso das bakterielle Plasmid, und das Unternehmen.

Alles das sind bereits Kybernetik und Gesellschaft, Frankfurt am Main , Es versteht sich, dass wir dazu auf dem besten Wege sind. Ludwig Spaenle, der Prof. Sie hat auch administrative Verantwortung in der Medienarbeit getragen. Im Juni war Prof. Gabriela Sperl, Rudolf W. Michael Gutmann verabschiedet. Neben klassischer Methodik zur Schauspielarbeit gibt es neueste physiologische und neurologische Forschungsergebnisse zur Funktionsweise unserer Gesichtsmuskulatur und wie etwa die digitalen Entwicklungen des Films zur Animierung von digital faces damit umgehen.

Alle drei mit jeweils 6. Ob Warentausch, Kommunikation oder politische Auseinandersetzung — kaum ein gesellschaftlicher Bereich ist davon nicht betroffen. Er inszeniert seine Figuren mit humanem Blick, ohne deren Emotionen auszuschlachten, und immer in dem Bewusstsein, dass jede von ihnen in den existierenden Strukturen gefangen ist: Der Bundeswehroffizier Krause unterliegt den Hierarchien der Bundeswehr genauso wie die afghanische Familie den traditionellen Wertevorstellungen ihrer Dorfgemeinde.

Das ist anspruchsvolles Kino. Jackie, hochschwanger, muss ihren Freund Maik morgens bei der Arbeit vertreten, weil der nicht aus dem Bett kommt.

Dabei muss sie ihr Revier auch noch schlagfertig verteidigen. Ihr folgt die Handkamera von der ersten bis zur letzten Minute unaufdringlich und beobachtend. Internationalen Hofer Filmtagen. Oktober — Im Programm der Mit ihrer Festival-Einladung haben die jungen Filmemacherinnen und -macher auch Chancen auf den mit Internationalen Hofer Filmtagen steht der deutschsprachige Film im Mittelpunkt.

Aus fast 3. Davon auch zahlreiche aus den deutschen Filmhochschulen, denn die Hofer Filmtage sehen es als ihre Tradition, nach neuen Talenten Ausschau zu halten. Ausstellungsdauer An Selbstmord will sie bis heute nicht glauben. Der Film lief auf der Berlinale und startete auch in den deutschen Kinos. Er experimentiert mit Film, Fotografie und Animation und bereitet sich derzeit auf seinen ersten langen Animations-Dokumentarfilm vor. Die beiden indischen Singer- Songwriter haben ihren Hintergrund in der klassischen indischen Musik. Die Lange Nacht der Museen am Oktober — Am Staffel startet am Die 2.

Oktober auf MyVideo. Und ich habe bewusst Autoren gesucht, die Lust hatten, gemeinsam mit mir der klaren Vision eines Showrunners, in diesem Fall Kai Wiesinger, zu folgen und diese als Auftragsarbeit umzusetzen. Bis die Dialoge spontan, echt und genau zur Figur passend klangen. Oktober auf www. Reitz tritt ihr Amt am 1. Oktober an. Sie war vom Hochschulrat der HFF am Zugleich dankte Spaenle Prof.

Spaenle vorausgegangen. Die Gutachterkommission unter Vorsitz von Prof. September um ca. Seit 1. Bitte akkreditieren Sie sich per Mail an j. Die vier erleben alles miteinander, bis sich ihnen ein anderes Paar Schuhe in den Weg stellt. September ab Kolja und Rocio schwelgen in Projektionen und Erinnerungen an ihre einzigartig geglaubte, aber unverwirklichte Liebe. Was dem einen Petitesse war, traf den anderen hart. Am Ende blicken sich die beiden in die Augen. Sie sehen nicht einander, sondern nur noch sich selbst. Januar Am Februar statt.

September in Berlin vergeben. Der Preis ist dotiert mit Die vier erleben alles miteinander, bis sich ein anderes Paar Schuhe ihnen in den Weg stellt. Die Preisverleihung findet am September im Stage Theater am Potsdamer Platz statt. Festival del Film Locarno vom 5. Festival del Film Locarno 5. August feiern. Notstand wohin man schaut. Weitere Informationen unter: www. TV-Ausstrahlungen am 6.

August, 3. September jeweils um 19 Uhr. September jeweils um 19 Uhr WH: freitags 9. Diesmal werden nicht nur Spiel-, sondern auch Dokumentarfilme gezeigt. Den Anfang macht am 6. Versehentlich wird sie in eine verlassene Kapelle eingeschlossen. Also muss Jackie ran. Nicht nur dass sie darauf gar keinen Bock hat. Sie hat auch allen Grund dazu. Dass Spiel- und Dokumentarfilm auch besonders gut als gemischtes Doppel funktionieren, zeigt die Sendung am Schnell wird klar, dass jeder mit dieser Situation anders umgehen wird.

Juli — Die Gewinnerprojekte des 2. An zwei Konzepte vergibt eine Jury aus Redakteuren des Kinderfernsehens insgesamt Die Verleihung erfolgte am Zudem bricht ein Machtkampf zwischen Wanja und Alexander aus. Preis und zwei 2. Drei Nachwuchs-Autoren bzw. Platz sowie zwei 2. Saskia ist ein vielschichtiger Charakter mit einer Geschichte, die der Zuschauer erst entdecken darf, und inneren Konflikten mit Gewicht, die Spannung erzeugen.

Das Potenzial dieses Formats liegt aber auch in dem erweiterten Figurenuniversum. Zeit, ein berufliches Doppelleben zu wagen! Ludwig Spaenle, zur Bestellung vorgeschlagen. Gerhard Fuchs erfolgen. Wir freuen uns auf eine enge Zusammenarbeit mit Bettina Reitz. Zwischen und war sie Redakteurin beim Hessischen Rundfunk. Juli im Handel. Juni entgegen. Der Film jagt durch die Begegnungen einer Nacht. Juni , ab Zudem sind die Kurz-Shocker am 3. Weitere Informationen zum Shocking Shorts Award. Stefan Urbaschek Kurator u. Und besonders erfreulich: Jedes Jahr werden es mehr Zuschauer, die die Ausstellung besuchen!

Juni bis 4. Juni — Auf dem Juni Juli Juni 9. Nie gesehene Aufnahmen vom Erdbeben und dem folgenden Tsunami am Der Bayerische Fernsehpreis ist dotiert. Mai — Auf dem Darin diskutieren die Moderatoren mit christlichen Anrufern Glaubensfragen, Politik, Abtreibung und Kreationismus, ohne ihren Humor zu verlieren. Doch es ist nicht immer leicht, Atheist im Bible Belt zu sein.

Dem Regisseur gelingt ein nachhaltiger und beeindruckender Blick auf ein sich radikalisierendes Amerika, das uns Angst macht! Beim Diese Kombination ist das Alleinstellungsmerkmal von spotlight und einzigartig in Europa. Bis zu 2. Daneben gibt es noch weitere besondere Auszeichnungen und Preise. Juni in Berlin. Die Filme sind 23 Mal nominiert in insgesamt 15 Kategorien. So konnte die angestrebte Gesamtsumme von Schloss Korb und Hotel Alexandres. Beate Merk die Bayerische Europamedaille.