/lit/ - Literature

>>16775442
Start with On What There Is.

>>16775442
Skip Being and Time. Sartre goes over it and beyond. Why waste time?

Heidegger is the single most influential figure in 20th century philosophy, Sartre doesn't really hold a candle to him.

>>16775468
Adorno, Wittgenstein, Quine

Process and Reality

>>16775468
Insofar as he rendered an entire continent philosophically impotent, sure. But it's hard to claim that he wrote anything insightful or meaningful.

>>16775442
principia mathematica
tractatus logico-philosophicus
der logische aufbau der welt

Heidegger felt that Sartre had misread his work, as he argued in later texts such as the "Letter on Humanism". In that text, intended for a French audience, Heidegger explained this misreading in the following terms:

Sartre's key proposition about the priority of existentia over essentia [that is, Sartre's statement that "existence precedes essence"] does, however, justify using the name "existentialism" as an appropriate title for a philosophy of this sort. But the basic tenet of "existentialism" has nothing at all in common with the statement from Being and Time [that "the 'essence' of Dasein lies in its existence"]—apart from the fact that in Being and Time no statement about the relation of essentia and existentia can yet be expressed, since there it is still a question of preparing something precursory.[157]
"Letter on 'Humanism'" is often seen as a direct response to Sartre's 1945 lecture "Existentialism Is a Humanism". Aside from merely disputing readings of his own work, however, in the "Letter on Humanism" Heidegger asserts that "Every humanism is either grounded in a metaphysics or is itself made to be the ground of one." Heidegger's largest issue with Sartre's existential humanism is that, while it does make a humanistic 'move' in privileging existence over essence, "the reversal of a metaphysical statement remains a metaphysical statement." From this point onward in his thought, Heidegger attempted to think beyond metaphysics to a place where the articulation of the fundamental questions of ontology were fundamentally possible: only from this point can we restore (that is, re-give [redonner]) any possible meaning to the word "humanism".

>>16775463
nigger

This is a very good text on the subject:

https://www.ocf.berkeley.edu/~marto/hs-sh.htm

>>16775495
>rendered an entire continent philosophically impotent
>Didn't write anything meaningful

Pick one

>>16775442
germans>french 100% of the time. this applies to literature, philosophy, art, music, architecture, theology, culture, political theory, and everything else. the Germans are better than the French at literally everything.

>>16775603
look here:

>>16776243

«But we must note, here, that Heidegger has mistranslated Sartre -- indeed, has misread him -- on a contextual level. Sartre chooses Heidegger, and not Aquinas or Berkeley, as his immediate tradition. The idea that a tradition can be "chosen" is not trivial. It is, as Bakhtin says, one's very choice of language. (And, in fact, in regarding language not as a universe of instrumentality but as instrumentality itself, Sartre is also choosing Heidegger's view of language.) To read Sartre's use of "existence" as "existentia" rather than as "ek-sistence" is to disregard Sartre's choice; it is to impose a change of context upon it, to imprison it in a different language and then to find it there. Heidegger would argue that Sartre's use of 'precedence' justifies this. But in Being and Time, (BT,27) Heidegger's own 'forward and backward analytic', which approches "forward" what in effect precedes it in a "backward" direction, constitutes a similar notion. Heidegger does not speak of precedence, but he enacts it, and bespeaks it by claiming it is what he does, if only formally. Heidegger mirrors Sartre in a textual artifact that differentiates.

It is, of course, worth noting that a reading is always a misreading. Not only does it not reproduce the author's intentionality, it must read the multiplicity of the text's languages. As Derrida says, a reading does not simply "double" the text. [8] But to misread through imposition of one's own language upon the text is to rewrite. Heidegger, it seems, rewrites Sartre through recontextualization.
(...)»

Sartre is a dipshit who makes Being and Time Cartesian, don’t read anything he has to say

>>16776323
Hubert Dreyfus is a zombie

>>16776253
not necessary
guy you replied to knows he's considered philosophically important but disagrees with the consensus
unless you misunderstood you're making the claim here that being considered important publicly is equivalent to actually being important

>>16776498
ohnoo oh godo h fuck I misread my bad
let's just pretend i'm actually making a substantial argument here okay

>>16775442
Neither
Sartre talk drivel, just write bullshit to fill pages.
Heidegger cant even write to make sense in a field where people write bad.

Read Wittgenstein, Husserl or Foucault. Hard, but you go to somewhere.

>>16776555
I agree with Witty but Heidegger took Husserl’s phenomenology to the next level. Foucault, I guess, but really one should read Agamben instead.

>>16775442
>Heidegger
Ignore this hack, read The Book of Tea and The World as Will and Representation.

>>16778236
Schopenhauer is sick but he got btfo by Nietzsche man

>>16778277
>but he got btfo by Nietzsche man

>>16778298
Cool so you haven’t read Nietzsche

>>16775442
Obviously Heidegger, Sartre fucking sucks in so many respects what little he even contributed is tarnished and goes on unappreciated.

Heidegger btfoed him in his Letter on Humanism. Sartre misunderstood both Freud and Heidegger because he couldn't read properly with those eyes.

>>16776290
Not the anon you're replying to but
>spent all this time to not get a hold of a single scrap of how Heidegger was wrong
Of course I am not devaluing understanding language and contextualisation, but come on, it devalues itself in such a dishonest remark. What exactly did Heidegger get wrong? Well of course it doesn't tell you, it just professes Sartre's theory.

>>16775442
There is barely any good 20th century continental philosophy, with a few exceptions.
Sartre and Heidegger are utter garbage.

>>16775495
>Insofar as he rendered an entire continent philosophically impotent
Continental Philosophy went to shit long before that, Heidegger was just the final nail to the coffin. I blame Kant for making Idealism sound cool to Germans.

>>16779211
t. Analytic Philosophy cuck

>>16775476
>Adorno
I'll pass.
>Wittgenstein
Definitely some good stuff in there, but still imprisoned by analytic autism.
>Quine
Worse than Wittgenstein with the analytic autism.

Heidegger has the capacity for analysis but he's interested in the big questions, rather than these hyper-narrow nitpicks about logic or language.

>>16779254
>Analytic Philosophy
As in, actual philosophy as opposed to "only a God can save us" spiritualist delirium.

>>16779280
Part of Witty’s goal in the Tractatus is to say that ethics cannot be spoken about logically and is proper to the realm of poetry. PI is therapeutic and great. You’re letting the stupid analytics paint your conception of Witty. I hate that those cunts appropriated him so hard

>>16779280
Heidegger has zero skill in analysis, clear thought, or even logical argument, which is why he spends all his time trying to develop his own religion to replace Christianity

>>16779299
There is no appropriation you fucking moron Wittgenstein was a logical positivist and the Tractatus was about how metaphysics are meaningless. The Continentals couldn't understand Wittgenstein if he raped their ass with the Tractatus.

>>16779332
LOL Wittgenstein wasn’t a positivist hahaha what a fucking retard

>>16779332
>Wittgenstein was a logical positivist
Lmao no, positivists have no sense of mysticism let alone spirit.

>>16779400
The Tractatus is obviously positivist in spirit, Wittgenstein literally endorses the verificationist theory of meaning. But Continentals don't read Wittgenstein, so it's not surprising that you wouldn't know about his relationship with the Vienna circle.

>>16779406
There is no "mysticism" in Wittgenstein, if you want empty spiritualist metaphors go back to Heidegger. And early Wittgenstein is 100% positivism.

>>16779643
Conveniently ignoring PI where Witty says analytic philo is an absolute waste of time

>>16779660
You suck at reading. Seriously. Read Wittgenstein’s Vienna and get Frege’s ossified cock out of your mouth

>>16779660
>early Wittgenstein
>positivist
>implying
>supporting early over late Witty
Also there is plenty of mysticism in Witty, you just don't know what mysticism is. I bet you devalue Heraclitus yet jerk off to "hot ziggety"-- Ptah! No understanding of language.

Sartre is a wave, Heidegger is the sea.

>>16775442
>Which one to start in 20th century ontology ?

Husserl, or even better, Franz Brentano.

>>16779663
No he doesn't. Find me the quote.

>>16779280
>>16775468
I'm reading Vorträge und Aufsätze right now. It's difficult and I don't get the 'point' yet, so to speak. Could you explain why or how is H so great? I mean i'm inclined to believe it but I'd appreciate if you could describe what you found in his books.

>>16779669
And you sick at typing. Learn to English.

>>16779742
That’s what most of the book is about you absolute pleb. His point is that all of analytic philosophy’s issues come from the analytics and their stupid language games, not because they’ve been discovered in the world

>>16779669
Find the passage about mysticism in Wittgenstein then. Go on.

>>16779753
>buttblasted retard is so made he makes a spelling error in his sick burn
Can’t make this shit up

>>16779672
Find me the passages then.

>>16779763
people don’t forget bitch. The mystical shit is in the end of the Tractatus. Lol at you asking me to “find the quote”

>>16775442
One of these is midwit-tier, and the other is so revolutionary people are still processing it.

>>16779765
>buttblasted retard is so MADE he makes a spelling error in his sick burn
Learn 2 English

>>16779791
who gives a fuck, I’m not the one deleting my posts because I’m not the one that looks like a complete fool

>>16779676
As a Frenchman the interest of Sartre is that he writes so impeccably clearly. It's standard to read 'L'existentialisme est un humanisme' in high school here, it's a brief report of a conference that somewhat expounds his philosophy to a broader public and the clarity of it had a really big impact on me when I read it; it feels like a gentle stream and the consequences flows. 'Esquisse d'une théorie des Emotions' is really good too, a critique of then budding cognitive sciences and shit like that. 'From the fact that the lips of a Monkey form a smile, it doesn't follow that the monkey can smile', that is, in the human sense, and things like that. He was good, don't buy the easy bashing of Sartre, and of formerly fashionable people in general.

>>16779791
too*

>>16779770
Tell me what mysticism is.

Skip them both and go right to Being and Event by Badiou.

>>16779772
No there isn't. The "Whereof one cannot speak, thereof one must be silent" at the end is just standard anti-metaphysical positivism. There is zero mysticism in Wittgenstein, he is one of the more hardcore empiricists.

>>16779802
The problem is that he can and has had quite a disastrous effect on the youth by his modern placing of existence over essence. As Bowden said when doing a lecture on Heidegger, these concepts and ideas (that is of Sartre), that entire worldview, is designed to be present in the mind even prior to getting to college, and most certainly there is every effort to indoctrinate the youth into it when at college, without any possibility of a traditional and priorly meaningful conception of the world.

>>16779798
Des you are, you look like a complete idiot and you owned yourself

>>16779829
You’re a moron. He’s talking about ethics. His point is that logic can’t represent / talk about ethics because ethics transcends logic. Jesus fucking Christ it’s like you read a wiki article and called it a day

>>16779807
Look it up if you don't know what it means. Now find me the passage.

>>16779849
>more spelling errors from the seething shitbrain
color me surprised. gonna delete this post too?

>>16779852
>He’s talking about ethics. His point is that logic can’t represent / talk about ethics because ethics transcends logic
No he doesn't, you pulled that out of your ass. Find me the passage where Wittgenstein makes the claim that "ethics transcends logic" in the Tractatus.

>>16779885
Whereof one cannot speak, thereof one must be silent

>>16779862
at least learn to capitalize cumbrain

>>16779860
Well according to you mysticism is vapid and without content, I'd like to know what it is more specifically to you.

>>16779893
That's just standard anti-metaphysical positivism. He doesn't make any claim about ethics exiting on a plane that transcends "logic".

>>16779903
Mysticism is (alleged) knowledge of God through a special form of intuition.

>>16779914
read Wittgenstein’s Vienna so you can get over this absolutely brain dead interpretation please
>>16779895
I SHALL CAPITALIZE ONLY WHEN IT PLEASES ME, AND BEHOLD — I am pleased.

>>16779835
That's just a case of some anglo not knowing how things work here. First of all everybody begins by Descartes here, it's a tacit but universally followed rule; and most people from the better schools read extensively the classics and lots of other things, before arriving at the stage where 20th century phil is even considered an object of study. Sartre himself is a product of this.

>>16779942
Maybe you should read actual Wittgenstein instead of retarded secondary literature.

>>16779232
>t. Got filtered by Hegel
Nietzsche was right on the mark when he said A*glos can't into philosophy.

>>16779991
I have read Wittgenstein. His early work is shit but PI is great. Wittgenstein’s Vienna would be good for you to read because you insist on misreading him like the positivists and Anglo analytics did. I don’t think anyone would agree with you that the Tractatus is “purely empirical” or whatever other nonsense you described it as. It’s clear you read it and didn’t understand it at all and then read a wiki article about it

>>16780021
Have you actually the read the Tractatus or you going off that Wittgenstein's Vienna shit? The work is obviously Empiricist as he even reduces logical and mathematical truths to truths by definition in the standard positivist way.

>>16780055
Have you even read the end of the Tractatus where he is clearly mystical or are you just going off what the Stanford encyclopedia of philosophy tells you

>>16780068
The only passage you could find of him being "clearly mystical" is the final passage that states that you shouldn't talk about shit you don't know, after he spends a whole book writing about how all knowledge, including logic and mathematics, comes from experience. And your take away is that Wittgenstein is being "mystical"? I can't think of any possible way to misread him worse.
And since you mentioned that you've read some late Wittgenstein, you should know that he thinks ethics is just societal conventions, so again where on earth did you find the mysticism.

>>16779922
Define God, because that's a slippery slope and Wittgenstein's mysticism was not directly related to God, neither Heraclitus. At least in the Christian sense in which you're thinking it.

>>16779953
So you read Descartes in high school and go through all the major French philosophers until Sartre.. in high school?

>>16780126
Reread the last 10 pages you dullard. The mysticism in the Tractatus has been expounded upon by fucking countless scholars. You are a moron and you probably haven’t read any Witty

>>16780137
This is the dictionary definition of the term, if you don't like it you can use your own definition. And you have yet to demonstrate anything "mystical" in the thought of Wittgenstein, however you want to define the term.

>>16780214
No there hasn't, which is why you keep getting owned and can't find any passages that support your interpretation.

read them both, pussy

>>16780217
Well how are not going to contest what I show as mystical in Wittgenstein when we don't even agree on a definition? The fact that you contest something so obvious already makes me see the need for this.

>>16779802
I didn't bash Sartre when I said he's a wave. I like Sartre a lot. But he's not the real foundation. He's metaphorically brilliant, but he lacks substamce which Heiddeger, Husserl got. Not to say that Heiddeger himself might be a sea, but he's not the planet, not the universe in which the sea is place. For that, you need to dig depper, go back further in time.

>>16780239
My claim is that there is nothing mystical in Wittgenstein under any reasonable and generally adopted definition of the term. We are still waiting for your own definition.

>>16780231
https://youtu.be/cJQi26SPwmU

>>16775442
Satre is trash
if you want to d 20th Century Ontology do pic related first instead
I'd rec
>Aristotle - Metaphysics
>Proclus - Elements of Theology
>Immanuel Kant - Prolegomena
>Arthur Schopenhauer - On the Fourfold Root of the Principle of Sufficient Reason
>Henri Bergson - Key Writings (Bloomsbury: Time and Free Will // Matter and Memory // Creative Evolution // Mind-Energy // The Creative Mind // The Two Sources of Morality // Religion and Laughter)
>Martin Heidegger - On the Essence of Truth
>Martin Heidegger - What is Metaphysics
>Martin Heidegger - Introduction to Metaphysics
>Martin Heidegger - Question Concerning Technology
>Martin Heidegger - Phenomenological Interpretations of Aristotle
>Martin Heidegger - Being and Time
>Gilles Deleuze - Difference and Repetition
>Gilles Deleuze - Logic of Sense

If you really want to go deeper, do Plotinus's Ennneads, read Meister Eckhart, read more Deleuze and do Husserl and Whitehead

>>16780261
In the first seconds of the video we have the claim that Wittgenstein believes in ineffable ethical and religious truths. Again, where is the evidence in the actual writings of Wittgenstein?
And the late Wittgenstein quite explicitly thinks that ethics are social conventions, and religious rituals are just "activities" that don't influence any metaphysical reality. I am puzzled at how you can interpret anything spiritual out of one of the most positivist thinkers in the history of philosophy, but if you have any textual basis for your claims I would like to see them.

>>16780344
How is Sartre any worse that literal garbage like Heidegger, Deleuze and Bergson?

>>16780353
what do you think an ineffable truth is other than mystical you absolute fucking retard

>>16780399
Can you even read, in the post you quoted I say that the video is complete bullshit and I demand evidence of Wittgenstein talking about ineffable moral and religious truths. So far you have been completely owned and unable to find anything.

>>16780463
>6.522 There is indeed the inexpressible. This shows itself; it is the mystical.

>>16780344
That's a shitload of Heidegger. Phenomenology isn't the be all end all you know.

>>16780463
is the sniveling little faggot embarrassed?

>>16780487
He actually explains what he means by this.
>6.44 "Not how the world is, is the mystical, but that it is"
So Wittgenstein thinks that we cannot answer the question of why the world exists at all. Is this all you mean by "Wittgenstein's mysticism", that he believes there are questions that can't be answered? Mysticism would be if Wittgenstein proposed some special form of special intuition by which we can go beyond reason. But he doesn't do that, instead he takes a humble view and suggests that we shouldn't make any claims about subjects that cannot be verified through experience. This is the exact opposite attitude to mysticism.

>>16780567
you are mentally ill

>>16780609
you are so retarded it hurts. what do you think poetry is for wittgenstein?

>>16780615
>waaah my feelings got hurt
absolutely embarrassing

>>16780638
>what do you think poetry is for wittgenstein?
Certainly not a way to understand ineffable metaphysical truths. Again, when you make a claim you should cite Wittgenstein's actual writings. I don't know if you have even read any Wittgenstein besides that shitty Wittgenstein's Vienna book but you can still use google. Have fun.

>>16780255
>We are still waiting for your own definition.
Nooo, we are awaiting a shared and agreed upon definition. And because it is you who judge mysticism vapid, and refuse to see any in Wittgenstein, the burden rests on you to agree to a definition.

>>16780496
According to Heidegger it is.

>>16780609
I'm sorry, but the explanation you offered here is nonsensical.

>>16775487
based

>>16780692
what do you think he means when he says you've gotta throw the ladder away? something you clearly have not done. I don't understand how the braindead positivists just ignore that shit and say "oh but our philosophy is good."

>>16780344
>leaving out Plato’s Parmenides/Sophist and Spinoza’s Ethics.

>>16780692
whats the matter? gonna cry? gonna piss your pants maybe? maybe shit and cum?

>>16780804
This.

>>16778497
did you open the link?

>>16775442
i prefer being and your momma

>>16776261
Literally the reverse

>>16778497
However, Sartre is not saying that one is simply a subjectivity that acts; one becomes what is manifest by one's actions, pursuant to a project that is both lived and envisioned. Being in the past lived and flight to the future envisioned, the already and the not yet, are the foundations for each other. Where Heidegger's inquiry moves backward through what it moves forward to by inquiring, the Sartrean project moves to the future through what is the past in which it acts. That is, we here encounter another homologous inversion. And this homology suggests that Sartrean subjectivity, or the for-itself, is neither an analogue, nor a translation (or mistranslation) of Heideggerian Dasein at all, but rather a homologue of Heidegger's formal inquiry itself, which, for Heidegger, embraces not only Dasein, but the disclosure of Dasein and its advent as well. In other words, Sartre's "human reality" names, or translates, more than just Dasein. [11] The richness of Sartre's articulation is evinced in its displacement and inversion of the Heideggerian notion of presence-at-hand. Instrumentalities, for Sartre, arise from within one's project, and not vice versa. And this is a move Heidegger himself would make in his "Turning"; when he speaks of 'thinking' rather than Dasein, and of 'nearness to the truth of Being' rather than questioning the meaning of Being, he transforms instrumentalities (presence-at-hand) into ways of dwelling in that 'nearness.' In sum, I am suggesting that the commonly accepted correspondance between the for-itself and Dasein, and between the in-itself and Being, has been too facile. We might note that Aronson, for instance, refers to it without reference or comment. Fell also uses this correspondance; his treatment, however, is much too extensive to begin to critique it here. [12]

Human reality, then, is not the human universal, and neither is freedom; they are both the very absence of such ("There is a universality of man; but it is not given, it is perpetually being made" -- EH,39). To place the subject at the center as freedom is not to place "man" at the center of a space called 'human reality;' it is instead to empty humanity of 'its' space, and that space of "humanity." To read Sartrean "human reality" as humanity-filled space is to congeal that space in (the reader's) prior codification. [13] In other words, what resides at the core of Sartre's articulations, as an inarticulable, is a freedom that can never be delimited as "being free from," or "being free for." Though Heidegger objects to seeing his unspoken meanings spoken by Sartre, and insists that foundations remain unspoken, he has missed Sartre fundamental unspoken meanings.

>>16782816
>It is, in fact, to name these unspoken meanings that Sartre uses the cogito (as Heidegger uses the term ek-sistence); [14] that is, it plays a wholly different role for Sartre than for Descartes. For the latter, the cogito serves as a first certainty that something is "there". It is chosen meditatively as a foundation, always before the fact. Sartre, on the other hand, rather than imply that something is "there", argues from the existence of negativity that nothing is there, and says, in effect, "there is nothingness; therefore, Being-for-itself is." (BN,19-37) Sartre has not inverted but converted the Cartesian cogito. Descartes establishes the cogito in order to arrive at the 'there,' while Sartre establishes that 'nothing is there' in order to arrive at the cogito. Or, in other words, where Descartes centers the "ego" of 'ego cogito', thus avoiding reduction of the human to an object, Sartre centers the "think" of "I think", transcending the ego that is only another nihilation in the emptiness. Unable to escape its own freedom (even in self-denial), the Sartrean cogito's (aporetic) truth is the absoluteness of absence, of contingency. There is only the certainty of human freedom, the certainty of indeterminacy. The cogito is the emptiness of awareness aware of itself (EH,36). Thus, Sartre does not begin with the "I", as Heidegger claims; the "I" emerges later as an object. Where Heidegger negates the cogito in form (while inverting it in content), Sartre negates the Heideggerian cogito in content.
In effect, this conversion of the "ego cogito" to "the cogito" wrests the "cogito" from Descartes' grasp. And it constitutes the critical Sartrean move away from the self to the autonomous subject. [15] Its effect is to phenomenologically decenter the Cartesian 'his'-ness, the priority of the 'he' (Descartes) that thinks it sees, or thinks it thinks, in the skeptical attitude. For Sartre, certainty begins with the meaninglessness of such a topos, or of any pre-defined substance to activity. Instead, there is only autonomy, an autonomy of absence, prior to the acting cogito, prior to self-awareness constituting itself as a self. This is different from the autonomous self. For the autonomous self, autonomy is an attribute; for the autonomous subject, the subject is only an attribute of autonomy. Any critique of the Sartrean cogito, the term he uses to name autonomy, and hence indeterminacy, must take this distinction into account.

the article is too long to quote in full

>>16780790
Bro
This guy is right

>>16775462
MUH DESERTS

>>16779310
>zero
das Nichts nichtet
>skill
do you mean techne?
>analysis
do you mean destruktion?
>clear thought
do you mean clearing and unconcealment?
>logical
do you mean thought follows logic? go back to Frege and Husserl retard
>argument
do you mean polemos?
>religion
do you mean onto-theology?
>christianity
do you mean the early christian sense of facticity and parousia?

>>16775530
>principia mathematica
LMAO

>>16775530
>trash
>rightly thrown into trash by author
>more trash

>>16780692
you got anything to say or are you gonna take the loss