/lit/ - Literature

Philosophy is gay and retarded.

>>17214546
beans and thyme.

>>17214546
>...he could just say whatever the fuck he's trying to say in like 300 less words, it's just straight up shameless obscurantism.
Welcome to most of philosophy

>>17214546
Alright then, in 300 words or less , explain what Heidegger was trying to communicate in this this book.

>>17214595
Just the introduction: "to properly know what being is we first need to ask what being is since asking questions is how we reveal things"
He literally takes 30 fucking pages just to say this. Dropped the book right after that.

read correction by bernhard

>>17214546
Yeah and so is every philosopher since Hegel. They all learned from the master.

Schopenhauer saw crystal clear and said exactly right: Hegel created the art of obscuring language to sound profound, and Germany (first, then the world) bought it. It was a decisive moment in the history of philosophy, when Hegel should have been shooed away, but instead was exalted. And that because he empowered professional academics -- the so-called "intellectuals" -- these power-hungry social climbers. Now the damage has been done. Philosophy has become corrupted and must die.

>>17214595
Man is the being concerned with itself. It confronts the world not first as an object of scientific study, but as a web of interrelated tasks in which it's engaged, for the purpose of actualizing itself. Man finds itself cast into a world it didn’t create, but has to take up and engage with, alongside others doing the same. In so doing it lies to itself, and covers up its own nature by pretending to partake in a public generic persona, so it usually lives inauthentically. At bottom, its authentic self is something that engages with itself to make itself anew. Man is a series of possibilities, and he knows these possibilities will come to an end when he dies. But it forgets about this and hides the fact of its own death from itself, even though that’s where it’s headed. It feels itself a fallen creature, and has a conscience that calls it to live authentically. It typically busies itself with its tasks, but has the capability of recognizing this web of tasks as a whole, at which point it sees the nature of the world, so feels undirected towards anything in particular, and so anxious. Man interacts with things in time, and all it does is cope with the time it lives in – fundamentally, it’s something that accepts the path and projects a future for itself, and so it’s basically a being that cares. To the extent that Man lives authentically, it is ‘up to it’ what it is to become, but it can never escape the state of affairs into which it’s born and will eventually come to an end.

>>17214747
pretty good. I think the falling stuff is a little different though, we’re falling because our basis is a nullity, ie we are groundless bc our ground is the impossibility of possibility

I haven't read any Heidegger yet. What are his main points?

>>17214546
I finally got around to reading Being and Time this month and I'm really confused about this whole obscurantist label. It's really not a difficult book at all, and even in translation it isn't anything near obscure or unclear in its intentions or meaning. I haven't even read much Phenomenology or Existentialism and I'm getting through it quite easily, it's certainly a much less difficult read than Kant's Critique and way less obscure/complex than Hegel.

>>17214603
This doesn't even scratch the surface of the intro. It might be a problem on your end if you find it obtuse or obscure.

>>17214546
Don't read Nazis they were pseubermensches

>>17214707
Based Scho was right about pretty much everything.

>>17214747
very based anon

>>17215475
The writing is more 'difficult' than Hegel's, but the system of philosophy is much simpler.

>>17214546
Once you realize what he was trying to say, you also realize why he went through so much trouble to say it in a sometimes idiosyncratic way. If hes dancing around a word rather than just using it, its probably to avoid falling into a Cartesian/Platonic pitfall. He is admittedly not the best at signposting when he is in conversation with someone else, either influence or argument, but this doesn't affect the overall readability of the book, only analysis.

>>17214546
>I wipe my ass with this shit book.
kek

>>17214707
Schopenhauer wrote obscurely though too. People say he wrote clear but I read The World as Will and it's not even close to as clear as the Analytics write. It still takes time to try to understand what he is saying.

>>17214574
The real trick is to find a philosopher whose prose and subject matter are so enjoyable that you don't mind them verbosely rehashing the same point from half a dozen slightly different approaches.

>>17214546
>>17214565
>>17214572
>>17214574
>>17214587
>>17214595
>>17214603
>>17214650
>>17214657
>>17214707
>>17214747
>>17214830
>>17215454
>>17215475
>>17215479
>>17215514
>>17215548
>1
>>17215587
>>17215610
>>17215618
>>17215636
>>17215689
all filtered by Gigachad Heidegger, learn Attic Greek and pray to Zeus every day and MAYBE you'll be able to understand him one day

>>17215863
>Attic Greek
>Not superior Ionic
The only Greek worth reading is Iliad

>>17215863

>>17214546
>reads the English translation
I like how Heidegger filtered all of the anglosphere, the biggest chad there is

>>17215863
fag

>>17214546
>what intersubjectivity bro? have group projects or something
>love? what's that?
Heidegger's philosophy is just instrumentality towards being

>>17214830
Heidegger Heideggers.

>>17214572

>>17215610
Did he say anything Plato didn't?

>>17214565
...according to your philosophy.

>>17216911
Well, considering he thought Plato steered metaphysics in a fundamentally flawed direction which created 2000 years of confusion, yes.

>>17217628
How so?

>>17217636
fracture of appearance and being

>>17217687
How so?

someone should write a short story about Heidegger’s childhood and how he was belittled in school for being called “hide-nigger” hence his obsession with aletheia, the unconcealing which conceals

>>17217636
Plato (and to one degree or another, nearly everyone who followed him, whether they realized it or not) looked to the way entities ("beings") in the world had their way of being, and attempted to extrapolate out the nature of Being in general from this. This lead to distinctions like subject/object, self/world, inner/outer, and a bunch of other philosophical dualities that reached their zenith in Descartes. This paradigm is incredibly sticky and even Husserl fundamentally went no farther than Descartes in "grounding" the world because he was still working within the Platonic presupposition in which there is an extant world to which we as a separately extant "self" need to abstractly relate.

>>17215475
>and I'm really confused about this whole obscurantist label.
its just insecure retards that cant stand not understandting something the first time they read it because it implies they could be dumb so they preffer to call everyone else hacks posers
They could just relax and realize sometimes authors will write and think in ways alien to us and not getting it doesnt mean you are retarded or that they are talking non sense but they are too insecure and anxious about it so they freak out and then start repeating third parties opinions about stuff they havent read to feel safe
thats literally it

>>17217705
indeed. read rorty and agamben for more

>>17217705
Isn't this just natural though? Division/distinction is just how things are and denying it doesn't do shit. If anything it makes it worse.

>>17217735
philosophy isn’t for you

>>17214546
Welcome to German philosophy, it's even worse in German.

>>17217743
Lol ok. Keep being the being that beings the beyngs. You totally ended abstraction.

>>17217735
Hes not saying we can't make meaningful distinctions between things, or take a conceptual stance where we can arrive at some abstracted notion of inner/outer. In fact, we do it all the time. The trouble is when you take this abstracted stance to be the more metaphysically primitive relation. Think about it. When you walk into a kitchen, do you see a series of distinct objects located in a certain spatial arrangement which you as a neutral subject need to find the proper relation to, or do you simply walk into a kitchen which appears as a usable whole given your particular background knowledge of houses, food, rooms, cooking, etc. Our most basic experience of the world is a unitary and meaningful one, not one of divisions and abstractions.

>>17217705
But Aristotle was even worse (assuming this reading of Plato is right (which it isn't)).

>>17216229
The Portuguese and Spanish translations werent much better
>t. Iberian

>>17215475
>I'm really confused about this whole obscurantist label.

For the plebs it means "he's hard to read". For the degenerates that likes him, it means "dumber people find him hard to read, so I'm not dumb", and for smart educated people it means "he never said anything of worth that Husserl or Kierkegaard hadn't said before in a clearer way".

>>17217762
Where does Plato argue for this?

>>17217766
Aristotle, despite arguing against Plato, was still operating within certain implicit presuppositions of his. They had already missed the boat, confusion begetting more confusion.

>>17217775
retard alert

>>17217775
The repetition repetitionantiates.

>>17217779
That is Heidegger's position, not Plato's.

>>17217782
>plato was responsible for aristotle's shitty reading of plato
So THIS is the power of bEyNgInNiNg.

>>17217792
I realize. But where does Plato make the argument that we need HyperAnalytic Kitchen Queens?

>>17217812
It is implicit you unbearable stooge

>>17217840
Retard

>>17217628
He actually also thought Plato arrived at the highest understanding of being yet, and I'm pretty he sure he no longer singly blamed Plato. Also Heidegger was a Catholic for life, through all the interest in Protestantism and dependence on Grecian paganism.

>The third passage of the Parmenides is the most profound point to which Occidental metaphysics has ever advanced. It is the most radical advance into the problem of Being and time—an advance which afterwards was not caught up with [aufgefangen] but instead intercepted [abgefangen] (by Aristotle)
- Heidegger
>If the second half of his [Plato’s] Parmenides would be performed anew with today’s methods (and not Neoplatonically), then all bad metaphysics would be overcome, and the space would be open for a pure hearing of the language of Being.
- Karl Jaspers in a letter to Heidegger:

>Let this therefore be said, and let us also say the following, as it seems appropriate. Whether or not there is a unity, the unity itself and the manifold otherness, both in relation to themselves as well as to each other—all this, in every way, both is and is not, appears [phainetai] and does not appear. —This is most true [alēthestata].
- Final passage of the Parmenides

>Maximal truth has been attained when appearance and Non-being have been included within truth and Being. The dialogue literally leads to Nothing [Nichts]. . . . Thereby the question of Being has been transformed, everything is now otherwise. The on is both hen and polla, and it is hen, insofar as it is polla and vice versa. The One and the Many are only insofar as they are in themselves negative [nichtig].
- Heidegger's conclusion of his seminar on the Parmenides

These are some of the greatest profundities of the human word, it would do you all well to read over them a bit.

>>17217767
The Spanish one suuucks

>>17217687
Plato overcame that fracture though.

>>17217762
>>17217792
The walking walks.
The table tables.
The kitchen kitchens.
The cooking cookings.
The series cerealizes.
The spatial spacializes.
The arrangement arrangementizes.
The neutral neutralizes.
The background backgrounds.
The knowledge knowledges.

Sounds more like Heidegger.

>>17217812
He makes the argument that objects have their formal and causal basis somewhere outside our normal perception, and that we, as something constituted from different forms and self-contained in our objective consciousness, have to then orient ourselves to them. You, in arguing for the primacy and foundational status of distinction and division, took this metaphysical foundation and ran with it. That is what a truly divided world looks like, and in fact, is roughly what Kant argued. The shadow that this mind/world distinction cast over philosophy is a big one, and hard to get out from under. The idea that every object is a collection of increasingly granular facts which become more "true" the more abstracted they are even underlies most of modern science. This isn't some fringe position, but it does (and perhaps should) feel strange to see it laid out in the kitchen example.

>>17217899
Oh yeah, then explain Heidegger's earth/world distinction!

Sounds pretty fracturing to me.

>>17217871
This is all true but was entirely secondary to explaining his position on Platonic metaphysics to the other anon. He also says in the Beiträge that we can't properly appreciate Plato's true genius and historical stature until we make him properly historical by starting ontology from a different vantage point.

>I had an even finer opportunity to observe Socrates there than I had had at Potidaea, for I was less in fear because I was on horseback. First of all, how much more sensible he was than Laches; and secondly, it was my opinion, Aristophanes (and this point is yours); that walking there just as he does here in Athens, ‘stalking like a pelican, his eyes darting from side to side,’ quietly on the lookout for friends and foes, he made it plain to everyone even at a great distance that if one touches this real man, he will defend himself vigorously. Consequently, he went away safely, both he and his comrade; for when you behave in war as he did, then they just about do not even touch you; instead they pursue those who turn in headlong flight.
Heidegger and Nietzsche eternally btfo.

>>17217907
>This is all true but was entirely secondary to explaining his position on Platonic metaphysics to the other anon.
Not really, as this so fundamentally is Plato's metaphysics (inb4 definition of metaphysics), I know later "Platonists" didn't understand this part of Plato, but if in an explanation you're blaming Plato to such a degree, it cannot but be just as important to explaining Plato. I mean, in an ironic statement, one could say Plato includes all of Western metaphysics since from the very worst to the very best, including Heidegger himself.

>>17217926
Very beautiful quote anon.

>>17217980
I'm not blaming Plato, so much as I am reflecting the fact that Heidegger lays the source of our metaphysical confusion right at Plato's feet, whatever else his merits may have been. Parmenides asked the right questions, Plato started metaphysics as such, but the inherent flaws within his starting position necessitate a new start to allow his efforts to stand on their own. This is not controversial or any sort of disrespect towards Plato, who Heidegger clearly held in high regard. If someone is asking basic questions about Heidegger, the simplest answer is that he was trying to free ontology from its Platonic/Cartesian influences.

>>17215888
>Ionic
>Not bypassing the greek and going straight for hittite

Filtered and never gonna make it

>>17217699
Kek

>>17214747
this is unironically all the book says

>>17217907
If being is so important why not just be?

>>17217784

Seething fanboy.

>>17217890
this is the level of argumentation of people who go around claming that heidegger "is just nonsense bro", never actually prone to actually get involved in the discussion

>>17218018
You say you don't blame Plato, but you've practically danced away from any thanks to him either. Plato went beyond the Presocratics, he took up where Parmenides left and created something far more profound.

However, "though Heidegger also credits Plato with 'the most radical advance into the problem of Being and time,'" is only a few words more.

>>17218111
>this is the level of argumentation of people who go around claming that heidegger "is just nonsense bro",

> "YOU DONT WANT TO ENGAGE THE TEXT IN GOOD FAITH".
> "Okay bro, let's start reading him, *reads the first paragraph of B&T* Wait, but that's completely wrong, he just obfuscated Husserl, Brentano, the entire Gottigen circle, just to name people he should know personnaly"
>"YOU DON'T WANT TO ENGAGE THE TEXT IN GOOD FAITH".

Because there's never a good reason for obscuritanism, right?

>>17218111
Show your superior intellect then. Prove it was Plato obsessed with kitchen decor rather than Heidegger.
As far as I know Plato didn't write hundreds of pages about peasant's boots sitting on the kitchen floor.

>>17218300
The pottery potterizes.

>>17218300
I gather you are an analytic?

Buffalosein buffalosein Buffalosein buffalosein buffalosein buffalosein Buffalosein buffalosein

>>17219245
>I gather you are an analytic?

> Refers to Husserl, Brentano, Meinong, etc
> "Bet you are an analytic?"

>>17214595
basically if we are to understand the world we must understand the being asking the question
we pre-theoretically are embedded within a lived world of things, with uses relations, we have ends aims and goals and we are gonna die
only when apply a 'scientific eye' to the world do things become objects with mass weight force etc
also some shit about time and I dunno I couldn't read the book fully as I didnt understand the writing style and didn't think it was worth trying
some shit about being authentic and also heil hitler

>>17218111
this is the level of argumentation of people who go around claming that plato "is just subversive bro", never actually prone to actually get involved in the discussion

>>17215636
Schopenhauer didn't write obscurely at all, at least not intentionally. He heavily condemned the deliberate obscurity that plagued Germany during his time. There are a myriad of instances in the WWR where he meticulously elucidates his point and apologises in advance if he failed to get his point across in a comprehensible manner.

>>17214747
lmao he really did tho

>>17215636
Just because something is dense and difficult to understand does not mean it is obscure

>>17214546
Well, I just got filtered by Millerman's 'Beginning with Heidegger.' Made it through the intro but Chapter 1 was like hitting a wall.

>>17223407
Little gain comes from little movement. Literary speaking, much is gained through heading straight into a wall like never before. Which is why it's often best to not read too much early works of a writer before you get into their major work(s).

Just look at Medard Boss' introduction to Heidegger. He got filtered hard and couldn't understand him, but was very interested and continued to read him throughout the war, and after which contacted him and they became lifelong friends.

>>17217469
>hurr durr saying things = philosophy
Philosophy is gay and retarded.

>>17223724
>>saying things = philosophy
Correct.
>Philosophy is gay and retarded.
Why bother to post yours here, in that case?

>>17215863
based

>>17219310
Underrated

>>17214546
It's a lot easier if you are familiar with Kant and Husserl, but yeah Heidegger is a shitty writer

>>17214546
He isn't really a good writer except as "late Heidegger", and then mostly when he's expounding his interpretation of poets or the Greeks. He has a lot of good ideas which are simple and often overlooked, like tool analysis, care, ek-stasis, physis as sway, and some fun and illuminating wordplay (thanking-thinking). I don't know how to help you other than to say that he's essential reading if the question of Being strikes you, or if you're a pessimist/ludite.