/lit/ - Literature

Yeah lots of kids really liked the Mr Rogers. Good natured sing-along music and puppets, what's not to enjoy?

>autistic epic deconstructor
Not really surprising.

>>19442438
>autistic epic deconstructor
what is the benefit in this though for people?
Why would people be inclined to have all their convictions deconstructed?

Not even mentioning how his own notions are so alien it must be difficult for most to grasp solely due to how outlandish they are.

What do you mean resonated with many people? Heidegger is barely known by philosophers at all, let alone by the public. My own philosophy department can't even name continental philosopher.

>>19442478
a single*

>>19442478
>t. american.
or weak bait.

>>19442487
Not bait, and I'm not American, I'm Norwegian. Most philosophy departments here are obsessed with philosophy after the linguistic turn, and couldn't give a rat's ass about someone like Heidegger.

So saying he "resonated with many people" is just flat out wrong, he just resonated with a very small niche of post-Nietzschean philosophers.

>>19442530
Sounds like bait considering no other 20th century philosopher except for maybe Wittgenstein have the influence or renown of Heidegger.

>>19442538
Again, you're the one claiming he "resonated" with many people, which people are they?

>>19442560
Gadamer, Kyoto School, Sloterdijk, Sartre, Foucault, Derrida, Stiegler, any living Techno-esque Philosopher (pick your own that you dont fund cringe), etc.

>>19442592
Right, so exactly the people I mention here >>19442530 by saying "small niche of post-Nietzschean philosophers".

>>19442530
Heidegger is one of the few philosophers whose books(well just the one really) are carried by random normie tier bookstores. They frequently publish new English editions of Being and Time with stylish cover designs clearly meant to appeal to a mass audience. I very rarely see eg Hegel in these bookstores, though there is typically that one edition of Kant's first critique.

>>19442619
Completely opposite here, I had to order Being and Time from out of country specifically because, as the guy behind the counter said, "we don't carry large philosophical tomes like this here".

>>19442255
Outside of incel twitter, nobody cares about Virginegger.

>>19442625
all I am getting from your posts is that Norway is philosophical backwater, which is very representative of Norway in general.
Stop posting itt.

>>19442619
i'm romanian can confirm altough the covers look bland
>fiinta si timp

>>19442438
The beauty is that his deconstruction is, ironically, constructive though. After all is said, his conclusion is that communities have a fate in common.

>>19442697
Epic reply my dude. Precisely the level of debate I expect from this dogshit board. Next time do the world a favor and neck yourself instead of starting trash threads.

>>19442912
go up to a random pedestrian in the streets, even of Freiburg, ne tell them how “the world” is, or is perceived according to Heidegger and he will think you insane.

>>19442973
You sound like a retarded faggot, go and take a hike.

>>19442255
Why is it surprising?
>>19442560
Adding to that list are people in the neuro and cognitive sciences who are increasingly interested in his work.

>>19443052
So?

>>19443187
>Adding to that list are people in the neuro and cognitive sciences who are increasingly interested in his work.
You got a short introductory text or something that discusses this? Very curious.

>>19443194
Theres a whole book about it from 2012

>>19443194
Also look at the work of Gallese, as well as texts such as 'The Phenomenological Mind' (Gallagher and Zahavi) and 'The Ecology of the Brain' (Fuchs).

>>19443194
Oh, and the work of Francisco Varela, of course.

>>19442530
No wonder Norway is non existant when it comes to the world of philosophy

>>19443198
>>19443201
>>19443204
This seems like bullshit.
>Gallese - Mirror Neurons
You might as well be recommending Ramachandran.
>Varela - Autopoiesis & Buddhism
"The influence of Autopoiesis in mainstream biology was limited. Autopoiesis is not commonly used as the criterion for life."
This only confirms that continental philosophy is useless generally and Heidegger sui generis. What actionable material does Heidegger actually present?

>>19442255
Ofcourse since he was a simple peasant that got into philosophy because his local priest gifted him a book on Brentano
He isn't some elite upper-class Neokantian pseudo isolated from reality. Heidegger, just like Junger, were simple people in a changing and complex time, and their works reflect that

>>19443249
Your question is presuposed on the most phillistine, plebeian grounding of life possible, you should kys immediately or atone, pick up Heidegger and read him thoroughly, with an open mind. You simply can not keen on living like this, like a filthy bugman.

who /Sorbonne/ here tho?

>>19443270
>He isn't some elite upper-class Neokantian pseudo isolated from reality.
>implying Heidegger isn't removed from reality.

>>19443286
I gave your gf /sorebuns/

>>19442560
jean-paul sartre

>>19443249
>>Gallese - Mirror Neurons
>You might as well be recommending Ramachandran.

Can you expand on that? You are denying the existence of mirror neurons, or some aspect of how their functionality has been interpreted?

With Varela there are a number of problems with the one uncited quote you just took from the internet:
> Varela's work encompasses far more than the notion of autopoiesis
> There has been a steadily increasing interest in autopoiesis and its implications. Saying 'it is not commonly used' says nothing. Used by whom, etc.

One dismissive remark without elaboration and one uncited quote without context doesn't provide anything to even argue against.

>>19443330
The onus is on you to demonstrate the criteria for demarcation when recommending Heideggerian authors. Don't seethe about it.
>Ramachandran
Google him. Very influential. Also a laughingstock.
>Varela
https://www.researchgate.net/publication/232231194_Autopoiesis_40_years_Later_A_Review_and_a_Reformulation
It's in the wiki.

>>19443411
I already have, and you have failed to offer any substantive criticism.
> Google him. Very influential. Also a laughingstock.
I know who he is. Since you need help in forming an argument, I'll give you a hint. You can't say 'he is a laughingstock' and leave it at that. Maybe. But what is your evidence for such a claim? According to you? Someone you read online?

From the article you cited:
> I argue that the difficulty in understanding the term lies in its refined conceptual subtlety and not, as has been claimed by some authors, because it is a vacuous, trivial or very complex concept.

You can't even be bothered to read the articles you swipe from wiki?

>Dasein's facticity is such that its Being-in-the-world has always dispersed itself or even split itself up into definite ways of Being-in. The multiplicity of these is indicated by the following examples: having to do with something, producing something, attending to something and looking after it, making use of something, giving something up and letting it go, undertaking, accomplishing, evincing, interrogating, considering, discussing, determining...

who choses this over a simple physics class?

>>19442255
This nigga wrote hundreds of pages on staring in the mirror asking what is being and people think he's deep.

>>19443432
Criticism of what? You haven't offered any justification for criteria or established an evidentiary threshold. Sorry you don't understand that a frameworks use-utility is contingent on applicability in field-specific systems (i.e. Neuroscience). Also, are you actually quoting the abstract as a gotcha? Tsk tsk, anon. As for Ramachandran, his synesthetic bootstrapping hypothesis is fun, implausible, but fun. It's an example of opportunistic adaptation with exaptive mechanisms (proto language formation using nonarbitrary synesthetic correspondence to provide cross-domain mapping in motor-to-motor schemas), he uses Mirror Neurons to suggest an established congruence following
>volitional movement
>proprioceptive sensation
>replication
with additional modifications to account for syntactic structure. Thing is, it's mostly conjecture (like all MN work). We could talk about qualia, but I'd have to refer to my old lecture notes and I don't have the time. We could talk about his expert witness testimony regarding Lisa Marie Montgomery (very reminiscent of Peterson, no). Anyway, you're supposed to be justifying the merits of Heidegger and Heideggerian influence.

>>19443659
> Also, are you actually quoting the abstract as a gotcha? Tsk tsk, anon

Yes, because you included a paper 'from the wiki' as evidence, when the paper itself contradicted the point you were trying to make. Can you stop with the cringe 'tsk tsk' stuff, nobody thinks you're an intelligent character from an anime.

> he uses Mirror Neurons to suggest an established congruence following
>volitional movement
>proprioceptive sensation
>replication

Replication of what? Of course there is congruence between volitional movement and proprioception. But that isn't unique to Ramachandran nor Gallese.

> Thing is, it's mostly conjecture (like all MN work).
Again, in which way and compared to what?

> We could talk about qualia
A term for which there is not very much consensus, though phenomenology has little to say about qualia. But I don't see what qualia has to do with the 'higher-order' functions we are discussing in any meaningful way.

> but I'd have to refer to my old lecture notes
Woah, impressive.

> Anyway, you're supposed to be justifying the merits of Heidegger and Heideggerian influence.

One way in which Heideggerian philosophy has found application in AI, cognitive science and neuroscience pertains to the idea that the mind/brain need not necessarily draw upon reflective, sequential reasoning in order to understand its environment. Hence, in the case of MNs, intentional comportment can activate them much faster than the timescale required for explicit interpretation. This is a small aspect of what Heidegger called 'World': an immersion in a contextual environment which is prior to, and not reliant upon, explicit reasoning, despite the apparent complexity of the 'computation' (e.g., understanding of goal-driven behaviours).

>>19443546
>This nigga wrote hundreds of pages on staring in the mirror

In which work?

>>19443793
Imitation and mimesis in nested motor subroutines (operational analogy). Replication of phonemes following observation. Also, when did I claim that any of this was unique to either?
>In which way and compared to what?
I'm not about to skim through the articles (that you can grab yourself) to win some empty chat on /lit/ - you know exactly what I'm talking about. You asked for clarification regarding my dismissal of Ramachandran, I listed pertinent examples that qualify as questionable.
>whoa
I don't think being a student is very impressive, anon, It's quite passé. It is interesting that you interpret the derision in my reply as some sort of pseudery. Its just me (gently) mocking you.
>This is a small aspect of what Heidegger called 'World': an immersion in a contextual environment which is prior to, and not reliant upon, explicit reasoning, despite the apparent complexity of the 'computation' (e.g., understanding of goal-driven behaviours).
Care to elaborate? What's Heidegger's actual "world" definition at resolution and what's the experimental evidence? I'm interested and want to understand the implications for cog-sci if it has merit.

>>19443659
>>19443982
you sound really insufferable to be around man, this coming from neutral 3rd party in this conversation.

>>19444109
Probably.

>>19444109
You shouldn't judge people based on /lit/ arguments tbqh

>>19442451
you're actually retarded though, heidegger does more to penetrate the fog of being than all of the metaphysics in the tradition since aristotle. not my fault you take refuge in "common sense" platitudinous faggotry

>>19443982
> Imitation and mimesis in nested motor subroutines (operational analogy). Replication of phonemes following observation. Also, when did I claim that any of this was unique to either?
You said 'he uses Mirror Neurons to claim a congruence between...'. It seems that MNs indicate something different than that very broad (but not inaccurate) model but I suppose this isn't a major point of contention.
> I'm not about to skim through the articles (that you can grab yourself) to win some empty chat on /lit/ - you know exactly what I'm talking about.
Well, 'skimming through articles' is typically a precondition of having a discussion on a particular topic. And I don't know what you're talking about, as MN research is such a expansive field there is no single claim that stands out. You claimed 'MN research is based on conjecture'. Without qualification, it is a meaningless statement.
> You asked for clarification regarding my dismissal of Ramachandran, I listed pertinent examples that qualify as questionable.
You seemed to give an overview of some things he had written. You did not forward any criticisms.
> I don't think being a student is very impressive, anon, It's quite passé. It is interesting that you interpret the derision in my reply as some sort of pseudery. Its just me (gently) mocking you.
This was my bad, as I thought you were trying to get away with pretending that you were giving lectures. When it seemed to me that you fit the mould of the undergrad who has an opinionated professor that he tries to model himself on, and gets caught when asked to justify his assertions as would happen at conference.
> Care to elaborate? What's Heidegger's actual "world" definition at resolution and what's the experimental evidence? I'm interested and want to understand the implications for cog-sci if it has merit.
It is incorrect to say that 'world' could have experimental evidence in itself. In this kind of cognitive science, it is a framework, like computationalism. It is used to better model brain-environment interactions, describe the cognitive correlate to neurophysiological processes, and/or explain experimental findings that seem ill-suited to traditional computationalism.
If you want specific examples of papers, I can provide those tomorrow morning.

>>19444148
Yeah, I knew this sounded like bullshit. Good luck with your future pseudery, anon.

>>19444132
>not my fault you take refuge in "common sense" platitudinous faggotry
tell me how to survive in the "common sense" world as a Heideggerian though?

The guy tried his life to explain the foundation for physics, math, engineering, but ultimately failed at this monster of "science" that allowed cringe faggots to make a boogeyman out of this failure.

Heideggerians can only survive in monestaries or as hermits.

I would appreciate if a discussion existed around the possibility of finding Heidegger's work so profound and impactful.
It should not at all be obvious to those who are completely unfamiliar with a Heideggerian approach in the first place. Carnap's disgust is merited even if not justified.

There is good reason Heidegger is occasionally refrenced as an orphic philosopher.

>>19442255
I just started reading Being and Time. I've read every major philosopher between Plato and Nietzsche though it's been a while. Is there anything I should do to prevent any possible confusion or should I be good?

>>19445443
You could have read some Husserl and you better know ancient greek to a High School level.
The esoteric german thinkers you will most certainly not know will be expounded upon enough in the work.
And if you are not reading it in german, then dont even bother.

>>19444213
>Heideggerians can only survive in monestaries or as hermits.
problem, faggot?

>>19445456
yes, Its kinda awkward to be frightened off people wielding the newest technology and calling for engagement in an avant garde movement.
Makes you seem like a timid old lady.

>>19442619
I've seen Phenomenology of the Spirit in Barnes and Noble with the only other philosophy texts being a commentary on Nietzsche, the Gay Science, and a Seneca commentary. I've never in my life seen Heidegger in some normie bookstore

>>19444199
I'll be impressed if you can formulate one intelligent argument. You can even pivot away from philosophy and over to neuroscience. And from that you'll learn that feigning arrogance is not a replacement for argument and analysis.

>>19445514
If anything, Heidegger's analysis of technology and the way in which it modulates the human relationship to everything else was shockingly prophetic.

>>19446471
Depends on where you live. In Italy you see him all the time. In more shallow countries like the US or UK you won't, the shelves are all taken up by celebrity cookbooks.

This anon is based as fuck: >>19444148, >>19443793

This anon is cringe as fuck: >>19444199, >>19443659

b

>>19442255
I thought this was the great Claudio Arrau

>>19442597
Foucault, whether you like him or not, is still (last I checked) the most cited author in the humanities. Sartre had a funeral procession usually reserved for heads of state. Derrida was a public intellectual in every sense of the word, and had the attention of people even if they hated him. This is to say nothing of Gadamer's influence, or someone like Merleau-Ponty or any of the 20th century theology influenced by Heidegger. Your attempt to characterize this movement as a "small niche" is ridiculous. Its like calling American presidents a "small niche of post-Hobbesian figures". You're doing away with influence for the sake of numerical reference, dishonest and silly.

>>19445443
Best advice I can give you is put aside all your preconceptions. Even when a word sounds like its from Husserl or Aristotle, its probably not being used in the same way. Conceptually, he starts some very unusual operations and the more you get out of the way at first the easier it is to follow. This is not to suggest that you read uncritically, but rather, avoid connections not explicitly stated so the waters don't get muddied. If you have a working knowledge of Plato/Aristotle, Descartes, Kant, and Husserl you're pretty much good on prerequisite reading. He briefly mentions Hegel but its one of the last sections and not terribly important to the project as a whole, same with some of the sections on Dilthey.

>>19445415
Whats on your mind anon?

>>19442255
>>19442451
>>19442487
>>19442538
>>19442560
>>19442592
>>19442619
>>19442625
>Heidegger is a good example of how nothing is left but a number of ridiculous photographs and a number of even more ridiculous writings. Heidegger was a philosophical market crier who only brought stolen goods to the market, everything of Heidegger's is second-hand, he was and is the prototype of the re-thinker, who lacked everything, but truly everything, for independent thinking. Heidegger's method consisted in the most unscrupulous turning of other people's great ideas into small ideas of his own, that is a fact. Heidegger has so reduced everything great that it has become German-compatible, you understand: German-compatible, Reger said. Heidegger is the petit bourgeois of German philosophy, the man who has placed on German philosophy his kitschy night-cap, that kitschy black night-cap which Heidegger always wore, on all occasions. Heidegger is the carpet-slipper and night-cap philosopher of the Germans, nothing else. I don't know why, Reger said yesterday, whenever I think of Stifter I also think of Heidegger and the other way about. Surely it is no accident, Reger said, that Heidegger just as Stifter has always been popular, and is still popular, mainly with those tense women, and just as those fussy do-gooding nuns and those fussy do-gooding nurses devour Stifter as their fovourite dish, in a manner of speaking, so they also devour Heidegger. Heidegger to this day is the favourite philosopher of German womanhood. Heidegger is the women's philosopher the specially suitable luncheon philosopher straight from the scholars' frying pan. When you come to a petit-bourgeois or even an aristocratic-petit-bourgeois party, you are very often served Heidegger even before the hors-d'oeuvre, you have not even taken off your overcoat and already you are being offered a piece of Heidegger, you have not even sat down and already the lady of the house has brought Heidegger in with the sherry on a silver salver. Heidegger is invariably a well-cooked German philosophy which may be served anywhere and at any time, Reger said, in any household. I do not know of any philosopher today who has been more degraded, Reger said. Anyway, Heidegger is finished as far as philosophy is concerned, whereas ten years ago he was still the great thinker, he now, as it were, only haunts pseudo-intellectual households and pseudo-intellectual parties, adding an artificial mendaciousness to their entirely natural one. Like Stifter, Heidegger is a tasteless and readily digestible reader's pudding for the mediocre German mind.

>>19447679
You're late.

>>19447723
Kek, you're right
How may Heidegger threads I have missed? I was ill for three weeks.

>>19447590
>Whats on your mind anon?
I studied Chemical Engineering and focused on mathematical philosophical logic during my Phil BA before coming across Heidegger and being enamored by his philosophy. Most epistemological thinking I found pre Heidegger was useful for the natural sciences, even german idealism via Schelling.
While both these sides can stand isolated on their own, I fail to make them compromise. I learn nothing from Heidegger's ramblings on the natural sciences since it fails to build a bridge and rather just affirms his own insular thinking.

I can only imagine the same issue exists for sociologists, linguists and psychologists when dealing with Heidegger.

>>19448068
>I can only imagine the same issue exists for sociologists, linguists and psychologists when dealing with Heidegger.
It cannot be overstated how much modern sociology is indebted to Heidegger via Bourdieu.

>>19448068
Heidegger pretty much explains why scientific inquiry is an issue for Dasein in the first place, why we even give a fuck about trying to explain nature

And this is also why Heidegger is fascinated by sciences, he’s not negative or indifferent at all to physics, biology, chemistry and so on. A thinker like Kuhn has a lot in common with Heidegger.

>>19448346
Kuhn isn't really who I am thinking off when I think of the natural sciences. Quite the opposite really.

I mean a lot more people like James Watson and Francis Crick.
heidegger is interested in the notion of the natural sciences, but his entire epistemology is so counter to the foundation that these sciences build upon, or believe to be their bases.

>>19447679
That was actually pretty funny. A polemic written like a discount Nietzsche. Obviously, as usual, it contains lots of psychologizing and seething but 0 in the way of examples. But that's to just to be expected for Heidegger's criticisms. At least the author appears to have read and understood Heidegger somewhat.

Who is the author?

>>19448068
>I can only imagine the same issue exists for sociologists, linguists and psychologists when dealing with Heidegger.

Though Heidegger was often scornful of psychology, lots of psychologists and psychotherapists have incorporated Heidegger into their work.

>>19448468
Thomas Bernhard

Complete rant is much bigger

QRD?

can someone sum up what hidyburger says in being and time? never read it

>>19448553
>It is what it is.

>>19442255
It was so because Heidegger brought into the West procesual and stealth theological subjects foreign to scholastic philosophy.

Heidegger read tons of Eastern Church Parents (Grigorius de Nyssa, especially and Maximus the Confessor). That's why you see many disciplies of his activating in theological or existential frameworks.

If Heidegger would have been transparent about this you may have better understood that his huge influence (that cannot be contested) came from Byzantine theology; and maybe - just maybe - those threads could have lead to a better western philosophy, instead of the half-baked ontology Heidegger left

Nonsense metaphysics. That's all that Heidegger is.

>>19449280
naive and vorhandenpilled

>>19448375
>foundationalism
>epistemologorrhea
You sound like you still live in the 40s

>>19449618
what retarded shit are you even trying to imply.

>>19449280
> Be Heidegger
> Attempt to overcome Metaphysics by emphasising human finitude
> Have your attempt called 'nonsense metaphysics' on 4Chan.

For all this seething, Heidegger isn't even that difficult to understand.