/lit/ - Literature

>the books
this book

I read it once and it seemed pretty straightforward. Builds itself brick by brick. What don’t you get?

>>20139458
Heidegger is hard to understand. It may be easier to go through Derrida to get to him. Try De Grammatologie.

>>20139463
>half a book
ftfy

>>20139518
What does he say?

>>20139592
lmao how is Derrida easier to penetrate than any other writer? that dude is the peak of obscurantism

>>20139719
He was probably making a "joke"

Heidegger was an idiot. He was basically Nietzsche with a few more IQ points. He never really escaped romanticism and existetialism, and he tried to find truth about something that doesn't even exist. He was just an idiot he went to presocratics and dug through etymology just to find SOMETHING to calm his anxiety and nihilism. Honestly, philosophers in the Kantian tradition are just a pathetic bunch. They all look for something that doesn't exist because they are too edgy to go to the Church once per week.

>>20139726
ah. carry on then

>>20139913
I don't understand why Nietzsche and that whole cohort and their followers are so emotional about philosophy. For the longest time Greeks and scholastics just did their philosophy as a reasonable dispassionate pursuit of truth, then at some point it became all about muh feelings.

>>20139913
Damn I was with you up until that last sentence. Stay mad ChristFag.

>>20140100
Lmao you prove his point

>>20140095
For neetch I think it was as much about writing poetry and a grandiose prose style. He was after all heavily inspired by Wagner and those big gigantic operas

>>20139913
Lmao heidegger did go to church every week you 110iq edgelord. This board has gone to such shit it's unbelievable.

>>20140095
This is why:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Noc1OH0CUBc

If you're going to read 'Being and Time' then read the Stambaugh translation for accuracy, it has less notes and doesn't translate the Latin or Greek phrases in the text unlike the other translation. It does fix a major misconception the other translation makes about what Heidegger thinks about the representing subject of experience, consciousness and other significant things.

If you're going to read secondary literature on Heidegger read the Macquarrie version because the subsequent secondary literature uses a lot of terminology from the Macquarrie version. It also has extensive notes and translates the Latin and Greek often.

>>20140340
The amended Stambaugh translation. Her first go had some major issues...

>>20139458
Did you read Heidegger's introduction? He explains the project of the book very clearly compared to the rest of the book.

>>20139913
HOES MAD

>>20140120
This.

>What Hegel asserted concerning art-that it had lost its power to be the definite fashioner and preserver of the absolute-Nietzsche recognized to be the case with the "highest values," religion, morality, and philosophy: the lack of creative force and cohesion in grounding man's historical existence upon beings as a whole. Whereas for Hegel it was art-in contrast to religion, morality, and philosophy-that fell victim to nihilism and became a thing of the past, something nonactual, for Nietzsche art is to be pursued as the countermovement. In spite of Nietzsche's essential departure from Wagner, we see in this an outgrowth of the Wagnerian will to the "collective artwork." Whereas for Hegel art as a thing of the past became an object of the highest speculative knowledge, so that Hegel's aesthetics assumed the shape of a metaphysics of spirit, Nietzsche's meditation on art becomes a "physiology of art."

>>20139913
>philosophers in the Kantian tradition are just a pathetic bunch

save for Schopenhauer

>>20140100
*tips fedora*

>>20141910
Especially Schopenhauer

>>20140780
What did he find out about Dasein?

>>20140681
>Her
I'm good thanks

>>20139913
Heidegger isn’t incompatible with Christianity and while it’s secular ok it down merit it is directly informed by Kierkegaard and Heidegger was obsessed

>>20142622
What did Heidegger find out about being?

>>20139913
6/10 bait, do better

>>20142763
he's 100% correct

>>20142759
The meaning of the being of dasein is care.

>>20142759
He felt that understanding being is essential to living authentic life

>>20139458
The being is what makes the being be

Or the it etc, translations vary as the concept of to be is particularly messy in english and why it may seem tough for you people

>>20139913
you've never read heidegger have you

>>20140100
>>20140121
>>20141143
>>20142763
>>20144105
>all this seethe yet no one in the entire thread could provide one meaningful insight from Heidegger's philosophy

>>20144367
i would say the most important point in being & time is that the distinction between subject and object is flawed. the total reality of an object includes parts of subjectivities, e.g. when you look at a stone then your perception of the stone is not 'part of your subjectivity' but rather 'part of the total existence of the stone'. and equally there is no 'you' that can be distinguished from the myriad of objects you perceive, use, trip over, e.t.c. when you ride a bike or drive a car then your subjectivity grows to encompass elements of the bike / car (this is called 'ready-to-hand'). the distinction between the self and objects around the self is more of a heuristic for problem solving that has, over the course of european history, lead to us mistaking the heuristic for the reality

>>20144756
>the distinction between subject and object is flawed.
Wasn't this Hegel's project too?
> 'part of the total existence of the stone'
How does that affect the stone's existence?
>there is no 'you' that can be distinguished from the myriad of objects you perceive, use, trip over, e.t.c.
I have a notion of self though that we can't really perceive it is not new.
>when you ride a bike or drive a car then your subjectivity grows to encompass elements of the bike / car (this is called 'ready-to-hand').
Sure, it's part of my temporal experience. I expect you'll say my temporal existence is all there is, which I reject.
> the distinction between the self and objects around the self is more of a heuristic for problem solving that has, over the course of european history, lead to us mistaking the heuristic for the reality
Nah, the notion of self is simply something that cannot be perceived but we can sort of intuit it. You'll tell me I don't have enough precision, but that has nothing to do with whether it exists or not.

Anyway, pretty sure this is Hegel's project not Heidegger's lol unless they both arrived to the same thing which wouldn't surprise me because they both sound like sophists.

>>20144779
You temporal existence collides with the existence of everyone else, the only solutions for the interpolation are elimination or copulation

>>20144794
>temporal existence
Who cares? I only care about my immortal soul which is briefly the self or the substratum of what you call temporal existence in this world.

>>20139458
Sure OP, what can I help you with?

>>20144860
Not OP but can you explain what Heidegger found out about Dasein? Or what original insights this book brought to light?

>>20144872
https://counter-currents.com/2014/12/making-sense-of-heidegger/

>>20144921
So "no"

>>20144779
>How does that affect the stone's existence?
i'm not sure i understand the question. there is no such thing as stones that exist outside of the rest of reality. every stone that humans have ever seen has been part of human subjectivity, and the ones that we haven't seen are still part of physical systems which overlap with human subjectivity.
>I have a notion of self though that we can't really perceive it is not new.
define your self without reference to objects
>Sure, it's part of my temporal experience. I expect you'll say my temporal existence is all there is, which I reject.
who is the 'me' having the temporal experience if that experience includes things other than 'you' as parts
>Nah, the notion of self is simply something that cannot be perceived but we can sort of intuit it. You'll tell me I don't have enough precision, but that has nothing to do with whether it exists or not.
the existence of what you are calling 'self' is dependent upon the entirety of the objects around 'you.' if self did not overlap with the world then how could you possibly experience anything?

>>20144851
so your soul wants to not live the moment and be dettached of our shared reality?

>>20144872
I will do my best to keep this concise, because asking "what he found out about Dasein" is probably 80% of the book. First of all, its the fact that he identified Dasein as the correct object of inquiry in the first place, to get us out from under the legacy out Platonism and Cartesianism. By attempting to look for the structures on the basis of which we come to have anything like an experience in the world, with as few presuppositions as possible, he arrived at an account of human existence which totally side-stepped the subject/object distinction, and posited the self and the world as "equiprimordial". That is, the world is always already meaningful by the time we get around to realizing there is such a thing, and we have always already interpreted ourselves on the basis of this world. This is a style of philosophy which hadn't been done since the presocratics, and in a way, he wanted us to go back so that we can go forwards for the first time. Not to think like Greeks, but to respond to the needs of our particular metaphysical epoch in the way that the Greeks responded to theirs. Being and Time provided insight by asking the right questions and suggesting a possible direction for future investigation. Ultimately, thats all he wanted to do (with this book anyway). It was never intended to be an answer or a final word. If you have more specific questions I'll be happy to answer.

>>20144927
Not for you, no, but for anyone who can read

>>20144931
>i'm not sure i understand the question. there is no such thing as stones that exist outside of the rest of reality. every stone that humans have ever seen has been part of human subjectivity, and the ones that we haven't seen are still part of physical systems which overlap with human subjectivity.
Whatever, I don't care much about your stones.
>define your self without reference to objects
That which God created along with the property of itself that allows self-identification.
>who is the 'me' having the temporal experience if that experience includes things other than 'you' as parts
Huh? It includes an a posteriori temporal experience as well. So what? Me is the self identified above.
>the existence of what you are calling 'self' is dependent upon the entirety of the objects around 'you.'
It's not.
>if self did not overlap with the world then how could you possibly experience anything?
Through my temporal self through which my transcendent self operates.

>>20144936
No, where did I say that? Not caring doesn't imply refusal. It's simply infinitely less important

>>20144940
>correct object of inquiry
How do you know this time it's correct?
> If you have more specific questions I'll be happy to answer.
Didn't quite get it desu. Where did this novel style take him? I get it the style is cool, but I was more interested in the substance if there is any.

>>20145013
>That which God created along with the property of itself that allows self-identification.
remove the belief about God and you are quite close to Heidegger's concept of Dasein. the problem is that 'i am that which can identify myself' is an entirely circular statement, what it actually tells us is that we are capable of believing that there is an I, but not that there is an I. So Dasein is that which is capable of believing itself to be an isolable being, but is not therefore an isolable being.
>Huh? It includes an a posteriori temporal experience as well. So what? Me is the self identified above.
as well as what?
>It's not.
to be able to say 'this is me' requires you to be able to say 'that is not me'. the latter is always implicit in the former.
>Through my temporal self through which my transcendent self operates.
when you look at an object does the temporal or transcendent self see it?

>>20145071
>remove the belief about God and
Ah, not interested in sophistry. Rest of your post seems contingent on there not being a God, so not much to talk about. Hope you're just misrepresenting Heidegger, and there's more to him than this.

>>20145037
>How do you know this time it's correct?

Heres the problem in a nutshell: according to Heidegger, the problem with most philosophy we've inherited and especially the problem with most "metaphysics" is that we look at the world around us, we look at the way "things" exist, and we try to reach general conclusions about being itself based on this. This tends to produce a metaphysics of presence, a way of accounting for present entities over and against a present observer. The observer himself then gets interpreted based on this same method, and we are now hopelessly mired in subject/object interaction issues yet again. Call it what you want, the noumenal and phenomenal, the interior and exterior, its still a dualistic metaphysics of presence. Heidegger attempts to look at the question of Being without going through this step. He thinks that inquiring after the "Being of beings" ("beings" here should be read as something like "entities" or "external objects") is a mistake, and we should find a different object to ask about. His analysis and structural account of Dasein is correct in the sense that he manages to get quite far without needing to lean on a lot of the things that got other philosophers into hot water. To the extent that he set a goal and met it within his work, it is correct.

>Where did this novel style take him?
I think you're reading "style" as some sort of literary convention. I mean more a methodology. The thing about phenomenological hermeneutics is that it is incredibly self aware. The method itself is part of the inquiry, where you start matters because it can generate results which are then read back into the starting position. It makes no claim to some sort of privileged or neutral starting position, because none is possible. Any illusion of neutrality is itself a stance, one which is an abstraction and a privation of the already meaning-rich world we find ourselves with, and it is a stance which generates bad metaphysics by pretending like it isn't part of this same metaphysics. The substance is an incredibly rich account of the structure of experience and existence which demands very little up front and opens up space to do some extremely interesting philosophical work. There is a reason so many people were excited by his work, it blew the doors wide open. Sartre never understood him, but people like Merleau-Ponty, Gadamer, Derrida, and others took what Heidegger started and ran with it. Even today we still haven't even come close to exploring the places that Heidegger gestured towards. I say gestured towards because he never finished his own work. His corpus is in many ways incomplete and imperfect, but he was aware of this.

>>20139458
No. That's why there's an infinite amount of different reads about it. Heidenigger is the final boss of philosophy

>>20139913
Based retard

>>20145117
>To the extent that he set a goal and met it within his work, it is correct.
My bad, thought there was a bit more generability in that "correct" but glad to hear he set a goal and achieved it or maybe gestured to it only, not sure.
> Merleau-Ponty, Gadamer, Derrida, and others took what Heidegger started and ran with it
Where did it get them?
>Even today we still haven't even come close to exploring the places that Heidegger gestured towards.
Well, you seem very excited about the potential of this work. It's a shame I couldn't find anything of value in anything that you said so far.

>>20145100
it's one thing to have your worldview but quite another to say you won't even read about other worldviews. are you just on this board to hear your thoughts spoken back to you?

>>20145188
>thought there was a bit more generability in that "correct"
There is, what he did cleared the ground for others.

>Where did it get them?
I don't understand what you mean by this question or this line of questioning at this point

>It's a shame I couldn't find anything of value in anything that you said so far.
I'm doing my best to answer your questions but frankly you're asking incredibly broad things and we're not really getting to the meat of the matter. I'm not going to reconstruct the entirety of his work but if you have specific questions I will answer them.

>>20145207
What's there to discuss? That if there's no God there's no self? Maybe it's a fun thought experiment for you, but I don't see the value in it. I'm on this board to talk to people more serious about understanding things than pretending to understand things.

>>20145246
>we're not really getting to the meat of the matter.
I tried to get there when I asked about the substance of his project and the outcome of his exploration, but it seems that the substance is the unrealized potential and the result is an unactualized promise that I frankly doubt will ever be realized or actualized because there's likely nothing at the bottom of it. I appreciate you answering my questions, but I'm more of a nominalist than you seem to be, and I'm skeptical about your abstractions until you concretize them quite a bit more than this.

>it’s another angloid roaches can’t into Being episode

>>20145306
No, you asked about the outcome of Being and Time, which was ground clearing. He makes headway in other areas later on, but its hard to discuss that without understanding his motivations for and method employed in Being and Time.

> there's likely nothing at the bottom of it
Even if you have nominalist leanings this is just an unfair reduction. Assuming for the moment that we never make it one bit past his early work, or that he never advanced past it, which he did, is a new method really of that little importance? Russell's influence in the analytic method is arguably more important than his actual positions, which changed every few years, for example. What is too abstract for you? I've tried to be clear about the reciprocal relationship between self and world, for instance, as opposed to a dualistic relationship, and I thought that was a fairly concrete claim. Let me try this: would you be interested in his technological critique, as an example of his later work which can be cashed out a little more directly?

Also, I will be going to sleep soon, but if this thread is still up I'll get to anything I've missed tomorrow.

>>20145247
the argument holds regardless of the existence of god. my point is only that the existence of god is not an axiom for heidegger.

>>20145373
> is a new method really of that little importance?
Is a new method important by virtue of being a new method? A method is a way of teaching, a mere vehicle. It's only important by virtue of what it can carry. Sure, it may sound neat, and perhaps those structures you mention but I haven't seen could be impressive, but so far I got nothing out of it. That we can only interpret ourselves by the means of the world I thought was a standard empirical epistemology, and that the subject and the object are inseparable I thought was explored in Hegel's absolute idealism.

>would you be interested in his technological critique
Sure.

>Also, I will be going to sleep soon, but if this thread is still up I'll get to anything I've missed tomorrow.
Same here. Night.

>>20139913
Holy BASED

>>20140100
you dropped your katana

>>20145444
What holds?
>we are capable of believing that there is an I, but not that there is an I.
This? I don't "believe" there's a self, I know there's a self through a reflection category that God gave me: the same category by which he revealed himself to me. So if I accept God, I also accept myself. I don't know how you found out God exists but couldn't figure out your self exists, because you're supposed to use the same tool.

>>20145507
what if god created a heuristic tool that allows for a separation of 'self' from 'other' for the purposes of problem solving, but did not create an actual self?

>>20145488
bad goy, now obey and turn the other cheek

>>20145522
What if God gave you a brain that you think works but actually it's broken?

Bump

>>20145565
plenty of people's brains are very clearly broken

questioning "self" is incredibly transphobic