/lit/ - Literature

We already discussed this thrice already, senpai. Check the archive.

>>4722181
Nietzsche's way better for this shit. Fuck you Jews Why didn't we Jew it up? and Fuck you Christians and Atheists too and all your other relevant questions can be answered by the Genealogy of Morals and AntiChrist.

Read Heidegger instead of the Guardian if you're not ready for that step up yet, he's got a better arts and letters section.

I have my doubts at the legitimacy at this.
An attack on Heidegger is an attack on Derrida, Sartre, Foucault, Ponty, the whole ENS and modern continental tradition.

It's way too convenient for the analytics for such a thing to exist.

Heidegger made himself more than clear in "A Letter on Humanism" as to his empathetic outlook.

>antisemitism at core of his philosophy

Why is journalism so irresponsible at times? It's headlines like this that lead to people going "Heidegger? Isn't that guy an antisemite? Haha, yeah I read about that, too." When the only thing the guy read was the title. The Guardian *knows* people are lazy and don't read articles, which makes this shit even more irresponsible.

This leads to a ton of people debating the conclusions instead of questioning whether they're the right conclusions to make.

The fact that people are listening to a Slate reporter/blogger/tweeter is the real scandal. There is nothing to discredit Heidegger, since he doesn't have a 'philosophy'.

>The most controversial passages of the black notebooks are a series of reflections from the start of the second world war to 1941. While distancing himself from the racial theories pursued by Nazi intellectuals, Heidegger argues that Weltjudentum ("world Judaism") is one of the main drivers of western modernity, which he viewed critically.

>"World Judaism", Heidegger writes in the notebooks, "is ungraspable everywhere and doesn't need to get involved in military action while continuing to unfurl its influence, whereas we are left to sacrifice the best blood of the best of our people".

Well, add him to the pile of people stating the obvious.

>>4722216

Don't read The Guardian.

Heidegger was a Nazi??????+?+? What is this brand new information??????????????+++

>>4722233
>>4722219
Fuck off, shills for the dehumanizing STEM and Analytic machine.

>that glorious feel when you come up against the GREAT WALL OF NAZI, the impassable boundary of contemporary philosophy where even the most brilliant and educated minds collapse in a heap and revert to childlike, infantile shrieking
>that feel when you pass through the boundary unscathed, because you are not a bourgeois leftist vagina with 40 years of intelligentsia correctthink programming
>that feel when you are able to enjoy the subtleties and continuities of authors whose grandiose theories speak of modernity, the individual, and the state, without tripping over the word 'JEW' like a landmine, and blasting yourself into unphilosophical political correctness
>that feel when the garden of philosophically hating jews is the last great, uncultivated expanse remaining to modern scholarship
>that feel when its wonders are untrod by the plebeian feet of leftist master's theses and meta-meta-meta-analysis
>that feel when you are esoteric, enlightened by your own antisemitism

>>4722184
Link? I couldn't find any in the archive I checked.

>>4722257
Damn. I had a hearty chuckle.

>>4722257
Please keep posting.

Can you one even have a healthy outlook without being "anti-semitic" to some degree?

>>4722257
>>4722257
>>4722257
Oh god this

>>4722298

I personally don't think so. Hatred, or at least dislike, of Jewish values and features moreso than Jews themselves seems to be present in the work of a lot of important thinkers, Marx among them.

In fact, I'm pretty sure you can find an angle from which you can attack Jewry regardless of your political leanings.

>>4722257

Oy, what a bigot.

Why did he join the Nazi Party?

>>4723089
Why wouldn't you?

>The German people has been summoned by the Führer to vote; the Führer, however, is asking nothing from the people; rather, he is giving the people the possibility of making, directly, the highest free decision of all: whether it - the entire people - wants its own existence (Dasein), or whether it does not want it. [...] On November 12, the German people as a whole will choose its future, and this future is bound to the Führer. [...] There are not separate foreign and domestic policies. There is only one will to the full existence (Dasein) of the State. The Führer has awakened this will in the entire people and has welded it into a single resolve

>>4723106
Shouldn't he be intelligent enough to not fall for that?

>>4723106
Foresight.

>>4723115
Why is this stupid, exactly?

>>4723119
The overwhelming majority of Germans, especially those in Heidegger's milieu had no such foresight. You might be applying your hindsight and assuming it grants them foresight.

>>4723131
>Why is this stupid, exactly?
It just sounds way too good to be true.

>>4723164

Heidegger could have personally killed a handful of jews and my estimation of his philosophy would remain unchanged. Being and Time is THE existential text (nice try Sartre and Camus) and his later writings on language and poetry take on Nietzsche's aesthetic project in amazing ways. The Question Concerning Technology is still the best critique of modern technological science.

>>4723164
I'm not trying to be a dick, but what do you mean?

>>4722216

It's a part of the common abuse of language that frames the average person's existence.

>mfw Gottlob 'Jew crusher' Frege was a full blown anti-Semite

Analytic philosophy is dangerously anti-Semitic.

>>4723242
>the Führer, however, is asking nothing from the people; rather, he is giving the people the possibility of making, directly, the highest free decision of all: whether it - the entire people - wants its own existence (Dasein), or whether it does not want it.
Don't you think this sounds really odd? Vote for me, do nothing else and everything will be fine?

>>4723115

Fall for what? The connections between internatinal round table groups and Zionism are undeniable.

>>4723255
Ah, okay, now I see what you mean. I think how Heidegger's declaration sounds is pretty tied up in his idea of decision (see also: Spengler) and the subsequent choice of Dasein. The affirmation of Hitler was essentially an affirmation of the essential Dasein and therefore of the utmost importance. Heidegger never said that everything will be fine, in fact, he seems to revel in the idea of the difficulty of the path ahead in later writings around the same time (and even post-War). The decision for National Socialism was THE decision of the age and for Dasein, so that's why H keeps harping on the essential nature of this possibility as it is the "highest" calling.

National Socialism doesn't want a "everything will be fine." It doesn't work in those terms either in rhetoric or practice, but rather it wants a struggle (the ubiquitous Kampf, see: Juenger, Schmitt, Benn, hell, just about everyone worth their salt then).

>>4723257

Please elaborate.

>>4723285
>well-read-in-right-wing person posting constructively on /lit/

Whatever your political ideals/affiliations, we need more of this to counterbalance /pol/'s popularity lately.

Wasn't Hedi a luddite while Nazis had a massive hard on for tech?

>>4723294
your mom needs my dick in her mouth

>>4723319
Don't be so degenerate, anon.

>>4723294
Thanks. I should note that I'm not trying to be combative or even trying to win people over to Heidegger's ideas, but rather hopefully clarify some of his more politically questionable statements.

/pol/ is gereally a cesspool, though. I'm with you there.

>>4723310
National Socialism isn't a monolith, surprisingly. While Hitler was the Party/Germany/Volk incarnate he nonetheless wasn't always consistent. We see this in his statements on religion, statecraft, and of course technology. Some in the NSDAP, as has been mentioned in this thread subscribed to sort of a Luddite Blood and Soil agricultural notion of what the NSDAP should strive for (Richard Walther Darré being the obvious top dog in that circle) whereas others certainly supported continuing the current technological route, be it for military strength alone or for also producing a scientifically strong nation. The Third Reich was clearly technologically competent, but Heidegger felt that this competency could be directed in a way that allowed for a different relation with technology, that would separate the Third Reich from the USA/UK and the USSR in terms of how technology framed society (Fordism, machination, the primacy of economics and use of natural resources as, well, resources...), if that makes sense.

>>4723343
It does make sense, thanks. Since you seem to know your Heidegger, would you recommend any particular way to get into him?

(inb4 Martin Heidegger Real Doll™ copy pasta)

I'm confused - is this being published any time soon? Under a specific name?

Guessing German only, at least for a long while.

Heidegger is complicit in Nazism. However, that doesn't mean he agreed with their ideology and antisemitism. He was a philosopher along for the ride.

Speaking against Nazism was suicidal. Your options where run away or die. Heidegger chose to silently observe.

>>4722181
>mfw that article seems to suggest the notion that it is permissible if not mandatory to dismiss someone's life work because he didn't like jews/modernity/england/murrica

>>4723389
>I know this as fact

Shut up you fuckin' commie lying faggot.

>>4723389

This isn't accurate though, as Heidegger was vocal and active in his support for the Nazi regime. It's almost like being a Nazi has nothing to do with whether your philosophy or ideas are any good, and everything to do with the social context in which you found yourself in the 1930s? But then, why bother to consider this when you can feel smug about dismissing a famous thinker by identifying him with one of the designated pharmakoi groups of the modern western world? I can understand your urge therefore to wash Heidegger's hands for him, but he didn't make any effort to do so himself - and was right not to do so.

>>4723430
>lost dialogue of Plato found
>"Greetings Charmides! Taking a stroll I see. I'm not really fond of the Hebrews. But let's talk about the Good."
>every tenured philosopher in the Western world has to write twelve journal articles pathologising the deep pathos in Plato's soul and discussing how his personal beliefs do not necessarily reflect blah blah blah and this is a dark day for the field but Plato can still be appreciated if you only look at him with one eye while watching Schindler's List with your other eye
>six billion academic functionaries begin typing up facile articles that begin with "The recent revelations about Plato's antisemitism have cast new light on [no they haven't] ..."
>academia's diaper fills up just a little more

>>4723455
>mfw he didn't even apologise

>>4722181
Now that I'm red pilled I appreciate Heidegger a lot more.

I no longer have the retarded liberal knee jerk reaction to taboos like nazism

>In one passage, Heidegger argues that like fascism and "world judaism", Soviet communism and British parliamentarianism should be seen as part of the imperious dehumanising drive of western modernity: "The bourgeois-Christian form of English 'bolshevism' is the most dangerous. Without its destruction, the modern era will remain intact."

Wait a minute. Doesn't this mean that Heidegger was essentially against everything he equated as progressing the spread of modernity? His views on the Jews aren't that different from both Kant's and Hegel's (which aren't necessary any better but still, nothing uncommon here).

>>4723522
dope t

die hutte, schwarzwald usually what i dwell iiiin

>>4723106
>Why wouldn't you?
Because not everyone back then was a dumbass reactionary cunt looking for personal meaning in states, warfare, and/or racial identities.

>>4723674
>confirmed for knowing nothing about the interwar period

Ja sucken zie coch in Weimarstrasse ist gud, nein Zeitgeist bitte

>>4723677
Confirmed for being an illiterate ideologue. Par for the course, good job.

>>4723706
You're not an ideologue if you acknowledge that nationalism was normative in fucking late Weimar Germany, dummy. Nor in any other country what wasn't a liberal democracy with a centuries-old tradition of stability and social conservatism, or France. It's also the opposite of 'reactionary' since they were overwhelmingly revolutionary in character, palingenetic nationalists opposing the old authoritarian regimes where they still stood.

Also, protip: everyone was looking for meaning in racial identity. It was a worldwide fad among empires at the time. Every inch of discourse is laden with it. The US carried out sterilisation policies just like Germany, not to even speak of institutional racism against blacks.

>>4723376
not him, but I'm interested too

>>4723724
>everyone
Please don't include imperialist ideology into everyone's mind. There was always resistance.

>>4722257
Bolano knew all about that.

Who could deny themselves Ernst Junger and Evola?

>>4722257
excellent

>>4723748
Marx wasn't terribly proSemite, dude. Nietzsche's kind of less antiSemite in some ways.

>>4723810
Did you accidentally respond to the wrong post? It's both wrong and irrelevant.

>>4723815
No, I just read them both in large part. Which part do you think I got wrong?

>>4723376
>>4723734
Hey guys, sorry for my delay, but hopefully you'll check back in later. Anyway, Heidegger is a tough nut to crack, and honestly, if you want to understand him as you understand say Marx or Plato, you're in for a bad time, because, quite frankly as H's critics often shout: he doesn't really go anywhere. His style is exemplified by his own admission of this in his "Holzwege" (Forest paths that people meander on with no real goal other than the joy of the walk - H calls this feast of thinking regarding his own works). Keep that in mind when reading any Heidegger.

Most would say check out the Pre-Socratics, Plato, Aristotle, Duns Scotus, Nietzsche, etc. before attempting to crack Heidegger, but honestly...just give him a shot if you want, academic stuffy suggestions be damned. I'd say look into his " Basic Writings" collection, or perhaps "Introduction to Metaphysics."

If you want some good background on his life AND works I'd recommend "Martin Heidegger: Between Good and Evil" by Rüdiger Safranski. His writing style is fun and will be a great primer to H's interests, influences, and central ideas.

Hopefully that was of some help.

Not sure what the realdoll pasta is

>>4723462
>>4723632

Had another chuckle, thanks dudes.

>>4723748
There are plenty of critiques of Marx as an anti-Semite and a promoter of imperialism/racism/other -isms that are easy to label dead guys to make your thesis inspection board feel good.

>>4724053
thanks, that's super helpful. My biggest fear is how jargon-y he can get at times, does the biography you recommended get at any of that?

>>4724113
Yeah, I'd say that Safranski gives some insight to many of Heidegger's terminology. It's sort of a philosophical biography. The same author wrote a book on Schopenhauer that is also worth a read if you're into him.

>>4724113
Oh, also might want to check out Richard Polt's Heidegger: An Introduction, too!

>>4724053
Yes.

It is often that I've found myself at dinner with the fam , the droopy father sitting kitty corner to the perky, pent-up mother, who'd rush to my side, intent on giving my person 'huggles'. The attempt is deflected with a gimp oblong shrug, coupled with my shrieking howls, in flawless Shakespearean pentameter:

'DO NOT TOUCH ME YOU FILTHY FUCKING CA'

She pauses, horrified.

'SUAL! '

At this juncture, I'm generally given to retreating darkly to my basement, where shelved in a hue and pattern of an offset Serpinski triangle is my perpetually festering collection of dust-gathering hardbacks. I gaze at the collection; meta and non-metaphysically patrician in form and content. As I do so, I begin to feel the trouser snake emerge.

In heat, I unbury my Martin Heidegger Real Doll™ and wrap his continental lips around my throbbing member, cooing gently as his bushy liptuft tickles my pubis. Pumping furiously, I read from my perpetually open copies of Gravity's Rainbow and Infinite Jest with my left and right eyes, respectively. I stroke my braille copy of Ulysses with my right hand, guiding Heidi™ up and down with my left. I come furiously down his ravenous, hungry throat and pull out, looking deep into those soulful German eyes as we share a cigarette in post-coital bliss.

I tuck Heidi™ away and stare at my books, thinking maybe I should read one of them.

My mother shuffles into the room and pats me on the head, singing

'Hahaha, time for 4chan.

>>4724247
oh wow, it's pasta without the sauce

bump

>>4725326

Hold on for a while, we haven't been given what to think yet. The papers haven't said flat out that Heidegger should be rejected. When Der Spiegel comes up with an answer we shall relay it to you.

Wait a second, I'm confused. When Heidegger talks about "world Judaism" does he merely mean this in the same way that Nietzsche wrote about Judaism? As in, the entire genealogy of Christian morality, and not so much a race of people?

>>4725392
Context: Judiasm was the only faith that allowed money lending, which put them in the class of capitalism/merchantry before this became global.

At the time, they appeared to have magical powers almost. Read Gogol's "Taras Bulba" to get the full effect. Jews were wielding the market long before anyone else.

"World Judaism" really means capitalism.

In a way, I'm thankful for this hit piece. It will separate the men from the boys in academia. The line has been drawn.

>>4722257
>the garden of philosophically hating jews is the last great, uncultivated expanse remaining to modern scholarship
I enjoyed this, thank you.

>In Germany, one critic has argued that it would be "hard to defend" Heidegger's thinking after the publication of the notebooks, while another has already called the revelations a "debacle" for modern continental philosophy
Bwahahahahaha

>>4725392
No, Heidegger was a full blown Nazi.

There's nothing hidden or metaphorical about it, he's talking about the ZOG.

>>4724113
I am in your position too, so I don't mean to speak from a position of knowing but you can get lectures Hubert Dreyfus did on Being and Time online.

>>4724113
>thanks, that's super helpful
>super

Kill yourself.

>>4725548

Heidegger was a Nazi, but the way he wrote about "world Judaism" was not the way Goebbels wrote about Jews. No ZOG.

>>4725519
How do his personal, political views have any bearing on how one should estimate his analytic of Dasein, or his philosophy regarding the nature and origin of art, or of the nature of language and poeticizing?

Even if Heidegger kept a fucking journal full of slights and criticisms towards "world Judaism" while drawing little swastikas and moe Hitlers in the margins, what exactly would this do to discredit any of his philosophy?

You don't have to like or dislike Jews to have worthwhile thoughts on other things.

>>4724053
>If you want some good background on his life AND works I'd recommend "Martin Heidegger: Between Good and Evil" by Rüdiger Safranski.
>Safranksi
lol´d

>>4725581
Don't ask me, I was just laughing at those quotes. Probably young scholars trying to make a name for themselves. There are more measured 'who gives a shit?' reactions further down, fortunately.

>>4724053
Have you read Agamben's interpretation of Heidegger and why he affiliated with the nazi state? I saw it as a really good argument, but i need to read more of the early Heidegger to reallly understand it.

>>4725612
elaborato

>>4725612
Why is that a bad introductory suggestion?

>>4725612
Not exactly sure why you think this is a bad good. It's certainly flawed in some respects, but for someone just getting to know Heidegger it certainly is worth being in the quiver.

>>4725646
No, sorry. I haven't read that. Care to share? I've only ever engaged with Homo Sacer and Heidegger was sort of in the background of that work, although some folks on the American Heidegger scholar circuit state that Agamben is a sort of left Heideggerian, which is interesting.