/lit/ - Literature

>equates God with Being
One of Heidegger's fundamental principles is that Being is not a being--it is not an entity of some kind. So, equating Being with any entity--including God--is a manifestation of the Platonic tradition that he is trying to overcome. It is, in his view, one of the worst confusions in the Western tradition.

>He seemed to be a theist
He was't, in any traditional sense, although he was looking for a god of some kind.

>>6305872

kill the jews

>>6305909
I thought he was Catholic. I know pope Benedict is in his philosophical tradition.

>>6305995
>I know pope Benedict is in his philosophical tradition.
Never heard about that, care to elaborate?

>>6306012
He isn't a Thomist. He was influenced more by Heidegger and Hegel. Of course this may not be true, after all I heard it here.

>>6305995

He was raised Catholic but eventually rejected it:

>Epistemological insights extending to a theory of historical knowledge have made the system of Catholicism problematic and unacceptable to me, but not Christianity and metaphysics — these though in a new sense.

He has harsher things to say elsewhere about Christianity in general

>>6306035
>He isn't a Thomist
Thomism is pretty much dogma, so I doubt that.
>He was influenced more by Heidegger and Hegel
Again, this sounds interesting, especially given that Hegel was a protestant, but I'm asking you to back this up, or explain how statement of his are Heideggerian.

I've wondered the same thing, OP. People here claim the point of his philosophy is to open you to Being, not to analyze it, or something.

>>6306058
I haven't read any of those authors, I'm just telling you what other anons told me. Which is why I said it isn't necessarily true. I'd like to know more myself.

>>6306095
>I'm just telling you what other anons told me
Ok don't do that. Believing stuff people tell you on 4chan without looking for confirmation will make you retarded and might possibly cause penis cancer. Stay safe.

>>6306098
Honestly most of the stuff I've learned here was confirmed later by other sources.

>>6306102
>confirmation bias
>also, you probably already have caught the cancer
wouldn't want to be you, kid

>>6306102
Too many people spread memes about philosophy here (medieval phil is useless as one example) so I wouldn't trust it too much

>>6306117
>>6306126
It's of course taken with a grain of salt. But most of the stuff that I know about Foucault was learned here, turned out it was true. He really did want sweet, sweet boypussi

>>6306156
>But most of the stuff that I know about Foucault was learned here, turned out it was true.
And what you learned was...ah, yes
>He really did want sweet, sweet boypussi
Well if that is the one relevant fact to you, you're probably better of believing whatever people on a khazak goat cheese board tell you. Otherwie you'd have to read books, and we can't have that, can we?

>>6305872

The poster below you addresses one of the issues at stake; the Being that Heidegger is investigating is not a being or entity.

The other issue at stake is that he's not after Being either, and this gets confusing for a lot of people reading Heidegger in large part because of his formulations. But the question he's after is "What is the *meaning* of Being?", which, as he admits later in his life, is after the same matter as his later reformulations of that question, "What is the truth (unconcealment) of Being?" and "What is the place (topos) of Being?" What Being is is not what is at stake, but rather why beings have meaningful presence in our lives. I hope that helps.

>>6305995
He is very not religious.

especially in his work 'Being' insofar that he ever is able to talk about it is being-which-is-concerned-with-itself
which is Dasein.

Dasein is the only type of being he is ever able to interrogate, and thats not even completed in being and time. His later work was almost entirely in trying to organize a method or language to even proceed with the foreign-ness of what he was trying to describe.