/lit/ - Literature

>>6493750
It should. To a point. Not that much. I mean it can be seen for Focault as a prism, he was not the most moral of men who liked to fuck men in the arse and give them a serious illness, it's clear why he would be into postmodernism.

Not all black people have AIDS you know.

>>6493750

>If an author denied The Holocaust

JIDF pls go.

FYI: Kant hated jews. Hume hated blacks. Rousseau did a bunch of horrible shit.

Luckily it isn't contagious.

>>6493776
Hume is a smart guy, blacks are subhuman.

>>6493776
>FYI: Kant hated jews. Hume hated blacks.
bretty reasonable :DDD

>>6493776
Kant also thought women couldn't be moral.

Good thing I'm not a retarded Kantian.

>>6493781
And back to /pol/ you go

>>6493785
that's the funniest fucking spurdo picture I've seen in a long time, well meme'd

>>6493790
Just because /pol/ doesn't like blacks doesn't mean you have to be a cuck, you contrarian faggot. How can you look at blacks in America and call them a reasonable, civilised people?

>>6493750
Why would anyone believe something that retarded? Knowing where they were coming from gives you a better idea of what they meant with their writing 100% of the time.

If you just mean "u shud read ther stuff even if tehy did or sed bad tihngs" that's a separate issue.

>>6493774
/pol/ pls go

>>6493827
>Why would anyone believe something that retarded? Knowing where they were coming from gives you a better idea of what they meant with their writing 100% of the time.

Well, anytime someone mentions that Beauvoir raped underage girls, it's swept under the rug with "LOOK AT HER IDEAS BRO, HER IDEAS!"

Doesn't it weaken one's philosophy if the philosopher in question didn't even take it seriously enough to practice it?

>>6493837
It does if its ethics

>>6493750
>If Foucault knowingly gave men AIDS
Why are you taking shots at Foucault? Is there any reason to suspect this?

>>6493837

Not sure. To give an example, Heidegger may have been a nazi, but that didn't prevent WW2 resistance fighters getting inspiration out of reading Being & Time.

>>6493750

A Philosophers ideas has nothing to do with his life, yes Nietzsche said that ad hominem is a valid criticism, but even under his philosophy he was not an ubermensch in the sense of a great artist or a leader of men.

Bad men can write great philosophy such as Heidegger and Carl Schmitt.

>talking about post-structuralism
>asks if an authors life should be considered.

>>6493847
It was a big rumour going around at the time that he had told his close friend that he was so upset about having AIDS that he "wanted to take as many people with him." His biographer mentioned it and said it was plausible but still "his ideas!"

>>6493846
And it usually is. Beauvoir wrote a brilliant tract against the oppression of women via patriarchal institutions such as marriage but then she oppressed women herself in ways that I'm not sure count as patriarchal but most definitely count as oppression.

No one wants to grapple with these problems and I think that's a loss.

>>6493847
yeah, he secretly new about AIDs before the first cases started to be studied

>>6493862

Hold on, we haven't established that it is a problem yet.

>>6493854
>but that didn't prevent WW2 resistance fighters getting inspiration out of reading Being & Time.

That's strange, because Heidegger's philosophy really is a glowing endorsement of Nazi paganism. Levinas realized this, but, again, most "scholars" think they can cover their ears anytime they read Heidegger and distill something completely empty of any Nazi-tendencies.

But if you're referring to Sartre and Beauvoir "getting inspiration" from Heidegger, they didn't understand his work and Heidegger was embarrassed at their interpretations.

>>6493862
>"wanted to take as many people with him."

That doesn't sound like the Michel I knew

>>6493872
> Because Heidegger's philosophy really is a glowing endorsement of Nazi paganism

I'm not referring to Sartre and Beauvoir, but I'd like some more information on this please. Could you maybe give me a few quotes on what Heidegger and Nazi paganism have in common?

>>6493869
I'm saying I knew Foucault, but I am saying that this is what his biographer wrote. If it were proven to be true, would it change anything to the way you read his texts? This is my question.

>>6493874
That's exactly what his biographer said.

>>6493750

The only time that taking the life into account changes the work is when the work has so much vagueness in it you need to color that vagueness with behaviors in order for it to have a fixed sense. The drive to examine the life to learn anything other than how the work is achieved, and how it might function within a personality, is a sign the work is fatally weak. You can arguably use the personality route to show that an embrace of the work results in an incomplete system, but many philosophers don't aim for completion, especially contemporary ones, and you can also argue, just as easily, that the author didn't live up to the work. Indeed, the best of the writer is often what come from the pen. Authors aren't saints.

>>6493872
When Wikipedia scholar run wild.

There's nothing central to Being and Time that has anything to do with "Nazi paganism" and I guarantee you'll be unable to make the connection using excerpts from the text.

If anything touches that kind of thing, it's in his later writings, but they veer from the project of Being and Time and can hardly be said to represent his overarching philosophy.

And Heidegger pretty much inspired every non-analytic philosopher of the 20th century.

By the way, thanks for contributing more lies and bullshit to the literature board. We totally need that.

>>6493862
Whenever someone's ideals don't line up with the reality of their actions, examining their life as a whole will help explain why that's the case.

>>6493862
>Beauvoir wrote a brilliant tract against the oppression of women via patriarchal institutions such as marriage

Marriage doesn't oppress women shitlady.

>>6493880
Basically, Jewish monotheistic culture is ruining the world, closing people off from "Being." It's not strictly Jews, it started with Plato, but Jewish thinking is a big problem for Heidegger.

He replaces it with this kitschy vision of the German worker who is at one with his land. He traces native German culture back to Greek and pre-socratic paganism and wants to see Germany to open a space in its culture for eco-polytheism. Germans naturally were good at this but then something happened and changed them from their native way of thinking and now they're closed off from Being.

He wrote a lot about the similarities between German language and Greek language for speaking about Being. He once said that only German, Greek and Sanskrit are real philosophical languages (Aryan pride worldwide, amirite?) Just compare Hitler's views on religion with that of Heidegger's. And Neo-Nazis who hate Christianity just because it's a Jewish desert religion and want to revive neo-Paganism.

Heidegger wasn't antisemitic in the sense that he hated actual Jews, just their culture and religion. There's a reason why he broke off from Husserl and not Arendt. The former was still too Jewish and the latter easily endorsed everything he said.

>>6493910
Not necessarily, you're right, as we can see with Beauvoir's own life and how she abused girls and laughed about it with Sartre.

>>6493933

Enough with your conspiracies, Heidegger is dead and his work hasn't been endorsed by any nazi movement

>>6493898
I'm absolutely correct though. He only broke off with the Nazis because he realized he couldn't be their philosopher King and they weren't doing what he wanted.

But never objected to Nazism morally and whenever people asked him to apologize he just said "I dindu nuffin, bother someone else." Look to the Der Spiegel interview. He's still adamant in the late 60s that democracy is bad and he's already critiqued Marx for forgetting Being.

What's left if not democracy or communism?

But liking Heidegger doesn't make you a Nazi, so don't feel bad, but he most definitely was one.

>>6493933
So in other words, he's a pantheist who wants to dissolve all notion of self and every other category into a pantheistic mist which he calls Dasein. Funny he calls German, Greek and Sanskrit the philosophical languages, because pantheism has seem to come out of these cultures naturally.

The ancient Israelite notion of separation from God, as man and God being separate identities; and the ancient Hindu notion of God as being everywhere and being identical to everything - yeah, this is the great divide.
The Pantheists have no real notion of evil and consequently have no notion of redemption. Without personal identity they have no real notion of love, as we know it, either.

>>6493933

But it's not the jews that closed off Being, it's -- like you said -- Plato and Aristotle. Why say that it's about Jewish monotheism when his argument isn't directed against any God/metaphysics, rather than just the Jewish one?

>>6493982

is*

>>6493750
>Wouldn't any separation of life/work just be a revisionist interpretation where we unconsciously try to explain away what we don't want to hear?
No, in fact its actually the inverse; as soon as you start reading their ideas in relation to their life, you begin actively looking for moments with which to either dismantle or support their own arguments. Its a process of an interpretation which inevitably and inexplicably alligns with the opinions you held in regards to the material long before you started looking at the author's life. It's a pointless exercise which does nothing but delude you even more into certainty

>>6493982
Because americans think that hating jews is the number one thing to be a nazi instead of a by product of the conditions in 1930's Germany, so if Heidegger was a nazi he had to hate jews and if he hated jews he had to be a nazi.

>>6493980
Christ's suffering on the cross just doesn't make sense to Pantheists. To them, every is as much on the cross as everyone else, as suffering is just a kind of byproduct of the universe that must be. This means that they have no notion of voluntary sacrifice.

>>6493980
>>6493949
Yes, because I don't expect /pol/ to read books.

Heidegger isn't an endorsement of the Holocaust, but it is an endorsement of Nazism and there's not enough of an ethical stance in his work to really come out against the Holocaust. So Heidegger and the ancient Greeks end up both sharing a pre-Judaic, anti-egalitarian ethics. H

Come on, man, Levinas understood this perfectly well.

Heidegger was Nietzsche who changed his mind about the Old Testament being better than Greek literature (Nietzsche's claim).

>>6493980
I wouldn't say he's a pantheist exactly. He's more like an atheist who thinks it's still good to convince people to believe in polytheism. And I agree that if we accept Heidegger we can't have Judeo-Christian morals.

>>6493982
> Plato and Aristotle
He's very sympathetic to Aristotle.
> Why say that it's about Jewish monotheism when his argument isn't directed against any God/metaphysics, rather than just the Jewish one?
Because Judeo-Christian monotheism is THE preserver of metaphysics. Heidegger can't really go around and tell people "stop believing in Plato" but he could say "stop believing in Judaism/Christianity" and it would be more direct. Plato is dead, Judeo-Christian worldview is not.

He recognized this anti-Judeo-Christian attitude in Nazism and went with it, big time.

>>6493980

Why would Heidegger be a pantheist? Heidegger's motivation of using the word Dasein, rather than 'human' or 'subject' is thathe thinks the latter carry too much philosophical baggage. It has nothing to do with him not believing in a self!

>>6493987
I agree with that, but the same can't be said for their context. Understanding the authors before him and the conditions in which he wrote expands the meaning of his discourse and helps dismantle things like strange tendencies the author had going against his philosophical work.

>>6493887
no. I would find him more interesting if anything. I don't let it affect any of the things he said though.

>>6494005
I feel the same way, actually. Am I "perverse?"

Why would you discredit someone for the things he did when informed he was about to die a horrible dead? If anything he retained more morality than a lot of people would. If I were to find out that I have AIDS and that we have gone back to a time in which there was no kind of treatment I would go out and start shooting people or something.

>>6493980
>>6493992
In the beginning was the Word (Logos).

- this is the most anti-pantheistic statement, because the Word is something that can be known, heard; and immediately the distinction between truth and lie, good and evil, is implied. Goethe in his Faust has trouble with this, and modifies it to, "In the beginning was the Act", which is much more in accord with pantheism which would like to dissolve everything into an unutterable nothingness without distinctions. This is also more in accord with ancient paganism which puts primordial Chaos as the source of everything, as opposed to "In the beginning was the Word" which puts Order/Reason as the source. If in the beginning there was the Act than that means that the first act was without order/reason/purpose, "it just was".

The pantheist will always end up asking, "what is truth?" To him it'll just be another needless distinction, a category of thought that can be disposed of to make room for the primordial nothingness. This is why a pantheist has no notion of love in the Christian sense, because that would require you to make a distinction and acknowledge someone and their suffering as real.

check this foo fighters song
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=h_L4Rixya64
"It's real / the pain you feel" - that's a Christian sentiment. Pain is an illusion is the pantheist notion, and that's why, as I said above, the suffering on the cross makes no sense whatsoever to pantheists.

>>6493898
what about black notebooks?

relying on the genetic fallacy this much might be an instance of the fallacy fallacy

>>6493999
well you can just look at the wikipedia article on Dasein which states

"In harmony with Nietzsche's critique of the subject, as something definable in terms of consciousness, Heidegger distinguished Dasein from everyday consciousness in order to emphasize the critical importance "Being" has for our understanding and interpretation of the world.

"This entity which each of us is himself…we shall denote by the term “Dasein”" (Heidegger, trans. 1927/1962, p.27).[3]

"[Dasein is] that entity which in its Being has this very Being as an issue…" (Heidegger, trans. 1927/1962, p.68).[3]"

>In harmony with Nietzsche's critique of the subject

this refers to Nietzsche saying that there is no speaker behind the speech, no noun behind the verb - there is just "the act", without an actor.

German pantheism goes back to Eckhart, I think.

>>6493998
> He's very sympathetic to Aristotle

Heidegger is sympathetic to Aristotle, but it's nonetheless Aristotle that forgot Being when he didn't include Being in the megista gene of his Metaphysics. It's pretty well established that it was Heidegger's reading of Aristotle (inspired by Brentano) that led him to write Being & Time.

> Judeo-Christian monotheism

Wait, I thought you were talking about judaism before? I'm not sure what turning against the judeo-Christian has to do with nazism, there are tons of philosophers after Nietzsche that turn against this tradition.. I honestly don't see what any of this has to do with antisemitism.

>>6494061

Oh come on, you can't seriously be quoting Wikipedia! It doesn't even have any quotes that actually establish this.

Also, even if Heidegger, like Nietzsche, wanted to criticise a 'subject defined by consciousness,' how does that mean imply there is no self? Again, Heidegger doesn't say this..

>>6494080

m̶e̶a̶n̶ *

>>6493750
>Do you believe 100% that an author's life should never be taken into account when examining their ideas?

no but, you should approach some author's lives with caution.

>>6494066
> I'm not sure what turning against the judeo-Christian has to do with nazism,

Read more about Nazism, their philosophy and their practice. You're clueless.

>>6494041

interesting, where I can read more about this dichotomy?. It seems like a problem that goes behind the texts

>>6494004
Oh, of course its perfectly acceptable to establish a genealogy of ideas, but I always find bringing the author themselves into it is a dangerous game, because then you're interpreting a historical narrative as opposed to interrogating a philosophical text. It becomes less about the ideas but rather how the author implemented or failed to implement their ideas into their life.

>>6494127

Read my whole post again. I didn't say nazism doesn't turn against the judeo-Christian tradition -- it does. What I did say was that it clearly isn't a defining feature of nazism, but rather something that many 20th century philosophers share after Nietzsche. So again, how does that make Heidegger's philosophy an instance of nazism?

>>6493801
How can you look at some people in Baltimore and take that as representative of all blacks in America?

You might as well look at whites in a trailer park and pose the same question. How can you look at whites in America and call them a reasonable, civilized people?

The long standing double standard in America has been that whites should be judged as individuals, while the failings of individual blacks are taken to speak for the whole of blacks.

Please go back to /pol/ and take your meme words like cuck with you.

>>6494176
Read MY whole post again. I'm not even getting into Heidegger's own diaries, which is literally /pol/.

Heidegger and the Nazis share:
> anti-JudeoChristian
> pro-German paganism
> romanticizing of German workers (remember, Nazi = Nationalist Socialist Worker's Party)
> idealizations of Germans as inheritors of ancient Greek culture
> anti-egalitarian ethics (or at the very least, cannot establish a universal or even clear ethics)

Now read some more about Nazi philosophy and their policies/ethics.

>>6494250
so they shared elements unrelated to actual fascism?

>>6494268
> unrelated to actual fascism?

You're getting desperate here in order to preserve Heidegger.

You can't read Being and Time and end up with liberal democracy or Marxist communism. They're simply not compatible with his philosophy.

The only reason we ignore this is because Heidegger's descendants make no claims about politics as they are completely stuck in aporia.

>>6494250

I've read plenty about nazism, thanks. I'm just not convinced by your points. Your argument, as it stands, basically runs:

1) Heidegger turns against Western judeo-Christian culture (which at the beginning of the discussion was judaism, but let's forget about that).
2) The nazis turn against Western judeo-Christian culture.
3) Ergo, Heidegger and the nazis are the same.

That's a shitty argument, because if you replace the name 'Heidegger' with 'Derrida,' it would follow that he, too, was a nazi. I'm not even disagreeing with whatever you take nazism to be (which is why it makes no sense for you to tell me to read more about it), I'm disagreeing with the conclusions you draw from it.

On your other points:
* How is Heidegger a 'pagan' if he doesn't believe in god(s)?
* I actually agree with you that Heidegger is wrong when he emphasises German language/culture, I just don't think that's at all crucial to his general philosophy (i.e. the problematic of Being).
* The points about workers and anti-egalitarian ethics are strange. For one, Heidegger thinks the return to the openness of being cannot be reached through instrumental reason (i.e. through labour). He likes poets, not labourers. Second point, Heidegger doesn't propose anti-egalitarian ethics anywhere. I agree that Heidegger doesn't propose a clear ethics. Then again, that's because (as he says in Being & Time), he's interested in ontology, not ethics. But this latter point has nothing to do with nazism.


I agree with the stuff about the notebooks, Heidegger was probably a pretty horrible person in his private life, perhaps most charitably a starry-eyed follower of nazism. Just not really convinced that has anything to do with his philosophy of Being.

>>6494294

What, specifically, in Being and Time contradicts democracy?

>>6493872
>levinas realized this
Proofs, I know you're full of shit

>>6494327
Have you read Levinas? Dude's entire career is saying that Heidegger's philosophy amounts to paganism (Levinas was a Jewish theologian) and is un-ethical, allowing for things like the Holocaust to happen and then turns Heidegger on his head by using his phenomenology to say that ethics precedes ontology and therefore monotheism is true.

I know YOU'RE full of shit because anyone who has read Levinas knows this.

>>6494339
You're retarded and don't know what you're talking about. Fortunately for you: you're unable to give examples, but still claim you're right by letting your autism go wild

>>6494348
That's your counter-argument?

> Y-YOU'RE WRONG BECAUSE YOU'RE WRONG AND AUTISTIC

Read a fucking book.

>>6493962
I said that I guaranteed you would be able to link any text from Being and Time to Nazism and what do you know, I was right. I never denied that Heidegger was a Nazi, but you claimed that his philosophy was a "glowing endorsement" for "Nazi paganism" as a response to somebody mentioning resistance fighters finding inspiration in Being and Time. But everything you've written about (sorry, everything you've regurgitated that someone else wrote about) came from writings much later than Being and Time that veer off the philosophical project of Being and Time. But even in those writings, the connection isn't as strong as to say his overarching philosophy is a "glowing endorsement."

>>6494045

This is a good article on the subject:

http://lareviewofbooks.org/review/king-dead-heideggers-black-notebooks

>>6494353
Unfortunately for you, I've read everything by levinas. You're full shit, you fucking autist.

>>6494355
>you would be

wouldn't*

>>6494356
> Y-YOU'RE W-WRONG BECAUSE I READ ALL THE BOOKS AND I KNOW YOU'RE WRONG AND AUTISTIC

Are you on drugs?

>>6494363
Kill yourself my man

>>6494356
Can you tell me a bit more about Levinas then? Correct me where I'm wrong.

the ideas they present in their work, even if informed by their actions, are separate. their ideas are logically independent. 2+2=4 even if the guy who does the math is a dick.

>>6494339
Wouldn't the intelligent thing to do after reading Levinas on Heidegger be to read Heidegger instead of just mindlessly and sloppily regurgitating Levinas? That is, if you want to participate in the discussion about Heidegger.

Their lives might provide context for how they came to their views. But it doesn't render those views more valid or less valid

>>6494379
Can you tell me anything about Levinas?

>>6493750
Keeping identity attached to idea makes it a thousand times easier for people to moralize and ignore the idea.

>>6494391
No, I've never read him. But if I had read *about* him via another writer, I wouldn't feel adequately informed to come into a thread and writing so flippantly about him.

>>6493750
Of course not, but a complete shit can still say something correct because the statement is correct by itself.

>>6493781
>implying by "subhuman" you don't simply want to say sub-white and your comment should not be considered in intellectual discussion as you yourself have the faintest idea of what it actually means to be human.

>>6494408
Did I hurt your Dasein's feelings?

>>6494429
Is this really all that was underneath all of your Levinas regurgitation?

>>6493750
>If an author denied The Holocaust

Oh my word, there comes the most dastardly of crimes known to man. Yes, there, right *there,* is the crime of crimes, worthy only of being mentioned alongside the knowing giving of AIDS to involuntary receivers. For there is absolutely nothing to the research of Holocaust. It is done, for all eternity, perfect history, a shimmering Perfect Form of which we must be reminded for all eternity, lest another 6 Million Jews (tm) be systematically murdered and made into disappearing human ash, soap and lampshades.

>>6493776

Nietzsche found antisemites preposterous double standard living mongrels, so

>>6494820

it was kind of a dick move though, I mean really

>>6494820

*tips fedora*

>>6493757
Thread should have ended here.

>>6494834
>Naming yourself for a degenerate pozzie spreader
>calling others tippers

No, no that doesn't work, friend.

>>6494899

It was in the first beginings of AIDS when people didn't know the potential A), and B) The total response to AIDS by the CDC was a rwell recognized failure C), D) AIDS is not a joke, it took over a decade to be taken as seriously as it should have, and killed far too many people, and E) naming yourself after someone who actually had sex isn't as Tip as having a trip, say Evola.

>>6493750

Absolutely. You are already in a world when you start thinking, and you can just think about the world.