Is he right?

[Anonymous No.11372587]

Should we disregard German / Continental philosophy on the basis of it's origin?

[Anonymous No.11372589]

what

[Anonymous No.11372609]

no

[Anonymous No.11372612]

>>11372587
Nah that would be throwing out the baby with the bathwater, but I' not gonna begrudge somebody for choosing not to read Heidegger because of his political affiliations and apparent unrepentance. That's a totally defensible position to take.

[Anonymous No.11372619]

>>11372587
i try not to hate too much but that fucking face just gets me going

[Anonymous No.11372651]

>>11372587
I have no idea why this guy is popular.

[Anonymous No.11372660]

is this guy really seen as an intellectual of some sort ?

[Anonymous No.11372661]

>>11372587
this stupid cunt doesn't even know how to pronounce 'Foucault'

[Anonymous No.11372667]

>>11372660
yeah, lit-tier 'intelekshul' neckbeardo blogger

[Anonymous No.11372670]

>>11372661
My Kull Fow Kalt

[Anonymous No.11372674]

>>11372651
really dumb like being talked down to by people slightly smarter than them.

[Anonymous No.11372686]

>>11372587
source? where does he say this?

[Anonymous No.11372707]

>>11372651
British accent, long videos, has all of the trappings of "intelligent" content without needing any substance. His fans get to flatter themselves that they are watching stuff that's a cut above the "Sam Harris Actually Cripples Six Year Old SJW with Vicious Logic Piledriver" because they expend more effort not so shut off his boring two hour videos. But actually the work they have to do isn't intellectual work, it's just being able to endure boredom, which is what stupid people think intellectual work basically is.

It's why I've got infinitely more respect for the retards watching the really trashy anti-SJW content like cringe compilations than the ones who actually sit through two hour long videos about the same things but don't even promise the catharsis of the trashy cringe vids.

[Anonymous No.11372730]

>>11372612
Still, I'd like some reasoning as to exactly why though. I know a lot of people have argued this case, but simply "I'm not reading any nazi writings" and nothing else is pretty stupid.

[Anonymous No.11372741]

>>11372730
It's the same issue with Freud. Taking Heidegger's thought seriously (not only his, but Nietzsche's "branch" as a whole) is a threat to anglo-saxion worldviews, so they prefer to create entire cathedrals of glass than deal with thinkers who might cause a problem for the retarded pragmatic protestantism they expouse (not to mention burger exceptionalism, which is also why they think Marx was LITERALLY Hitler).

[Anonymous No.11372779]

>>11372730
Sure, no problem. Although you may disagree with this argument on meta-ethical grounds it goes something like this:

"Nazism is a force of tremendous evil and destruction in the world. It is a toxic ideology devoid of meaningful intellectual merit. For a well-studied and experienced philosopher to fall into this ideology or maintain sympathies with it betrays some essential flaw in his thinking. The writings of a flawed thinker are likely to be flawed themselves, being that they are a product of flawed thought. Therefore, I am justified in my decision to skip Heidegger."

I skipped some steps so some of those assertions are left as axioms, but that's the basic idea. Personally, I don't agree with it on the grounds that a blind squirrel finds a nut every once in a while and a compromised philosopher might still have a decent ideas among the chaff. On here you'll see a lot of people disagreeing with the idea that Nazism isn't an evil ideology, but I disagree with that. But the thought process is solid enough that I'd never deride somebody for it. Adorno and Luc Ferry both believed it, among others.

[Anonymous No.11372785]

>>11372779
>disagreeing with the idea that Nazism isn't an evil ideology

Meant "is"

[Anonymous No.11372795]

Is liberalistism still a thing?

[Anonymous No.11372799]

This guy is a stupid shithead

[Anonymous No.11372819]

>>11372795
Noy sure, but dyslexia sure is

[Anonymous No.11372830]

>>11372612
>People who are too retarded/emotional sensible to seperate author and work should be respected

[Anonymous No.11372854]

>>11372830
See
>>11372779

[Anonymous No.11372952]

>>11372854
>People do wrong so all of their works are wrong

[Anonymous No.11372992]

>>11372587
I'd disregard Akkad first.

[Anonymous No.11373015]

>>11372707
My favorite Akkad moment was when a guy made a 30 minute response video to one of his 4 hour monstrosities and Akkad's comment was "can't you summarise this under 5 minutes?"

[Anonymous No.11373036]

>>11372587
Was he saying he saying German idealism or German philosophy altogether? He's a cuck anglo. This is their way of discovering the racial myth. He's an absolute moron ignore him

[Anonymous No.11373042]

>>11372952
>ignoratio elenchi

The point of the criticism is that his sincerely held beliefs cast reasonable doubt on the value and quality of his philosophy.

To draw an analogy, imagine that an astronomer insisted frequently that they sincerely believed that the moon was made of Havarti, despite all evidence and his peers' conclusions contradicting him. Then this cheese-believing astronomer proposes a radical new theory regarding the arrangement of the Milky Way and which forces allow for that arrangement. It's interesting stuff, a pretty compelling concept. But many skeptics in the field ask "Isn't that the guy who thinks the moon is a cheese ball?", and they 'wouldn't be wrong to do so.

Now in the case of Heidegger the skeptics case is even stronger, because we're dealing with ontology and not something one can observe through a telescope and be vindicated.

[Anonymous No.11373043]

>>11372587
That's like throwing the bathwater with the baby still in it

[Anonymous No.11373044]

I think he's arguing with a bit too much pathos and not enough logos. I wonder if hes even read Locke. I would destroy him with the Socratic method.

[Anonymous No.11373073]

>>11373015
>>11372587

It's all just lowbrow political commentary in order to get shekel donations via patreon, so I'd take anything he says with a grain of salt. I wonder what his annual earnings look like.

[Anonymous No.11373089]

>>11372741
Good post, agree with everything you said.

>>11372779
As long as this is sincere, then I don't need the argument to be convincing. Anyone who believes this has articulated a reason not to get into Heidegger. I accept that. I'd only find it worth arguing if I thought it was conceiling some other motive like fear or simply lack of effort (which would also be fine, just be upfront) but since enough people are studying Heidegger I'd leave it up to others to ignore him if they will.

If he was routinely ignored by academia all over the world for this reason it'd be a different story.

[Anonymous No.11373100]

is that fatgob of cukkad?

[Anonymous No.11373104]

All philosophy after the 13th century was a mistake.

[Anonymous No.11373114]

>>11373044
somebody post the 'im about to destroy the discipline of history with the socratic method, there goes another helpless group of academics muahahaha'

[Anonymous No.11373119]

>>11372741
'thought' lol

[Anonymous No.11373130]

>>11373036
are you german btw? I knnow a few Duestchies who have degrees and say that kinda stuff isnt studied anymore and a lot of German academics would be embarrassed to be in any way linked with the 'musing' obscurantist philosophers and such. Is that your experience too?

[Anonymous No.11373148]

>>11373089
it'd help if we knew where youre from
>ignored by academia all over the word
Remember most of the world doesn't have academics. There are rich European countries with nothing even resembling a college system.

[Anonymous No.11373161]

>>11373130
>doesn't know the 'musings' of Nietzchke would bring the whole anglosphere, the scientific revolution and the modern world in general crumbling to its knees if it were widely read

[Anonymous No.11373190]

>>11372587
>implying Quadroon of Mossad has even read Loki let alone an actual continental

[Anonymous No.11373317]

>>11373044
I wonder if he has ever read a book to be honest. I wonder if you had actually.

[Anonymous No.11373326]

>>11373317
Yeah because people who read books could never be stupid.

[Anonymous No.11373375]

>>11372587
Threadly reminder that this faggot got BTFO'd by an unironic neo-nazi.

[Anonymous No.11373427]

>>11372651
Insecure, young males from America require an intellectual to articulate their views for them, but they couldn't find an intellectual to do that, so they did the next best thing and just followed someone with a British accent, which, for some reason, has intelligent connotations.

[Anonymous No.11373437]

>>11372651
He appeals to a market of fat neckbeards that look and sound exactly like him

[Anonymous No.11373536]

>>11372587
Please don't post filthy e-celebs on my board, thank you

[Anonymous No.11374421]

>>11372779
Lmao, Heidegger didn't fall into the "trap" of some evil intellectual void of Nazism. He was noted for being far more extreme and far more of an iconoclast than any of them. I agree that fascism is often devoid of any intellectual merit, but Heidegger wasn't. He always seemed like a man who was only using others around him for his own gain, like writing and studying theology for a monastery when he wasn't really a devout Christian himself.

If I were an upcoming avant-garde philosopher, I would have no qualms with abusing some brutish fascists for my own gain, all while betraying their belief (like when he fucked Arendt)

[Anonymous No.11374472]

>>11372779
You can literally use this argument against every major ideology that has held power throughout history to justify disregarding every philosopher. This line of thinking is fundamentally against the search for understanding and is extremely toxic in it's ideological zealotry.
If anyone actually believes this, they're an evil person.

[Anonymous No.11374522]

>>11374472
>extremely toxic in it's ideological zealotry.
>If anyone actually believes this, they're an evil person.

Now who's the zealot? And the argument rests on the commonly held belief that Nazism is the most singularly evil ideology to ever achieve a modicum of political acceptance and influence. I mean one of its core tenants was extermination and it's pretty uncontroversial to regarding murdering innocents as evil. The arguments for this are many and one could fill a library with books on the subject, so if you're not willing to accept that the idea has merit then you've already betrayed the fact that you're not interested in discussion. Hell, this is pretty much "I won't talk to you unless you admit socialism, liberalism, collectivism, etc. are just as bad as Nazism"- the post. It sounds a like like Nazi apologist speak because it clearly is.

So you know, sort yourself out and all that.

[Anonymous No.11374608]

>>11374522
>one of its core tenants was extermination
No, it wasn't. The extermination of the Jews was the result of it's core tenet of viewing the Nation as Body. The Jews were acting in a way that was perceived by the Nazis as 'viral' and thus dangerous to the German 'National Body' and thus the genocide was carried under an ideological justification - just like all other genocides throughout history. The Nazis didn't kill the Jews because they just really hated Jews they killed them as a means to created the ideal German nation.
To make the Nazis more evil than their contemporaries you have to paint their motivations in a childish and propagandized way that's not representative of what they actually thought - which is the reason that they are so hated by you.

Also, you seem more like the one who's not interested in having a discussion seeing how you'd rather just call me a "Nazi" after setting up that there's no reason to talk to or read "Nazis".

[Anonymous No.11374630]

>>11373375
t. neo nazi

[Anonymous No.11374633]

>>11372587
I don't think he has ever said this.

[Anonymous No.11374637]

>>11372707
this

[Anonymous No.11374652]

>>11374630
Have his 'debates' with Spencer and Anglin? Sargon looked like an absolute mongoloid. He didn't even know who Heidegger was, said Hegel should be banned, and his only argument was basically "Any form of collectivism will kill millions and if you believe in society you're a Communistic Islamo-Nazi SJW"

[Anonymous No.11374657]

>>11374652
*Have you seen his 'debates'

[Anonymous No.11374667]

>>11372651
You wouldn't ask the same about someone like Cenk Uygur

[Anonymous No.11374676]

>>11374667
Yes I would

[Anonymous No.11374691]

>>11374630
Cultured thug did a very good scholarly rebuttal of sargon on National Socialism and Vox Day

[Anonymous No.11374698]

Threads about YouTube philosophers should be an autoban.

[Anonymous No.11374757]

>>11372612
No it’s not. Imagine your favourite piece of philosophy, the one that ‘really made you think(Tm)’. Now picture another world where that same author is a nazi but the text is unchanged. Has the message/essence of this work suddenly changed? Of course it hasn’t, it’s still worthwhile to you. Stop being such a baby and assuming that reading something written by a naughty evil person will turn you into a naughty evil person.

[Anonymous No.11374774]

No

[Anonymous No.11374779]

>>11372651
>moderately intelligent, moderately well-informed guy with a good voice making long but approachable youtube content
it's really not that hard to see why he became popular

[Anonymous No.11374783]

>>11373015
If you're talking about HBomberguy, he was doing a constructed, scripted response to an unscripted, informal livestream and still took 30 minutes to make a complete non-argument, as he is quite well known to do.
Not defending Sargon but HBomberguy is honestly a fucking idiot

[Anonymous No.11374785]

>>11374779
Hi, Carl. How's your wife dinosaur doing?

[Anonymous No.11374786]

>>11374774
This picture is more embarrassing than Akkad

[Anonymous No.11374789]

>>11373375
You only believe this if you agree with Richard Spencer
to everyone else that """debate""" looked like a mess of retarded shouting where nothing was accomplished other than Sargon getting pissed at Internet Bloodsports

[Anonymous No.11374794]

>>11374785
>anything that doesn't condemn sargon by hyperbole must be sargon
c'mon man

[Anonymous No.11374795]

>>11374786
>>11374789
Carl, stop spamming the thread.

[Anonymous No.11374799]

>>11374795
>can't even nail down the guy actually samefagging the thread
c'mon man

[Anonymous No.11374849]

>>11372651
Militant centrist

[Anonymous No.11374862]

>>11374691
Literal fascist.

[Anonymous No.11374889]

>>11374862
And?

[Anonymous No.11374900]

>>11372795
I think he dropped the idea when there was the huge blowback over the name being so stupid and when other people in that "sphere" realized that just joining an existing political party and using their audience and voice to drive its platform was a way more sensible solution than engineering a whole new political party.

[Anonymous No.11374915]

>>11374783
I don't use this word lightly but Hbomberguy has had his brain rotted out by s o y.

[Anonymous No.11374924]

>>11374783
If I could stand watching him for more than a few minutes I might find the clip where he seriously tries to argue that Sargon is an alt-right Nazi because some of those people watch his videos.

[Anonymous No.11374935]

>>11374900
He has been doing it for the last year or whatever, that's what his events have been about.

[Anonymous No.11374946]

How do any of you people watch these morons? Sargon, Molyneux, Peterson, whatever, they're all fucking stupid and for brainlets. I can't listen to anything they say without feeling dumber. Do you people also move your lips when you read? I thought this board was intelligent?

[Anonymous No.11374966]

>>11374946
i listen them to have my lobster serotonin hierarchical boost

[Anonymous No.11374980]

>>11374946
t. "160 IQ" Boomer

[Anonymous No.11375071]

>>11372587
Why are you giving this con-man any notice?

[Anonymous No.11375147]

>>11374862
There is Nothing wrong about being a literalist well read Fascist.

[Anonymous No.11375427]

>>11375147
This. Cultured Thug is more well read than everybody in this thread combined.
>https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2_CTdqJhyUI&t=

[Anonymous No.11375467]

>>11375427
Is that the one with the Dragon Ball stuffed animals?

[Anonymous No.11376437]

>>11373148
Help with what? I got the answer I was looking for and I made my point.

I'm from Sweden orginally but I've lived in France for a long time.

[Anonymous No.11376457]

>>11374757
>Imagine your favourite piece of philosophy, the one that ‘really made you think(Tm)’. Now picture another world where that same author is a Nazi but the text is unchanged. Has the message/essence of this work suddenly changed?
Uh, yeah. That's like thinking Buddhism would've made sense if Buddha had lived like Genghis Khan.

[Anonymous No.11376461]

>>11375427

>only in-group readings, no attempt to broaden horizon
>nothing interesting to say about any of the books (just "i like it", "i dont like it")

[Anonymous No.11376498]

>>11374774
Looks more like dillacunty. Besides, it's been years since he criticised a 'bedroom feminist.'

[Anonymous No.11376572]

>>11372660
only by other le big brained centrists

[Anonymous No.11376618]

>>11372779
In the same manner, I refuse to read to read Nietzsche because of his excessive fruit consumption, Marx because he advocated murder, and Kant because he would cocoon himself in his bed sheets. Those are the actions and beliefs of flawed thinkers.

[Anonymous No.11376660]

>>11374472
Wanting to understand Heidegger's thoughts and ever considering adopting them or that they might have merit are different things. Lots of people who aren't Nazis have studied Nazi thought in order to understand it.
>>11374608
>you necessarily have to kill anyone you don't think is fit to live in your nation based on any metric you can think of
>extermination isn't a core tenet though since a nation could be completely homogenous to begin with

[Anonymous No.11376857]

>>11376618
>Nietzsche because of his excessive fruit consumption, Marx because he advocated murder, and Kant because he would cocoon himself in his bed sheets

Now again, we're missing the point here. Imagine if Nietzsche was a Trappist monk, or if Marx was a factory owner with no plans to renounce his own means of production, or if Kant frequently lied if he thought it would work out better in the long run. Regarding Heidegger, we're discussing a man who wrote extensively on what it is to be and what it is to be human. So either his system of belief allowed for the extermination of the infirm and of different races, or he acted in conflict with his beliefs. Additionally he disregarded his own avowed faith in truth, as he conceived of it, by never revealing his thoughts and feelings on the Nazi party after the war had ended.

Plus here's a quotation from one of his students
>"my opinion was that his taking the side of National Socialism was in agreement with the essence of his philosophy.
>Heidegger told me unreservedly that I was right and developed his idea by saying that his idea of historicity was the foundation for his political involvement."

So there it is, straight from the horse's mouth. A direct statement that his support of the Nazi party was directly antecedent to his philosophy. So given that we're all good folks who want to avoid the promulgation of Nazi ideology on ethical and meta-ethical grounds, it is sensible to say that this is grave issue with his philosophy.

I study Heidegger, and am primarily interested in continental philosophy. This view of totally disavowing his work is not my own. But to claim that there is no valid support for taking this view is fallacious and wrongheaded.