/lit/ - Literature

[Anonymous No.11903761]

Was he right?

[Anonymous No.11903768]

>>11903761
He was alright

[Anonymous No.11903805]

he was not left

[Anonymous No.11903811]

no he was a fucking fascist retard

[Anonymous No.11903818]

>>11903811
That’s pretty right.

[Anonymous No.11903821]

>>11903811
Sounds right to me

[Anonymous No.11903826]

>>11903811
>liberals are less violent

[Anonymous No.11903833]

Amazing content, beautfiul thread. GROßARTIGKEIT!

[Anonymous No.11903842]

Can someone who understands Heidegger please explain what his overall meaning was?

I find him literally incomprehensible. Legitimately harder to understand than fucking Hegel.

[Anonymous No.11903866]

>>11903761
>>11903811
And was he right about it?

[Anonymous No.11903875]

>>11903842
You know there are libraries around you can investigate?
The central problem of Heidegger’s philosophy is the “problem of Being.” In his early work the investigation of Being is inseparably tied to Edmund Husserl’s phenomenology, though the differences between teacher and student were sufficient to cause uncomfortable friction between them. In his later work the problem of Being, although never openly theological, becomes increasingly tied to traditional religious themes. It is the earler work, particularly Being and Time, that influenced Sartre, Merleau-Ponty, and other existentialists. There, the investigation of Being begins with the study of “human Being”— “Da-sein,” or “Being-in-the-world.” Unlike Sartre, Heidegger does not begin his investigation with human consciousness, and the hyphenated “Being-in-the-world” is intended to warn us against “detaching” Da-sein from the world in which it finds itself. Neither does Heidegger have sympathy for the Cartesian Ego and the Cartesian separation of subject and object. The Ego, he argues, is “a merely formal indicator,” and the dualism of subject-object wrongly supposes that our “commerce” with the world is first of all to know it rather than to live in it. Accordingly, the identity of each Dasein (“the ‘who’ of Da-sein”) is to be found in a collective “they” (das Man) engaged in joint endeavors in the world rather than in the solipsistic Cartesian cogito. Da-sein consists of both its facticity (its being “thrown” into the world at this place at this tine) and Existenz (possibilities for personal choice). Da-sein can be authentic insofar as it breaks away from the “they” to seek its own possibilities, of which the most necessary is death. In in-authenticity, Da-sein falls back to the “they,” identifies itself with its facticity and ignores the possibility of its own death.In inauthenticity or fallenness, the search for authentic understanding becomes mere curiosity; philosophical discourse, mere die talk; thinking, mere calculation. Heidegger often insists that authenticity and inauthenticity are not ethical notions. (They are “ontological” or “descriptive”.) Yet Heidegger also insists that there is an intimate connection between how we describe ourselves (our ontology) and who we are (our ontic character). He say, for example, “Granted that we cannot do anything with philosophy, but might not philosophy . . . do something with us?’Heidegger has indeed avoided both ethical and political involvement, his apparent excursions into either as much a product of interpretation as intention."

[Anonymous No.11903881]

>>11903842
the being of the being of the being in the world at hand revealing itself to you in the readiness at hand encountering the unrediness at hand in the sign of the signalization for the first part

[Anonymous No.11903970]

Do things have Being outside of Dasein's interpretation of them? Dasein immediately comprehends objects as ready-at-hand, only caring about what use it can extract out of it. But these things are also present-in-the-world. Does this presence imply being outside the Dasein, just that Dasein does not care or know about it?

[Anonymous No.11903975]

>>11903761
No, he's german. They are never right

[Anonymous No.11904118]

>>11903970
It'd be great if well-read folks chipped in but this is what I've got. "Things" are classified as beings that proceed Being as a division into essents. Dasein is the pure infinite self that grounds all beings into mechanical contingent everyday experience, it relates to itself by ascribing a "what," but it's essential definition is unaccomplished. Things present-in-the-world are available to Dasein within time and a horizon of possibilities, they are present-in-the-world as essents in each instance to their being as their own, these make up the ontic "affairs" of Dasein, and the analytical structure of this kind of understanding "existentiality". Objects are ready-at-hand through existence itself, but Heidegger calls this process ontic-existentzial, as being a characterization of ontological existence.

[Anonymous No.11904128]

I think at least Heidegger was attuned to Parmenides much more than he to Plato, considering the world at a very low substrate and dismissing forms as a final reality

[Anonymous No.11904442]

>>11903761
nazipilled

[Anonymous No.11904449]

>>11904128
This, read Graham Harman