Heidegger: Worst Philosopher of the 20th century?

[Anonymous No.14672737]

>what if like ... things ... revealed-themselves-to-us and we saw-things-like-poets that i shall call poet-seeing
whoah
why do philosophers not think this guy is some sort of pre-krautrock buddhist hippy?

[Anonymous No.14672933]

>>14672737
Leland have bigger balls than OP hahaha

[Anonymous No.14673066]

>>14672737
why did he have an affair with hannah arendt if he he hated jews?

[Anonymous No.14673417]

so THAT’S heidegger’s philosophy? guess im not really missing out on much?

[Anonymous No.14673425]

poet vision real semantic hours

[Anonymous No.14673433]

>>14672737

[Anonymous No.14673436]

>>14673066
The allure of khazar milkers was simply too strong for his völkisch Aryan soul to resist

[Anonymous No.14673439]

He is just rural Kant.

[Anonymous No.14673447]

>>14673066
Jewish women love antisemitic writers. It is the ultimate thrill.

[Anonymous No.14673458]

>>14672737
this poet seeing actually sounds interesting
is heidegger really like this?

[Anonymous No.14673469]

>>14673066
Why did he dedicate his principal philosophical work to Edmund Husserl if he hated jews?

[Anonymous No.14673471]

>>14673439
Which is better.
Plus he's better.

[Anonymous No.14673473]

>>14672737
Possibly a very overrated philosopher (also because he's often considered one of the greatest in the past 200 years), nonetheless an important figure in the history of metaphysics (even though he tried to get done with metaphysics). Imo it's better to read his early work as a historical critique of the development of Western philosphy. Heidegger is someone who profundly understood the course of Western metaphysics since the presocratics, and especially the swerve it took after Plato. From this understanding sprung the identification of what he viewed as a fundamental mistake (the metaphysical, or if you will ontic turn taken by Plato) and consequently the deduction of a possible alternate course for Western philosophy.

You have to admit it is pretty impressive: not only to unearth a clear image of Western metaphysics as a whole, but to single out and caracterize an early turning point and, in light of this characteriation, offer an alternative route that could have been taken after that point, and a way to right the course now, two thousand and a half years after the fact. That requires, if nothing else, a genuine erudition and a degree of independent thinking many thinkers cannot even dream of.

That said yes, the man is deeply flawed and ultimately disappointing, both in person and in philosophy, and especially in his later years. But I invite everyone itt not to dismiss his contribution so hastily. You can probably learn from him.

[Anonymous No.14673478]

>>14673473
What do you find disappointing about him philosophically?

[Anonymous No.14673481]

>>14673469
Husserl was his mentor, but when the nazi rose to power Heidegger manoeuvered to remove him from his chair for his own carrerist benefit (and offered very little in the way of apology and reparations afterwards). Heidegger was a solid thinker but a pretty shitty collegue, among other things.

[Anonymous No.14673487]

>>14673447
I wonder how much Jewish pussy Kevin MacD is swimming in

[Anonymous No.14673494]

>>14673478
His later philosophy offer very little but a weird form of quietism where you're essentially the tool of a historical process (not in the same sense as in Hegel, but still in the end it's little different from historicism). Not only is it underwhelming as it proposes nothing nor doesn't solve anything, it provides a very convenient cop out for his behavior under the Third Reich. You could say somewhat uncharitably that in the end his innate provinciallism got the better of him. I think Habermas describes it quite well in the chapter he dedicates to Heidegger in his Philosphical Discourse on Modernity.

Also let's be honest, in hindsight, describing Hitler as the incarnation of Dasein sounds very ridiculous (closer to hilarious than offensive, really).

[Anonymous No.14673495]

>>14673473
>claims to be le poetic wise man
>can't comprehend that when Plato refers to Being as a being it's only a manner of speaking
yeah, "genius" philosopher right there. Plato was 1000x the poetic thinker

[Anonymous No.14673496]

>>14673473
>You can probably learn from him.
what can we learn?

[Anonymous No.14673497]

>>14673481
>kicks out long time friend, colleague and mentor to get a better position
>shitty colleague
sounds pretty based to me desu.

[Anonymous No.14673498]

>>14673494
What does it mean to be the "incarnation of Dasein"?

[Anonymous No.14673502]

>>14673497
pure, raw, WILL TO POWER

[Anonymous No.14673504]

>>14673494
>Also let's be honest, in hindsight, describing Hitler as the incarnation of Dasein sounds very ridiculous
Kek, from what little I know about Dasein how exactly did he reason that?

[Anonymous No.14673506]

>>14673502
>>14673497
more like a car salesman's version of will-to-power. what a petty thing to do

[Anonymous No.14673509]

>>14673502
No no no, WILL TO BEING.

[Anonymous No.14673535]

>>14673495
I think he was objecting to the very metaphor as symptomatic of a wrong (in his idea) way of engaging with Being. But the interpretation of Plato's metaphysics isn't a settled matter anyway, so who knows.


>>14673497
In an opportunistic sense perhaps, but that kind of bloodless character assassination of someone you're indebted to is pretty vile. It's nothing like outsmarting an armed opponent.

>>14673498
Not really sure honestly, that affirmation is pretty baffling imo. I guess the idea was that Hitler was embodying a necessary (and not merely political) process of return to the primal conditions of relationship to Being (in the form of Volkisch spirit and collective veneration of shared cultural roots). As much as the comparison seems odd it's not too unlike Hegel's caracterisation of Napoleon as a prime agent of Geist.

>>14673496
Learn to read the history of science and its fundamental change of nature in the evolution of philosophical discourse. I think Heidegger was acutely aware of the role philosophers play in the elaboration of science, in the idea that science has of itself. He was a close reader of Descartes' lesser known works on scientific method for instance (see Descartes' Regulae). And for all the failings of his philsophy I think he still provides a fresh view on Being, and on man's relation to Being. If nothing else he's challenging and not quite as confused as he's made out to be. But it's perhaps better to read Kierkegaard and Husserl before him.

[Anonymous No.14673540]

>>14672737
Right about a lot, wrong about a lot, it merges a lot.

https://youtu.be/G107dVMRBqw?t=55

Like this song.

[Anonymous No.14673546]

>>14673535
>In an opportunistic sense perhaps, but that kind of bloodless character assassination of someone you're indebted to is pretty vile. It's nothing like outsmarting an armed opponent.
That's just jewish propaganda anon, Heidegger BELIEVED in Hitler. And he figured he might as well take the position.

[Anonymous No.14673550]

>>14673540
How would Heidegger respond to this?

[Anonymous No.14673553]

>>14673535
Also forgot to add: he was pretty prescient in his analysis of the pitfalls of technology. I've seen good commentaries on how Heidegger's philosophy apply to the criticism of modern managment. It's very much in line with my above comment that he was a good reader of the philosophical history of science. The segway of science into managment technology is something that makes perfect sense under his analysis.

[Anonymous No.14673560]

"I say not the philosopher king, for the Philosopher-poet is already that."

Was Heidegger right? Does hierarchical servitude go beyond social[power] representation?

[Anonymous No.14673564]

>>14673535
>claims to be a poet
>can't handle a metaphor without autistically analyzing it
0/10, i'll pass. doesn't sound like a very good poet.
>the interpretation of Plato's metaphysics isn't a settled matter anyway, so who knows.
Plato explicitly says that his account of the Form of the Good (i.e. Being) is only a manner of speaking, because, as he also says, the Form of the Good is unintelligible. It's not a an object (i.e. a being) that one can have knowledge of.

[Anonymous No.14673575]

>>14673546
Yes he believed, but his behavior was still ungrateful and cowardly, two things that are hardly traditional German virtues, you will concede that.
This also apply to the Nazi appropriation of the posession of Jews in their territories (read me well: I wrote Nazi appropriation, not German appropriation, Germay itself didn't benefit from it).

Many of the nazis, Heidegger included, indulged in behavior anywhere from unabashed, self-interested opportunism to common thuggery, it's not surprising a lot of the higher elements of the German Armed forces were defiant or outright contemptuous towards them (see Canaris, the elite Luftwaffe pilots refusing to do the nazi salute, a variety of aristocratic and military plots against Hitler...).

[Anonymous No.14673587]

>>14673564
He never claimed to be a poet anon, but I appreciate your persistence in this gentle and harmless trolling.

>Plato explicitly says that his account of the Form of the Good (i.e. Being) is only a manner of speaking, because, as he also says, the Form of the Good is unintelligible.

That is still a very different thing from Heidegger's conception of Being, not to mention it paved the way for neoplatonism and the philosophical theology of various revealed religions, and ultimately (in the heideggerian reading of history) modern technical-instrumental science, all things Heidegger was not particularly fond of. Heidegger is probably more against Plato's legacy than Plato himself.

[Anonymous No.14673591]

>>14673587
>technical-instrumental science
is this supposed to be a bad thing, or what? idgi

[Anonymous No.14673595]

>>14673575
shut up jidf/

[Anonymous No.14673598]

>>14672737
Hard agree. Read Whitehead instead.

[Anonymous No.14673601]

>>14673598
>read this other obscurantist instead

[Anonymous No.14673611]

>>14673591
It leads to bad things at least. Heidegger explicitly said he wasn't against technology but was worried about the kind of forgetfulness it induced. Think of all the criticism against social media dumbing down people, but in a more general and existential way (all excessive reliance on technology eventually alienate you to a fundamental part of what makes you relate to the world, and that relation is not only a list of phenomena and experiences, it's a form of openess towards something outside you and through which you exist, and that openess must be cultivated).

That's all Heidegger view, but on that particular count it's hard not to admit he was on to something. Heidegger nicely complements the neo-luddite on a more metaphysical front.

>>14673595
Stellar retort, anon.

>>14673598
Whitehead seems to be criminally underrated everywhere except on /lit/ (unless he's stopped being a meme here ? haven't been on 4chan in months).

[Anonymous No.14673613]

Heideger >(is better than) Whitehead

One is is specific but does not have a systematic philosophy, the other, the opposite. Both good but still.

[Anonymous No.14673620]

>>14673611
>Stellar retort, anon.
It was a joke, anon.
>It was a joke, anon
Stellar retort, anon.
>Stellar retort, anon.
It was a joke, anon.

Jews are bad.

[Anonymous No.14673624]

>>14673601
He's not an obscurantist.

[Anonymous No.14673628]

>>14673504
He didn’t. That’s a shallow and overly reductive reading of Heidegger.

[Anonymous No.14673633]

>>14673613
Whitehead doesn't have a systematic philosophy. It is always assembling.

[Anonymous No.14673636]

>>14673494
> Hitler as the incarnation of Dasein

Going to have to disagree with you that this is what Heidegger was saying, but I see your point. Do you think losing the war, hearing about the concentration camps, and the subsequent German trauma of all that had anything to do with later Heidegger being more underwhelming?

[Anonymous No.14673642]

>>14673611
Really? I don’t think whitehead is underrated. I known my professor is a big whitehead guy.

[Anonymous No.14673645]

>>14672737
To be fair, a lot of hippy sorts did pick up his stuff and really jived with it.

[Anonymous No.14673647]

>>14673642
>my professor is a big whitehead guy.
For you

[Anonymous No.14673656]

Heidegger is probably the most misunderstood philosopher of the last 100 years, and this thread is good proof of that. From charges of obscurantism from autistic analytics to butthurt liberals mad about his politics and trying to undermine his philosophy as a result, to people in this very thread using absurd phrases like Hitler being the "Incarnation of Dasein" as if we ourselves are not each our own Dasein.

>>14673494
You are a fucking idiot, need to point this out specifically

I swear, the very notion of philosophical charity goes right out the window when Heidegger comes up.

[Anonymous No.14673677]

>>14673647
Oh no, how could I have done this?

[Anonymous No.14673678]

>>14673628
Okay so what did he think Hitler embodied? I know he liked him and thought he was something of a manifestation of what his philosophy aims to find.

>>14673633
So systematic.

[Anonymous No.14673688]

>>14673678
>So systematic
Nope. It is not a finished complete system. His philosophy is something that is experienced and continually creating itself.

[Anonymous No.14673689]

>>14673688
Yeah sure.

[Anonymous No.14673696]

>>14672737
>Worst Philosopher of the 20th century?
No that would be Wittgenstein
>Dude....what if ...all philosophy is just like....language games? Woah.....

[Anonymous No.14673698]

>>14673688
>His philosophy is something that is experienced and continually creating itself.
Pretentious descriptions like this are a huge red flag when it comes to philosophy. Heidegger fags do the same shit. It's just philosophy dude. iT's words on a page. it's not some magical shit or whatever.

[Anonymous No.14673731]

>>14673696
>Dude....what if ...all philosophy is just like....language games?
But that's literally what all philosophy is: mental Masturbation.

This post brought to you by the Diogenes gang.

[Anonymous No.14673734]

I swear this place got more retarded overnight.

[Anonymous No.14673746]

>>14673731
Even if that were true it wouldn't change the impact philosophy has had on the history of civilization nor would it change the minds of people who enjoy reading philosophical works?

[Anonymous No.14673768]

>>14673458
yes and no

[Anonymous No.14673795]

>>14673678
I’m not a Heidegger scholar by any means, but I understand him as arguing that Hitler and his Nazi Germany are more like what he would call “art” in the sense that they speak to a people and are somehow a product of the “dasein” of those people at that period in time. A Hitler rally might’ve been something like what a Greek tragedy was to the people of Ancient Greece to the German people at that time. Hitler was a man who represented the German people during a pivotal “epoch” and in that way was representing the German people’s dasein at that exact moment in time. He wasn’t literally dasein though. He’s just a physical manifestation of something that exists within the context of dasein. I’m not trying to attack your reading and I’m not 100% positive of my reading, but it does seem to me that claiming he believed Hitler was dasein is actually a bit of a shallow statement no matter how you spin it.

[Anonymous No.14673806]

>>14673698
whatever retard

[Anonymous No.14673815]

>>14673795
To be clear, I didn't originally state that.

And can Dasein function on a collective level in the same way? Like a Volk and its Geschick?

[Anonymous No.14673821]

>>14673806
You don't understand my post, anon. You have to creatively immanentize it by becoming present to its ever variable transfigurations. My posts are a continual creative effort, you can never step into the same post twice, to borrow the Heraclitean expression. My posts require your conscious participation as a creative Being, you can't just read it like you read a New York Times article lmao.

[Anonymous No.14673864]

>>14673821
This is wank. You are a pseud with a thesaurus.

[Anonymous No.14673909]

>>14673864
You were too retarded to understand >>14673633 so he tried to use bigger words to appeal to your pseud brain

[Anonymous No.14674002]

Time. The social/historical/cultural context up to 20th century took us to Heideggers philosophy. It wasnt absurd at the time, and you can judge it so lightly bc you are almost 80 years apart

[Anonymous No.14674023]

>>14673620
Nice cope, anon.

>>14673636
I honestly don't know, it certainly must have been hard to swallow.

>>14673628
>>14673636
>>14673656
From the Freiburger Studenzeitung, 10 november 1933:
>The German people is called by the Führer for an election; but the Führer asks nothing of the people. Rather, he gives them the most direct possibility of the highest free choice: whether the entire people will its own Dasein or not
>This election simply cannot be compared to previous elections. Its unique quality is the simple greatness of the decision to be made.
>This final decision reaches to the outtermost boundaries of the Dasein of our people
>The Führer has awakened this will in the whole people and has fused it into a single decision

The phrasing "incarnation of Dasein" was hasty and derived from muddy memories, and I apologize for that.
Still, as you can see my bafflement at Heidegger portrayal of Hitler here (or my comparison with Hegel's Napoleon), Hitler is indeed made out to be the single personalized focus point of a process that is not merely political or even historical but concerns Dasein itself. Note also that here Dasein is at least implicitly treated as a collective thing.
Again, in hindsight, this is rather jarring, not that you can really blame a philosopher to be taken in by a powerful movement whose destiny was hardly foreseeable at the time. Still you can question Heidegger's behavior as a proeminent academic figure under the Third Reich, you can question the consistency between his support for Nazsim and his early philosophy, and you can certainly question his lack of clear admission of intellectual responsibility even twenty years later when it was clear nobody was going to execute him for it.

>>14673656
>Heidegger is probably the most misunderstood philosopher of the last 100 years, and this thread is good proof of that.
Yet you provide very little in the way of clarification...
This particular thread is rather lenient by /lit/'s standards, not that a single thread proves anything.

>I swear, the very notion of philosophical charity goes right out the window when Heidegger comes up.
Debatable, in some countries he became a seminal influence among not particularly right-wing and even some Jewish philosophers. This would have required more than philosophical charity given his obvious involvement with the Nazis and the postwar political climate. Compare how Heidegger was received in France after the war with how the French collaborators were treated, or with what Maurras' uneasy stance during the Occupation did to his later reputation and legacy, depsite Maurras having not been a nazi by any stretch of the mind. I don't particularly complain since I think Heidegger's philosopher is interesting, but it's not unfair to say he had it pretty good all things considered.

[cunt No.14674030]

>>14672737
Yes he was overly romantic. He cared more about aesthetic than reason. That why he was a Nazi.

[Anonymous No.14674038]

>>14673066
K H A Z A R M I L K E R S

[Anonymous No.14674071]

>>14673795
> I’m not trying to attack your reading and I’m not 100% positive of my reading, but it does seem to me that claiming he believed Hitler was dasein is actually a bit of a shallow statement no matter how you spin it.
I'm the one who coined that unfortunate sentence and again, I want to apologize for that, not only was it way too strong for what I had in mind, what I had in mind what stronger than what I had read.

I never thought of Hitler being described as literally Dasein, but rather like a being spearheading a change in Dasein, or a direct instrument of Dasein. Really quite like Napoleon.
Still a bit too strong, on rereading I'd agree with something along the lines of your interpretation, though I would not have thought of the comparison with art.

>>14673815
>And can Dasein function on a collective level in the same way? Like a Volk and its Geschick?
I've seen people argue that somewhere around Hitler's election Heidegger's conception of Dasein shifted from something individual (though not quite personal) to something more collection, not unlike with a Volk but less explicitly active

[Anonymous No.14674082]

The more I see posts by Heideggerians the more I suspect Heideggerianism is some sort of brain disease

[Anonymous No.14674098]

>>14674023
You seem to be responding in good faith so I will apologize for my insult earlier, for whatever its worth.

>Note also that here Dasein is at least implicitly treated as a collective thing.
That is precisely why this is significant, because Dasein is specifically individual, while Das Man or "the they" is the collective identity which Dasein usually "falls" into in moments of habit or convention. Dasein can usually only find authenticity (self ownership and clear decision making given available opportunities) if it distinguishes itself from Das Man. Heidegger is saying that for once, and maybe for the only time, an entire people has the ability to become a collective Dasein. Das Man can wake up to its own possibilities and take ownership of itself. This is huge.

>you can question the consistency between his support for Nazsim and his early philosophy
I will admit that I find his later work much more amenable to politics in general, but its not out of the question either.

>you can certainly question his lack of clear admission of intellectual responsibility...
I'll be honest, and I'm not trying to be snarky or edgy, I really don't care if he continued to harbor Nazi sympathies even after the war. He was likely disillusioned with the party's reality, but also disdainful of the academic hackjob that Germany was put through during de-Nazification.

Regarding charity, I appreciate your answer, and yes he was well-received (weirdly) among the French left and the phenomenologists. I meant more whenever he comes up in lay or informal conversations rather than his historical reception.

[Anonymous No.14674115]

>>14673815
I would say I don’t understand Heidegger enough to answer confidently, but if I had to answer I would say I suspect yes that there’s a dasein for a volk in the sense that a volk too have an existence, a destiny but also no that an authentic dasein implies a personal engaging with reality. Authenticity for Heidegger means turning away from the “they” and towards one’s own individual being in the world. To be honest, it’s hard for me to grasp Heidegger because of the German jargon he used and even harder to articulate his ideas out in English once they start to make sense, but that’s my attempt at what I got so far.

[Anonymous No.14674130]

>>14673494
>OH NO NOT THE HITLERINOOOO
>HES SUCH A HECKING BAD PERSONARONII
>THAT MEANS HE KNOWS NOTHING AND CANT DO PHILOSOPHY AND IS "FLAWED"

[Anonymous No.14674133]

>all these arguments about his 'behavior'

Completely and utterly irrelevant. I doubt any of you have even read him and are just butthurt /leftypol/ retards trying to rub filth on his name.

[Anonymous No.14674143]

>its a leftists willfully misinterpret Heidegger to suit their agenda as slaves of kikedom episode

[Anonymous No.14674149]

>>14674143
>it's a interpretation of Heidgegger #1052 episode
Let's not even pretend there is a "correct interpretation" to his obscurantist nonsense.

[Anonymous No.14674153]

>>14674149
It's not obscurantism. Read Dreyfuss' interpretation if you want the babby mode.

[Anonymous No.14674160]

>>14674153
Where can I read it, cause I don't want to listen to a 450 hour long lecture? Are you referring to a book or a transcript of his lectures?

[Anonymous No.14674169]

>>14674160
google being-in-the-world dreyfus pdf

[Anonymous No.14674398]

>>14674169
ok ive started reading it, thanks

[Anonymous No.14674882]

>>14673636
>>14674023
When you put it that way, I do agree with you but I still don’t think phrased this way it’s ridiculous.

> and you can certainly question his lack of clear admission of intellectual responsibility

I’m curious what it is exactly that you think he should’ve felt intellectual responsibility over and why?

[Anonymous No.14674906]

>>14674882
the 6 bazillion poor jews that died at auschwitz, remember?

[Anonymous No.14675007]

>>14674882
>I’m curious what it is exactly that you think he should’ve felt intellectual responsibility over

Fo advocating for nazism and benefitting from it, possibly at the expense of others. When he was confronted about it much later he eventually managed to vaguely admit he was wrong but said it in a way that somehow suggested he wasn't responsible for his decisions, or even that somehow the real culprit were the anti-hitlerians. See for instance (from the Self Assertation of German University in the Reveiw of Metaphysics, published in 1985)

>Certainly - it is always rather presumptuous when men add up and attribute guilt to other men. But when one seeks out the guilty and measure out their guilt: Is there not also a guilt of essential omission?
>Those who were then so prophetically gifted that they saw everything coming just as it did-and I was not that wise - why have they taken almost ten years to take action against the malingnancy? Why didn't those who thought they knew in 1933, why didn't they rise up then to turn everything towards the good, from the ground up ?

Nevermind that some people have opposed Hitler from the very beginning, and that many who opposed him died, it seems that it's really their fault Hitler rose to power, and Heidegger shouldn't be accountable because he didn't understand the threat. Even though he saw his own mentor get expelled from his tenure on rather dubious grounds, and even thought he was one of the foremost German thinker of the time, and a thinker of history at that.

Even if his answer is to some extent legitimate in the abstract, you'll have to admit it takes some gall, or some self-unawareness perhaps. And that's probably the closest thing he gave to an explanation on that count.

That said Heidegger is far from the only one in that case, people collaborated everywhere, and later European leftists intellectual lent a rather unscrupulous support to Staline (and for what it's worth I think too few of them had to answer for this - not necessarily in court but at least in public).

It's like Chomsky supporting the Khmers, or Sartre pretending to not see the camps in USSR, except Heidegger lived in Germany for years (and didn't just visit it) and got promoted by the Nazi administration and is frankly a philosopher of a higher caliber than those two. So he's a the very least slightly more guilty while also being arguably worthy of hgher expectations.

It's natural that he should be held to some standard, and that many would be disappointed to see him behave like your average sycophant. So I guess that's the thing for me here, disappointement. It's pretty sad really.

This isn't what I really wanted to talk about itt but I guess I can't be helped. I probably shouldn't have mentioned the matter, that was a mistake I'll try not to repeat.

[Anonymous No.14675015]

>>14674906
So Heidegger killed those Jews?

[Anonymous No.14675041]

>>14675007
> Fo advocating for nazism and benefitting from it, possibly at the expense of others

Do people not advocate things that they benefit from all the time? Are you trying to say that what he wrote in his philosophy texts was only because he stood to benefit from those ideas politically and not because he actually believed them? I don’t see that so I’m not sure what the real issue is here that he should feel responsibility for?

[Anonymous No.14675097]

>>14672737
im not gonna lie I have terrible death anxiety daily and last night my girlfriend briefly explained the concept of being-towards-death to me and it made me feel a little bit more comfortable with my constant anguish

[Anonymous No.14675174]

>>14675041
He kept believing in it and advocating it even when it was handing out undeserved and obviously politically motivated punishments to his colleagues. Hard to believe he completely ignored the state of repression of the actions of the various polices within Germany. But even if he was that sheltered on those counts, the way Husserl was treated should have been enough to tell him something was wrong.

Everytime an old university profesor gets sacked from an American university for not being progressive enough you see people everywhere (including here on /lit/) complaining, and for good reason. Yet Heidegger didn't even try to defend Husserl, whom he owed the start of his career to, and who wasn't even punished for his beliefs but for his identity. This was not only a political issue, but a personal issue and an issue of academic integrity. I'm not saying he was a criminal, but given his role and status it's only natural he got called out on his passivity at the time.

[Anonymous No.14675178]

>>14675097
But maybe you are supposed to feel anguish anon.

[Anonymous No.14675210]

>>14675178
I'm aware. My point was that I don't feel as alone in feeling this way and am coming to understand my feelings

[Anonymous No.14675223]

>>14672737
Wow dude you really nailed it with this post A+

[Anonymous No.14675429]

>>14675174
I think he kept advocating it precisely because he believed in it and likely didn’t feel any sense of guilt or responsibility for what happened nor do I think I should, personally. If your concern is his failure to defend Husserl, that’s fine I guess but I think it’s perfectly logical to think that he just didn’t feel it appropriate to do so for whatever reason and thus, wouldn’t feel guilt over not having done so. It’s at least as logical as assuming he turned a blind eye for political gain. I’m sure you agree that it didn’t strongly influence his philosophy either way.

[Anonymous No.14675859]

>>14674098
>so I will apologize for my insult earlier
Not that anon, but why do you always do this? I've noticed you in other threads, you fly off the handle every time and complain about analytics or whatever, then you turn around and apologize. I know it is you. You have a distinctive style and theme to your posts. Why not just talk normally and contribute your obvious knowledge, since you are clearly capable of doing so?

[Anonymous No.14676174]

>>14674071
>I've seen people argue that somewhere around Hitler's election Heidegger's conception of Dasein shifted from something individual (though not quite personal) to something more collection, not unlike with a Volk but less explicitly active
That's what I heard, hence why I am asking someone who has read Heidegger. Though his understanding of Dasein did come onto a "collective scale" it was still an individual experience in his eyes. I'm not sure if he allowed for some sort of existent impersonal which enforced the Dasein within its character, e.g. mitsein, but I suppose he must have since he obviously wasn't a liberal.

Seems like Dugin actually has a lot of interesting answers for these things. For example, a multiplicity of Dasein rather than a singular experience.

[Anonymous No.14676187]

>>14674115
But didn't he, as this helpful anon stated>>14674071 , change authenticity to a greater emphasis on the collective, such as mitsein in some ways but primarily the active consciousness of that, e.g. Dasein? So to be with the force of National Socialism for example.

[Anonymous No.14676198]

>>14675097
I don't feel any fear toward death but do desire it in some instances, almost ritually so.

Am I lacking to being toward death?

[Anonymous No.14676249]

>>14672737
>why do philosophers not think this guy is some sort of pre-krautrock buddhist hippy?
The non-Gaullist postwar French, types that revisionist (or this-but-not-that Procrusticize) their way out of his political commitments, and a generation of American pseuds relying and basing their understanding on French translations of the man.

[Anonymous No.14677491]

>>14675859
I don't think I've misjudged more than once or twice in the past and actually apologized to someone, but if you've noticed then I suppose its worth giving some thought to and correcting. Thank you.

[Anonymous No.14677811]

>>14676187
I’m not sure authenticity is the right word. To my knowledge he applied authenticity in the context of the individual’s turning from the “they” towards one’s own innate way of existing in the world, but he does seem to apply the term dasein towards a collective whereas before he didn’t. Whether that means he thinks it’s authentic, I don’t know. What Heidegger means by authentic is probably something like a way of interacting with reality that isn’t innately built in to one’s own existence and turning away from this is largely a feature of modernity where modern man can pick and choose traditions from cultures that aren’t his or can become conditioned by norms that aren’t a part of his existence. I think he felt like the NSDAP was something like the “work of art” that offered that for the German people. He felt it was an authentically German way of interacting with reality and it’s emphasis on German traditions, German culture, German everything was the first and last of its kind in the modern era, which probably would’ve made it authentic in his eyes but I don’t know.

You should read the Question Concerning Technology and the Origin of the Work of Art, both essays on Heidegger if you haven’t. I think those might help you understand his thought in ways I’m not particularly good at articulating right now.

[Anonymous No.14677814]

>>14677811
Is innately built+

[Anonymous No.14677834]

>>14676198
I think it’s less about a fear of death and more of an awareness of the imminence of it.

[Anonymous No.14677852]

>>14677811
Cheers anon, will read.

>>14677834
So I am chad?

[Anonymous No.14677861]

>>14677852
I'm not the anon you were speaking to, but no, Being-Toward-Death is not a cognitive decision or an act of rumination, it isn't the contemplation or acceptance of a temporal event (medical death) which is remote from you in the sense that it has not yet arrived.

[Anonymous No.14677867]

>>14677861
So what is being-toward-death? An acceptance of our own mortality and an appearance towards that?

[Anonymous No.14677917]

>>14677867
being-toward-death as much of a part of our constitution as living itself, to which we can relate ourselves in more or less authentic ways. For example, treating death as an object of either dread, anticipation, or anything at all for that matter, is inauthentic, because you're treating it as an object which exists in some uncertain future but has not yet arrived, and until it does arrive, its somehow less real. On the other hand, falling into platitudes about death is also wrong. Conventional wisdom cannot help us. Death, properly taken, is a possibility. It is the possibility of no more possibilities, it is your check being cashed, and it WILL be cashed. This possibility is ever-present, and being-toward-death follows from it. As soon as we are born, we are old enough to die.

The point is that being-toward-death, and the realization that nobody can die for you or help you with death, produces anxiety (angst in German), which in turn puts you face to face with yourself. There is of course much more to say but the point is that being-toward-death is part of our most essential constitution, not a choice or an attitude.

[Anonymous No.14678054]

>>14677917
Nice word salad anon

[Anonymous No.14678064]

>>14678054
if you think that’s word salad you’re functionally illiterate

[Anonymous No.14678066]

>>14677917
You seemed to get very little done in all these words.

[Anonymous No.14678072]

>>14678054
>>14678066
I'm doing my best to summarize the relevant sections from Being and Time without straying too far from his phrasing or examples, since it all matters. By briefly saying what being-toward-death isn't, its anticipating and countering the usual misconceptions or possible ways of taking it incorrectly. If you think any one part is unclear, I would be happy to expand, but it is difficult to condense without raising more questions. For example, if I said, "it leads to angst", the natural question is, "what is angst". Saying being-towards-death leads to angst doesn't actually tell you anything. Other anon asked a question, he deserves an answer.

[Anonymous No.14678222]

>>14678054
>word salad
Those words are chunked concepts.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chunking_(psychology)

[Anonymous No.14678289]

>>14675429
> If your concern is his failure to defend Husserl
For me yes, more than nazism, this is the issue. Gratefulness towards your masters and benefactors is a staple of almost any pre-industrial culture, it's a rare common points between modern and premodern Europe. Failing to enforce it is a serious moral offense in my view, especially for someone who value traditional culture that much.

>I think it’s perfectly logical

It does seem logical, and it's hard to believe he happened to act exactly like a self-serving bureaucrat at that time for unrelated philosophical reasons. Many who had more to lose didn't.

His guilt is his business, but it does says something about his character, and perhaps irrationally I feel Heidegger had the kind of philosophy that calls for moral character. Especially in a public intellectual figure.
He could have at least had the gut to say "Yes I was a Nazi, and I regret it/don't regret it/still am", instead of weaseling himself out of blame in wth that disheartening fake apology.

Compare Paul Nizan, who left the Communist Party the minute he realized Stalin was playing games with them. Compare Jünger, who was ostracized for not complying with denazification, even though he was never a Nazi and actually despised them.
Sure not everyone can be Nizan, not everyone can be Jünger, myself least of all. I perhaps would have not acted differently in his stead. That's still a poor justification for cowardice, and if I act as a coward I expect to be called out on it.

Perhaps I'm also angry at how people tried to downplay the issue while using his philosophy. I wish the French intellectual left had been honest enough to say "Look, he's a Nazi, but also a good philosopher". Guess I'm still pretty naïve.

But I should stop writing, I'm getting sad again.

We probably don't disagree, Heidegger's case is just one niche but remarkable example of less than admirable (though not criminal) behavior in a very troubled time (certainly that wasn't a Nazi-only feature). Still a hard blow to the naïve idea that philosophy is a reliable way to moral and spiritual steadfastness.

>it didn’t strongly influence his philosophy

I agree, perhaps his philosophy would have made harder for him to defend Husserl (though I'm sure you could make an heideggerian argument for the opposite). But it seems the rise of the Führer changed his philosophy somewhat, one could have hoped the unjust sackig of his friend and mentor would have done the same.

Your question raises a point that is more relevant than my musings about cowardice. At what point do events prove you wrong, as a philosopher? When should you stick to your philosophical guns even if it puts you in bed with despicable people? How easy it is to philosophize yourself into sleepwalking through moral crises?
Philosophy is no empirical science but in practice most philosopher do want to see their philosophy enacted in the world.
Anyway sorry for the messy post, I need to sleep.

[Anonymous No.14678293]

>>14677917
>>14678072
Not the others faggot, I like your answers but I'm still curious. Your description gives me a kierkegaardian vibe, how does being-towards-death relate to kierkegardian angst ? Is the knight of faith someone who has taken some particular stance relative to being-towards-death ? Or is Heidegger completely independent of Kierkegaard here ?

[Anonymous No.14678302]

>>14678072
I think I know what angst is fairly well. But thanks for the reply anon, you've helped immensely.

One question though, does Heidegger ever define anything or does he just say what being "is"(without defining it) and leave everything else in the same light? For example the sacred, or beauty, or the good, etc.

[Anonymous No.14678319]

>>14678289
>He could have at least had the gut to say "Yes I was a Nazi, and I regret it/don't regret it/still am"
Anon, come now, do you have any fucking idea how the world would come down on him even harder? Yes this is all just a game of honesty in which you wont be punished if you tell the truth. In your view do you seriously think any other country was at the time was any better than Germany? Hell, Heidegger might just of been booted out of the Western canon if he spoke his mind.

He himself continued to be a Fascist, and with a certain -enjoyable- sense of arrogance, he thought in an insult to be asked to apologise. And paraphrasing "Why should I apologise, Hitler really let me down".

[Anonymous No.14678349]

>>14674098
Thank you for you thoughtful answer. It's easy to get angry for little reason on 4chan. I've personnally forbidden myself to answer to provocations or to insult people here, and that has proven enough to cut down 95% of the useless hostility in my posts.

>That is precisely why this is significant
That whole paragraph (it's too long to quote it entirely here) is very insightful, it really explains the point of the Heidegger's speech on Hitler I was quoting above.
But this is also why I was so surprised to read that speech, I wouldn't have imagined Dasein to be something that can be manifested that clearly, even through an entire people an their leader.

Perhaps I mistakenly tend to see Dasein as something closer to the Absolute Nothingness of the Kyoto School, that's why I can't fathom it taking ownership of anything. In any case it does feel like a huge change, not merely in circonstances but in the essence of Heidegger's philosophy.

>I'll be honest, and I'm not trying to be snarky or edgy, I really don't care if he continued to harbor Nazi sympathies even after the war.
Honestly I don't care that much either, it's more about the position he was in before and during the war, what he did and didn't do with it, what he did to get there, and the consequences it had on people around him. That and the fact he could neither apologize nor really own it leaves me kind of a bad taste when I read about it.

Well I suppose it's also strange to see one of the best critic of instrumental reason support what was basically a huge techno-bureaucracy disguised as a revival movement, but enthusiasm gets the better of most people, so my concern there is lesser.

>Regarding charity, I appreciate your answer
Thank you. Of course my answer what a bit partial, I ignored the Anglosphere on purpose because there were pretty closed to "continental" thinkers for a while, regardless of their actual philosophy.
I guess the picture is rather nuanced overall, he also had a lot of critics later.

> I meant more whenever he comes up in lay or informal conversations rather than his historical reception.
I see your point, though Heidegger is rarely mentioned among people who aren't at least a little philosophically literate in my experience. The whole issue his frankly a headache, though as I said above, I have a visceral disgust towards a certain kind of ungratefulness, so my opinion is really not quite clear-headed. That's also why I'm more lenient with Céline than Heidegger for instance.

[Anonymous No.14678391]

>>14678293
There is a connection that you are correct in seeing, but unfortunately it isn't quite as simple as a 1:1 correspondence between the terms. Kierkegaardian Angst is the awareness of sin, the potentiality for sin, and the freedom we have with infinite consequences on either end. Heidegger's Angst is more like the feeling we get when we realize we can never fully be at home in the world of our day to day concerns, and in the safety of the collective opinion/collective self, since death demands that we face it as an individual. However, Kierkegaard's Angst/Original Sin maps on very well to Heidegger's concept of Existential Guilt. For Heidegger, by our very existence we negate things, we make things unavailable for others, we make things unavailable for ourselves. Every decision we make closes 1000 more permanently. This is unavoidable, and this constant negation that we produce by our very existence is just part of the life that we have been thrown into. This does not "absolve" us of it (to put much more of a moral slant on it than Heidegger himself would have), but it requires that we face it and own it as a fact before we can properly move on and make decisions for ourselves. I can't think of any immediate connection between Kierkegaard's Knight of Faith and Hedeggerian being-toward-death, BUT, what Heidegger means by authentic Dasein is almost a direct interpretation of Kierkegaard's conception of the Self before God in The Sickness Unto Death.

Basically, you are totally correct in seeing a link between the two, although its not precisely what the terminology might suggest.

>>14678302
Glad to hear it, you are very welcome. It depends really on which Heidegger you are asking about. Early Heidegger, around Being and Time, was concerned with asking the right questions and undoing 2000 years of bad metaphysics more than anything. He simply wanted to show us where we went wrong in our conception of Being, so that we can move on with a better orientation and hopefully figure out the real problems. Later Heidegger was a bit more inclined towards the sacred, the beautiful, the good, etc, but with the caveat that he viewed everything from the perspective of existential value. He wrote quite a bit on art, but his ultimate praise of art is in how it reveals ontological tension between the world we experience in our day to day concerns and the "earth" which is the ontological substrata we build our "world" out of. He rejects the conception of art and aesthetics as a particular relation between a subject and an object which is being viewed. This is just one example, but yes, he does eventually touch on those issues, and make positive claims about them, but its rarely in the way you would think or in the way that most classical definitions would go.

[Anonymous No.14678398]

>>14677861
You seem to get it. Do you think this was a big motivations for Heidegger’s support of the NSDAP. He seemed to think that a being towards death was necessary for an authentic existence and the NSDAP did have a being towards death for the German people and people in general, in my opinion. I tend to think this was his single biggest motivation politically and explains a lot. What do you think?

[Anonymous No.14678406]

>>14678391
>where we went wrong in our conception of Being
Does he find the answer?

[Anonymous No.14678436]

>>14678319
Would it even matter if they worse? He didn’t kill Jews and he didn’t fire Husserl. He supported a party that he believed in at that time, like most people in Germany. The notion that he has to be remorseful for that in order for his work to be taken seriously is ridiculous in my honest opinion, but that’s what you get when you have people who believe Philosophy is downstream from politics.

[Anonymous No.14678441]

>>14678319
>Anon, come now, do you have any fucking idea how the world would come down on him even harder?
Twenty years later? He would have gotten early retirement, that's all. Nobody would have held him at gunpoint. He would have gotten it easier than almost anyone else that mattered at the time. I understand why he didn't do it, but he doesn't make it any more commendable. Especially if you look at the wording he chose (quoted above in the thread, I don't think the translation obscures much of the issue here).

The point is he didn't even own his nazism as much as Jünger did even though Jünger wasn't a Nazi.

> Hell, Heidegger might just of been booted out of the Western canon if he spoke his mind.
He was already too big for that. Even Céline wasn't booted out, although he wrote pamphlets so antisemitic the Nazis tried to shut him down. Some of them are still banned in France while Mein Kampf isn't. If Céline is still taught in uni Heidegger isn't risking much by being open.
At the very least saying "I was wrong, I admit my share of guilt, but I didn't kill anyone" would have been something (or "I was right but Hitler was wrong, I should have withdrawn my intellectual support").

> In your view do you seriously think any other country was at the time was any better than Germany?
Yes, certainly, Danemark at the very least, arguably Poland, to some extent Dutchland, the colonies of England did what they could, and Italy was inefficient enough to be less harmful than the other major powers.

>He himself continued to be a Fascist, and with a certain -enjoyable- sense of arrogance, he thought in an insult to be asked to apologise
Precisely, the kind of self-serving blindness that makes him unable to see how empty that arrogance is, plus the kind of spinelessness that makes him unable to openly admit to still being a fascist is the issue.

What does he have to feel arrogant about in this case? Jünger has, perhaps even Brasillach would have if he had lived, Heidegger really hasn't. And he if thought it was an insult, again, he could have openly owned his fascism.

I guess I'm just saying he lived as a mandarin concerned mostly with his own benefit and comfort, didn't bat an eye when the guy who started his career was kicked out for a bullshit reason, didn't do anything when he realized Hitler wasn't particularly interested in his philosophy, and when confronted about his indolence during a time of great strife he has nothing better than "It's not my fault I was mistaken, btw guilt is shared, stop judging".

I understand the situation in those time was muddy, and I don't think he deserved trial or philosophical irrelevance, but on a personal level it seems he deserved some scorn. Again, not that he is the only one, far from that.

But that is really the last post I'm making on this issue, it's not going anywhere. I've made my case, anyone can feel free to disagree, I won't hold it against anyone or try to change anyone's mind any longer.

[Anonymous No.14678492]

>>14673696
lol that’s not what he said at all

[Anonymous No.14678504]

>>14678391
Very solid answer, thank you. (I'm >>14678293)

[Anonymous No.14678858]

>>14673439
this

[Anonymous No.14679349]

>>>/his/
>>>/his/
>>>/his/
I'm here to discuss the art of writing.
Fuck off.

[Anonymous No.14679508]

>>14678492
What did he say then?

[Anonymous No.14679528]

>>14673487
None, he's a coward and an intellectual. Heidegger was balls deep and known/respected.

[Anonymous No.14679531]

>>14679349
/his/ sucks, why don't you discuss the art of not being such a butthurt lil bitch

[Anonymous No.14680567]

Where do you even start with Heidegger if you don't know german? I tried reading his essay about truth but a lot of the terms felt very awkward and unable to be translated well.I know the basics of him from YouTube lectures, but I can't really get into reading his actually primary source essays since the neologisms are so frusturating.

Also, I don't see why people care about a philosopher's personal life. If we are going to start doing that, we should take out Foucalt for his pedophilia, Plato for his collaboration with tyrants, etc.
Philosophy is about ideas and investigations, not petty moralizing.

[Anonymous No.14680647]

>>14680567
Another anon recommended Dreyfus’ Being-in-the-World. Currently reading it based on his recommendation, and so I feel confident in seconding that recommendation. I got a pdf off libgen.

[Anonymous No.14680965]

>>14680647
I though some people didn't like Dreyfus for some reason? I don't know enough to really make a statement personally, but I always hear Dreyfus cited critically in studies of Heidegger. I listened to some of his lectures on Heidegger and thats what a lot of the comments say. Not sure.

[Anonymous No.14681082]

>>14672737
sounds based. would read if i was not already deep into the wttgenstein team.

[Anonymous No.14681811]

>>14673473
What are the essentials works of Heidegger one must read?

[Anonymous No.14682270]

>>14680965
I don’t know, man. I’m a newbie to this so I’m just going by the other anon’s advice. I’m finding the book highly readable, that’s why I seconded the recommendation. I’m still trying to figure out what the fuck Heidegger is on about, myself.

[Anonymous No.14682398]

>>14675859
This poster >>14677491 is an imposter trying to make me look more timid than I really I am. The real answer I have for you is: shut the fuck up, you stupid-fucking of a bitch. Fuck you and your fucking little analysis and advice. Just because I majored in philosophy does not mean I cannot knock-you-the-fuck-out. Try giving your little advice to me in real life and see what happens, you little pussy. I will give you a whole new definition of Being-towards-death! I will give you a new definition of thrownness (Geworfenheit in German) when I throw your fucking head against the goddamn pavement!!! This is NOT A FUCKING JOKE

[Anonymous No.14683304]

>>14680567
>Where do you even start with Heidegger if you don't know german?
You don't.

[Anonymous No.14683349]

>>14673494
Of course le nazi heidegger comes up immediately

[Anonymous No.14683356]

>>14678391
>but his ultimate praise of art is in how it reveals ontological tension between the world we experience in our day to day concerns and the "earth" which is the ontological substrata we build our "world" out of. He rejects the conception of art and aesthetics as a particular relation between a subject and an object which is being viewed. This is just one example, but yes, he does eventually touch on those issues, and make positive claims about them, but its rarely in the way you would think or in the way that most classical definitions would go.
Ahhh, well that explains why he rejected Wagner as an all-consuming force of the aesthetic, the beautiful, good and the sacred and such.

I still think his critique was negative unreasonably. Would you mind writing further about this?

>>14678436
>but that’s what you get when you have people who believe Philosophy is downstream from politics.
Anon, it is, at least if you believe form is downstream from hierarchy.

His philosophy, made him believe that they were the best party at the time and something to be supported, as did the philosophy of the rest of the millions of Germans. If Hitler was evil it does not make his philosophy evil but it's silly to say philosophy does not define politics. French revolution.

>I understand why he didn't do it, but he doesn't make it any more commendable. Especially if you look at the wording he chose (quoted above in the thread, I don't think the translation obscures much of the issue here).
Oh shut up you smug-ass, it was difficult enough as it is with that reputation. Even imagine social interaction. He wouldn't of gotten an interview either.

Get down from your high horse and be a bit realistic. Besides, why should he feel any shame?

>Céline
Don't tell me he doesn't have a completely different relation with the left than someone like Heidegger does.

>Yes, certainly, Danemark at the very least, arguably Poland, to some extent Dutchland, the colonies of England did what they could, and Italy was inefficient enough to be less harmful than the other major powers.
Okay retard.

>Precisely, the kind of self-serving blindness that makes him unable to see how empty that arrogance is,
And who are you to decide it is empty? That is much more of a subjective matter wouldn't it be. You cannot help but seeth at this basedboy for not apologising for doing LITERALLY NOTHING WRONG.

>plus the kind of spinelessness that makes him unable to openly admit to still being a fascist is the issue.
It is only spinelessness because of your opinion being that fascism was wrong. Why should he come out and repeat what is already stated? If he says fuck it there is no point and the world is doomed, who exactly does he "owe it to" in this case? To the world that hates him, would only hate him more, and already believes what he would be to say?

I think you will find that you are the spineless arrogance which you criticise Heidegger for.

Goodbye.

[Anonymous No.14683462]

>>14673066
I'm not sure about it, but I doubt Heidegger's antisemitism was based on racial frameworks. I think he mostly had a problem with Jews who were fine with their Jewish heritage. Arendt wasn't a believer, and her cultural approach was entirely secularized: to Heidegger she must have been indistinguishable from any other German prodigy student.
The same can be said about Husserl, without biographical notes no one would assume from his writings that he was Jewish.
That said Heidegger's history of philosophy and religion is 100% bunk, and so is his judgement of cultural Jews as world-less. It is a shame that such a profound thinker got convinced by cheap early 20th century antisemitic propaganda.

[Anonymous No.14683491]

>>14673495
>>can't comprehend that when Plato refers to Being as a being it's only a manner of speaking
This is literally not true though, Being is just one of the five greater kinds, as it is explained in Sophist, and this doctrine is quoted all around in the last dialogues, especially Timaeus. As such Being is absolutely one of the beings, and the other beings do not derive from the greater kind Being, rather they are just in a relationship of participation.
inb4
>But other beings could not exist without Being
Being could not exist without other separate beings either, since it has, a priori, to participate with other, ontologically separated greater kinds (at the very least the ones of identity, diversity and quietness).
A monistic interpretation of Being is literally impossible in Plato, and Heidegger was aware of it. Also keep in mind that monistic neoplatonists will still accept this notion of Being (as a being), since they will say, with Gailenus and Plotinus, that the One (or the Ineffable) comes BEFORE Being. In this system too Being is just a being.

[Anonymous No.14684623]

Bump back to life

[Anonymous No.14685349]

>>14682398
This is a refreshing take on the hallowed "300 confirmed kills" copypasta. Nice effort anon.