/lit/ - Literature

[Anonymous No.15247410]

Can someone explain what the fuck this guy was trying to say without using his retarded made-up language?

I read "What is Metaphyiscs?" twice and I'm almost certain that he's just being intentionally obscure.

[Anonymous No.15247417]

u have to read nietzsches will to power to understand any of heidegger, they use most of the same term in will to power that hediegger uses throughout his entire life ur just retarded

[Anonymous No.15247451]

>>15247417
I've read all of Nietzsche's works

[Anonymous No.15247482]

>>15247417
Stfu moron

[Anonymous No.15247609]

Do you honestly expect to get an in-depth explanation and analysis of Martin Heidegger in thread reply on 4chan?

[Anonymous No.15247628]

>>15247410
Sum peeple say it be like it is, but it do

[Anonymous No.15247646]

>>15247410
if you have read all of Nietzsche's works, read Heidegger's book on Nietzsche. Take his approach on neet and try to understand his analysis. Juxtapose to yours and you can have a grasp on how Heidegger thinks. And read commentary. Not Dreyfus tho

[Anonymous No.15247659]

>>15247609
This.

[Anonymous No.15247671]

>>15247410
>I'm almost certain that he's just being intentionally obscure.
Well, he is. The question is whether his work is worthwhile in spite of being obscure.

[Anonymous No.15247674]

>>15247609
yes

[Anonymous No.15247690]

>>15247671
this means absolutely nothing and can be said about anything and anyone. What a shitty take;.

[Anonymous No.15247699]

You need to consume and understand the entire western philosophical canon.
He wasn't writing for chantards and midwits.

[Anonymous No.15247706]

>>15247690
this means absolutely nothing and can be said about anything and anyone. What a shitty take;.

[Anonymous No.15247813]

>>15247671
Decipher his obscurity, then

[Anonymous No.15247826]

>>15247609
Just give me the basic gestalt

[Anonymous No.15247857]

>>15247813
>>15247826
He is zen

Continental version of witty

[Anonymous No.15247897]

>>15247410
He was a philosopher, you expect his work to pose more questions.

[Anonymous No.15247925]

>>15247826
https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=F8so3GQKw7Y&t=8s

[Anonymous No.15247969]

>>/lit/thread/S14664312#p14665242

[Anonymous No.15248127]

>>15247897
What a fucking cop out

[Anonymous No.15248228]

>>15247969
and here's the simplest and shortest explanation you will find on Heidegger's philosophy of death:
>>/lit/thread/S11266962#p11267317

As for the ontological difference, one of Heidegger's contributions to philosophy, the simplest expression of it is that the meaning of the verb "to be" is not: "a really big being." Earlier metaphysicians (Greeks, Scholastics) made this mistake and Heidegger called it ontotheology.

The "summarize this philosopher for me" crowd needs to grow the fuck up and learn that every one of them has a "retarded made-up language" of his own, as they understand and use words differently, they had to come up with new words or find new uses for older words just to try and talk about the topics that interest them, cue individual dictionaries for all manner of thinkers since at least Plato. I find the best name for the collection of all these languages to be "philosophy."

[Anonymous No.15248240]

>>15247628
>think.jpg

[Anonymous No.15248258]

>>15248228
Isn't philosophy since Plato prep for death? What's new?

[Anonymous No.15248323]

>>15247646
what’s wrong with dreyfus

[Anonymous No.15248377]

>>15247410
>>/lit/thread/S10604469#p10604662

[Anonymous No.15248383]

>>15247410

Why are you not starting with Being and Time and then getting confused when you don't get what Heidegger is trying to say.

[Anonymous No.15248394]

>>15247417
>u
>ur
And you're just a faggot

[Anonymous No.15248396]

>>15248323
there is nothing wrong with Dreyfus per se ( he is excellent), but his interpretation of Heidegger is pretty particular, making it not a good starting point. Can't pinpoint the best author on his metaphysics tho, sorry anon.

[Anonymous No.15248417]

>>15248258
Plato starts the whole onto-theological tradition though, the one that Heidegger is eager to destroy, where "this here", Dasein, is subsumed to abstractions and metaphysical systems.

Philosophy as preparation for death for Plato is also just used as a technique, a means, to remove Sorge (care) for Dasein - liberate oneself from "this earthly being" - because the "beyond" of this existence is somehow superior.

Heideggerian authenticity means fully accepting finitude, not seeing death as gateway to something else - whether it be true being, beatitude or wisdom

[Anonymous No.15248452]

>>15247410
He's not being intentionally obscure, he's using unfamiliar words in order to strip away the unintended meanings that would be conveyed if he tried to describe his approach with familiar language. You say you've read 'Metaphysics' twice, re=read it and this time whenever you discover a word you don't understand google "what does heidegger mean by X"

[Anonymous No.15248508]

>>15248396
it’s ok anon, you answered my question

[Anonymous No.15248544]

>>15247410
Heidegger said to study Aristotle for 10 years before reading him.

[Anonymous No.15248573]

>>15248544
No he said before reading Nietzsche which is further behind Husserl and so on, leading to an even longer time.

[Anonymous No.15248597]

>>15247410
>Can someone explain what the fuck this guy was trying to say without using his retarded made-up language?
He was trying to the answer the question of Being, and further to do this define the finite experience of man. So as to go through the being of man to Being, whereas of course a "separation" in the sense it implies is impossible. Now you understand Heidegger's focus on death, on religiousness by death, in the value of mans life, authenticity and so on.

[Anonymous No.15248638]

>>15247410
'ate Jews
'ate technology
'ate metaphysics
'ate aesthetics

luv poetry
luv me shed
luv the inner truth and greatness of National Socialism

simple as

[Anonymous No.15248709]

>>15248597
>He was trying to the answer the question of Being
ask*

[Anonymous No.15249071]

Heidegger points out that Western philosophy follows a conception of truth based on correspondence between statements and facts. Eg, if I say a cardinal is red, I can analyze the statement to find a claim and then compare it with reality to determine whether the statement is true. However, Heidegger points out for this correspondence to be possible, whatever we are speaking about must be graspable AS something we understand. If truth was only the correspondence between statement and reality, how would I know WHERE to look when I'm determining whether it is red?

Much of Heidegger's analysis proceeds from the phenomenological notion that things in the world always appear to us AS something. This ability to be appropriated in itself is a fundamental trait of being. "To be" is "to be something FOR." This "letting itself be appropriated" is the form of truth Heidegger considers to be fundamental, and names it "aletheia" from the Greek, which directly translates to "uncovering." Beings uncover themselves to us, and as such we are able to grasp them as tools, abstractly, aesthetically--any number of ways. But humans play a unique role in truth since we are the ones for whom Being is an "issue": not only are we capable of thinking about being, but being uncovers itself to us in ways that are unique in this world. That is why Heidegger replaces the notion of consciousness with Dasein: literally meaning "There-being," it refers to us as being the site where being unfolds as "an issue."

OP, you made a mistake in reading one of his harder books first. Start with Being & Time, which is basically a systematic work (though Heidegger denies it).

[Anonymous No.15250661]

>>15247410
This board sucks

[Anonymous No.15250679]

>but have you not considered that it is impossible to quantify experience, and thus we should all do nothing but frolic in the forest and also worships trees
>yes, I am indeed very smart

[Anonymous No.15250740]

>>15249071
I have no idea what I just read.