It's baffling how much Wittgenstein has in common with Heidegger

[Anonymous No.15345398]

[Anonymous No.15345435]

Such as?

[Anonymous No.15345477]

>>15345435
Their concept of Time, Present and Death.
Maybe not in their main project, but they do share some opinkons beyond the critique of metaphysics

[Anonymous No.15345713]

>>15345398
Not all that baffling considering he read and agreed with Being and Time. Analytic philosophers are very keen to suppress that information though.

Heidegger and Wittgenstein are both working within roughly the same paradigm of post-Kantian and both are pretty heavily influenced by German Romanticism (specifically Goethe in Wittgenstein's case). All of this gets obscured because analytics have a vested interest in misrepresenting Wittgenstein as a neoliberal "therapeutic" quietist and the more basic bitch continentals have a similar vested interest in misrepresenting Heidegger.

[Anonymous No.15347033]

bump

[Anonymous No.15347674]

>>15345477
can you actually elaborate on that to actually make the thread interesting

[Anonymous No.15348741]

One man who was thought to be one of the greatest German philosophers of this century, Martin Heidegger, started many books, but he never completed any because by the time he was half-way, he had forgotten what he had written. So the first volume would be published, and people would be waiting for the second volume; it never came.

This went on happening his whole life; he never completed any book. When asked, he said, "The reality is, I myself forget what I have been writing. It is so complicated that it is better to start a new book rather than to read the old one. Let others read_I don't want to get involved in it." It will be a great entertainment to you if you read something of Martin Heidegger.

And this shows his great "intelligence": he was a follower of Adolf Hitler, who was certainly a madman! The greatest philosopher follows an idiot_it does not show anything about Adolf Hitler, but it shows something about Martin Heidegger! I have gone through all his works. In the end your hands are empty. You don't get anything of what he wants to say, why he wants to say it. Why all this long process of gymnastics without any conclusion? But these people have been impressing the common masses.

My understanding is that whatever people cannot understand they think must be great. Because we cannot understand, naturally it has to be something very miraculous, very mysterious. But the truth is always simple: it is mysterious because it is simple.

The truth is always obvious.

It is miraculous because it is obvious, not because it is complex, not because it is far away. It is so close that you tend to forget it. It is within you, so you don't even bother to look at it.

Truth is simple, obvious, uncomplicated. All that it needs is just a silent awareness, and a great understanding descends on you, an understanding that does not become knowledge, an understanding that deepens your innocence and that deepens the mystery of life.

[Anonymous No.15348780]

Come back to me when you realize how much he has in common with Bataille's non erotic work

[Anonymous No.15348823]

>>15348741
not an argument

[Anonymous No.15348884]

>>15348823
>argument
When people argue, they are not arguing for truth. Truth needs no argument because truth cannot be decided by any argument or any discussion. No debate can be decisive; it is meaningless. When you argue, you argue for egos: your truth and somebody else's truth. Two egos are in conflict. You have to prove that you are right. Even if sometimes you have a glimpse that the other is saying the right thing you cannot accept it. Many times it happens_ You have a consciousness - many times a glimpse comes to you that maybe the other is right. But you cannot allow this, you cannot conceive of this, it will be very, very bad for your ego. You have to fight for it.

I used to live in a town for a few years, and I had a neighbor. He was a very interesting man. He was a very, very fanatic Hindu, and he would come and argue with me for hours. And I could see that he could see what I was saying. I could see that he had understood what I was saying, but still he would argue.

Then one day I was surprised. He was talking to somebody else, and he was saying the things that I had been saying to him just that morning.

So I went to his house and I said, "What are you doing?" He became very embarrassed. "Just this morning, you were against the thing that you are saying now."

He was caught red-handed, he confessed. He said, "This happens every day. When I listen to you I want to agree, but my ego resists. I cannot say yes in front of you. But when I come home and I think over it, I find you are right.

"And you may be surprised," he said to me, "that I have been arguing for you with many people. But I cannot say that to you. Today you have caught me red-handed. Now it will be difficult to argue with you."

And really, since that day, the argument ceased. He still used to come but now he would silently listen. A great realization happened to him and he changed that day. Since that day, he became really a seeker of truth. Then he was no longer bothered by his ego, "my belief" was no longer the concern.

[Anonymous No.15349813]

>>15348741
>In the end your hands are empty. You don't get anything of what he wants to say, why he wants to say it.
filtered

[Anonymous No.15349834]

>>15349813
>filtered
Ug poster