[ 3 / biz / cgl / ck / diy / fa / ic / jp / lit / sci / vr / vt ] [ index / top / reports ] [ become a patron ] [ status ]
2023-11: Warosu is now out of extended maintenance.

/lit/ - Literature

View post   
File: 184 KB, 494x291, 040214_0400.png [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
16309608 No.16309608 [Reply] [Original]

Why is Heidegger lauded more than Husserl?

>> No.16309622

>>16309608
because Hideegger hid his eggs up Hitler's ass

>> No.16309642

>>16309608
Husserl was jewish.

>> No.16309646

>>16309608
Better pseud appeal

>> No.16309651

because husserls writing is even worse than heideggers

>> No.16309659

>>16309608
Nobody is sure how to pronounce Husserl, whereas Heidegger rolls of the tongue

>> No.16309701

Husserl isn’t edgy and doesn’t have edge appeal, he’s also more technical and extensive.

>> No.16309722

>>16309608
>PreWWII: Husserl was jewish
>PostWWII: Heidegger used catchy terminology like "death or destruction" to say the same that Husserl said, but using systematic scientifical and philosophical concepts.

>> No.16309727

>>16309701
>>16309722
>>16309642
This

>> No.16309754

Easier to read, easier to understand, much wider impact because he had MANY more students and became an institution already prior to the Nazis, and remained one under and after them, and above all, his hermeneuticized and historicized phenomenology jived far better with the priorities of the age.

But above all Husserl is fucking hard to read. There have always been people who go back to Merleau-Ponty, people who are more interested in transcendental phenomenology than hermeneutic (historical, cultural, linguistic) phenomenology, but they don't tend to latch onto Husserl even if they read him. It's because his writings are scattered and often impenetrable.

Even now there are only a couple schools of Husserlians and they are arguably not transcendental idealists, any of them. Like with Merleau-Ponty scholars, they want to break through his transcendental aspect and into a metaphysical stance. Part of the reason for this is that they're sick of the "deconstructive" relativizing and historicizing of the hermeneutic turn Heidegger represented, which is itself a sign that it was dominant for a long time (since people are now sick of it and trying to flee it into alternatives).

But above all again the problem is he's hard to read. You have to be a true transcendental philosopher to appreciate him in my opinion. There are plenty of people who study transcendental philosophers but almost no transcendental philosophers.

>> No.16309773

>>16309608
Heidegger was more fashionable and appealed more to french faggots. Spiritually speaking, Heidegger wasn't even german

>> No.16309778

>>16309701
>>16309722
>>16309754
I think there also might be something about Husserl's foundationalism being out of fashion, whereas Heidegger's relativism appeals more postmodern taste, no? This is what I'm trying to figure out: why is foundationalism so suddenly at odds with our culture.

>> No.16309828

>>16309754
Can I ask, I've just read 'the Crisis of the European Sciences and Transcendental Phenomenology', and found it quite readable. you think it's really that different from other texts by him? And would Gadamer not be a way out of deconstructive relativizing hermeneutics, as Gadamer went on to Plato?

>> No.16309888

Math really proceeds like the progressive unfolding of truth in Spirit whereas the reception of philosophy is unsatisfyingly a much more contingent and jumbled human mess.

>> No.16309924

>>16309778
There was a huge reaction around Husserl's time against neo-Kantianism which was felt to be stodgy and thoughtlessly systematic. Just the signs of the times I guess. Heidegger writes that you could almost feel a major shift was in the air around 1900, nobody knew what it was going to be but in hindsight we can see that there was a tidal wave of anticipation for existentialism prior to the breakout of existentialism.

There's also the tremendous popular appeal of existentialism and its expressionistic, subjectivist, aestheticizing aspects, which allow the masses to express their disdain for technological and industrial modernity without needing much rigour. Hesse published Steppenwolf the same year as Heidegger published Being and Time, not a coincidence. It was a period of soul searching and flights into irrationalism (cf. Bergson's tremendous popularity a decade earlier). Pessimistic, surface-level readings of Schopenhauer were very important for this generation. So was the vulgar "dionysian" reading of Nietzsche.

Few people wanted to be associated with scientificity in this period, simply put. It was associated with aridity. Husserl billed himself as the culmination of the entire western tradition of scientificity. Husserl is so hard to get into, and so idiosyncratic, I could see people confusing him for some kind of "positivist" (in a general sense).

>>16309828
Crisis is one of his best and most readable for sure. As a critique there's little to disagree with, and the same critiques are present in many of the hermeneutic and historicist phenomenologists. But as the other anon says it's his foundationalism that most people shy away from. His solution is a renewed inquiry into the transcendental subject, but a lot of people wanted to see the whole idea of a transcendental subject as something historically relative to the Cartesian weltanschauung and so on.

I always read Gadamer as returning to Plato's dialectic but not his mystical elements. I think he's amazing as a hermeneuticist, probably the culmination of that whole tradition, but never saw him as very interested in anything genuinely transcendent, in Plato or othewrise. More like Wittgenstein or even Derrida, focused on method and convinced of the irreducible historicity of the subject (Dasein or whatever). Do you disagree? He's definitely against any supra-historical conceptual/discursive knowledge (based on his debate with Strauss and his critique of Hegel) but does he talk about Platonic noesis elsewhere?

>> No.16309982

>>16309754
>>16309924
why is Husserl particularly difficult to read?

>> No.16310018

>>16309608
He's not. At least Husserl's early work is sometimes cited. Heidegger is not cited at all by serious philosophers.

>> No.16310040

>>16309888
No, that's only true for pseudo-"philosophy".

>> No.16310095

>>16309924
Thank you for the great response anon. Now that you mention it, I find it a great shame that even in his peak of popularity, Schopenhauer was still mostly misunderstood. Your description of Husserl made me all the more interested in his work.

>> No.16310104

>>16310018
>serious philosophers
*analytic dogmatist enters the chat*

>> No.16310130

>>16310040
Elaborate.
Anyway the answer is also that Heidegger was far more revolutionary in attempting a break with the entire post-Socratic tradition (ontotheology) while Husserl was following more in the footsteps of Descartes and Kant. Whatever Husserl's originality, Heidegger was radically circumscribing the entire edifice (destruktion), a much more exciting project for many.

>> No.16310137

>>16310130
So-called continental "philosophy" is not philosophy.

>> No.16310143

>>16310130
>a break with the entire post-Socratic tradition (ontotheology)
>circumscribing the entire edifice (destruktion)
Am I wrong to think these are empty buzzwords? How do you even break with "post-Socratic" tradition?

>> No.16310145

>>16310104
>dogmatist
Serious philosophy is the opposite of dogmatism.

>> No.16310192

>>16309982
The main thing is inconsistency and opacity of terms, there is still no good consensus on what some of his most central terms meant or what their function was in his system. The overall method and perspective is extremely powerful but then you get to the point where he's supposed to give you the positive results of his inquiries and it never really happens. Partly this is because he kept developing and revising his ideas and never settled on a single formulation of them. There is no one text you can point to and say, that's the basic Husserl. People can't agree whether his Logical Investigations work is in an unbroken development with his Ideas work and whether all that is in an unbroken development with his later focus on temporality, or whether there were big breaks (one or more?).

Another factor is that his writings are scattered over unpublished works and revisions upon revisions.

This is more personal but the more I read Heidegger, the more I felt like his terms and ideas were consistent and he was only building on them over time, but this doesn't happen with Husserl. After a while you feel confident in any Heidegger text but not with Husserl, not in the same way at least.

But he's still amazing to study, just has to be done differently.

>>16310095
Likewise, I think a few people show up in each Husserl thread too. I agree about Schopenhauer also, there's a Jungian guy on /lit/ who really interested me in him and made me realise I had been unfair to him. Any recommendations?'

>>16310130
Can vouch for this, reading a "destructive" Heidegger essay on some topic can be very exciting after you get used to him because it's like watching an expert mechanic taking apart a complex machine like he knows every part down to its atoms.

>>16310143
It's a general way of saying that post-Socratic philosophy lost sight of the necessary and necessarily "originary" ontological stance of all philosophy and slid into "ontical" systematics of various kinds, unconscious of having done so. The buzzwords are hard to avoid using once you get used to them.

>> No.16310228

>>16310143
By recovering the originary sense of Being as it disclosed itself to the presocratics, i.e. not as a being like God but Being itself. Heidegger was something of an archaist mystic.
>>16310137
You don't consider Hegel continental?

>> No.16310239

>>16310192
>Likewise, I think a few people show up in each Husserl thread too. I agree about Schopenhauer also, there's a Jungian guy on /lit/ who really interested me in him and made me realise I had been unfair to him. Any recommendations?'
Ah, I'm the same anon lmao. I have to say I'm very glad knowledgable posters like yourself frequent /lit/. Recommendations on Schopenhauer? His chief work is his massive WWR, but if you want a quick survey of his fundamentals, Bryan Magee's "The Philosophy of Schopenhauer" is a good systematic overview in about 200 pages.

>> No.16310269

>>16310228
Hegel was an obfuscating mountebank, and thus the first "continental philosopher" in the contemporary sense. Schopenhauer had his number.

>> No.16310552 [DELETED] 

>>16309701
>>16309642
>>16309722
Dumbtards
Husserl didn’t break with Cartesian dualism. He went only half the way. Heidegger was the real breakthrough.

You could read Dreyfus’ (who was Jewish btw) On Heidegger’s Critique of Husserl to get and idea on just how much big of a difference there is between Heidegger and Husserl, but the problem is that you’d have to have a brain capable of processing anything more complex than a Wikipedia summary, so I recommend that you kys and try again next life.

>> No.16310556

>>16309701 #
>>16309642 #
>>16309722 #
Dumbtards
Husserl didn’t break with Cartesian dualism. He went only half the way. Heidegger was the real breakthrough.

You could read Dreyfus’ (who was Jewish btw) On Heidegger’s Critique of Husserl to get and idea on just how big of a difference there is between Heidegger and Husserl, but the problem is that you’d have to have a brain capable of processing anything more complex than a Wikipedia summary, so I recommend that you kys and try again next life.

>> No.16310756

bump

>> No.16310786

Husserl said this:
>The crisis of European existence can end in only one of two ways: in the ruin of a Europe alienated from its rational sense of life, fallen into a barbarian hatred of spirit; or in the rebirth of Europe from the spirit of philosophy, through a heroism of reason that will definitively overcome naturalism. Europe’s greatest danger is weariness. Let us as “good Europeans” do battle with this danger of dangers with the sort of courage that does not shirk even the endless battle. If we do, then from the annihilating conflagration of disbelief, from the fiery torrent of despair regarding the West’s mission to humanity, from the ashes of the great weariness, the phoenix of a new inner life of the spirit will arise as the underpinning of a great and distant human future, for the spirit alone is immortal.

>> No.16311067

>>16310786
This type of thinking is wholly absent nowadays. It was present in Schopenhauer; Nietzsche inverted it. It was present in Husserl; Heidegger inverted it. The responses to the 20th century are wholly irrational. You have Traditionalists seeking a pre-platonic wisdom, you have Heideggerians, Schmittians, Deleuzians, accelerationists, scientists ignorant of philosophy. Whom was the torch passed on to? Will we ever see a return?

>> No.16311076

>>16310786
>>16311067
This is social commentary, not philosophy.

>> No.16311081

>>16311076
Yes. What about it?

>> No.16311102

>>16311076
Philosophy affects society and vice versa, it is not independent of its milieu.

>> No.16311115

>>16311102
It's more that society affects philosophy, with philosophy rationalising a lot of ideas that were already put into motion through the engine of history.

>> No.16311124

>>16311102
Sorry I missed the vice versa part. Still I would place emphasis on the cause being society and not philosophy.

>> No.16311131 [DELETED] 
File: 101 KB, 940x528, Martin with Fritz Heidegger.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
16311131

>>16309608
The philosophy of being, and its grandness in relating to all of history, such as specifically to the Greeks; and the mission to reveal what was special to them.

Whether you want to say it was more important or just sounded more important, at least towards the end of Heidegger's life he became the greater, and arguably the greatest thinker ever, at least after Kant.

>> No.16311136

>>16310556
This, I've heard in the part of Being and Time where he critiques Descartes he's actually critiquing Husserl there as well, is this true?

t. Still on the Greeks

>> No.16311143

>>16309608
because he's far more read than husserl

>> No.16311144

>>16311067
Heidegger had this arguably MUCH more than Husserl anon, you've never heard of the "God has always been with me", "only a God can save us" quotes???

>> No.16311218

>>16311067

>> No.16311219
File: 101 KB, 940x528, Martin with Fritz Heidegger.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
16311219

>"God lets the oppositional will of the ground operate in order that might be which love unifies and subordinates itself to for the glorification of the Absolute. The will of love stands about the will of the ground and this predominance, this eternal decidedness, the love for itself as the essence of being in general, this decidedness is the innermost core of absolute freedom."
>"Philosophy will not be able to effect an immediate transformation of the present condition of the world. This is not only true of philosophy, but of all merely human thought and endeavor. Only a god can save us. The sole possibility that is left for us is to prepare a sort of readiness, through thinking and poeticizing, for the appearance of the god or for the absence of the god in the time of foundering [Untergang] for in the face of the god who is absent, we founder. Only a God Can Save Us."
>"For us contemporaries the greatness of what is to be thought is too great. Perhaps we might bring ourselves to build a narrow and not far reaching footpath as a passageway."
>"God has always been with me."
>“There is a thinking more rigorous than the conceptual”
>“...the most extreme sharpness and depth of thought belongs to genuine and great mysticism”
~Martin Heidegger

>> No.16311252 [DELETED] 

>>16311144
>>16311218
You are confusing two different things anon. What is being talked about isn't whether the philosopher is religious or whatever (Schopenhauer, for one, was a pioneering non-theist). It's about whether philosophy is to be established in firm grounds vis-à-vis Husserl, or relativized as with Heidegger.

>> No.16311261

>>16311144
>>16311219
You are confusing two different things anon. What is being talked about isn't whether the philosopher is religious or whatever (Schopenhauer, for one, was a pioneering non-theist). It's about whether philosophy is to be established in firm grounds vis-à-vis Husserl, or relativized as with Heidegger.

>> No.16311270

>>16311261
Define what you mean by "relativised", I can only imagine that you're using the word incorrectly.

>> No.16311278

>>16311270
Not him but Heidegger thought a transhistorical philosophy was impossible even though he was also obsessed with grounding.

>> No.16311355

>>16311067
What do you think, anon? Is there going to be a breakthrough, or the cycle just repeats itself?

>> No.16311471

>>16309608
Because Husserlian phenomenology remained within the metaphysics of subjectivity

>> No.16311480

>>16309608
Same reason why Foucault is lauded more than Derrida - they are easier reads.

Btw Derrida read both Heidegger and Husserl.

>> No.16311484

>>16311278
I don't see how that is relativistic though anon. Someone like Jung also thought it was impossible to "not live in a myth" as he called it, but he most certainly wasn't a relativist.

>> No.16311502

>>16311067
Derrida

>> No.16311519

>>16311484
Heidegger thought even his original truth was relativistically tied to a particular culture in a particular epoch.

>> No.16311535

>>16309659
Fun fact: This is the actual reason.

>> No.16311540

>>16311484
If "living myths" is relativistic, then Plato was also relativist (which is absurd), since Jung's archetypes function as psychological platonic forms. Jung actually had a firm Kantian view when it came to epistemology.

I don't see how that relates to Heidegger though.

>> No.16312139

bump

>> No.16312150

>>16311519
And? That is still truth.

>> No.16312157

>>16311540
I know that was my point, Jung also wasn't a relativist.

>> No.16312159
File: 17 KB, 142x263, as_bastona.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
16312159

>>16309608
Because he was in the nazi party and wrote a bunch of big books and all the hannah arendt college trannies were all like "BIG BOOKS? But I thought nazis were all dumb retards, unlike me", so that gave him press and notoriety. Similar with Schmitt(?), but Schmitt's works are actually of some use, but "Heidegger" hits much harder than "Schmitt" as a surname. Sounds more evil or whatever.

He is a celebrity.
It's all pretty female, gay and teenage.

>> No.16312169

>>16312159
your explanation is pretty gay, teenage and female as well anon

>> No.16312175

>>16312159
It's funny how Husserl on the other hand, despite being a jew, acted in the most unjewish way possible.

>> No.16312248

>>16312159
shut the fuck up

>> No.16312252

>>16312159
Schmitt was different in that he was regarded as an authority in public law (his textbook on constitutional law being in continuous publication since the 1920s).

Heidegger's legacy will be coming up with a different set of words for use by obese indigenous and POC studies academics in their rationalizations of being primitive and obese.

>> No.16312610

>>16311535
Knowing anglos, it probably is. They still can't even pronounce Goethe, and that's why they don't read him either

>> No.16312637

>>16309622
based

>> No.16312745

>>16312610
Gurt-tur?

>> No.16312829

>>16312745
Ger-teh with a short "teh". German has a new syllable on the last consonant.

>> No.16312832

>>16310239
People here do read, it is just fun to give people shit.

My diary and I don’t read are hillarious.

Also check out What is it called Thinking by Heidegger... cause it is fun and short and points out how clear Heidho is.

>> No.16313002

>>16312829
I see, thank you anon.

>> No.16313993

>>16312159
>but "Heidegger" hits much harder than "Schmitt" as a surname. Sounds more evil or whatever.
https://finalfantasy.fandom.com/wiki/Heidegger

>> No.16314099

>>16309608
https://discord.gg/uXqjGaz