/heidegger general/

[Anonymous No.16977749]

This thread is dedicated to the discussion of the life and thought of German philosopher Martin Heidegger.

[doubtposting !!0CYbMy7gCdH No.16977797]

discount Peterson desu

[Anonymous No.16977883]

>>16977797
TAKE THAT BACK AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA lel

[Anonymous No.16977952]

>>16977797
i already do

[TURUBUMBATIRE !!Mb51/9blyQA No.16977956]

Heidegger more like Heinigger

[doubtposting !!0CYbMy7gCdH No.16977958]

>>16977952
kek

[Anonymous No.16977974]

>>16977797
>tripcode nigger shitposting
Are you the new butterfly?

[doubtposting !!0CYbMy7gCdH No.16978000]

>>16977974
Baffles me you'd think I would have any affinity with that neomarxist

[Anonymous No.16978049]

>>16977749
>just be yourself dude
Really?

[Anonymous No.16978057]

>>16977749
No one on this board understands him

[Anonymous No.16978070]

>>16978057
Explain him to someone who's too busy reading pulp shit and studying for uni
I'll take your word at face value until I get the chance to read him myself

[Anonymous No.16978092]

>>16978070
not anon you replied to but this is my qrd of BnT

[Anonymous No.16978105]

>>16978070
But Anon...I'm on this board!

[Anonymous No.16978110]

>>16978092
>doesn't mention descartes or husserl
Not sure how I feel about the Dasein explanation either but the disclaimer is pretty spot on so best let the reader make their own interpretation.

[Anonymous No.16978153]

>>16978092
Dasein is the being that precedes ontology and theoreticisation, as it relates or comports itself towards an understanding of itself before an understanding of external relations. It pertains to the soul of man and also to "God" in the Medieval sense. Dasein is constantly concerning itself with or caring for concepts that are "Being-in" (Insein / Imweltsein)

[Anonymous No.16978186]

>>16978092
Did not understand this
>>16978153
but this was pretty good

[Anonymous No.16978199]

>>16978153
>It pertains to the soul of man and also to "God" in the Medieval sense
did Heidegger ever engage with the scholastics? I don't recall him talking about the soul, unless by soul you mean the Logos

[Anonymous No.16978238]

>>16978199
His concept of time draws inspiration from Augustin's idea of time. There are many places where he mentions medieval philosophers. Also, Heidegger was studying to become a theologian before switching to philosophy.

[Anonymous No.16978298]

>>16978238
>His concept of time draws inspiration from Augustin's idea of time
that's really interesting, any books on this?

[Anonymous No.16978866]

>>16978057
Being-on-the-board is the primordial structure of the basedness of Being. Always-already boar-ding the board.

[Anonymous No.16978886]

>>16978866
kek

[Anonymous No.16979198]

>>16978866
being-as-based-within-the-board (vershluctencatdershwagelvanhohhenheim)

[Anonymous No.16980388]

>>16978153
Dasein is not a being, it is an entity. The being of Dasein is care. I think you are probably saying being meaning something closer to entity but still worth stating as being implies that it belongs to an entity (most likely the entity person or human) which is disputed.

[doubtposting !!0CYbMy7gCdH No.16980401]

>>16980388
>Dasein is not a being, it is an entity.
how do these differ
you seem to have an internal framework which you reference. these are, because of their internal structure, not obvious to other people
please elaborate

[Anonymous No.16980456]

>>16980401
This isn't an internal framework this is heideggerian terminology being (seine) vs entity (seienden).

[Anonymous No.16980457]

>>16977749
Whenever I hear about Martin Heidegger, I can't help thinking about that Georges Brassens' song "Pauvre Martin' (Poor Martin), which ends with this:

"Pauvre Martin, pauvre misère,
Creuse la terre, creuse le temps !"
("Poor Martin, poor misery/Dig in the earth/Dig in the time!")

I take it as the diagnosis that Heidegger took a wrong turn in philosophizing and in the process become alienated from his own philosophy. If he had lived and work as a farmer he would have done much better.

I believe Brassens unwittingly provided the best commentary on Heidegger.

[Anonymous No.16980464]

>>16978153
>rejects Aristotle
>"God" in the Medieval sense

Pick one and one thing only.

[doubtposting !!0CYbMy7gCdH No.16980468]

>>16980456
okay thank you for contextualizig it

[Anonymous No.16980496]

>>16978866
kek. Best post I've seen on here in a while

[Anonymous No.16980508]

>>16980468
I would elaborate more on the actual difference but I have so many questions about Dasein myself that I don't believe I could provide a satisfactory answer. I have been reading through Brandom and Haugeland where Dasein as being vs entity is disputed. Brandom states that Dasein is the "being we ourselves have" which Haugeland takes issue with on the front that Dasein is said to have care as its being and being belongs to entities so care cannot simultaneously belong to Dasein as Dasein belongs to "person"

[Anonymous No.16980597]

>>16978092
This sounds cool but it's actually really superficial yet terse looking philosophy which is the hallmark of Heidegger's German autism which Bernhard rightfully made fun of. What Heidegger is really doing is just infusing gnosticism with the typical German autism. This, as usual with German philosophy, confounds many ordinary people into thinking that it is much deeper than it actually is and this is because the German tradition and language itself is predisposed to thinking and speaking in ways that distort even the most basic things into long, sprawling convolutions of reasoning. This is also why the German legal system Rechtsstaat is very very different than what anyone might find in Common Law and even in sister European civil law systems, the German one standing out for its extreme autism. German thinkers and Heidegger especially then exist in a sort of confluence of both irrational romanticism and excess systemizing, incidentally this is the same combination that gave rise to the Nazi Party which Heidegger initially supported. But I digress, to truly understand Heidegger then is to simply realize that his life's project is a rejection of Aristotelian-Thomistic reasoning. Heidegger, before becoming a philosopher, dabbled as a Christian thinker. But Aristotelian-Thomism is especially foreign to German sensibilities because Aristotelian-Thomism is rationalistic. This confounds the German soul which finds it the most offensive that things of God should be rationally explored and exposed to categorization. Heidegger unable to cope with this, simply re-introduced gnosticism, a thing more "real", more "fundamental" than the Being of Aristotle, basically claiming that Aristotle's being is the Demiurge to his real and fundamental God, "Dasein". And this is basically the whole story of Heidegger, incidentally even in the Catholic Church you will find that another germanic soul such as Urs Von Balthasar struggled with the very same Aristotelian-Thomism logic and his inherently germanic thought very much reflected Heidegger's leanings. The problem is that the German, on the basis of his romantic irrationality, wants immediate access to the Mystical and then engage in long systemazing of said Mystical, while the Aristotelian-Thomistic tradition does the systemazing first to arrive at a conclusion that is then viewed in light of Mystical awe. Heidegger was simply unable to engage in this Aristotelian tradition and turned to gnosticism of Being instead.

[Anonymous No.16980621]

>>16980597
Sorry for the language mistakes friends, I'm not a native speaker.

[Anonymous No.16980694]

>>16980597
lol no. Heidegger is still very loved by Christians today. the phenomenological model as presented in Being and Time leaves a ton of room for God and Christianity. Dasein is in no way "God" and I am confused as to what you even mean by this. Dasein is neither its own creator or even knowledgeable of it. This is where fallenness and throwness come into play. This idea of throwness is so compatible with the need and want for God. I do agree with all the points about german autism however, being and time is made infinitely more complex by what a clusterfuck it is to translate Heidegger's mess

[Anonymous No.16980717]

>>16980597
Now incidentally you will see this tendency even in someone like De Lubac who is French, and this is in general simply a byproduct of German philosophical domination of European intellectual history through Kant, Hegel and so on, that he could not accept the Thomistic tradition. His project like Heidegger was to "return to the sources" and supposedly examine "what was really said", much like Heidegger's concern is "what is really being" and they both derive erroneous conclusions from it. Now philosophy is way more accomodating than theology, so nobody has really seriously denounced Heidegger's philosophy, but De Lubac's reading of Aquinas and his certain distionctions between Natural and Supernatural ie collapsing the Natural into Supernatural were even at the time heavily criticized by heavyweights like Lagrange but now utterly destroyed by someone like Feingold (and even others). And for the same German movement of thought that is pretty much an offshoot of their philosophy. De Lubac could not cope with the fact that Thomism posits through its systemization of various ends that the natural end of man is only limited knowledge of God. To De Lubac this is impossible because he felt even in himself the drive, the desire to know God intimately, how can then we say that God created Man without a natural end to know God as He is? And this is precisely the kind of Aristotelian-Thomistic clusterfuck that initially turned off Heidegger and sent him into gnosticism of some primordial Being. But the trick of Aristotelian-Thomism is to accept this conclusion through complex Aristotelian categories that seem offensive to some minds and then meditate on it in wonder: because the solution to it is merely the most obvious statement, that Beatific Vision can only be a Supernatural gift from God to man and has nothing to with his purely natural end. In a clear mind this would result in deep meditation at this theological Truth which is obviously true: Salvation and Beatific Vision are utterly free gifts from God, it is an expression of God's Love. But Heidegger and of his ilk, their deeply romantically irrational minds find the idea of even any convolution such as this offensive. They want the access to the Mystical right away and then have sweet freedom and time to drop their poops of philosophical reasoning upon this "fertile" ground.

Bernhard described this very well:
>For decades they ravenously spooned up that man Heidegger, more than anybody else, and overloaded their stomachs with his stuff. Heidegger had a common face, not a spiritual one, Reger said, he was through and through an unspiritual person, devoid of all fantasy, devoid of all sensibility, a genuine German philosophical ruminant, a ceaselessly gravid German philosophical cow, Reger said, which grazed upon German philosophy and thereupon for decades let its smart little cow-pats drop on it….

[Anonymous No.16980793]

I’ve long detested Heidegger, for a number of reasons. (Did I ever mention the academic conference where a militant Heideggerian, regarding me with the same scorn and disgust he would have shown if he had accidentally stepped into a pile of dog shit, told me with lofty condescension that my problem was that I was unwilling or unable to “patiently hearken to the voice of Being”?). Heidegger embodies for me, more than any other thinker in the Western tradition, what Nietzsche called the “spirit of gravity.” He’s heavy and morbid, without an ounce of humor or irony or even sense that we human beings are/have bodies. He picks up on the worst part of Nietzsche, the heavy-handed, pompous, self-obsessed, doom-laden, apocalyptic, romantic rhetoric — so stereotypically “Germanic” — of Zarathustra, but completely misses Nietzsche’s gaiety, sarcasm, “French” scepticism, and general sense of dancing over the abyss. I’ve never been able to decide which part of Heidegger is worse: the existential part, all about authenticity and resoluteness and the earth and the dwelling and being-towards-death (i.e. the Nazi side), or the ontological part, with its endless dissection of concepts by returning to their etymological roots, its walking on forest paths, its idiotic hatred of technology, its mythology of (capital-L) Language, its waiting and hearkening, its twisting of its own formulations into an endless process of self-confirmation through self-undoing (i.e. the deconstructionist side).

[Anonymous No.16980798]

>>16980793
Whitehead is different. His language is dry, gray, and highly abstract. (Occasionally a joke shimmers through, but rarely; you have to work hard in order to make it to the jokes; and as soon as you’ve gotten one, it is on to something else). But in this degree-zero, “academic,” fussy and almost pedantic prose, Whitehead is continually saying the most astonishing things. His “coldness” (in a Deleuzian sense) or “coolness” (in a McLuhaneque sense) or “neutrality” (in a Blanchotian sense) is in fact the enabling condition of his discourse: it is what permits him the freedom to analyze, to construct, to reorient, to switch direction, to re-ignite the philosophic sense of “wonder” at every step. Whitehead’s style is a kind of strategic counter-investment: it allows him to step away from his own particular passions and interests, without thereby falling into the pretense of a universal, above-it-all, higher knowledge. It’s a kind of detachment that continues to insist upon that from which we have become detached: particulars, singularities, perspectives that are always incomplete and partial (in both senses of this word: partial as opposed to whole, but also partial in the sense of partiality or bias). There is no universal, transcendent point in Whitehead’s cosmos; there are only partialities. But each of these partialities “transcends” all the others.
The cliche objection to “relativism” has always been to point out that the statement “everything is relative” is itself an absolute one, so that any relativist necessarily contradicts him/herself. Of course this is a bogus objection: because the argument depends upon separating the assertion “everything is relative” from the contexts of its utterance, in order to turn it into a universal statement. Whitehead’s neutral style is precisely a way of pointing out how everything is relative, without turning this observation (or really, a potentially infinite series of observations) into a universal.
Whitehead’s philosophy is all about change, creativity, and the production of novelty. There are no entities in the universe according to Whitehead, but only events. Or rather, events (which he usually calls “occasions”) are themselves the only entities. These “occasions” are each of them radically new — each of them is something that never existed before — and indeed, it is only because of this perpetual creativity and novelty that we are even able to think in terms of a “before” and an “after,” of time passing and irreversible — and yet each of them is radically intertwined with, affected by and affecting in its own turn, everything else. Everything is singular, but nothing is isolated.

[Anonymous No.16980806]

>>16980798
Whitehead doesn’t ask (as Heidegger does) “why is there something rather than nothing?” (which in itself, is the ultimately nihilistic question: since it is demanding a reason for existence itself, when it is only within existence, and from an existing standpoint, that questions of value and purpose make any sense), but rather: “how is it that there is always something new, rather than just the same old same-old?”. He doesn’t “hearken” to (genuflect before) Language, as Heidegger and his deconstructionist heirs are always doing, but rather notes language’s inadequacies alongside its unavoidability. He doesn’t yearn for a return before, or a leap beyond, metaphysics, but (much more subversively) just does metaphysics, inventing his own categories and working through his own problems, in order to make metaphysics speak what it has usually denied and rejected (the body, inconstancy and change, the relativeness of all perspectives and of all formulations). And he doesn’t “critique” the history of philosophy, but rather twists it in wonderfully ungainly ways, finding, for instance, arguments in Descartes that are themselves already the best response to Cartesian dualism, or anti-idealist moves in Plato.

[Anonymous No.16980808]

>>16980597
>>16980717
seething medtard who obviously hasn't read a single page of Heidegger