/lit/ - Literature

[Anonymous No.19745563]

why did Heidegger hate Goethe?

[Anonymous No.19745575]

>>19745563
what's there to love?

[Anonymous No.19745582]

>>19745563
because he was a shitty poet and freemason

[Anonymous No.19745588]

>>19745563
Ressentiment

[Anonymous No.19745598]

>>19745588
Not really, since he loved Holderlin.

[Anonymous No.19745619]

>>19745563
incompetence, mainly.

[Anonymous No.19745626]

>>19745598
As important as he is Hölderlin is a minor figure compared to Goethe, and he's a romantic while Goethe was an anti-romantic for most of his life.

[Anonymous No.19745649]

>>19745626
Having written a shitton of pages doesn't equate to being a genius, nor it is a guarantee that we are in the presence of sublime literature. Hölderlin was simply a far better poet.

[Anonymous No.19745666]

>>19745582
Heidegger?

[Anonymous No.19745703]

>>19745666
Yes.

[Anonymous No.19745710]

>>19745666
No, the subject is Goethe, sorry for the confusion.

[Anonymous No.19745715]

>>19745649
Holderlin submitted his poems and his translation of the antigone to Goethe , when the latter answered him to cease and desist from harass him ever again , the guy got mad as a hatter

[Anonymous No.19745719]

>>19745715
>from harass
*from harassing

[Anonymous No.19745906]

Because Goethe was a midwit anglophile

Hölderlin is far superior and was preoccupied with the Greeks so it’s no wonder Heidegger became obsessed with him

[Anonymous No.19745913]

>>19745563
Only a small man could hate Goethe.

[« Ƹ̵̡Ӝ̵̨̄Ʒ » !!bGBGaUpA8kS No.19745917]

>>19745906
>anglophile
In what sense?

[Anonymous No.19745921]

>>19745563
Did he really? I know he thought Holderlin was more important.

[Anonymous No.19745933]

>>19745715
To be fair everyone thought Holderlin's translations were schizophrenic in his day.

[Anonymous No.19745936]

Holderlin >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Goethe

[Anonymous No.19745943]

>>19745715
top kek

[Anonymous No.19745949]

>>19745917
In his essay Literary Criticism (1771), Goethe gives tribute to William Shakespeare stating, “The first page I read made me a slave to Shakespeare for life. And when I finished reading the first drama, I stood there like a man blind from birth…I realized and felt intensely that my life was infinitely expanded” (163). Goethe compares his life and importance as a writer to that of Shakespeare. “The noblest of our sentiments is the hope of continuing to exist even after destiny has apparently turned us to a state of non-existence”(163).

In his second essay, Shakespeare Once Again (1815), Goethe begins by discussing Shakespeare as a poet. Shakespeare achieved the “highest goal”, according to Goethe, in his awareness to his own attitudes and ideas—knowledge of himself. A poet must have this knowledge in order to provide himself the “means to gain intimate knowledge into the minds of others”(166). By calling Shakespeare “one of the greatest poets”, Goethe implies that he is among only a few who can perceive the world, express their visions and allow the reader to share so fully in the awareness of the world. “Shakespeare makes the world completely transparent for us; he does not write for the eye”.

[Anonymous No.19745955]

>>19745949
Shakespeare should count as a German. Read Wagner

[Anonymous No.19745958]

>>19745949
>liking shakespeare = being an anglophile
all of germany must be anglophiles then lmao.

[Anonymous No.19745961]

>>19745958
No one likes Shakespeare outside of Britain.

[Anonymous No.19745962]

>>19745958
Have you even read Faust?

[Anonymous No.19745966]

>>19745961
Evidently not.

[Anonymous No.19745973]

>>19745961
Germany has a longer history of Shakespeare obsession than England.

[Anonymous No.19745987]

>>19745949
shakespeare wasn't an anglo, you silly anglo.

[Anonymous No.19745991]

>>19745961
i do

t. germ

[Anonymous No.19746001]

>>19745987
>>19745973
Cope more germoid

[« Ƹ̵̡Ӝ̵̨̄Ʒ » !!bGBGaUpA8kS No.19746015]

>>19745949
If this is the reason for Hidigger’s scoffing anglophobia, it’s petty.
Liking Shakespeare isn’t anglophilia.

[Anonymous No.19746053]

Heidegger said Goethe's Urphänomen was the same as his Seyn.

[Anonymous No.19746078]

>>19746053
He said that in a moment of drunkenness

[Anonymous No.19746164]

>>19746078
he never actually said that. he said that the "Lichtung" was what Goethe wished to say metaphorically with his Urphänomen.

as for OP's question, there are basically 2 interconnected reasons, which i report in pic related

[Anonymous No.19746178]

>>19746015
>anglos are...... LE HUMAN!
kys amerifat

[Anonymous No.19746197]

>>19746164
it is noteworthy that he tracks both the goethean and newtonian naturalism back to leibniz, which to him meant above all one thing : the principle of sufficient reason , the doctrine against which heidegger held his most "wrathful" lectures in 1955–56.

[Anonymous No.19746275]

>Goethe held Christ for problematical, but the good God for wholly proven, albeit retaining the liberty to discover the latter in Nature after his own fashion; which led to all manner of physical assays and experiments, whose continued pursuit was bound, in turn, to lead the present reigning human intellect to the result that there's no God whatever, but only "Force and Matter."

[Anonymous No.19746299]

>>19746015
Disgusting anglo apologist; I'd expect nothing less from a tripfag

[Anonymous No.19746307]

>>19746015
Heidegger scoffed at anglos?

[Anonymous No.19746314]

>>19746164
>>19746197
>>19746275
Goethe was BEYOND based. the last great european genius.

[Anonymous No.19746426]

>>19745917
LAURENCE STERN YOU FAGGOT NIGGER

[Anonymous No.19747603]

bump

[Anonymous No.19747934]

>>19745582
>and freemason
I would also hate any freemason. Man fuck those faggots.

[Anonymous No.19747937]

>>19747934
based npc

[Anonymous No.19747939]

>>19747937
Freemasons are scum, amigo. That simple.

[Anonymous No.19747947]

>>19747939
>Freemasons are scum, amigo.
Why are they so bad?
They look like alright people.

[Anonymous No.19747958]

>>19747947
>They look like alright people.
Look, I know where this conversation is going and we are going to culminate going in circles. Instead I'm going to skip all of that and reaffirm my statement freemasons are absolute scum and also faggots.

[Anonymous No.19748003]

>>19747958
I don't know if they are good or bad.
Give me a reason to hate them, man.

[Anonymous No.19748014]

>>19748003
But I know they are evil and I have my reason to consider them enemies of mankind

[Anonymous No.19748025]

>>19748014
>But I know they are evil and I have my reason to consider them enemies of mankind
Share this knowledge otherwise I might eventually become one, unaware.

[Anonymous No.19748031]

>>19748025
>otherwise I might eventually become one
That's assuming you are not already one of them.

[MURDOCH-CHAN No.19748042]

>>19745563
>Goethe
Western Civilization does NOT believe in magic. That's something you see in other civilizations.

For instance, protestants believe that MAGICALLY one day a man named Luther discovered “real Christianity”, or that MAGICALLY one day European Hispanics decided to kill “millions” in Europe and America. Reading upon the history of the Hispanic-Greco-Latin Civilization, one encounters an Augustinian who moved by the money and safety offered by the House of Saxony, created a new religion that echoed Augustinian theology to attack political rivals; one also encounters that the Inquisition in Spain was responsible for about 3,000 people in over a 350 year period, and that there was NO genocide of Native Americans under the Hispanic Monarchy.

Another instance, is the MAGICAL perniciousness by German Idealists like Goethe and Hegel that humans can be incompatible with reality. It is NOT a coincidence that German Idealism was formed only after the Spanish Baroque ended, because Hispanic literature of that era lessoned humans to survive and preserve themselves in a deceit, by making them compatible with reality and avoiding idealisms. Let us NOT forget, German Idealism was the matrix of two aberrant revolutions in EUROPE: The French Revolution that disparaged Europeans, and the Nazi Revolution with its failure to anticipate its tragic defeat.

[Anonymous No.19748044]

>>19748031
>That's assuming you are not already one of them.
Paranoia strikes deeeeep.
You better stop children, what's that sound?
Everybody look what's going down.
(So goes the song)

[Anonymous No.19748061]

>>19748044
It would be naive to assume otherwise.
The statement will stay the same, they are enemies of manking and absolute scum.

[Anonymous No.19748065]

>>19748042
>there was NO genocide of Native Americans under the Hispanic Monarchy.
How did they die then? Diseases?

[Anonymous No.19748094]

>>19748061
>It would be naive to assume otherwise.
If they really rule the world maybe I'd enjoy being one of them.

[Anonymous No.19748106]

>>19748094
And I will keep calling them scum and faggots, which they are.

[MURDOCH-CHAN No.19748117]

>>19748065
>Diseases?
Yes. However, their populations later exploded back to normal levels. IN FACT, by the times the Anglos reach the Mississippi River, there are MILLIONS of Native Americans living in what is now the United States. Most of them engaged in settlements or trade with the Hispanic Monarchy.

FUN FACT: Many Native American groups today have legal means to contend land rights with the US government by showing them documents they signed with the King of Spain giving them those lands.

[Anonymous No.19748147]

>>19748106
>And I will keep calling them scum and faggots, which they are.
Whatever. I just wanna stop being poor, man. And if they want my soul...
where do I sign?

[Anonymous No.19748150]

>>19746164
what texts are these from, anon?

[Anonymous No.19748158]

>>19748147
>Whatever
Indeed, this conversation led to almost nothing. Except a reminder of the Freemason being enemies of mankind, that's a good reminder.

[Anonymous No.19748171]

>>19748117
Right. And who brought the diseases?
Wasn't it the white men?
Who took their land? Wasn't it the white men?
Who erased their culture eliminating their way of life? Wasn't it the white men?

[Anonymous No.19748248]

Because Goethe was a shitlib.

[Anonymous No.19748273]

>>19748171
Listen man, if you are going to lament everything that happened before you you should at least also mention all those dudes the nahuatl murdered.

Also, why the fuck do progs even pretend to give a shit about "indigenous culture"? Would you be fine if people hung themselves by their skin from the ceiling as part of a maturity ritual? Doesn't the fact that they were still discriminatory in their own way bother you? Do the warlike practices of the apaches bother you? Does the mass human sacrifice of the mexica bother you? These people aren't exactly progressive but you pretend to be their ally like you are in a war or something. Why the fuck do you even care if two legitimately savage cultures slaughtered each other with one succeeding when both would view you as a fucking retard?

[Anonymous No.19749401]

>>19748150
1st : the question concerning technology
2nd : heraclitus seminar

[Anonymous No.19749432]

>>19745715
Holderlin's translation practices were very modern, while Goethe's views were commonplace and very much within his epoch.

[Anonymous No.19749480]

>>19745949
What a load of vague crap. As expected from a bardolater.

[Anonymous No.19750783]

b

[Anonymous No.19750795]

e

[Anonymous No.19750889]

knobs

[Anonymous No.19751282]

>>19745949
>To the French, as representatives of modern civilisation, Shakespeare, considered seriously, to this day is a monstrosity; and even to the Germans he has remained a subject of constantly renewed investigation, with so little [142] positive result that the most conflicting views and statements are forever cropping up again. Thus has this most bewildering of dramatists—already set down by some as an utterly irresponsible and untamed genius, without one trace of artistic culture—quite recently been credited again with the most systematic tendence of the didactic poet. Goethe, after introducing him in "Wilhelm Meister" as an "admirable writer," kept returning to the problem with increasing caution, and finally decided that here the higher tendence was to be sought, not in the poet, but in the embodied characters he brought before us in immediate action. Yet the closer these figures were inspected, the greater riddle became the artist's method: though the main plan of a piece was easy to perceive, and it was impossible to mistake the consequent development of its plot, for the most part pre-existing in the source selected, yet the marvellous "accidentiæ" in its working out, as also in the bearing of its dramatis personae, were inexplicable on any hypothesis of deliberate artistic scheming. Here we found such drastic individuality, that it often seemed like unaccountable caprice, whose sense we never really fathomed till we closed the book and saw the living drama move before our eyes; then stood before us life's own image, mirrored with resistless truth to nature, and filled us with the lofty terror of a ghostly vision. But how decipher in this magic spell the tokens of an "artwork"? Was the author of these plays a poet?

>What little we know of his life makes answer with outspoken naïvety: he was a play-actor and manager, who wrote for himself and his troop these pieces that in after days amazed and poignantly perplexed our greatest poets; pieces that for the most part would not so much as have come down to us, had the unpretending prompt-books of the Globe Theatre not been rescued from oblivion in the nick of time by the printing-press. Lope de Vega, scarcely less a wonder, wrote his pieces from one day to the next in immediate contact with his actors and the [143] stage; beside Corneille and Racine, the poets of façon, there stands the actor Molière, in whom alone production was alive; and midst his tragedy sublime stood Æschylus, the leader of its chorus.—Not to the Poet, but to the Dramatist must we look, for light upon the Drama's nature; and he stands no nearer to the poet proper than to the mime himself, from whose heart of hearts he must issue if as poet he means to "hold the mirror up to Nature."

[Anonymous No.19751287]

>>19751282
>Thus undoubtedly the essence of Dramatic art, as against the Poet's method, at first seems totally irrational; it is not to be seized, without a complete reversal of the beholder's nature. In what this reversal must consist, however, should not be hard to indicate if we recall the natural process in the beginnings of all Art, as plainly shewn to us in improvisation. The poet, mapping out a plan of action for the improvising mime, would stand in much the same relation to him as the author of an operatic text to the musician; his work can claim as yet no atom of artistic value; but this it will gain in the very fullest measure if the poet makes the improvising spirit of the mime his own, and develops his plan entirely in character with that improvisation, so that the mime now enters with all his individuality into the poet's higher reason. This involves, to be sure, a complete transformation of the poetic artwork itself, of which we might form an idea if we imagined the impromptu of some great musician noted down. We have it on the authority of competent witnesses, that nothing could compare with the effect produced by Beethoven when he improvised at length upon the pianoforte to his friends; nor, even in view of the master's greatest works, need we deem excessive the lament that precisely these inventions were not fixed in writing, if we reflect that far inferior musicians, whose penwork was always stiff and stilted, have quite amazed us in their 'free fantasias' by a wholly unsuspected and often very fertile talent for invention.—At anyrate we believe we shall really expedite the solution of an extremely difficult problem, if we define the Shakespearian Drama as [144] a fixed mimetic improvisation of the highest poetic worth. For this explains at once each wondrous accidental in the bearing and discourse of characters alive to but one purpose, to be at this moment all that they are meant to seem to us to be, and to whom accordingly no word can come that lies outside this conjured nature; so that it would be positively laughable to us, upon closer consideration, if one of these figures were suddenly to pose as poet. This last is silent, and remains for us a riddle, such as Shakespeare. But his work is the only veritable Drama; and what that implies, as work of Art, is shewn by our rating its author the profoundest poet of all time.—

[Anonymous No.19751294]

>For Wagner, improvisation meant getting closer to nature as art and his greatest examples of this are Aeschylus and Shakespeare. In his 1871 essay, “The Destiny of Opera,” Wagner contends that the essence of dramatic art consists in the poet’s making “the improvising spirit of the mime his own” (143). In following this course of action the dramatic poet merely follows the natural origins of all art, which Wagner claims is improvisation. Dilating further upon the notion of improvisation and its relationship to nature, in a conversation about Aeschylus in 1872 he observes to Cosima, “The remarkable thing about this truly great being is that one hardly notices the way it is done! It does not appear to be art at all, because it is in fact something much higher: improvisation”.

[Anonymous No.19751304]

>>19751287
>For Wagner, improvisation meant getting closer to nature as art and his greatest examples of this are Aeschylus and Shakespeare. In his 1871 essay, “The Destiny of Opera,” Wagner contends that the essence of dramatic art consists in the poet’s making “the improvising spirit of the mime his own” (143). In following this course of action the dramatic poet merely follows the natural origins of all art, which Wagner claims is improvisation. Dilating further upon the notion of improvisation and its relationship to nature, in a conversation about Aeschylus in 1872 he observes to Cosima, “The remarkable thing about this truly great being is that one hardly notices the way it is done! It does not appear to be art at all, because it is in fact something much higher: improvisation”.

[Anonymous No.19751972]

>>19745563
My sense is that Heideggers entire goal with his writing was to carve out for himself a place in history as "the first philosopher to ask the question of being", against 2000 years of 'Seinsvergessenheit' in the western world.
The problem with this is that it isn't actually true as far as I can tell. After Kant turned metaphysics on its head various poets and philosophers - Schiller and Goethe, Hegel, Stirner and Nietzsche are the ones I'm familiar with - developed pretty much exactly the epistemic problem Heidegger later dressed up as the Seinsfrage. Schiller did it in aesthetic education of man, Goethe with his writings on aesthetics, Hegels entire philosophy is the encounter with the negative, it's what Stirner is getting at with his spooks and the way in which we try to 'get behind things' and so come to ourselves (ich hab mein Sach auf nichts gestellt' - the Hegelian nothing, absolute negativity), and it's what Nietzsche lays out as early as Birth of Tragedy.
Naturally, Heidegger had to discount this entire tradition of thought (Post-Kantianism via either Hegel or Schopenhauer), so that he could be "the first", and he stylized Hölderlin as the source of his inspiration so that he could explain where he got his amazing new idea from.
I recommend reading one of Heidegger's lectures on either Hegel or Nietzsche, if you are familiar with one of the two, and paying attention to the way he twists and turns, always with the goal of making it appear that what he's doing is new and different.

[Anonymous No.19752732]

>>19751972
While I think Heidegger's did definitely have this egocentric drive, what your post fails to realise is basically the entire point of Heidegger's philosophy i.e that Being is not in any way identifiable with beings, be this the totality of beings or the being of this specific entity.
All the examples you cite are instances of philosophers approaching ontology by thinking about the nature of beings, Stirner's spooks are most certainly entities and not that which is as a whole, nor is Being somehow absolute negativity. That said, out of all the figures you name, I have heard Hegelians argue that Hegel's talk of pure being in the Logic introduces a kind of pre-Heideggerian ontological difference. But, even here substantial differences remain as Hegel proceeds to make determinations about the nature of being which is something Heidegger categorically rejects because Being as such always withdraws from sight precisely in our interactions with beings.

[Anonymous No.19753532]

>>19751282
based wagnerchad

[Anonymous No.19754693]

jealousy and insecurity

[Anonymous No.19754740]

>>19751972
>against 2000 years of 'Seinsvergessenheit' in the western world.
He didn't actually believe this though, or at least he stopped believing it.

[Anonymous No.19755190]

basically heidegger compensated his lack of poetical talent with vulgar literary devices such as obscurity, propheticism, magniloquence. goethe's pure clarity , his outspoken disgust for symbolism, his love for the phenomena and his ability to transmute them in a lyrical reality, all of that humiliates mediocre writers like heidegger.

[Anonymous No.19755376]

>>19751972
>Schiller and Goethe, Hegel, Stirner and Nietzsche are the ones I'm familiar with - developed pretty much exactly the epistemic problem Heidegger later dressed up as the Seinsfrage. Schiller did it in aesthetic education of man, Goethe with his writings on aesthetics, Hegels entire philosophy is the encounter with the negative, it's what Stirner is getting at with his spooks and the way in which we try to 'get behind things' and so come to ourselves (ich hab mein Sach auf nichts gestellt' - the Hegelian nothing, absolute negativity), and it's what Nietzsche lays out as early as Birth of Tragedy.
Bad take

Try reading Was ist Metaphysik?

[Anonymous No.19755392]

>>19755190
>mediocre writer
Cope

Heidegger is on the level of William Faulkner

[Anonymous No.19755416]

>>19745936
RAUS!

[Anonymous No.19755509]

Why did Heidegger backstab Husserl?

[Anonymous No.19755521]

>>19755509
Because Husserl started copying Heidegger’s critique of science and because he was a Jew

[Anonymous No.19755528]

>>19749432
What a cope. What's modern translation? The precursor to erasing politically incorrect parts? Either translate the work properly or do a fanfic without leeching off greater works.

[Anonymous No.19755536]

>>19747958
Incredibly based.

[Anonymous No.19755544]

>>19755521
Heidegger was a piece of shit. I'm glad he was a cuckold.

[Anonymous No.19755554]

>>19755544
seething chosen one
>There is no doubt in fact that Heidegger's hostility to the grand masters of Kantianism, especially Cassirer, was rooted in a profound incompatibility with their alien habitus: 'On the one hand, you had this dark, athletic little man, an accomplished skier, with energetic but impassive features, a hard, difficult man, totally committed to setting and solving problems with the deepest moral seriousness; and, on the other hand, a white-haired man, Olympian not only in appearance but also in spirit, with his open mind and his wide-ranging discussions, his relaxed features and his indulgent amiability, his vitality and adaptability, and, finally, his aristocratic distinction'.
>We can quote the words of Cassirer's wife herself: 'We had been explicitly warned about Heidegger's odd appearance; we knew about his rejection of all social conventions and also his hostility towards neo-Kantians, especially Cohen. His penchant for anti-semitism was not unfamiliar to us, either... All the guests had arrived, the women in evening gowns, the men in dinner suits. At a point when the dinner had been interrupted for some time with seemingly endless speeches, the door opened, and an inconspiciuous little man came into the room, looking as awkward as a peasant who had stumbled into a royal court. He had black hair and dark piercing eyes, rather like some workman from southern Italy or Bavaria; an impression which was soon confirmed by his regional accent. He was wearing an old-fashioned black suit. For me, what seemed the most worrying thing, was his deadly seriousness and his total lack of a sense of humour'.

[Anonymous No.19755607]

>>19755554
i hate heidgneger more than anyone elese on here, but these jews lapring as german aristocrats are more pathetic than any heideggerian word pun.
also it is absolutely disgusting how these jews conflate the word "olympian" with "well mannered" or "socialite". one good thing about heidegger is his repudiation of all this "humanistic" bullshit , to turn to phenomenal inquiry.

[Anonymous No.19755877]

>>19755554
german philosophy is crap

[Anonymous No.19756788]

>>19755554
>Why do the south germans hate us? I don't get it.

[Anonymous No.19757209]

>>19745703
good album m8

[Anonymous No.19757297]

>>19755877
imagine lying with dubs

[Anonymous No.19757339]

no matter what anyone says ever, Goethe is the greatest Chad to have ever lived. Goethe will always mog everything and everyone even from the grave. No other writer in the history of the earth has even come close to Goethes alpha nature.

>be Goethe
>be beefing with Kleist
>direct a play by Kleist extra shittily
>people come to you afterwards
>"yo Goethe the play you directed sucked ass"
>"yeah I tried my best but the script is just awful, trust me I did my best"
>Kleist kills himself later

[Anonymous No.19758057]

>>19745703
good album but I don't know what it has to do with Heidegger, would you elaborate?

[Anonymous No.19758119]

>>19748273
This. Reminder that every "indigenous" culture everywhere achieved their status as "natives" by genociding the previous inhabitants.

[Anonymous No.19758139]

>>19758119
Not the Irish.

[Anonymous No.19758152]

>>19758139
Any human group achieved their position at the top of the food chain by violence.

[Anonymous No.19758196]

>>19751972
>As far as I can tell
Not very far evidently

[Anonymous No.19758222]

>>19758057
Look at the digits of the comment he's replying to, m8.

[Anonymous No.19758226]

>>19758222
Oh. boring.

[Anonymous No.19758240]

>>19758226
So is philosophy lol. That's life, bud.

[Anonymous No.19758285]

>>19758240
Haha, you got me there. Cheers m8

[Anonymous No.19758405]

>>19757339
>pic
imagine being this based. he almost discovered evolution even.

[Anonymous No.19758415]

>>19758285
Actually the emu is our national animal.

[Anonymous No.19758612]

>>19745563

bc heidegger was a faggot

[Anonymous No.19759779]

>>19745563
Goethe is overrated

[Anonymous No.19760639]

>>19759779
holy cope

[Anonymous No.19760669]

>>19759779
kek imagine being this wrong. as long as there are chinese kids in the world who havent read Faust Goethe is criminally underrated