[ 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: 73 KB, 356x502, Heidegger_2_(1960).jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
23383121 No.23383121 [Reply] [Original]

Explain him in a simple paragraph or admit you didn't really "get it"

>> No.23383142

The guy had one decent point and it's still pretty much invalid due to the Neoplatonists, Aquinas and others.

>> No.23383150

>>23383121
Heidegger, Heidegger was boozy beggar who could think you under the table.

>> No.23383171

>>23383121
Like, I'm honestly surprised at how 'basic' and generally 'soft' Heidegger's subject matter typically is considering his reputation. Like, looking into the basic 'untheoretical' ways we apprehend reality (like, a hammer existing as "a thing useful to hit things with", as opposed to something "really madeup of atoms" or merely a "form present to us") and using that to build up a more 'authentic' sense of what it means for something "to be" (for us as humans in this world) seems to be his biggest thing.

Maybe Being and Time gets way harder in the latter half or something, because aside from some obscure passages with peculiar wording, what he's trying to do and his basic motivation for it (finding if what it means "to be" in various senses has some intelligible sense that encompasses and unites them, despite "a hammer", "my consciousness", "love", "maths", "God" etc. all 'existing' in completely different ways) is done fairly straightforwardly.

>> No.23383179

>>23383171
But he invents a complex web of totally-not-concepts in a totally-not-metaphysical system (accusing Kant and others of merely constructing metaphysical systems) over and above his pretty basic points.

>> No.23383205

Being is an event and not a thought. Man is merely the clearing of being reflected back into itself.

>> No.23383291
File: 55 KB, 474x669, martin heidegger.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
23383291

Experience is an ontological-epistemological ground. Theories, memories, etc are representations of actual experience and they are what introduce the capacity for error. Philosophers from Parmenides onwards were dangerously wrong when they said that ideas were more real than actual experience, which led to an inauthentic devaluation and manipulation of being.

>> No.23383390

I liked poetry, language, and thought by Heidegger. I found it very passionate his prose is like a kiss and his points are very poignant.

>> No.23383440

>>23383390
>his prose is like a kiss
lmao, gay

>> No.23383466

>>23383121
I remember watching the lecture from Michael Sugrue about Heidegger, and he injected some very interesting opinions about how Heidegger's continental-style mysticism essentially left a lot of interpretive room for a Christian outlook on human nature (fall-from-grace, endless striving to please an intended nature) without actually being a religious philosophy, in-line with his early life in a Jesuit seminary.

So, I guess if Sugrue was right, then it'd be something like "a non-theistic understanding of a Christianlike fall-from-grace and the human struggle to go back". Or something.

But I don't know much about Heidegger.

>> No.23383489

The answer to the question: "What is the meaning of the verb 'to be'?" is not: "It's a really big being!" Western philosophy has to start over, and if this failure cannot be fixed, it would have to be replaced by poetry.

>> No.23383493

He didn't know about stopwatches because they had not been invented yet.

>> No.23383543

>>23383489
This is the best answer in the thread.

>>23383179
Peak midwit. Being able to say something simply does not mean that it does not require work to get there properly or good method (in this case, phenomenology) to make sure that you get there without chaining yourself to the very ideas you're trying to critique.

>>23383205
A good example of a simple (and accurate) post that still requires more work before it opens up. Still a good post.

>> No.23383593

>>23383543
>Peak midwit. Being able to say something simply does not mean that it does not require work to get there properly or good method (in this case, phenomenology) to make sure that you get there without chaining yourself to the very ideas you're trying to critique.
You didn't refute my actual point and instead got hung up on the word basic which is a synonym of simple.

>> No.23383605

>>23383179
It’s a system but it’s not a metaphysical system. The implicit understanding of being in metaphysics is that objects are defined by their intelligibility. Heidegger operates outside of discursive intelligibility even though he must express himself in that way. That’s kind of the root of the language problem that Heidegger is so notorious for by the way. If you want to call it a metaphysical system then fine but I think the impetus is on you to prove how it is one given that THE ontological axiom of metaphysics is discarded in his thought. Additionally, Heidegger takes Dasein’s understanding (both conceptual and a-conceptual) of the world as presupposed which is the goal of all metaphysics. If it is a metaphysics then it’s wholly contained in an axiom at the beginning.

>> No.23383613

>>23383605
Ontology is just a branch of metaphysics, no matter how fundamental you take yours to be. Intelligibility of the world is given to Dasein through the structures of care and temporality. Beginning a metaphysics with a single axiom is not unusual in German thought, such as Fichte's self positing I, it's still metaphysics.

>> No.23383638

>>23383613
>Intelligibility of the world is given to Dasein through the structures of care
Which is nondiscursive
>Beginning a metaphysics with a single axiom is not unusual in German thought, such as Fichte's self positing I, it's still metaphysics.
Okay? I have to be honest I don’t understand the argument here. Starting a mathematical proof sometimes comes from one axiom. Does that mean mathematics is metaphysics just because they share a structural similarity?

>> No.23383649

>>23383121
I've never read him.

>> No.23383656

>>23383121
He hates the modern society and loves the rural idyl. Simple.

>> No.23383673

>>23383638
>Which is nondiscursive
why not?

>> No.23383771

>>23383390
cute & valid

>> No.23383980

>>23383593
Let me rephrase: you fail to appreciate the distinction between the phenomenology that Kant gestured at but ultimately did not commit to, and the phenomenology that was explicitly taken up by Heidegger as a way to move beyond historical metaphysics. He even says that his "concepts" are formal indications, not hard limits between one area of thought and another, with some good basis. If you read beyond Being and Time you'll see how far he takes this and how he abandons even provisional systematizing.

>> No.23384081

>>23383980
I've read Being and Time. You should read his love letters to Arendt where he describes their love as Heraclitean and basically says it's like having sex with Being itself.

>> No.23384097

>>23384081
I know you've read Being and Time, thats the problem. Being and Time is obviously important but is not an accurate representation of his overall project, either stylistically or thematically.

>> No.23384100

>>23383205
very good but what is an event?

>> No.23384119

>>23384097
Oh I misread sorry. Yeah he does abandon systematizing, but in my initial post I was referring to Being and Time, which is what most people think of as "Heidegger" without qualifiers.

>> No.23384194

>>23383121
Jewish demon upsets metaphysical cuckold

>> No.23384207

>>23383121
Never read him or have any idea who the fuck he was, but if he was involved in philosophy in any way he was just getting confused over the true logic of language and if he was fiction whatever it was it was derivative of the Epic of Gilgamesh.

>> No.23384262

>>23384119
I can then be forgiven for taking you at your word