[ 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: 40 KB, 484x578, Heidegger_1955.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
6380001 No.6380001 [Reply] [Original]

What are the strongest critiques against Heidegger? (Other than he's hard to understand and a Nazi)

I know Levinas used his phenomenology to show that ethics comes before ontology therefore pure presence and monotheism. Marxists claim Heidegger is just a bunch of provincial kitsch that is impotent and useless in the face of late capitalism. Zizek said something like Heidegger's philosophy can't say anything specific about the political, but can only point vaguely towards some socialist and pro-environment tendencies.

Has philosophy moved beyond Heidegger?

>> No.6380018

>2015
>language games

>> No.6380022

>>6380018
So pretty much "This is tiring, who cares?"

>> No.6380023
File: 90 KB, 359x500, heidegger.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
6380023

The fact that the wrote incomprehensible horseshit and did navelgazing anthropology at best and not respectable philosophy in any way, shape or form.
>what is being herpaderp this is just like my greek poems

>> No.6380029

>>6380022
Pretty much "what we cannot talk about we must pass over in silence".

>> No.6380033

Isn't that just a critique about his applicability to Marxism and not an actual critique of him as a philosopher?

>all philosophers have to cover all topics, especially the one I'm working on!

>> No.6380067

>>6380001
Just scream "He's was a Nazi" loud enough til you eventually drown out your opponent.

>> No.6380101

>>6380033
Well, it's that his philosophy can't actually point to any kind of political truths but wants to.

So you'll get an appraisal of Nazism but then you're not actually sure if Nazism is the right thing, which is what ended up happening to Heidegger. At least, that's what I understand Zizek's argument to be. He used to be Heideggerian but then became disillusioned and switched over the Hegel/Lacan camp.

I think to say Heidegger is kitsch isn't false. Just look at these fanboys who make pilgrimages to his cabin and all this "let Being speak through" stuff really just sounds cute but at the end of the day does nothing.

>> No.6380107

>>6380033
To say that Heidegger is still determined by capitalism is a valid critique. Heidegger would say Marx forgets about "Being."

So neither position would admit defeat, I think.

>> No.6381406

From what I've gathered, the dude basically claims that because "being" is the most fundamental thing that is, anything that comes out of an exploration of "being" has priority over everything that comes out of exploring things that come second to being, such as logic.

Imo, the only viewpoint that isn't a strong criticism against this is the viewpoint itself, which seems pretty mad to me. I don't think Heidegger is going to die anytime soon though. His work has its poetry, and it's not like literature people are going to bother much with him. I'm sure a lot of humanities people enjoy him placing mad speculation above science too.

>> No.6382007

Blattner

>> No.6382125

>>6380001

There's Strauss' criticism against Heidegger, which takes him on through his hermeneutics. So much of his philosophy relies upon "grieschisch gedacht", that a refutation could be based on overturning his hermeneutics and the relativism within it through simple-minded refutations of relativism itself. This wouldn't get rid of most of philosophizing (geworfenheit, for example, doesn't depend on relativism, and so can continue standing for use if the overarching hermeneutic is thrown off; consider this kind of refutation to be like the refutation of broad scientific theory--you get rid of the thread that ties all of these facts and phenomena together, but that doesn't mean one throws *those* out).

>> No.6382651

If language is the house of Being and thus of ontological significance in existence, what was the ontology of pre-human Earth? Of a pre-biological universe ?

>> No.6382674

top kek, someone using ethics over heidegger has no understanding of his work, if anything the conclusion of heidegger ontology is that the foundation of everything in our shape of the world is not complete and inconsistent if looked through theory lenses.

If anything, his work his applied to epistemology and the developing of IA frameworks which already have took their observations into use (the things about context, purpose, relationships etc)

Read Dreyfus commentary about Heidegger, he puts him in comparison with a lot of philosophers

>> No.6382684

>>6382674

And also Dreyfus puts some critique on how Heidegger philosophy can be incomplete in his Being and Time and how he developed his later works based on those inconsistency.

Dreyfus is a philosopher teacher so you will actually learn about Heidegger and his relationship with other contemporary philosophers, rather than just reading and seeing it as some work without no background

>> No.6382897

>>6382674
Nah, you don't get Levinas.

>> No.6383211

>>6382897

I actually I have readed some Levinas and I found him totally missing the point of discussion on ontological Heidegger and Husserl, and actually falling too hard on morality and Nietzsche

>> No.6384009

http://www.friesian.com/rockmore.htm

>> No.6384166

>>6380101
>Just look at these fanboys who make pilgrimages to his cabin and all this "let Being speak through" stuff really just sounds cute but at the end of the day does nothing.
The average person doesn't quote Heidegger. Are you equating /lit/ with the world at large?

>> No.6384200

>>6380107

And Marx would say "Being" is determined by the material conditions of any given epoch, and that late capitalism has changed the nature of "Being," and he would be correct.

>> No.6384470

>>6384166
See Thomas Bernhard on Heidegger.

>> No.6384618

>>6382007
Care to elaborate? He seems like he wrote good commentary but I don't have access to JSTOR now.

>> No.6384651
File: 65 KB, 182x275, hibarikun.png [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
6384651

I think Heidegger looks bad in our modern society because he tries to stay in a metaphysical level to explain non material issues. A lot of his work influenced (in one way or another) later authors who take this in a more psychological route (like Pierce or Metz), a more metaphysical one (like Derrida) or a more antropological one, sort of finding a middle ground with materialism (like Gadamer).
But I'm not too well read in him and I might be seeing connections that aren't there. Still, like many continental authors, it's important to consider him with his legacy and not just his stand alone work. It's like judging a big family.

>> No.6384657

>>6384200
>"Being" is determined by the material conditions of any given epoch

How can that be true if Being itself is what partly determines the material conditions. Seems circular.

>> No.6384676

>>6384657
Heidegger's being (dasein) isn't the same as regular dictionary being. There's a full wiki article explaining the concept. You have to remember that continentals instead of inventing a word preferred to give a new meaning to an existing one (or mixing two words if they're german)

>> No.6384716

Is there any connection between Hedegger's 'Being' and Hegel's 'Becoming'?

>> No.6384725

Heidegger literally can't be refuted. His work is solely focused on making the structure of Being show itself. Being is the most obvious yet most overlooked fact (at least in the modern world). So it should not be controversial to point out that Being is important to understand literally everything. In this way, Heidegger is all about refuting the bullshit spooks that idiots like Plato and Descartes used to poison the thought of the Western tradition for centuries. If you're actually mindful of the human condition, then Heidegger isn't saying anything profound, but if you're a euphoric fedora lord then you are in dire need of Heidi.

>> No.6385364

>>6384716
They are antagonistic terms, the latter a mistake of Plato.

>> No.6385387

>>6380029
>implying Wittgenstein/Heidegger antagonism

Also this "whereof one cannot speak" schtick is an overquoted banality.

>> No.6385494

Can someone state a view or argument of Heidegger's that's clear enough to be a proper object of refutation?

>> No.6385506

>>6380018
Wittgenstein and Heidegger were on good terms. What the hell are you going on about?

>> No.6385509

>>6385364
Becoming makes way more sense than Being. What did Heidegger say about becoming anyway?

>> No.6385514

>>6385494
you'd be refuting that simplification. you should try to read him.
if you want to read someone correcting things on his work and expanding you have Gadamer and, apparently, Paul Ricoeur.

>> No.6385517

>>6385387
Maybe it's overquoted, but it's one of the few things that holds from the Tractatus after he wrecked himself in the PI.

>> No.6385537

>>6385509
>What did Heidegger say about becoming anyway?
It leads to nihilism.

>> No.6385547

>>6385537
Really? Doesn't he have like a two book lecture series on Nietzsche? I wonder what he said about becoming in those.

>> No.6385560

>>6385547
then FUCKING READ THEM

>> No.6385561

>>6385560
I already did. I just forgot what he said.

>> No.6385574

>>6385561
Just check your notes or the lines you marked as important in the text.

>> No.6385601

>>6385547
Nietzsche isn't a nihilist, he just describes nihilism. Both of them say that Christiaity(not to be confused with christians themselfs, atleast for Heiddi) is an entrance to nihilism.

>> No.6385617

>>6385517
I'm not talking about that sentence as a part of Witty's later philosophy, but about the 4chan schtick of bringing that quote on any phil debate so that you look like the smart kid who's above it all.

The meme has completely consumed the original sentence at this point, and any attempt to seriously get the point accross should be supported by an actual explanation of what the quote what supposed to mean in context.

>> No.6385633

>>6385601
I know he's not a nihilist, but he is an advocate of becoming over being, so I figured it'd be interesting to, um, remember what Heidegger said about Nietzsche in that context.

>> No.6386527

>>6385633
He probably said that Nietzche only first stumbled on the paradox in metaphysics, where it showed that Being was hidden and left to root, while becoming was overrated by every major philosopher. Heidegger calls Nietzsche the last metaphysician, which mean he thinks of him as deluded, but on the right path.

>> No.6387081

>>6385387

This, Wittgenstein and Heidegger share a lot in common, maybe too much

>> No.6387150
File: 114 KB, 415x322, Imagen 65.png [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
6387150

>>6387081

>> No.6387179

What is the clearing where Being reveals itself?

>> No.6387197

I think the current post-modern camp respects Heidegger, but completely dismisses all of this talk about Being,Alethia,Dasein,hermeneutic circle etc..

Derrida was the basis for cutting a lot of things from Heidegger and keeping the bare minimum including Destruction and the whole history of metaphysics thing. But instead of metaphysics ending, ontology shifts from philosophical speculation to language and the text.

>> No.6387209

>>6387197
You have well respected authors that take more from Heidegger than the french post-modernist, Gadamer for example. I think it's one of those deals in which germans like german authors and french like french authors, and if ti crosses they pretend they are still the best.

>> No.6387223
File: 43 KB, 720x295, 1415808895333.png [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
6387223

>>6387179

>> No.6387228

>>6387209

I know. That why Gadamer went into great lengths to distance himself from Deconstruction and post-modernism in general, still, this doesn't stop post-modernists from attacking Hermneutics and it's political implications.

In any case Gadamer is also a different beast of his own, having criticised Heidegger for completely misunderstanding what Plato and Hegel meant with dialectics.

>> No.6387238

>>6387228
That's true, but it's like most post-hegelians who took Hegel more to find themselves than to follow on his work. Part of what makes an author important is how others grow from him.

If you want to expand a bit on those differences I'd be glad, since I haven't seen that been brought up in the few things I've read from the G-man.

>> No.6387265

Adorno's critique of Heidegger is fairly clever. He does rehash the whole "opaque flibbertigibbet" gambit a bit. He argues that the attempt to distill being in thought, to make it distinct from mere entity, fundamentally misapprehends the nature of being, which is always relational. Any possible statement that employs the copula implies a relationship. There is no pure being to be distilled. For example, if I say that horse is fast, the generality of the quality of quickness enmeshes the horse's being with zillions of other beings that share the same quality.

>> No.6387267

>>6380001

Like all Marxists , Adorno deeply despised Heidegger and wrote an entire book about him called the "The Jargon of Authenticity", saying basically that Nazism and Heidegger are deeply intertwined because of Heideggers calls for a deeper authenticty and a pessimist surrender to death ("being-toward-death").

>> No.6387279

>>6387238

Well for one Gadamer still follows Heidegger "End of metaphysics" story but doesn't think this is the end of the world. His criticism unlike Strauss's focuses more on expanding Heidegger from his biases against Plato and Hegel. Instead of dismissing everything as ontotheology Gadamer seeks to broaden hermeneutics into the social and ethical, something which you cannot do without Dialectics, because you would be having a closed circle and not the open endedness Gadamer wants.

>> No.6387300

>>6387265
>>6387267
Materialists hating hermeneutics isn't a new thing.

>> No.6387313

>>6387279
Cool, I'll try to keep those ideas in mind next time I'm reading him.

>> No.6388130

>>6384725

Doesn't that ignore the historicist/relativist elements of his thought, which by their nature, are self-refuting? What seems more striking is that one could separate those from most parts of his analyses and keep a lot of material which is unaffected. But it doesn't seem like one can really hold onto his History of Being given his position on the different thinking in epochs, since we can't *actually* understand what Plato *really* thought; we can only take it as the thing that we say he thought today because of our current dispensation of Being, and destruct with respect to how we commonly take Being today, which again, is not necessarily at all how the Greeks may have taken it.

>> No.6388138

>>6387265

Hm, I like Adorno, but that seems to miss the mark, just as Thomist critiques of Heidegger tend to miss the mark. If that's how Adorno took Heidegger's subject, then he seems to have misunderstood the subject of his thinking (which was the meaning/truth/place of Being, all different formulations of the same question) instead of Being itself; further, it looks like his crucial move is to just repeat a certain Hegelian position on Being, which doesn't seem to respond to the Heideggarian critique of Hegelian Being.

>> No.6388150

>>6382651
You're talking about a pre-subject world, one we implicitly can't understand because there's no subject there to interpret it. It's like criticizing Kant by saying "Yeah, but what was the history of things in themselves before reason showed up?" he'd answer the same way, "lol, I dunno, I cant no nuffin bout that"

>> No.6388951

>>6388150
Well, I guess Kant would hide behind God for that. Wouldn't Heidegger do the same?

>> No.6388960

>>6388951

>Heidegger
>God

what the fuck, do you even 20th century?

>> No.6388964

>>6387228
Can you elaborate on that? Heidegger s misunderstanding of Plato's dialectics...

>> No.6388970

>>6388138
I don't think either miss the mark.

>> No.6388997

Nishitani btfo Heidegger pretty hard by arguing that Heidegger reifies the nothing and that his authentic/inauthentic distinction is bullshit and not needed.

>> No.6389004

There's nothing actually wrong with thinking in terms of presence or holding on to metaphysics.

Its just a problem because Heidegger made a generalization and all philosophy is just agreeing with whoever spoke last.

>> No.6389013

>>6388951
What the fuck? Jesus, it's like you haven't read either Being and Time or the first Critique you fucking pleb. What are you even doing here?

>> No.6389018

>>6389013
bumping a thread I liked in the catalog, sir

>> No.6389095

>>6389018
Fair enough. If you really want to understand Heidi though, you really have to throw yourself into Being and Time. I'd suggest it. It's an earth moving experience. Not necessarily as you're reading it, but some time afterwards you'll be doing something and it'll all click and you'll wonder how you ever looked at the world in a different way.

He's tough. And you'll want to have some basic understanding of Kant, Hegel and Husserl before you go in. But he's so rewarding. There's a reason Being and Time is a book that makes it on those "what book changed your life" lists.

>> No.6389108

>>6389013
Heiddeger rejected Christianity as an institution, not the Christian God itself.

>> No.6389118

>>6380023
While this poster is absolutely retarded, Habermas criticized Heidegger for something similar, that his philosophy doesn't have analytical categories that can be instruments of social ciriticism. In other words that it was more literature than philosophy.

He'd probably agree, while claiming that what is currently called philosophy is not really "thinking".

Not probably.

>> No.6389226

>>6388138
Adorno also critiques Heideggers lack of historicism. He says that transcendental philosophy equalizes everything and is only interested in what is true at all times and in all cultures. This results in neglecting historical and economical differences and injustices, leading to fascism.

>> No.6389293

>>6389226
That's a pretty lacking critique. You could criticize most Philosophers occupied with metaphysics and/or ontology of this. And still, to aim thsi critique at Heidegger seems more inadequate than it does with most others. He even includes historical awareness in his description of Being.

I mean, Heideggers personal choices aside, what he thought about doesn't lead to fascism. Adorno is (and he may sometimes be excused) way to occupied with pointing out the fascist potential of every line of thought that is not his own. It gets kind of tirering.

>> No.6390341

>>6389293
don't forget 'The Authoritarian Personality'

>> No.6390516

>>6389293
Man, Heidegger's work is a glowing endorsement of Nazi paganism and the superiority of German language and culture.

He wouldn't care if you're ethnically Jewish but if you're culturally Jewish than you're basically destroying the world and closing off being.

Jews are right to be wary of Heidegger.

I'm not taking a stand either way, but I don't try to polish up his work for our post WWII political correctness.

>> No.6390520

How the fug do i into heidegger?

I've read Kant and Nietzsche but not Hegel