Heidegger? More Like Bye-degger

[Heidegger? More Like Bye-degge(...) No.7176633]

Why did this guy write in the most convoluted way possible? It's just run-on sentence after run-on sentence with made up words sprinkled in. I admit, his moments of lucidity are very insightful but most of the time you have to trudge along. Maybe it's because his texts had to be translated?

Help me understand, bros.

[Anonymous No.7176662]

welcome to philosophers

[Anonymous No.7176666]

>I don't know if this book had anything to say or it was merely a giant bluff, but i know that it doesn't prove anything. Heidegger provides no proof whatsoever for what he claims. Even if he is saying something, he doesn't prove it. So it becomes a little pointless to try to figure out what he said.

>To me Heidegger's convoluted and unscientific style seems to have more in common with psychiatrists than philosophers. I shudder at his grotesquely naive analyses of existence, fear, anxiety, the uncanny, conscience and death.

>If you pick up this book at a library or at a second-hand bookshop, you will notice that only the first few pages have annotations and bear signs of having actually being turned. Virtually nobody had ever read this book to the end. But it is routinely listed as a milestone of philosophy. I personally think it represents a milestone of everything that gives philosophers a bad reputation: unscientific, incomprehensible, incompetent, and, ultimately, just plain silly.

>Be suspicious of any philosopher who hailed this as a great book. Heidegger stated that Sartre had misunderstood most of his ideas, and that's the biggest compliment ever paid to Sartre.

[Anonymous No.7176674]

It's just dialectical thought. Lots of people aren't good at it because they want answers rather than staying along for the whole ride. The reason they write dialectically, especially in Heidegger's case, is because the process of thought is just as important as the ideas themselves, and usually the process better contextualizes the arrival of answers than simply explaining it.

Don't read primary texts from dialectical thinkers if you don't want to follow their train of thought.

[Anonymous No.7176684]

>>7176666
Check'd

Scaruffi should seriously die.

[Heidegger? More Like Bye-degge(...) No.7176690]

>>7176666
http://www.scaruffi.com/phi/heid1.html
This is funny as fuck.

[Anonymous No.7176692]

>>7176674
Continuing from this. Heidegger is also hilarious in German. His definitions of things usually rest (shakily) on etymology. He's always making puns and doing wordplay. It doesn't translate at all.

[Anonymous No.7176695]

>>7176666
Jesus, scruffles should stay far away from literature

[Anonymous No.7176700]

>>7176695
He should stay away from the society as a whole.

[Anonymous No.7176704]

>>7176666
>everything that gives philosophers a bad reputation: unscientific

[Heidegger? More Like Bye-degge(...) No.7176708]

>>7176674
I mean I guess it's a train of thought in the sense that it doesn't lead anywhere.

[Anonymous No.7176709]

>>7176695
>Full disclosure: the first time i read Nietzsche i felt that his books were just a ridiculous collection of nonsense, written in poor German, and largely based on an embarrassing degree of ignorance about anthropology, sociology, art and science; and i haven't changed my mind since then. I still have to understand why he became so famous. I am not sure that he also became influential because i think the century that followed had little use for his philosophy and/or his method (assuming he had one).

[Anonymous No.7176714]

>>7176708
I mean I guess you can pretend your thread is about a question when in reality you just want to whine.

Excuse me for assuming you knew what dialectic was. I can see now you don't have a clue.

[Anonymous No.7176723]

>>7176714
lol why are you so mad tho

[Anonymous No.7176736]

>>7176709
>niitchee
>not the fucking staple of PoMo

[Anonymous No.7176746]

>>7176633
At least part of it is how it was put together. Huge portions of Being and Time come straight from drafts for another planned book, presentations he gave at other universities, and the notes of his lecture courses. In his lectures, you at least get t see him work it out from something like the beginning; it ends up becoming more clear what he's doing with terms like Dasein when you see him develop it as a phenomenological translation of Aristotle's use of the Greek word for soul. Part of the difficulty is that the work expects you to already be very familiar with 1) Husserlian phenomenology and its methods and aims (even as something that Heidegger is diverging from), 2) Aristotle, and 3) Kant. Husserlian phenomenology has its roots in Descartes, whereas Heidegger's work in the 20s attempts to root his phenomenological practice in Aristotle (the concern is avoiding a treatment of Being that starts from the theoretical, which already assumes too much; the aim is an understanding of the pre-theoretical that allows us to reach the theoretical standpoint).

Also, Being and Time is kind of a rush job, composed under a good deal of pressure and academic expectation. He composed the third part, but after discussing it very thoroughly with Karl Jaspers, he burned what he had written of it, feeling very dissatisfied with how the project was turning out. So some of the confusing elements of the work do in fact have to do with Heidegger's own uncertainties about where the project was heading, and an expectation that he needed *something* to publish.

That's not to say it's a complete mess or anything, but some elements were going to be worked out further in the later parts before he gave up on how he was approaching that material. And his "arguments" end up being elided from what you would see in the lecture courses, where you get more justification of what he's doing, why he comes up with certain terms (the terminology serves in part a pedagogical function to stir you to think more carefully or vividly about the phenomena being discussed; whether it's effective or not doesn't really affect the actual *ideas* underlying them).

[Anonymous No.7176748]

>>7176736
>Bratya Karamazovy/ Karamazov Brothers (1880) is a philosophical novel narrated by an "omniscient" invisible character. It is overlong and several episodes seem to have been improvised just to make it more convoluted. The final speeches at the trial are redundant just like many other lengthy discussions.

[Anonymous No.7176750]

>>7176723
Because you don't admit that reading a book is difficult, and inquire about why it is, just to take a shit on the possible entrances into conversation with it.

If people want a hugbox about a book they dislike, then fine. But don't pretend you're trying to understand anything about it.

[Anonymous No.7176772]

>>7176750
But I did admit that it's a difficult read...
>>7176746
Thanks man, this makes sense.

[Anonymous No.7176833]

>>7176772
Cheers man. If you plan on reading any secondary materials, or if you would like to, in any case, let me recommend Theodore Kisiel's "The Genesis of Being and Time", which details the developments of particularly important themes, ideas, and terms throughout the 20s; what directions he started with, and how he came to reach the positions he did in Being and Time.

There's also a pretty fine attempt at explaining his work without the jargon by Richard Sembara, called "Rephrasing Heidegger".

And finally, a nice, largely down-to-earth (for what still nonetheless a difficult topic) account of Heidegger's basic project can be found in the various articles of Thomas Sheehan. The following is especially good:

http://www.heideggercircle.org/Gatherings2011-01Sheehan.pdf

I think you can find the Kisiel book on en.bookfi.org; the Sembara book I've seen posted a lot on Scribd.

[Anonymous No.7176917]

>>7176674
>dialectical thought
Could you explain this concept a bit more and also explain how Being and Time is dialectical? Genuinely curious.

[Anonymous No.7176925]

>>7176633
>Help me understand, bros.
Lucidity often runs counter to the attempts to help you think in a new way. Lucidity often depends on appealing to biases in thought you already have, which means lucidity prevents you from overcoming those biases.

[Anonymous No.7176926]

>>7176746
Which lectures should I checkout if I want to understand Being and Time better? Particularly this:
>terms like Dasein when you see him develop it as a phenomenological translation of Aristotle's use of the Greek word for soul

[Anonymous No.7176927]

To be honest I'm shaking my head at this topic

[Anonymous No.7176951]

>>7176917
The book opens with an analysis of questioning. Heidegger introduces concepts almost exclusively through a question. This paragraph for example. It has this meandering kind of prose that is rife with implicit questions and developments. There's nothing to hold onto, but you still get a sense of what he's saying as you begin thinking yourself.

There are better examples. His essays are more renowned for their patterns of questioning.

[Anonymous No.7177012]

>>7176926
He discusses some of that at the very beginning of a course called "Introduction to Phenomenological Research"; but the rest of that course might be of only marginal interest.

The most interesting courses that work out the bulk of Being and Time are "Basic Concepts of Aristotelian Philosophy", "Plato's Sophist", "History of the Concept of Time: Prolegomena", and "Logic: The Question of Truth". It might also be worth pointing out that he discusses some of what was going to end up in the third division of Being and Time in the post-Being and Time course, "Basic Problems of Phenomenology".

The most accessible of those courses is "Logic: The Question of Truth". I should war that a lot of Greek is used, and while the translators often offer appendixes translating those terms, or helpful footnotes or translations in brackets, it can be distracting if you don't know Greek. Heidegger, for his part, usually offers his own glosses on the Greek he uses.

I think you can find these all on Scribd, but bookfi might have some of them too.

[Anonymous No.7177046]

>>7176925
good post.
Would you say something like this applies for the Tractactus? Because usually I just stare at his math hocus pocus thinking he's a charlatan and can't seem to rewire my thinking or pick up any interpretation that sticks with me

[Anonymous No.7177050]

I've been wanting to read Being and Time but I'm not sure which translation to read.

[Anonymous No.7177118]

>>7177050
Either of them are fine, really. The Stambaugh isn't substantially better than the Robinson-Macquarrie.

[Anonymous No.7177242]

a friendly reminder that the online stanford encyclopedia of philosophy breaks dialectics (and everything in the realm of phil) for laymen. my fav website, tbh

[Anonymous No.7177608]

>>7177012
do you have a good video courses in english or french on all this, instead of books ?

or at least academics whom you judge understand H. well and exposes him well in conferences/talks ?

[Anonymous No.7177930]

Let a Lover of truth suspect things that are quickly understood; for truth lies hid in obscurity; for Philosophers never write more deceitfully—than when plainly, nor ever more truly—than when obscurely.

[Anonymous No.7178025]

[Anonymous No.7178083]

>>7177608
Hm, not any that have really stuck out.

Hubert Dreyfus has a series of lectures on Being and Time that are interesting, and which discuss the first half well, but which miss the point, obscuring Heidegger's interest in "the question of the meaning of Being". Otherwise I've not seen anything consistently good.