/lit/ - Literature

Writers/philosophers with kino voices?

My vote goes to Heidegger

There’s something very soulful about how his voice breaks sometimes

https://youtu.be/k2igrRuYKWI
https://youtu.be/ZQBRhdIshI8

Is he essentially Nietzsche but more boring and pseud? I've read both and it seems like Heidegger substantially agrees with Nietzsche on most things, but he just says things in a way that's more le mysterious. His critique of Nietzsche's philosophy just being another metaphysics is also kinda cringe ngl

Heidegger, Wittgenstein, Quine

I'm 6 pages into the first 25 page lecture in "On Time and Being" by this piece of shit Nazi fuck and I'm already getting filtered by German autism. I really want to read the Eggman can you guys help me out with some pointers? I need the cheat codes

I was reading some material by this piece of shit Nazi fuck Heidegger the other day and I'm paraphrasing here obviously but he said:
>Heisenberg could get up here and explain some physics but only 2 or 3 of you would get it right away the rest of you would have to go home and think a great deal about it (if you even bothered to) because it's hard and we all accept this as fact. But as soon as I start doing philosophy everyone thinks it's supposed to be 'practical knowledge' and a 'Way to the Blessed Life' that should be immediately clear to everyone in the room like I'm Tony Robbins. Na, I'm about to say a bunch of unintelligible stuff you're not going to understand that doesn't make sense either that you have to think a lot about otherwise it's all a bunch of useless gibberish. Anyways here's three different ways to interpret "es gibt"

Shouldn't these philosophers explain themselves better though? I feel like these books they write are usually incomplete or could be elaborated on by the author a great deal. I think half the reason Nietzsche is popular is because he's decent at explaining himself and writing prose. Is this perhaps a feature of the time they were written? That they could actually talk to and explain themselves to students directly rather than through the portal of time that is the written word?

idk man I'm getting sick of these assholes

Heidegger. EvoIa. Serrano. What am I looking for? Is any of this going to help me, or is it just intellectual masturbation? I wish I could just pray and find meaning from this mess. I wish I could pray and the White race would be saved and there'd be a new optimistic future ahead of us - exploring some post-apocalyptic free-for-all, or colonising distant planets (reddit cringe I know). Everything on earth is explored. Our race is dying. Even if we have a rebound, it won't be for hundreds of years when we'll have shrunk to like 1% of the world population. Then there's the very realistic prospect of being enslaved by Chinese, or the White race dying off and earth being inherited by either the soulless bug creatures (asians) or the apes, polluting the planet, leaving not a single blade of grass untouched. Everything else is just copium/hopium. I think I'm an atheist and I 100% sincerely have been praying to God these days. It gets worse every day. I haven't been able to relate to the mass culture for 6 years.

Heidegger? More like bye nigger

>>19616472

I Dasein therefore I am.

The being-there of Dasein in the sense of objective presence is a Dasein that eats and defecates. However, sometimes the Dasein does not defecate and this is Dasein in the sense of a privation. For the possibility of Dasein to be privative in the sense of not-shitting, Dasein must be in its essential nature taking-a-dump; that is, the positive taking-a-dump or privative being-there-dumpless is grounded in a Being (Sein) that is essentially dumping. The ontological, that is, a priori structure of essential Dasein in its Being-dumping grounds the ontic Dasein in its in-the-bathroom present as a being (seiende), as objective presence. Whether or not Dasein as objective presence, as a being (seiende), is defecating or not is ontologically rooted in this Dasein as essentially being-dumping.

>I must make a new philosophical grammar to talk about my novel philosophical ideas which undermine the entirety of the western philosophical tradition
>but I can’t create an entirely new grammar, so I must instead be as obtuse as possible and blame the grammatical tradition

>>15563465
Why aren't you thinking about your death?

Heiddegger was correct in saying modern society is inauthentic and leads to a sickness of being as it leads to individuals repressing what they wish to do, and instead act in accordance with what the world as a whole wishes them to do, in effect becoming less than themselves.

Heidegger realized the Neets modern dilemma of societal pressure forcing them to get a shit low paying job instead of relaxing at home spending time on what they actually like

What is Time?

I feel as if many of the people who actually read philosophy don't care much about the ideas, but rather moreso about the ability to say they "read philosophy" and be better than the common person as a result. This means then that the average philosophy reader has to read even more verbose works so as to individualize himself from the typical philosophy reader. The cycle continues.

I feel as if much of philosophy is simply just about maintaing these sort of esoteric social dynamics whereby a portion of the elite differentiate themselves from those beneath them. I don't even think it has much to do with the thoughts themselves. At their very core, even Deleuze and Heidegger aren't that difficult in terms of their core ideas, it is moreso how the ideas are phrased and interpreted that make them truly a challenge.

There's a reason why Nietzsche is probably the most popular philosopher, which is a rather absurd thing to even say, since he was against this sort of democratization.
He expresses the essence of modern philosophy: simply as a way to individualize the reader and separate himself from others. Everyone wants to do this.

>If to Interpret the meaning of Being becomes our task, Dasein is not only the primary entity to be interrogated; it is also that entity which already comports itself, in its Being, towards what we are asking about when we ask this question. But in that case the question of Being is nothing other than the radicalization of an essential tendency-of-Being which belongs to Dasein itself-the pre-ontological understanding of Being.

Daily reminder that western civilization ended with Plato and its continuing collapse is caused by autists who don’t know how to stop overanalyzing shit.

>>14137232
EHEM

>How many eggs have you hidden today, anon?

So is this guy's only achievement to bastardize Kierkegaard and Augustine into non-christian mumbo jumbo? His "care structure" (thrownness, projection and fallen-ness) is literally ripped off of Christian thought.

I think he realized Kierkegaard was right but still wanted to justify his nazism. Someone tell me I'm wrong.

Was he a pseud hack who hid behind mystical language?

>The House of Being
what a pseud

Where to start with heidegger if i'm best with nietzsche, kant, spinoza, schopenhauer (in that order)