/lit/ - Literature

>>10640254
>Why does anyone even read metaphysicians like Heidegger anymore after Nietzsche
Boredom

Why do you think Heidegger is a literary theorist, and not involved in the attempted destruktion of metaphysics, again?

>>10640280
Because Nietzsche had already destroyed it. Heidegger's dancing with its corpse like a juvenile twit.

>>10640297
Will to power is metaphysics
Back to r*ddit

>>10640304
>Will to power is metaphysics
t. Heidegger

Don't use that word when discussing what Nietzsche thought. It corrupts him.

>>10640297
Nietzsche proceeded to make a profession out of what he attacks there, either in his philology of the Greeks, Genealogy of Morality, Wille zur Macht or whatever else he wrote. Nietzsche himself is the dancing corpse, whereas Heidegger gave up on philosophy altogether and turned to poetry.

>>10640254
>the text of nature
but Heidegger questioned this

>>10640330
Nietzsche is to metaphysics what science is to alchemy. Yes, you could say he is metaphysical at base, but you'd be ignoring his striking physicalist departure from it and thus incorrectly interpreting his work.

>>10640403

>>10640453
Not an argument.

>>10640254
Hume BTFO metaphysics long before Nietzsche, shoo, shoo, toddler

>>10640467
implying science is superior to alchemy is such a ridicoulous take it deserves nothing more than mockery

>>10640469
Kant btfo Hume, Hegel btfo Kant, Marx tried and failed to btfo Hegel, Nietzsche succeeded

>>10640487
Alchemy is a primitive approach lying somewhere between the philosophical and the scientific. Sorry to burst your bubble, /x/-tan.

>>10640494
>this entire post

>>10640254
Both are not worth while and are unable to justify their claims

Disregard them and other confused mystics

>>10640494
>Nietzsche succeeded

>>10640254
Sounds like contemporary christcucks with their sophistry.

>>10640494
>Kant btfo Hume
wrong

>>10640403
*Heidegger

>>10640550
Heidegger's a rehashing of Nietzsche except drawn out and thus stupider.

>>10640254

Such a beautiful thought on why literary criticism has no reason to exist and people should just read literature for the sheer fun of it.
Who the fuck cares what a novel "really" means? Buy a fucking textbook if you want to "learn" stuff.

>check out the thread
>a bunch of people posting the word "metaphysics" without understanding what it means, when what they are really talking about for the most part is attempted systematizations; which are inherently anti-metaphysical
>mfw

>>10640487
fuck off
>>>/x/

>>10641004
The whole thread is a mess, you should just get out

>>10640304
Read Nietzsche, you imp:
>I mistrust all systematizers and avoid them. the will to a system is a lack of integrity.
Heidegger's interpretation of Nietzsche is a gross distortion. Nietzsche was the antisystematic antimetaphysical antiphilosopher par excellence -- long before Heidegger ever wrote. But of course Heidegger twists Nietzsche into the final stepping stone before his own great revolution. All it took was to throw out literally all of the published work and take experiments from notebook scraps as expressions of a fully articulated systematic metaphysics that constitutes TRUE philosophy.

>>10640351
How does that excuse him from it?

Heidegger reveals immediately in his work that his understanding of Nietzsche was hollow because he takes himself to be extrapolating on the "implied" metaphysics of Nietzsche. He claims that Nietzsche was a metaphysicist and acts as if he sees something about Nietzsche's philosophy that Nietzsche himself didn't, or refused to share, but the truth is he does not see of what Nietzsche's philosophy really consists, he sees its sterile, roughly outlined shadow, an incomplete and shrouded picture of it. He is spoiling it.

Nietzsche is not a metaphysician. He does not ever fall into the trap of a "metaphysical explanation" of things. First sign of this is the difference between his and Heidegger's writing styles: it is clear immediately how different they think about things. Nietzsche saw such explanations and their authors as always diverging from the thing that they sought to explain, and eventually their philosophy becomes more of a confession of themselves than an explanation of a thing.

The problem with all "metaphysical" analyses of Nietzsche's work is this: at the first moment of the race (of the mind's thought process), the instant that race begins, the part of the race we never actually see but only feel its later effects, they make the grave error of separating the man from the philosophy, the body from the mind. They analyze the world and talk of its "metaphysics" as though there is an underlying current behind its appearance, pulling all the strings, as though the world even HAS an appearance. That's wrong; the "appearance" and the "real" define one another, they are not separate at all. They are both in and projected by the observer.

Metaphysicians do not have the same eye as Nietzsche for this reason, they falsify what he thought, and as such no "metaphysical explanation" of his work is ever going to be accurate. It's like trying to become Zeus by analyzing the "philosophy of Zeus," the "metaphysics of Zeus" — Zeus and the "philosophy of Zeus" are not separate things — and Zeus does have a philosophy, despite never having written anything.

Heidegger>>>>>>>>>Neetchee

>>10640499
Some people really believed in alchemy, but it started as/others used it to veil an esoteric, mystical philosophy which was influenced by Sufism and Hermeticism and had to be hidden from the tyranny of the Catholic Church in those days.

>>10641361
What you said is not at odds with the post you replied to.

>>10640304
Isn't ontology a branch of metaphysics?
"I am not like the other metaphysicist girls"
t.Heidegger

>>10640494
How did Hegel btfo Kant? I keep searching for this and Hegel just seems an unnecessary development, a return to rationalized faith.

>blows Nietzsche and Heidegger the fuck out
There you go, you can stop discussing irrelevant delusional kr*uts now.

>>10641484
There is an interesting text of Jack Balkin: Derrida letting go of all his desconstructionist principles to defend his nazi friend.

>>10641467
What does metaphysics even mean at this point

>>10641490
He needed Heidegger to exist in order to blow him the fuck out, retard.

are you guys talking about boxes with placards of category labels to try to place these people in; or their ideas?

>>10641116
Heidegger's work revolves mostly around warning people away from systems and saying that the entire history of ontology is so systemically based in arbitrary theology that ontology needs a new word to sever it from religion.

>>10641507
Paul De Man, not Heidegger. People discovered Paul De Man had published anti-semitic newspapers during the war.
HE dropped all his claims about infinitie responsibility to defend Paul De Man.

>>10641580
>heh, dis sure showed'em ;^)

>>10640254
this definitely applies to heidegger's commentary on the pre-socratics, not so much being and time.

>>10641496
That is the question. His opposition to metaphysics is merely semantic."You didn't get the question of Being right". But talking about the Being is metaphysics.

>>10642010
Wrong, Heidegger rarely if ever talks about the noumenal, he confines himself almost entirely to discussing the existential implications of his temporal idealism

>>10642010
>But talking about the Being is metaphysics.
Nope

>>10642035
>>10642010
Well actually- maybe? This is what Heidegger was fighting

>>10641390
stupid nigger

>>10640748
reviews are the greatest expression of velleity. use it wisely anon, it’ll shine a permanent light on the malevolent pseud.

>>10642010
But he barely talks about being, his main theme is dasein

>>10642066
Dasein is literally defined as the being for which Being is an issue

heideggers philosophical writings are covert nazi propaganda informational weapon designed to scramble the brains those beyond the borders of Deutschland

>>10642106
Yeah I know
Kys

>>10642106
>being for which Being is an issue
what I meant but issue? The grappling with the fact of being?

>>10641116
Nietzsche had a system. It was just really shitty.

>>10640254
>Or in other words, deepening and obscuring are the same thing.
Nietzsche was incredibly shit at logic.

>>10642775
Pseuds say deepening, genuine philosophers say obscuring.

>>10642782
>>10642775
obscurity has no place in a philosophical text, only in art/poetry.. I guess nietzches was ''''both''' .. I guess it doesnt matter.. nietszhe was a philosophical poet

>>10640467
>philosophy is about making arguments

>>10642389

>>10642775
>what is textual sarcasm

>nietzsche btfoing anyone but christcucks

he's a featherweight philosopher and a polemicist with good prose
heidegger actually knew how to think and succesfully built upon the foundations of continental phil

>>10643620
>heidegger actually knew how to think
lol

>>10643092
oh shit a drawing
I must be wrong

>>10641490
not to mention when Derrida defended his sexual harasser colleague