/lit/ - Literature

Based

who cares what a fat nazi had to say about ANYTHING? we cannot idolize and perpetuate the ideas of immoral people like Heil-degger.

>>14597695
This thread is not for you, anon. Please find another.

>>14597419
Don't forget anon.

>"God lets the oppositional will of the ground operate in order that might be which love unifies and subordinates itself to for the glorification of the Absolute. The will of love stands about the will of the ground and this predominance, this eternal decidedness, the love for itself as the essence of being in general, this decidedness is the innermost core of absolute freedom."

>"For us contemporaries the greatness of what is to be thought is too great. Perhaps we might bring ourselves to build a narrow and not far reaching footpath as a passageway."

>>14597419
Me? I only read the Black Notebooks.

>>14597773
I know this is bait, but if you really did, how did you find them?
Again, this is /heidegger general/. His beliefs or events from his life also go here.

>>14597765
I won't forget. I think he really was aware of the state of Western Civilization and of what was and is to come to a certain degree, but somehow he mantained his optimism.

>>14597419
As a Hobbesian, convince me to read Heideggar

>>14597857
>but somehow he mantained his optimism.
Easy, he was a Neoplatonist.

>>14597419
As a Hobbesian, convince me to read Heideggar

>>14597419
As a Hobbesian, convince me to read Heideggar

Brief reminder that the only true successor of Heidegger (and the only one who can match his greatness in contemporary philosophy) is Emanuele Severino.

RIP

99.9% of post2016/lit/ have never read Heidegger.

>>14597981
>Thus, since Being is the totality of what exists, there can be nothing else besides it endowed with existence (Severino thereby refutes the concept of ontological difference as put forward by Heidegger)

Lmao

>>14597964
>As a Hobbesian
You're be better of learning to tie your own shoes.

Whats the qrd

>>14598300
>Being is the totality of what exists

Sorry, but that is wrong.

Did heideggar adequately respond to Kant?

>>14597419
>>Philosophy will not be able to effect an immediate transformation of the present condition of the world
True, what we need is intuition. Poetry and literature of a higher kind. It’s a process and state of mind at the same time. Philosophy can only case it’s own tail and reaffirm, what we already believe in.
>Only a god can save us. The sole possibility that is left for us is to prepare a sort of readiness, through thinking and poeticizing, for the appearance of the god or for the absence of the god in the time of foundering [Untergang] for in the face of the god who is absent, we founder. Only a God Can Save Us
Heidegger is spot on; the problem is our own perspective (sein zum Tode) being towards death, which we need to overcome. He sadly never took Hölderlins Hyperion to it‘s logical conclusion. He would have found god otherwise.

>>14598566
Isnt that basically just Nietzschean?

Martin Heilhitler!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

>>14598511
A complex question. In a sense yes, his questions are partly overlapping, especially if you think about the relationship between rationality (thought) and empiricism (cognition), which clearly concerned both. But I would argue Heideger goes at something more fundamental, he is answering the four kantian questions „what can I know“, „ what should I do“, „what can I hope“, „what is a human“. But in away that totally breaks with Kant. For Heidegger being is less of a question what should be and more of a question, what is. I need to stop, but I hope I could offer you something.

>>14598576
Well not a bad observation at all. Heidegger and Nietzsche were both obviously influenced by Hölderlin. And Heidegger was impressed by the way Nietzsche tried to make the questions more fundamental and open than ever. But Heidegger chose a way of passivity especially later on in his life, while Nietzsche was the light that burns itself out (which he admired). The mysteries are deeper, since both have only barely grasp, what the way of the poets (Minnesänger) was. And it’s also way older than that.

"What Heidegger called the 'age of the world picture' does not begin only with the modern globes and atlases, but already with the visions of cosmos and empire in the Axial Age. A world from which the ethically best flee can no longer be a maternal container for all life forms. Owing to the exodus of the ascetics, meditators and thinkers, it becomes the site of a drama that fundamentally questions its ability to house ethically aroused inhabitants sufficiently: what is this world if the strongest statement about it is a withdrawal from it?"

-Sloterdijk, "You Must Change Your Life" pp 220-221

>>14598646
>What Heidegger called the 'age of the world picture' does not begin only with the modern globes and atlases, but already with the visions of cosmos and empire in the Axial Age
It‘s more easily expressed with what Socrates and Diogenes thought is a pillar of our current conception of the world.
>what is this world if the strongest statement about it is a withdrawal from it
The begin of hierarchy and understanding is the order and those looking at the world with no interest, but those two things are almost always intimately related and yet at total war with each other. Regnum and Sacerdotium.

>>14598646
he nailed it. where can I read this?

>>14598707
http://93.174.95.29/_ads/4C1519B0A67080EC212F4AFBA3EF221B

>>14598720
I looked but couldn't find it. Thank you.

>>14598632
I'm still only at the greeks in my reading of philosophy, though I have had some cursory exposure to post greek and some modern philosophy. I would like to read heideggar, but it would seem i'm way out of my depth. Are there any intro level works on heideggar I could read as a starting point?

>>14598794
Since i‘m a German the works I know wouldn‘t help you, if you can’t speak German. I guess that there are decent entry level works on Phenomenology and Romaticism in English. But you probably need to start getting into his biography. Him being raised on a farm in a small village near the Black Forest. It’s already hard for Germans to get some of the points he made especially, since our „reality“ is already far away from his. I can imagine that it’s really hard especially without knowing German culture and language. He agreed with Nietzsche that thinking happens, when you are walking. Go to a magnificent view point and start to think what could this have meant. Hopefully this will help. Good luck.

>>14598794
His What Is Thinking? series. Maybe you'll find it an unendurable slog, I didn't. It's like word magic.

>>14598566
>being towards death is the problem.
No, being towards death is the solution. Authenticity is what it is to truly be toward death, where Dasein appropriates their role from das Man and understands it as projected against their ownmost, most extreme ability to be (death.)

>>14597914
Heidegger was definitely not a neoplatonist. Just look at his essay on truth, it is like the polar opposite and set the ground for modern philosophical relativism

>>14598794
His History of the Concept of Time, or at least excerpts from it, provide a good introduction to Phenomenology in general. A lot of the time it's good to just jump in at Sein und Zeit.

>>14598794
https://archive.org/details/Philosophy_185_Fall_2007_UC_Berkeley

heidegger isn't that opaque honestly, just difficult for beginners unused to his jargon & the context he's addressing

>>14599463
>A lot of the time it's good to just jump in at Sein und Zeit
Isn't it too hard? Like... Kant-tier hard?

anybody read pic

>>14599571
That link is an amazing resource. Thanks much anon
Have my best frog

>>14598794
Harman's book "Heidegger Explained" is a good, lucid introduction.

>>14599730
Wow this is a good one, did you take this pic?

Can someone please post that copypasta of Heidegger, Hitler and the eggs?

>>14598883
>He agreed with Nietzsche that thinking happens, when you are walking
Take the STROLL PILL

>>14599718
No but Safranski is the Nietzsche of biographers so you should give it a shot

How is Heidegger's concept of Being not just a redefinition of noumena or the "thing in itself"? It seems to me that Heidegger just rehashes a bunch of Kant's ideas under a veil of neologisms.

>>14601902
noumena is the furthest there is away from us, being is the closest.

>>14597695
Get.out.now.

>>14599458
this

heidegger was literally a derridean

>>14601902
everybody after kant is a kantian

stop posting this nazi

>>14602414
he was a nazi who cheated on his fervently anti-semitic wife with jewish women, raised a child who hasn't his, created a philosophy of hyper-lutheran derridean degeneracy and thought he understood aquinas but in reality didn't have a clue

>>14602427
how did aquinas btfo him?

>>14601237
How is he the Nietzsche of biographers? Well he also wrote a biography of Nietzsche, if that’s what you meant. Also of Hoffmann, Schopenhauer, Goethe, Schiller and Hölderlin (i.e., all of what’s good)

>>14602382
You mean Derrida was literally Heideggerian

>>14602435
He didn’t, the other guy is pulling that one out of his filthy ass

>>14597765
can someone explain the first quote

what is the ground he references

>>14602427
Jewish woman, in singular. It was Hannah Arendt, another great philosopher who’s worth to mention. How could Heidegger not do it, if it’s a beautiful young woman we’re talking about, maybe at least as intelligent as him

>>14599675
desu Kant is not that hard if you read him with some introductions beforehand and really try first to really grasp his concept and what he is all about. Heidegger is even a bit easier, you just have to understand the terminology, then you’re good. That said, I wouldn’t jump right into SuZ, maybe start with Safranski’s biography, followed by a close reading of his short text “What is Metaphysics?”. Ideally you have already a firm understanding of Kantian philosophy, some Augustine and the Greeks.
It’s not that difficult, it’s certainly not Hegel-tier

>>14599718
Yes, I can recommend it as an introduction

>>14602680
>Hannah Arendt
>maybe at least as intelligent as Heidegger

Lmao

Why do you guys like Heidegger he is a shit overrated philosopher with no valuable insight.

>>14603105
have you read him?

>>14603111
Yeah I used to be a huge fan of him

>>14602680
>Arendt is beautiful and intelligent

the absolute state of heideggerian cope

>>14603105
we don't, imagine being so brainlet you think it's possible to restore meaning without recourse to a transcendental...yike!

heidegger is for effeminate philosophy majors and potheads

>>14603118
well that settles it then

>>14603138
What do you mean you need a transcendental to restore meaning, that sounds like apologetics-tier philosophy

>>14597419
Something which has bothered me as I work through Dreyfus's commentary on Being and Time - what exactly is 'phenomenological'? I realize this is a basic question, but the phrase 'phenomenological method' keeps popping up and I don't entirely understand what is being referred to here. Is it that we need to work through problems from the first person? i.e. in order to understand zuhanden vs vorhandenheit, we need to insert ourselves into such an experience, not merely observe it in a remote, subject/object mode of inquiry?

>>14603431
Phenomenology is a school of thought founded by Husserl, its about focusing on the things themselves in experience or as experience. The most important concept in phenomenology is “intentionality” which is simply the fact that all thinking and consciousness is consciousness and thinking of something.

>>14601902
Because Being itself is not a being, anon

So Heidegger is using phenomenology of Being like Hegel is using phenomenology of Thought? Any other phenomenology of (concept)?

>>14604417
>So Heidegger is using phenomenology of Being like Hegel is using phenomenology of Thought?
No. When Heidegger uses the word phenomenology and when he does phenomenology he is doing something very different from what Hegel was doing, mostly because Hegel predates the phenomenological method developed by Husserl and others. Hegel's phenomenology is a bit more like a history, where he painstakingly outlines various stages in the development of thought. (roughly)
Heidegger includes a history of Being or at least a discussion of Being's historicity in BT, but he is doing more or less a straight phenomenology in the Husserlian sense with some innovations for where they disagreed. (Heidegger's chapter dealing with Descartes is basically his criticism of Husserl.)

>>14601225
Requesting meme of 26 year old STROLLER

>>14604998
So is Heidegger future-oriented, then?

>>14603105
Let's see you btfo him.

Hey guys I am reading Gadamer right now, and I feel like he is Heidegger-lite, but if Heidegger could write well. Is this a fair assessment?

>>14602662
It's a bit hard to explain. He's not concerned with every single mundane detail but writes his history in a quite aphoristic way and the interpretation of their life through their work, and occasionally the other way around

>>14605231
It is, but Gadamer is more of a Platonist.

Interesting anecdote. Ernst Nolte studied under Heidegger and he visited him during office hours and asked a question about Plotinus and Heidegger couldn't answer and literally said "Ask me again next semester" but there wasn't another semester.

>>14605231
Sort of yeah. Gadamer is like if you took the central core of hermeneutic phenomenology out of Heidegger and developed it into a nice, straightforward framework of historicist hermeneutics. If you see Heidegger as the phenomenological bridge between Dilthey and Gadamer, it makes a lot of sense. The only thing 20th century hermeneutic phenomenology really adds to Dilthey's more traditional, historicistic hermeneutics is the admonishment that one can never COMPLETELY recapture the original horizon of any given text or statement (or whatever), because of course one's own standpoint is always there as well. But this does not mean that one's own horizon is "in the way" of an authentic encounter with the alien horizon, rather having one's own horizon is precisely the condition of understanding another horizon in the first place, because understanding occurs through dialogue. The most you can get when assessing an alien text or statement is a dialogue with it, which is, philosophically, fundamentally the same as a dialogue with a living person whose aim is mutual understanding (although obviously subject to more limitations because you can't "talk back"). The fusion (Verschmelzung) of phenomenological horizons is theoretically asymptotic, it can never be completely eliminated.

On that note, the more you learn about 19th century German historicism and hermeneutics, the more you realize these ideas were intuitively grasped in German thought for generations before they were systematically articulated.

>>14605263
>"Ask me again next semester"
>but there wasn't another semester
Based.

>>14601902
Retard

>>14598883
and what are the german works you know? I speak german

Where do I start with Heidegger, having little to no background in the history of philosophy?

>>14605786
Heidegger wants you to read Aristotle.

>>14605177
Not necessarily, no.

>>14606169
What does IEP mean by this?
>When Heidegger urges us to stand in being, he does not merely ask us to acknowledge our own place in being’s history, but to be future-oriented and see the future in a unity with the past as having-been and the present. It means turning oneself into being in its disclosing withdrawal.
https://www.iep.utm.edu/heidegge/

I always visualize him sitting on his wooden bench outside his Black Forest house, alongside his wife who, with her perverse knitting enthusiasm, ceaselessly knits winter socks for him from the wool she has shorn from their own Heidegger sheep.
I cannot visualize Heidegger other than sitting on the bench outside his Black Forest house, alongside his wife, who all her life totally dominated him and who knitted all his socks and crocheted all his caps and baked all his bread and wove all his bedlinen and who even cobbled up his sandals for him. Heidegger was a kitschy brain….. a feeble thinker from the Alpine foothills, as I believe, and just about right for the German philosophical hot-pot. For decades they ravenously spooned up that man Heidegger, more than anybody else, and overloaded their stomachs with his stuff. Heidegger had a common face, not a spiritual one, Reger said, he was through and through an unspiritual person, devoid of all fantasy, devoid of all sensibility, a genuine German philosophical ruminant, a ceaselessly gravid German philosophical cow, Reger said, which grazed upon German philosophy and thereupon for decades let its smart little cow-pats drop on it….
Heidegger is the petit-bourgeois of German philosophy, the man who has placed on German philosophy his kitschy nightcaps, that kitschy black night-cap which Heidegger always wore, on all occasions. Heidegger is the carpet-slipper and night-cap philosopher of the Germans, nothing else.

>>14598511
He was responding to Husserl who was responding to Kant

>>14606293
That's him asking the reader to take that from his work. It's not like his actual works are future oriented as some kind of complement to Hegel.

>>14597419
guy is a SERIOUS mong

Can someone post some aphorisms or something. I haven't been able to find ONE interesting thing that Heidegger said. not reading BT yet

>>14606480
jesus fucking christ, the mind of a phoneposter right here

>>14606472
prove it fag

>>14605786
Heidegger Explained by Graham Harman

>>14606480
>>14606493
here's a quote. you can decide whether or not Heidegger is a phoneposter himself
>Philosophy will not be able to effect an immediate transformation of the present condition of the world. Only a god can save us.
motherfucking fat old phoneposter Martin

Old Guard, you are going to need this in the future. I always liked you.

>>14599458
He was a neoplatonist of inter-subjective elements. There.

One may question whether that is just an image of representation.

>>14605218
What position of him do you want me to argue against, I can't argue against everything he said in a 4chan post. For example I think being and time is largely logically incoherent. Two examples of this that immediately come to mind is 1) the clash of his historicist account of knowledge with his essentialist talk about regional ontologies and 2) his concept of authenticity, which is a contradictory attempt to secularize Christian ideas by removing the divine aspect. We can go over one of these or we can talk about a different aspect of his philosophy, any preference?

>>14606493
>>14606506
How do you motherfuckers know I'm phoneposting. Also my request still has not been met, as far as I can tell, Heidegger is nothing but a huge pseud like you guys

>>14602675
Use your intuition anon,and read Timaeus. Anyone familiar with mystic thinkers, such as Boehme, will also understand as they come from Plato.

The ground of the world, the drama of life. That primeval cave in which a man crawls into in order to escape the rain.

>>14602697
Shouldn't one read the German Idealists also?

>“Many of the most bizarre features of [Heidegger’s] ontology appear to have been lifted right out of the occult aether wherein Schelling developed them: [such as] the historical destiny of the artist-scholars of a coming apocalyptic generation to build a new world whose architectonic is established by singing together their own epic poem.”

>>14603138
>we don't, imagine being so brainlet you think it's possible to restore meaning without recourse to a transcendental...yike!
He did resort to the transcendental you brainlet, and so did Nietzsche. You're just autistic.

>>14603855
And what about unconsciousness?

>>14605263
>Ernst Nolte studied under Heidegger and he visited him during office hours and asked a question about Plotinus and Heidegger couldn't answer and literally said "Ask me again next semester" but there wasn't another semester.
Sauce?

>>14606918
>2) his concept of authenticity, which is a contradictory attempt to secularize Christian ideas by removing the divine aspect.
Wrong of you to assume.

>>14607709
"assume" would imply that I don't have an argument

>>14597419
>Martin Heidegger
He was retroactively shown to be wrong and incorrect by Shaykh René Guénon (pbuh).

>>14607732
make it then faggot

>>14607665
>He did resort to the transcendental you brainlet, and so did Nietzsche. You're just autistic.

which was?

>>14607816
Sure. On the one hand Heidegger argues that being absorbed in the world with others is ontologically necessary because the Dasein is fundamentally being-in-the-world and being-with-others, but on the other hand he calls that mode of being "inauthentic", and the result of what he calls "Falling". But this account only makes sense if there is an alternative to being absorded in the world. A Christian would argue that being absorded in this world is a fallen state because the real man is an eternal soul, and we ought not to let our parodical earthy existence distract us from leading our actions in accordance to God's Will in order to enter to Heaven. Heidegger doesn't have any such religious commitments, therefore being "authentic" in his nense is nonsensical since being-in-the-world is who the Dasein really is, and not just one possibility among others.

Are there any good books on Heidegger's relationship with Hannah Arendt?

>>14609532
Now we are talking.

>>14606918
Whatever you think is most significant. Although I guess you started from someone else's comment.
>>14609492
Is his position really just secular Christian? And why are we assuming the Christian sense of being is right?

>>14599452
If Authenticity is just being towards dead, than it‘s either just being to dead and therefore it‘s a tautology. Or it‘s something else in the sense of authenticity being something else, than ordinary being towards death (which everybody has/is).

>>14597419
Based af

>>14609492
not what inauthenticity means retard

Hopefully this gets cleaned up some day.
https://docs.google.com/document/d/1fBYpm4MHyKM-80sTzQaBiYLI0vJKkE80h2b10JR5cwg/edit

>>14610277
>Is his position really just secular Christian?
No, his position is incoherent because he takes a Christian idea but removes the metaphysical stuff out of it.
>And why are we assuming the Christian sense of being is right?
We don't, we haven't even touched on the question of being yet. Let's focus on the authenticity/inauthenticity distinction so we don't get lost on a million different points.
>>14610950
Give us your big brain interpretation then.

>>14609532
There is a book with their letters. You can tell when he has taken her virginity. The style changes.

>>14609492
>>14610932
I'll answer both of these here.
Dasein is "falling" (declining) because it is encountering its possibilities in mitsein and in-der-welt-sein as given or held as fixed. It is ignoring the fact that the possibilities of these horizons most certainly do not form the limit of Dasein's possibilities. The furthest possibility that Dasein has is death, that is once that possibility is actualized nothing else is possible for Dasein. In falling, Dasein is not being toward death it is just being-with and being-at. In a sense, it is acting as if one were infinite and immortal.
Authenticity is for Dasein to appropriate the possibilities that it is thrown into and project them against the horizon of death rather than holding the horizons of das Man or the world as fixed. It's a form of understanding since it is Dasein projecting into roles as if there will be a last word, which is not the case in declining. It is being "authentic" in that Dasein is taking responsibility for what it will be, since if Dasein were actually infinite it would have the liberty to be in the long-run totally indeterminate.

How does heidegarrian philosophy square with christianity? Are they compatible?

>>14611957
he's not compatible with monotheism but he admires some aspects of christian theology (luther, augustine, duns scotus)

>>14611957
Christian theology basically relies on a 3O god that Heidegger wouldn't buy. Especially because to have that as the necessary being would totally go against how he reinterprets being.

>>14612037
Is the principle of sufficient reason not relevant post Kant?