/lit/ - Literature

>>16117263
I just ordered Being and Time. I am very interested in his thoughts concerning death which seem to be compatible with Catholic views concerning the same. And that's not surprising as Heidegger was highly influenced by Catholicism.

Heidegger just made up his own jargon for living life experienced. He came up with no new thing under the Sun.

I am not filtered, damn it!

>>16117263
Does anyone here understand his ideas of time and temporality? I just can't get my head around them.

>>16117285
I know little, but I don't think is that simple. I think he really looks in our day to day life and talks about the things we sort of miss since we are engaged with it. He tries to make one more aware, more mindful of one's own life.

Listening to the Dreyfus lecture on Being and Time lately. Read it the beginning of last year, but didn't retain as much as I should (didn't take notes or anything), mostly just read it to prove to myself I could tackle a huge difficult tome. I did really love it though, definitely consider myself /heideggerian/.

What's the best compilation of his essays?

>>16117374
Try reading Augustine's ideas on temporality and time experience first

>>16117263
I sort of envy the life Heidegger lived. Living out of a cottage somewhere in the Black Forest conjuring up his cryptic riddles like a wizard.

I think it's amusing that people who don't understand him think his philosophy arcane and esoteric, but he was one to take philosophy and situate it not in rarified abstractions and hypotheticals, but the world as it related to the concrete facts of human existence . In many ways his philosophy anticipates modern developments in cognitive science such as embodied and embedded cognition, the idea that we think with not just with our brains but with our bodies and with the external environmental structure the agent is embedded in.

>>16117278
As far as I understand he thinks about death as the sword of Damocles. It's an event in the proximity of which we always find ourselves and which is guaranteed to happen at a certain, but unknown time. Being aware of our close relation to death gives us the possibility of authenticity.

>>16117278
Heidegger looked at death in terms of its unique role in the logic of experience. It has special meaning because it is one experience that is absolutely unlike any other experience, and also the terminal experience. Because death is the final experience, it gives shape to life. It has this paradoxical nature, an experience of non-experience, a something containing and giving way to a nothing (or at least a something else). Or as Heidegger put it, the "possibility of impossibility."
Because death cannot be "outstripped" and it is the ultimate endpoint collapsing all possible branching life choices, it anchors life and draws itself nearer, giving each action its meaning. It limits the potential for being, and respect for it forces Dasein to express its freedom to the fullest in the exploration of its possibilities. (In other words to "live your best life" and "yolo")

>>16117263
I haven't read Heidegger, but I'm assuming everyone else in this thread has. What is he about?

>>16117650
>tfw when everything is death u.u

Is there any Heideggerian argument in response to someone who insists that being is not just being for dasein but sort of in itself? Some people call Heidegger an idealist and other people dispute whether the Sun really rises independent of people for Heidegger or not. Is Heidegger's idea of dasein just a foundational assumption one has to accept?

>>16117285
actually heidegger explicitly criticized the very notion of "life experience," anon

>>16117715
no, read late heidegger. he moves beyond dasein. the people who insist that Being is not just dasein are right. dasein is a being in Being with the openess-to-Being, standing in the clearing of Being, who answers the call of Being to think the Being of beings, etc

>>16117715
I don't think he ever thought that Being is just the Being of the Dasein, but rather that the only possible way of accessing Being is through the Being of Dasein.

>>16118189
>dasein is a being in Being
gonna go find something to break fukc you

>>16117263
Once again, I must ask anons why he allowed his wife to cuck him?

I'm not reading anymore Heidegger, nor Nietzsche, until I learn German (Yes, I have fallen to the meme). However, I have ordered a book from Gilson Etienne, Being and Essence, he was a baguette contemporary of Heidegger and asked more or less the same questions, he's catholic. Anyway, just a blog post to bump the thread.

>>16118660
He was also sleeping with other women (Blochmann, Arendt).

>>16118720
Thanks for bump.

>>16118419
lmao

>>16118747
Doesn't matter if he was sleeping with 500 other women. How can he allow his wife to sleep with other men?

>>16117388
>best compilation of his essays?
Basic Writings Expanded Edition (1993) edited by David Krell. The intro to this book also has a good biography

>>16117422
Apparently he was also an inspirational lecturer according to former students

I suggest reading Aristotle's Metaphysics, Heidegger used that as one of his fundamental starting points but he had the huge balls to take a completely fresh look at the profound issues Aristotle raised

>>16118779
I don't know. Read his letters/journals. Maybe you will get your answer.

>>16118779
Their marriage was already kind of complicated since she was Protestant and he was Catholic. Maybe they thought getting a divorce would be sort of messy and it was better for both to just do their own things outside their marriage. But idk, it's just speculation on my side.

>>16118814

>>16118189
>>16118408
Thanks anons. The little I know is that it seems to be (at least to me as an outsider who knows little) an open debate among Heideggerians to what extent Heidegger is (to use a sloppy term) idealist or not. Good to know your thoughts on that.

>>16119315
I would argue that Heidegger isn't and idealist because to be one you have to do metaphysics in the traditional sense. Heidegger rejects traditional metaphysics and especially the distinction between subject and object that is at the core of any sort of idealism. You can't deny the "real" world or the possibility of knowing the world when, as Dasein, you are being-in-the-world fundamentally. You are the "space" in which the world manifests. There is no subject-object separation.

>>16117263

I’m on the sixth section now and I’m enamored so far. The beauty to me is exactly that he’s not relaying things so unfamiliar about experience, but rather offers a precise language for understanding it. Secondly, his methodology is superb, I love how concepts which seem hazy upon introduction get woven throughout each following section, so as to further illuminate them. It’s not unlike watching a fine piece of machinery with various moving parts work together in harmony, or likewise an orchestra, it’s the beauty of sequence, cycling. I am religious so I don’t see him as a salvation to my suffering but certainly a means to understand my worldly concerns. Where does one go once they’ve finished? What are the critiques against this work?

>>16117650
Heidegger is essentially an ontologist. He is interested in the question of being. What does it mean not for something--an individual object--to exist, but what is existence itself? This is Being with a capital B. It has a nature. In answer to the question of what does it mean for an individual thing to exist, we describe it in terms of its positive properties. It has traits that distinguish it from everything else, sensible qualities. Being with a capital B, however, is featureless. Every being is an instance of this Being however, and exists by virtue of it.
For Heidegger this Being is possibility. He is interested in how the human experience of this possibility is shaped and guided by its structure. Because we are a part of this Being, we are embedded and continuous with the possibilities of the world. Thus we view and link objects to our human purposes, recruiting the world to function according to our aims, and constructing future possibilities for ourselves as we project ourselves onto the world's possibilities.

>>16119915
So, if we as little 'b' beings are a possibility of Being, the ground of Being is the void, right? And we as beings experience anxiety when we face the void, the emptiness of Being, something like this?

>>16119315
heidegger sometimes spoke of being beyond idealism and materialism, as early as being and time. the "idealist" aspect of his thought is in the hermeneutic, the being-there of dasein. but it's neither idealist nor materialist since dasein is the being with the openess-for-Being, who answers the call of Being... dasein is IN Being, not barred from it like the noumena is barred from phenomena, as he says (or something to that extent) while comparing parmenides to kant's transcendental idealism at the end of "what is called thinking?"
sorry if this post is lazy or doesn't make sense, am reeeaaallly tired.

Where is the pasta?

>>16119315
>>16120827
***hermeneutic circle
sorry, typo

>>16118779
He was a Nazi. They were all fucking twisted morally.

>>16120859
not what Arendt wrote

>>16120751
There is no emptiness to Being, quite the contrary. It is not only all that is, a sum or collection of existent objects, it IS. It is pure presence. Being is a plenum, a fully realized and constituted absolute. If by "void" you mean emptiness or spatial vacuum, even that has presence, it has nominal existence. Anxiety typically has some object in the world and arises from being-in-the world. For example, you are anxious about how a job interview will go, or whether your horse will win the race.
Now, anxiety about death is special in this case. Our awareness discloses certain possibilities inherent in the world. Fear discloses possibilities that may harm us. The possibility of our own non-being discloses a suspension of the capacity to anticipate, to project ourselves into a future. Anxiety in contrast, has no definite object, it is about being-in-the-world itself, a trouble with how to make sense of the human condition and the predicament of being "thrown" in time.

For Heidegger, anxiety is actually a good thing because it forces us to acknowledge the reality we face in being-towards-death. It pulls back the curtain.

>>16121045
Actually I mixed up the conventional meanings of "anxiety and "fear" in everyday speech with Heidegger's specific usages of the terms, but my point still holds.

>>16117422
>In many ways his philosophy anticipates modern developments in cognitive science such as embodied and embedded cognition.
Anticipated, yes. It always struck me as very strange. One of the most remarkable lacunae in Being and Time itself is that the body is nowhere treated to philosophical analysis, which is all the more remarkable, given the sustained opposition to cartesianism.

>>16119565
Yes! The beauty of Being and Time is too oft overlooked.

>>16121045
>Now, anxiety about death is special in this case. Our awareness discloses certain possibilities inherent in the world. Fear discloses possibilities that may harm us. The possibility of our own non-being discloses a suspension of the capacity to anticipate, to project ourselves into a future. Anxiety in contrast, has no definite object, it is about being-in-the-world itself, a trouble with how to make sense of the human condition and the predicament of being "thrown" in time.

>For Heidegger, anxiety is actually a good thing because it forces us to acknowledge the reality we face in being-towards-death. It pulls back the curtain.
Right, 'Angst' vs 'Furcht'. But how does Nothing or non-being relate to Being?
The Nothing is the condition of possibility for something to exist, or not? We are, being is, and we (to use a spatial metaphor) take up a space in existence within or around nothingness.
But Heidegger writes, 'das Nichts selbst Nichet' (the Nothing itself Nothings). 'Destroying' (maybe ill-applied term here) is done by Nothing, so it relates to Being. but how?

>>16121189
>One of the most remarkable lacunae in Being and Time itself is that the body is nowhere treated to philosophical analysis, which is all the more remarkable, given the sustained opposition to cartesianism.
Merleau-Ponty is the great anthropologist who would fill this lacuna. (according to Hubert Dreyfus whose lectures on MP I started listening to recently)

>>16118179

he basically just made up phrases for that explicit thing he criticized.

care, being thrown in the world, the other, being that questions his own being, Being.

That Carnap(?) guy was right, from that other thread; it's just pseudo statements.

>>16121330
Heidegger takes up the issue of the Nothing in his lecture What is Metaphysics? He quotes Leibniz who said, "For the nothing is simpler and easier than any thing." Contrasted with Being why should Nothing be complicated? Heidegger's first observation is that by treating Nothing as an object of investigation, we immediately suppose it has being. We attempt to view it as something that "is" so that the question destroys itself. Thinking about nothing itself goes against thinking. Thinking is always thinking about something.

He then moves on to the notion that Nothing is the negation of what is, the not x of x. But a negation is an operation of the intellect, and it presupposes that which it negates. Negation cannot exist in terms without reference to the being it negates. If we define Nothing as the negation of the totality of beings, or of Being itself, Nothing is secondary to Being and subordinate to it.

So how is Nothing most accessible to us? For Heidegger it is through anxiety. "Anxiety makes manifest the nothing." We 'hover' in anxiety, hanging in an indeterminate state. However, he then takes an interesting stance, and says that "Dasein means being held out into the nothing." Our response to the anxiety of nothing is to reel away from it, to be repelled toward beings and to rediscover our determinate relations to the world. Nothing, then, is a kind of pressure on Being, a scaffolding that supports it. As Heidegger writes, "in the clear night of the nothing of anxiety the original openness of beings as such arises--that they are beings and not nothing."

Here is where, admittedly, I don't fully understand what he's talking about. But the not nothing is something, as we slip away from being and approach nothing, it draws out being for what it is through its liminal position at the threshold between being and non being, which slingshots Dasein back into its relation with beings.

Will I be able to understand being and time as someone only a little experienced with philosophy?

>>16122088
Unfortunately probably not. The entry level for understanding it is probably graduate level understanding. Heidegger heavily references the history of philosophy and metaphysics and I'm afraid there will be too many compounding unknowns for you to make sense of.

>>16122088
It depends, read along with it with the dreyfus lectures mentioned by the anon above.

The above post is right that he makes references to other philosophy but with a guide it's not impossible. Just don't be discouraged if it seems impenetrable at first. You need a lot of reference points and you will have to build those up. The good news is that Heidegger is a great place to start seriously reading philosophy because he will force you to do this, while also forcing you to brace yourself and learn something you initially feel is impossible. On top of that he's also useful as a basis for understanding other philosophies because many implications of his philosophy relate to understanding worldviews and grounding philosophical assumptions.

>>16122509
Thanks. I watched a video about his types of phenomenon and understood that. Any guides or reference material you can recommend?

Heidegger? DER NIGGER

>TEMPORALITY IS FOR NIGGERS
BE CHAINED BY TIME
>TEMPORALITY IS FOR NIGGERS
IN YOUR FAULTY PURSUIT
>TEMPORALITY IS FOR NIGGERS
OF A SPOOK CALLED TRUTH
>TEMPORALITY IS FOR NIGGERS

>>16122509
>>16122562
To this I should add it depends on your reading level. Heidegger is notoriously dense, preferring to use his own neologisms and interpret the history of philosophy in terms of it. If you are a good reader you may be able to mitigate this added confusion.

For a beginner I would suggest the Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy page on him.
https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/heidegger/
This is a great reference even for postgraduate level academics, and its written as clearly as can be given the density of the subject material.

>>16122606
Thanks, I am familiar with this site. Ill slog my way through this page and see if I can get to grips with it

>>16122594
Are you saying Gadamer's platonism is the proper corrective to Heidegger?

>>16122629
Depending where you are you can find plenty of semi-informative/entertaining youtube videos that might at least prime you for understanding the nitty gritty of it.
Such videos are the fast food substitute for a twelve course meal, but they at least give you a feel for what he's about and how people think about his work.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Br1sGrA7XTU

>>16122688
I watch gregory B sadlers videos, stuff like this
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_DDxPEzceG0
I understood this perfectly well.

>>16121349
he made up Concepts, anon. that's what philosophy is, the creation of concepts.
heidegger was incredibly precise about his use of certain phrases, too. the words of his phrasings were incredibly complex, drawing upon and delving into the etymological roots of several different languages, primarily greek and german though. in his published works he paid painstaking attention to every fucking "made up phrase" he uttered, revising them again and again, barely publishing anything written. you're literally just too fucking stupid to understand it. go fuck yourself, anon.

>>16123138
Indeed, Heidegger made full use of the precision afforded by the agglutinative grammar of German.

>>16123204
german is the best language for philosophy

>>16122088

Yes you will, ignore what the other replies are saying. I've only read a few sections of Kant in terms of prior reading and I'm not lost at all. He explains everything thoroughly and the references to prior thought are also explained, yes knowing prerequisites would help you understand the why to what he's doing but certainly not the what. I've been reading this along with a lecture series and I've yet to find that I've missed anything at all resulting from my lacking background. Read closely and slowly, relate the concepts to your own life and use a lot of examples. The difficulty ot Heidegger is the language itself, not at all the concepts.
>Inb4 pseud you don't really get it!!
I'd bet we could have a fine conversation on it and you wouldn't even know I've barely even read Aristotle. I genuinely believe "study the entire history of philosophy before reading anything in the 19th century or later" is a meme. Philosophers like Heidegger go to great lengths to clarify what they're saying, he's not an obscurantist, and the whole point of what he's doing is that it reflects the truth of how we already experience life.

bumping

>>16123278
you'd have a much deeper appreciation and understanding of his work if you'd had more experience with philosophy though, anon

>>16117278
I would say compatible in their wholes, but yes he extracts much of that sentimentality and idea from his Catholic upbringing. The same revelation is there, as it were.

>>16117263
I miss him so much bros. ):

>>16124621

>>16124621
was germany seriously so chill that a 5'0" dude like him could live such a happy life? we have truly devolved to the level of chimpanzees

>>16124608

fair point, but i don't think i'll read every single thing, idk if itd be worth the tedium considering theres other things to read

>>16124652
you can just read him, yeah. i find when i haven't read a philosopher another philosopher discusses, i feel compelled to read their work next.

>>16124628
pic

>>16124649
Yes, people weren't so vapid then.

>>16124692

>>16124694

>>16124692
>>16124694
>>16124698
he seems so happy in every pic
i wish i was as happy as him
always dragged down in the They

>>16124698

>>16124663
even if you haven't read the philosopher's work he references, some secondary resources or reading of the ideas he's critiquing or diverging from(probably Kant or Descartes are the biggest ones to understand how he really sets himself apart) definitely helps with comprehending what Heidegger aimed to do with Being & Time.

That being said, when I got towards the end when he started talking about hegel I don't know if any secondary reading could actually help with that shit

>>16124704
Well, he's a bit grumpy here>>16124705

>>16124728
i was more or less a hegelian before delving into late heidegger recently. read being and time a few years ago (first tried reading it at 16). got a lot out of his expansion on nietzsche, too. interested in what he thought of spinoza though.

>>16124621
He's so adorable bros

>>16124749
true

>>16124756
not sure what he would say about Spinoza, but perhaps it would probably relate to how 'off-course' from the fundamental question of being he was with that whole monad concept. Deleuze definitely takes a lot from Spinoza and runs with it more than most 20th century guys I have read.

Can someone in this thread tell me what original ideas he has and why he is worth reading?

>>16124705

>>16124821
He was so cute.

>>16124826

>>16124649
This goes back to Heidegger's relationship to the nazi regime which is a big elephant in the room. Heidegger occupied a fortunate blind spot within the nazi regime, where he was able to avoid swearing allegiance to it without being persecuted by it. SS operatives which sat in on his lectures were unsure what to make of it, and Heidegger himself had a love affair with Hannah Arendt, a Jewish academic and author. Heidegger, like Many Germans emerging from the Great Depression, had idealistic hopes for the Nazi regime because it presented as a way out of the economic despair and political deadlock, but he was never an ideologist or supporter of nazi politics. He most likely viewed it as beneath him. But the nazis and even Hitler himself was aware of Hidegger's work and allowed it because their own nationalistic fantasies viewed him as evidence of the all-powerful Aryan intellect. Heidegger was horrified and disturbed by the nazis and kept quiet about it because he feared for his own life.

>>16124845
>>16124821
>>16124826
>>16124830
>>>
>>16124808

>>16124793
oh no actually i know what he'd think of spinoza. he suggests letting go of the belief in the philosopher's god, too tired to explain that or remember where i read it, sorry

was heidegger born of a natural birth, pushed out of his mother's vagina,
or through c-section, pulled through her cut up guts?

>>16124845

The exact opposite is true, he was a proud and vehement Nazi without regret, why are you trying to cover it?

>>16124896
from what you're saying it almost sounds like he would agree more with kierkegaard's idea of god, but that wouldn't surprise me, he does reaffirm a lot of things that kierkegaard said even if not explicitly

>>16124927
he thought god was dead, and referred to gods as "gods". i'm sorry man i'm tired af and withdrawing from alcohol so i can't remember much of the philosophy i've memorized right now. he didn't know how humanity could prepare the way for new gods. he thought we were descending into the wasteland, the abyss, that a darkness was engulfing mankind in our forgetfulness of being, in our nihilism, and pessimism, which he sought to subsume to Being. i think that personally he was a catholic, but he only spoke critically of christianity (too tired to get into that) and referred to "gods" or "a god," not God.

>>16124926
I´m a vehement nazi and condemn him because of his jew-liking ways.

>>16118779
>>16118660
It sounds like it was a marriage of convenience or they realized they didn't love each other after some point and just stopped giving a shit about their vows. >>16118814 may be right, but that's my theory.

>>16118419
Yeah don't read Heidegger then, it's pages and pages of that.

>>16117263
Thoughts on Dugin and dasein as a unit of political analysis?

>>16117650
>just bee yourself

I have recently finished division 1 of B&T and as thus far he has described the care structure, which as I understand will allow him to describe temporarily. At which point does he (if he does) move away from dasein into sein? As I understand, there has been quite a bit of debate on whether or not H thinks this is possible. If this occurs, does it come from authenticity? Or does authenticity as Dreyfus says, add onto what is already present in the they?

>>16120867
ok they were banal idiots

>>16121756
Good post.

>>16125013

>he thought god was dead

In the Nietzschean sense? Or are you calling him a proper atheist?

>more like heidenigger
Roflmao

Is "Heidegger: A Very Short Introduction" a good secondary lit before I delve into BT? I plan to read it for the next couple of months, but I would rather familiarize myself with secondary literature, such as Dreyfus' lectures and the aforementioned book.

Any other recommendations? (Besides >read (almost) the entire Western Philosophical canon)

>>16127442
I can recommend two books by Heidegger before starting Being and Time:
- History of the Concept of Time: Prolegomena
- The Concept of Time
They might help.

>>16126894
in the nietzschean sense. pretty sure he was catholic

>>16119565
>>16117278
How did you find God?

>>16124926
Not that guy, also I'm still a novice when it comes to Heideggerian philosophy, so I might be wrong.

I'm not so sure, given his critique of technology. Nazi ideology is not averse to instrumental reason, in fact the opposite seems to be the case (one could just look at the state of the military industry of the time).
Also, to talk about the biggest elephant in the room, while he was clearly antisemitic (this was confirmed once more by the Black Books), very few events in history seem to be as incompatible with his philosophy as the Holocaust. The mechanicization of murder employed in the death camps almost looks like an emblematic example someone would concoct in order to depict the possible horrors of technology and instrumental reason, as Heidegger saw them.
As such, I think it is more fair to say that Heidegger was simply wrong about the character of Nazi ideology identified by him in the '30s.

>>16126347
He doesn't do that in B&T, the turn to Being was meant to be treated in the third section of the first part, but he never wrote it. From what I've been told, he does do in other later texts, after his famous "turn" (kehre)

>>16127758
This

>>16117263
Bump.

>>16124889
Trying to find the most basic and "original" knowledge of being which can be spoken of, or more so known, for because we intuitively apprehend before it is spoken it takes him sometimes to say thins which would be considered nonsense in a purely logical framework.

See for the best introduction possible:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_os-ysZJM_I
and then part 2 which isn't as good but gives you some knowledge: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_FvtrBSG8tk

>>16117278
Standard view of Heidegger today is as a verificationist pragmatist, his early phenomenological works that is. He had a lifelong antagonism with the church, and supported the nazis specifically because of their anti-catholic stance.

>>16117650
He's a modern philosopher of absence rather than presence. Things appear to us only when they fail, as when they are being used they dissappear into the background. Dasein, or human being, does not capture knowledge, or experience the world 'inside' the mind, but is a part of the world. So intentional relation as Husserl says consciousness with directionality towards an object, is the reverse for Heidegger. Intentionality is the withdrawal of everything outside Dasein's care.

Things appear to us only in relation to other things, for instance, an inkwell relates to a pen, which relates to writing, and so on. It is not possible to conceive of 'an equipment' objects are part of a system of relations which cannot be known in its totality. This is the surface level view of "Tool Analysis" which is Heidegger's main contribution to phenomenology.

This does not mean that Heidegger is a monist, arguing that all things are reducible to a substance of equipment, but that things are negatively defined rather than positively understood in their totality. We only recognise the wifi router when it stops working, when things work as expected they fall outside of Dasein's concern. The above is why many dubiously describe Heidegger as a neo-pragmatist. Which while an improvement from the traditional "pseudoanalytic pretentious mystical nonsense" strawman, is still not entirely the case...

>>16129713
Is that Jerry Seinfeld!!!

Friendly reminder that any serious reader of Heidegger should also read Derrida.

what did they talk about, guyce?

>>16117263
On your knees !
Now suck it…

>>16131171
In every image he looks like a smug and cute old man.

>>16131171
cuckolding obsly

>>16131171
>>16131201
>>16131209
It seems difficult to imagine how Heidegger and Lacan would find any body in which to both talk on, also I mean I'd probably be pretty happy if everyone was so in awe and happy to see me.

>>16131237

>>16117263

How about here, anons?
Ain't this a phenomenon.

PS: I've noticed the contrast in people relying on the image of ol' Heidegger not being a comfy Dasein, by posting really serious images of him, while he was probably a really sage and nice grandpa to have.

>>16119315

If you had just read Being and Time yourself you would already know that Heidegger expresses clearly and plainly his views on realism and idealism at the end of division one shortly before the final section on truth.

>>16131712
Pretty cool picture desu.

>>16124830
Bruh he looks like a lil meme :’)

>>16121756
Yeah thanks for the response. But I still don't see clearly the relation between Nothing and Being.
"Dasein means being held out into the nothing", so Dasein exists within Nothing? Is Nothing the Ground of Dasein?

Also, on the anxiety: perhaps anxiety is already the response of the nothing, of the meaningless of everything, in deep depression you experience the latter.

>>16124830
............... what's on his head?

>>16133741
He's jewish.

>>16127682

After messing around with random esoteric traditions I eventually started reading the Qur’an. It spoke to my heart in an indescribable way, and later on my Christian friend encouraged me to start praying. After several months of praying regularly and reading the Qur’an, one day I noticed a tiny light shining in my heart like a little sun. It was shocking but I understood what it was and my faith in God became solidified. Then I converted to Islam formally and that light grew, now I pray 5 time a day and the light in my heart continues to grow. The intensity of the light is a beautiful feeling and often correlates with how close I feel to God but not necessarily so, it’s very mysterious. In fact, I planned on doing a Heideggerian/phenomenological analysis of faith for this reason. I would argue that faith is another form of Attunement, and that faith is a sort of transcendental, immutable mood. Faith itself can of course undulate, but the base understanding of God’s Reality is always there. I believe that the condition of having faith, the true faith which lies in the art, is a state of Being for Da-sein which significantly alters our sense of Being-In-The-World. So with all this said, I disagree with >>16133296 thinking anxiety is a response to “the Nothing”. If anything it may be a fear that Nothing is “all there is” but as someone with faith, I have to attest that the reality of the universe is one in which God is the Highest Truth. This of course being only comprehensible through faith, rather than philosophical deduction. I would love to discuss Heidegger and Religion however, there are several links I can draw between the Qur’anic message and implications from Being and Time. Especially regarding Da-sein’s “existential spatiality”.

>>16133807
Based proto-Guenon-poster

Is there a chart for Heidegger? Or is anyone willing to explain a lineage of key pre-Heidegger texts, Heidegger texts, and and commentaries or post-Heidegger texts and I will create a chart?

>>16129473
that video is terrible
no sense of direction

>>16133921
>Is there a chart for Heidegger?
Lmao no, he's not that easy of a thinker, and it would probably be a bit insulting to reduce him to a chart. Just gonna have to learn it while you go, which you will.

>>16133935
That is very obviously not the point of charts, Mr. Smuggie, but thanks for the "contribution"

>>16133929
Obviously, he's just giving a great oration. He makes it up on the spot.

>>16133979
Your welcome, a chart would fail in not being comprehensive beyond the 20's with Heidegger. I have helped that natural process of going with it and slowly learning about Heidegger.

>>16134006
Nah not really. You've added nothing of value, but at least you're bumping.

>>16134145
Updated version.

imagine fawning over translations.
does the translation make it less protracted gibberish

How about here, fellow Daseins?
What did Gadamer have to say to Heidegger while chucking wood?

>>16131712
husserl wants to punch him in the face for SZ

>>16134137
Pretty sure that's something of value.

>>16134145
>>16134198
Kino.

>>16134367
Yet it adds nothing

>>16134400
>but at least
Does that not imply something?

>>16134409
Nothing additive

>>16134400
You're right, it absolutely adds 'nothing'.

>>16134660
>smuggo
...well played

>>16134411
Does a bump not add something first for you to be able to recognise it? See>>16134660

>>16134684
Nah, it does not add anything. An explanation of what to read in what order, and what precursors should be read beforehand, and any relevant commentaries or overviews would be additive. Everything else is linguistic masturbation :^)

>>16134400
>The elaboration of the question of the nothing must bring us to the point where an answer becomes possible or the impossibility of any answer becomes clear. The nothing is conceded. With a studied indifference science abandons it as what "there is not." All the same, we shall try to ask about the nothing. What is the nothing? Our very first approach to this question has something unusual about it. In our asking we posit the nothing in advance as something that "is" such and such; we posit it as a being. But that is exactly what it is distinguished from. Interrogating the nothing—asking what and how it, the nothing, is—turns what is interrogated into its opposite. The question deprives itself of its own object.

>>16134723
>an answer becomes possible or the impossibility of any answer becomes clear
The former

>>16134282
Are you telling me to ... interpret this??

>>16134282
wholesome LARPing
Why didn't Derrida ever visit Heidi?

>>16133807
What is it about the Qur'an that spoke to you in a way that the Bible, Gita, Vedas, Sutras, etc didn't?

>>16136014

No idea, everyone is just guided to their own path. The Qur’an says that God chooses who He pleases to guide to Islam, and those who He doesn’t choose simply go elsewhere. It wasn’t a rational decision, it was just something I understood in my heart.

>>16136053

Actually I’m being terse, a more thorough answer is that, although ultimately I can’t explain WHY I was guided to Islam I can speak to the intrigue of the Qur’an. The main thing is that one experiences the Qur’an as if God Himself were speaking directly to the reader, whereas other texts are more narratively focused or expository of spiritual aphorisms (like the Tao Te Ching). The Qur’an is more like “What have you been doing with your life that you haven’t recognized the truth of the universe? Don’t you remember who your Lord is?”. The rhetorical technique of emphasizing remembrance is unsurpassed from any other text I’ve read. The Qur’an speaks to you as if you’re already familiar with everything it says and that it’s simply reminding you of what you forgot about life due to being distracted. And it’s not wrong either, one the Qur’an has worked on you you start to realize that its Truth certainly is composed of things already familiar to you, but veiled in the depths of the unconscious. It may not work for everyone, not everyone is chosen, but for us, we know the Qur’an as the book which reflects the nature of the universe and the souls of mankind as if it were in a mirror. And to bring it back to Heidegger, it’s similar to how B&T simply gives us more precise, and thorough language for many parts of existence that we are already familiar with. Of course they are vastly different in terms of substance but for the sake of illustrating the point, I hope that clarifies the uniqueness of the Qur’an.

>>16136053
>>16136143
I asked you my question because I was a Muslim but grew very frustrated with the exoteric emphasis of mainstream Islam that even Sufism now seems to be tainted by. Maybe I still am a Muslim because the Qur'an is still one of the most sublime things I've read (I've only read it in Arabic), but I'm completely disillusioned with the religion of Islam itself and don't know how to follow it anymore. Praying, fasting, etc all feels hollow and pointless to me now. Perhaps the Qur'an is a permanent thing that has many iterations for the different eras, and what Muhammad received was the final iteration for this specific era.

I highly respect and even love Muhammad, but I can't help but feel that the Islamic community is guilty of precisely the same sin it's so eager to accuse Christians and Jews of, namely the hubris of innovation. Islam is, as you mentioned and as is expounded upon in Islamic theology itself, a highly primordial awareness. I'm just frustrated with what its become, British puritanism has completely colonized Islamic theology via Wahhabism and other indirect channels, and as a result, Islam today has become only a contest of accumulation of good deeds, just be as still and motionless as possible in your life to avoid doing evil deeds, which includes not listening to music, entering your house with your right foot, and many other trivial and literal things, just until you die, and then when you're in Heaven, you can do whatever you want and enjoy the things you eschewed in life. I find that to be a cheap and distasteful way of living, and I cannot accept that that is what true Islam is at all. The Nietzschean way of thinking is much more appealing to me nowadays, and I think much more in line with the life and essence of early Islam.

I hope you can understand my frustration and what I'm trying to convey. I just don't think neurotic passivity, which is the prevailing sentiment in modern Islam, is the correct way to address the world. I know its a meme but pic related really resounded with me. I hope I make sense.

>>16117263
>>16117278
>As I dipped my bucket into the trough, I really felt my being and time.
God damn it, Marty.

>>16136470

Yes your frustration is shared by many Muslims and ex Muslims, I understand. While I myself don’t uphold the Sunnah as beautifully as possible, the many restrictions don’t intimidate me so much anymore because I’ve concluded that my best chances are in taking things at my own pace, constantly repenting, and making efforts to improve. The Ummah is a point of contention for many and we are all frantically looking for new solutions. As someone who was well into the occult for some time, I can say the Nietzschean lifestyle is no longer apt for me, I like structure and discipline. I do hope that in your frustrations you are guided towards Allah in a way that you feel confident in engaging. He is there waiting for you whether or not you read Qur’an, act as a perfect Muslim, etc. as you already know. For everyone it’s different but may we all be guided.

>>16136777
You became Muslim, because you are completely and totally inferior. I suggest getting addicted to crack and selling your butthole, that way you are even more inferior.

>>16136777
That's exactly my point and that's what I found so appealing in the Christian perspective of "doing away with the law", I admire their honesty in admitting that they are incapable of holding any tenant of the law, because if only one tenant is broken then you may as well have broken them all. At the same time, I couldn't become a wholehearted Christian because of all the many very commonly listed hypocrisies of the religion that I'll spare you from hearing. And though I don't like saying out loud it because its always taken the wrong way, I do believe that Jesus is the son of God. And this is what appeals to me so much in figures like Nietzsche and Kierkegaard and others, they deal with problems of the era. Let's be honest, Sunnah and Sharia are no longer relevant. There is no jizya tax, no caliphate, no slaves, no multiple wives, we've been utterly Westernized. Every Muslim and Islamic authority is far too liberal and "sophisticated" to admit that any of those things are essential for the spirit of Islamic civilization. None of the very important nuances of Muhammad's Islam exist any longer, and they set a very important distinction in themselves between early Islam and modern Islam that I cannot overstate. We need a new manifestation of the Word of God. Heidegger suggested in his infamous posthumous interview that we just wait for God to appear again and poeticize in the meantime. What I appreciate in Nietzsche is the very vigorous and unrelenting assault of his thought that reached the point of driving him mad. I do think there is something particular in modern man that is very sincere and honest, especially in his desperation, and I think that will be key in the coming years. Something new must be coming soon.

>>16117532
Based post deserves a (you)

>>16120859
Reddlit

>>16137543

We could have an entire discussing regarding the necessary developments of Shariah to succeed in modern times but we‘ll hold that off. I’m more interested in that Heidegger quote because it seems fundamentally misguided. One does not “wait for God to appear”, He is always there and is always available to be found. Any other implication is a dangerous misunderstanding. He seems to be treating God like Geist, as if it were something that simply comes upon a civilization for xyz reason rather than something which must be actively sought out.