/lit/ - Literature

make greeks great again.

>>18418481
(Note: Greeks here are figured as Germans)

>>18418488
>>18418481
how ?

The point of Heidegger is to try to understand fundamental philosophical concepts like being and essence and fundamental experiences like death. He thinks other ideas like time and language are very relevant here. He thinks that philosophers have forgotten about these things and haven't appreciated them for a long time. He thinks the ancient Greeks were the best at understanding them but also poets and artists as well; and modern technology the worst. The point of all that is that Heidegger takes the big questions of philosophy seriously in a way most 20th century philosophers do not, that he bases all his work in the history of philosophy, and that he connects these big questions to the modern world.

next to nietzsche's 'herd' and kierkegaard's 'crowd,' this one deploys one of the great nihilo-individualist topoi of all time in 'das man,'; it is of course through the negative caricatures of a text's perceived foes that we must evaluate the merits of the affirmative theses (here, the 'knight of faith,' the 'ubermensch,' and 'dasein'). here, it's readily apparent that the self-oriented amphigory embodied in the negative caricatures aforesaid is not useful for anything other than NSDAP management protocols, as it happens (and happened). they are at best illiberal and misanthropic. at best.

that said, one must appreciate the application of husserlian technique to the ancient rhetoric. that's cool. however: the greasiness of H-bomb opening the entire thing here with the disingenuous lament that 'OH NOS no one ever thought of the problem of Being before me, but got confused by examining mere beings!!1" is kinda gross insofar as every asshole opens with the complaint that no one ever pays attention to what i think is important. (we note that it is a standard refrain in ayn rand's writings, and leads us to diagnose a severe dunning-kruger complex, in addition to the stirnerian proto-fascistic self-oriented kvetching.)

what this means is that, if it has not been written already (though i find that almost all of my three or four good ideas through the years have always already been written already), someone needs to write a history of the rhetoric of purported mass ignorance as an initiatory rhetorical topos. H-bomb can be exhibit A, and ayn rand can be exhibit B--not that they ever read each other, of course; she doesn't read, and he wouldn't condescend to read her, because he's a nazi and she's one of the people he'd want to exterminate.

>>18418561
>comparing the knight of faith and ubermensch with dasein

>>18418547
Interesting, he starts become less antipathetic.
But then why do people use him to say all metaphysics in the medieval age is shit and didn't grasp the fundamental question ?

>>18418674
Many people got the idea in their head that Heidegger was rejecting metaphysics rather than just critiquing Western metaphysics.

>>18418439
Guys can you help a midwit figure him out?. Is dasein just the totality of being?

>>18418674
>ll metaphysics in the medieval age is shit and didn't grasp the fundamental question ?
he describes a split from the beginning of philosophy of the early greeks (up to plato and aristotle) away into what culminated in Kant and Hegel.
Heidegger is all about "returning" to this beginning and therefore does not care about scholastics and so forth as much.

>>18418691
Fuck off faggot.
If you couldnt get your pleb answers from the wiki or a youtube video, then why are you still bothering with it.
Read the book or fuck off nigger faggot.

>>18418561
>OH NOS no one ever thought of the problem of Being before me, but got confused by examining mere beings!!1"
Kek, this I hate that. I refer to him but for nothing interesting.
"You don't know Heidegger refuted metaphysics now ? Get informed"

>>18418696
Can you say what is the split ?

>>18418709
*they

>>18418712
>Can you say what is the split ?
not in a 4chan post. jsut read his work.
If you are not really gonna understand him what are you wasting your time with this for?

>>18418674
Which people say that?
Heidegger didn't spend much time talking about medieval philosophers in his major works, it's true. He was more interested in ancient and modern philosophers. I don't think he thought medieval philosopher was shit whatsoever. He did not dismiss or ignore it and he even wrote his dissertation on Duns Scotus and logic. He probably just thought it wasn't as relevant to what he was talking about most of the time.

>>18418705
Have sex poltard

>18418727
weak bait.

>>18418722
Any interesting idea can be explained, but of course Heidegger is very important but never any of his idea are actually discussed.

>>18418725
I have read it in a book about scholasticism and it was not the first. Basically everytime I see a reference to him. "He goes beyond", "ontology has been refuted now".

>>18418738
you are anglo, if not ethnically then spiritually.

KYS faggot and dont bother engaging with a philosopher you inherently despise because he doesnt tell you things are the way you want to hear them.

>>18418748
>he is very interesting and I read him but I can't explain it.
weak

I despise people like you name-dropping without never dropping any actual idea.

>>18418738
>Basically everytime I see a reference to him. "He goes beyond", "ontology has been refuted now".
Sounds very exaggerated. There is that attitude in some of Heidegger's work but not all of it. I think if Heidegger's view of medieval philosophy and scholasticism is what you're most concerned about there are papers and books out there on the topic. Like I said, it doesn't appear much in his major works so secondary sources would be more helpful. This one looks pretty good:
https://www.cuapress.org/9780813221878/the-early-heidegger-and-medieval-philosophy/

>>18418763
>heidergger opts away from ontos for ousia
>Stupid Anglos: "OMFG ontology has become totally irrelevant now! can you formulate the idea in an abstract for me?"

>>18418763
I would be reassured, but it comes from the expression of Heidegger "overtaking of metaphysics"

>>18418802
>heidergger opts away from ontos for ousia
And what does it brings ? Why does he have to do that ?

>Why wont anonymous strangers on 4channel.org not spoonfeed me???

>>18418816
>it comes from the expression of Heidegger "overtaking of metaphysics"
The word he used was destruktion. People argue exactly what that means for his project but as far as Being and Time goes, it does not mean overcoming or eliminating or overtaking metaphysics; it means to take up again and find what is worth conserving in metaphysics. That, as it turns out, is a lot.

How does anyone read the Greeks or even the Stoics or the buddhists, then look around him and come to the conclusion that nowadays we understand reality and the nature of man better than the ancients?

>>18418826
>I can't justify myself but I won't spoonfeed you

>>18418861
Oh, ok, thanks for the new sound of bell

>>18418748
>you are anglo
Literally obsessed

More like hide egger