Heidegger

[Anonymous No.10430174]

Is it worth to study him? Particularly Being and Time?

[Anonymous No.10430178]

>>10430174
if you want to escape this place then yes

[Anonymous No.10430188]

It's the dictionary to all later continental philosophy

[Anonymous No.10430225]

>>10430178
which place? 4chan?

[Anonymous No.10430274]

>>10430174
If you have a reasonable understanding of prior Western philosophy then definitely, otherwise it's a fucking ballache. Reading his prose is like trying to swim through treacle. He's worse than Hegel in that regard.

[Anonymous No.10430283]

>>10430274
What do his prose has to do with the understanding of westerne tradition?

[Anonymous No.10430284]

>>10430174
MagiTek Library(?)

[Anonymous No.10430320]

>>10430283
His sentences are so dense and include lots of neologisms inspired by the thought of previous philophers. You cannot simply induce what these terms mean. Heidegger is trying to think around the subject-object dichotomy at the heart of Western thought and his writing style is key to this.

[Anonymous No.10430431]

>>10430320
Thanks. Which philosophers are essential to you to read before reading Being and time?

[Anonymous No.10430474]

>>10430431
Y'know you could always give it a shot and drop it again for later pick up if you feel you need to read some earlier philosophers first.
But yeah I'd be curious what is sort of a foundation of philosophers one must have read before trying Heidegger.

[Anonymous No.10430477]

>>10430174
Yes. He'll also set you up for eastern thought too.

Start with his short speeches What is Metaphysics? And the Essence of Truth first though.

[Anonymous No.10430522]

>>10430431
>>10430474
Understanding Heidegger isn't really an issue of having read previous philosophers but of understanding the history of philosophy from a certain perspective and being able to slot those prior philosophers into it.

You can read Plato and Aristotle cover to cover and never give much thought to what the fuck Heidegger is talking about when he talks about them. Much more important in understanding Heidegger is understanding the historical impasse in philosophy he felt himself to be addressing (and which he is generally considered to have been addressing, if that matters).

There's no one philosopher who will introduce you to this impasse. Having some knowledge of metaphysics and the role of logic in Plato and Aristotle will help, so that you can understand how Heidegger is trying to return to these questions, and show how certain ANSWERS to those questions became embedded in the heart of Western thought.

Some understanding of the importance of Cartesian dualism and Kantian idealism is also a very good idea, because these for Heidegger represent failed attempts at clarifying how we live and know the world, but still trapped within the thinking established by the Greeks. Kant and Hegel, as Heidegger says right at the opening of Being and Time, still couldn't break down this presupposition of the Greeks. Nietzsche for Heidegger comes closest, but you won't get Heidegger's reading of Nietzsche by reading Nietzsche cold.

Husserl is maybe the other major one. If you can understand the revolutionary leap of his phenomenological method, you can understand the starting point of Heidegger's analysis, and why he thinks the phenomenological "way of seeing" is the way through the problem of metaphysics.

[Anonymous No.10430525]

>>10430522
I think if you understand those two key problematics:

- What is the "question of Being?" Why is it so strange? Why did it "trouble" the Greeks - and what does it mean that it no longer troubles us? What is "metaphysics?"

- Why is Husserl's "return to the phenomena," and NOT to any metaphysical schema, so important? Why is Husserl's emphasis on "bracketing" any a priori "metaphysical" system so important in re-opening the question of Being?

then you can easily understand Heidegger.

[Anonymous No.10430537]

>>10430525
>>10430522

[Anonymous No.10430542]

>>10430522
>>10430525
Thanks anon/s. I'll give it a try.

[Anonymous No.10430561]

Don't listen to these hacks, you have to be well-versed in all of the philosophical western cannon before him.

[Anonymous No.10430571]

>>10430431

Anon >>10430522 explains this very well, it's not about knowing Plato per se, but what Plato was trying to do compared to what Heidegger is trying to do

[Anonymous No.10430598]

>>10430571
What was plato trying to do?

[Anonymous No.10430690]

>>10430188
>philosophy post-ww2
>relevant

[Anonymous No.10430707]

>>10430174
Not really. He fundamentally misunderstood what being is. What he calls being actually isn't being.

[Anonymous No.10430709]

>>10430707
btfo

[Anonymous No.10430745]

>>10430707
and what is being anon?

[Anonymous No.10430760]

>>10430707
woah I guess can drop Heidegger now

[Anonymous No.10430942]

>>10430598
Plato wanted Parmenides and Heraclitus to live under the same roof, but their claims are contradictory, therefore he came up with a dualist metaphysics. Parmenides describes the eternal (God, number, forms, psyche which is since Socrates means both mind and soul) and Heraclitus the ever-changing nature (matter).

Thus Plato split the fucking world. Aristotle telling you to look for the forms in matter did not mend the schism, same with Kant and (the classical understanding of) the division between phenomenal and noumenal, hence the need for a phenomenology to provide an account for how our mind can understand and interact with this world of matter.

On top of that you have Being itself, which is the answer to the question: "What does it mean to be?", treated for two and a half millennia as just another being among its fellow beings, this guy called "the One" or "God", hence Heidegger pointing out the ontological difference and that Western philosophy shat all over itself with ontotheology.

[Anonymous No.10430947]

>>10430174
He's only regarded as the greatest and most influential thinker of the 20th century along with Wittgenstein but nah do whatever you want lol

[Anonymous No.10431235]

>>10430947
I don't care if he's regarded as one of the greatest. Is he actually one of the greatest?

[Anonymous No.10431238]

>>10431235
duh

[Anonymous No.10431240]

>>10431235
Yeah

[Anonymous No.10431242]

So funny finding out that Kristeva dated Heidegger when she was a teenager.

Sorry I don't have anything actually important to contribute, but this is /lit/ and the board collectively gave up sometime in 2014.

[Anonymous No.10431247]

>>10431242
Its cool man

[Anonymous No.10431251]

>>10431235
what do you think sweetie?

[Anonymous No.10431253]

>>10430690
Durr

[Anonymous No.10431340]

>>10431251
I don't know man

[Anonymous No.10431414]

>>10431251
>and then I told them that I wasn't an antisemite

[Anonymous No.10431416]

>>10431340
What he says won't help you in any real sense. He is just reinterpreting Greek philosophy to get rid of metaphysics. It's just more "smoke of brains."

Buddhist philosophy actually leads somewhere.

[Anonymous No.10431417]

>>10430174
Probably not.

If you want to get into continental philosophy then yes of course, Being and Time will be your bible.

But that is if you want to get into continental philosophy, and if that is the case then you are just confused and need to take a walk.

[Anonymous No.10431426]

>>10431417
>anglos
not even once

[Anonymous No.10431481]

>>10431417
>But that is if you want to get into continental philosophy, and if that is the case then you are just confused and need to take a walk.

Where should I go instead?

[Anonymous No.10431500]

>>10431481
Study economics and contribute to society

[Anonymous No.10431606]

>>10431500
>implying I couldn't do both things

You should have told me another reason, man

[Anonymous No.10431789]

>>10430525
Can you answer those?

[Anonymous No.10431875]

>>10431789
Pay attention to that post, because we're talking about problems, not solutions. Questions, not answers.

Heidegger realized he couldn't answer them. He didn't finish Being and Time, and ultimately gave up on philosophy. Enter poetry.

[Anonymous No.10431909]

>>10431481
Analytic in a sense

Start with logic

[Anonymous No.10432216]

>>10431416

There was a monk heavily influenced by phenomenology. You should check his book: Clearing the path - Nanavira Thera

[Anonymous No.10432244]

>>10431417
>If you want to get into continental philosophy then yes of course
I do desu, I've got through the Greeks Rationalists Empiricists German Idealists and Neetche, can I into Being and Time directly?

[Anonymous No.10432247]

>>10431500
>contribute to society

[Anonymous No.10432253]

>>10432244
What I'm really trying to say is to what extent do I need secondary sources and is studying Husserl a must

[Anonymous No.10432330]

>>10431875
Why can't philosophers just accept they will never get the answers they want?

[Anonymous No.10432348]

>>10432253
idk

[Anonymous No.10432648]

>>10431242
did this guy only fuck talentless hacks?

[Anonymous No.10432666]

>>10432648
Can a German please explain the difference between seiende and sein. Maybe how is seiende used in a sentence.

[Anonymous No.10433976]

>>10432330
Why can't we just continue to question anyway?

[Anonymous No.10433987]

>>10432348
then why respond you dumb cunt

[Anonymous No.10434601]

To those thinking of approaching Heidegger, consider the following.

[Anonymous No.10434612]

>>10433987
idk

[Anonymous No.10434659]

>>10433976
Because its pointless and autistic, is better to just share the descriptions of our perceptions between each other. I don't know if this is good or bad or real but it is simply what it is and I show it to you and you can show it to me. Why? Because what else can we do?
When I was a kid and had my first philosophy classes in HS I was blown away by it, it was like finally seeing all my doubts about everything arranged in a way that could imply maybe actually finding some kind of answer but now I just don't have any questions and I can't see any reason to make up them unless you are in academia trying to prove how much more intelligent you are than the guy next to you
I think Heidegger realized something similar, philosophy should had ended with him. Everything that came from the continental after him is just rich kids trying to have fun, you are better off playing soccer.

[Anonymous No.10435111]

>>10430283
>do his prose has to do

[Anonymous No.10435399]

>>10434601
Hello /lit/, I'm trying to find .pdf or .epub of Harper Perennial Modern Thought version of Being & Time but I can't find it.

The only version I found was a "spread" scan - not single page and I read stuff from my Kobo so that is bit bad for me

Do any of you have it?

[Anonymous No.10435446]

>>10431875
>Heidegger realized he couldn't answer them. He didn't finish Being and Time, and ultimately gave up on philosophy. Enter poetry.

More like he realized Being couldn't be captured in language when language was used as a simple tool.

But Being could be captured in language when the goal was something else than simply trying to explain something. This is literally the reason Nietzsche wrote Thus Spoke Zarathustra, because it is impossible to simply generate an answer to all fundamental human problems directly and openly.

[Anonymous No.10435534]

>>10430225
'this' 'place'

[Anonymous No.10435566]

>>10431242
Sauce on this?

[Anonymous No.10435584]

What made Heidegger a complete propagandist and believer into Nazi regime and Adolf Hitler?

His speeches were some whacky shit during that time. Even speeches by nazi high command from same era were less... "FUCK YEAH NAZISM"

[Anonymous No.10435590]

>>10430174
>Is it worth to study him? Particularly Being and Time?
Yes and no. You'll get through his later work easier, and it's more important to understanding his influence to read The Origins of a Work of Art.
Then you can double back if you want, or read Merleau Ponty's Phenomenolgy of Perception if you want to do more perception and less Being.

[Anonymous No.10435600]

This is my favorite by him. He is definitely worth reading. https://simondon.ocular-witness.com/wp-content/uploads/2008/05/question_concerning_technology.pdf

[Anonymous No.10435601]

>>10435584
Who knows. Weakness of character. It's quite ironic actually, because Heidegger wrote a lot about a human beings' proclivity to follow "Das Man", his expression for the mob.

[Anonymous No.10435605]

>>10431500
>study economics
>contribute to society
by being a parasite acolyte for techno-capitalism or techno-socialism?

absurd
>contribute to the void
what a weird thing to think

[Anonymous No.10435637]

>>10435584
He reminds us that even the best among us can fall for the bait.

[Anonymous No.10435655]

>>10435584
Heidegger's philosophy naturally spelled out a political program whose core concepts were deracination as opposed to the "organic" grounding of a way of life.

Deracination was associated with all the German cultural critiques of technics, mechanistic thinking, dehumanization, disenchanted modernity, the instrumental worldview or dialectic of enlightenment, etc. For Heidegger, Jews as a rootless "merchant people," were metaphysically and essentially identical with both capitalism AND Bolshevism insofar as they all represented rootlessness and merely instrumental rationality.

In 1935-37 when Heidegger was writing his essay on art and "world-founding," he wrote that "political" foundations can ground a new way of being. In 1933 Heidegger wrote to the students of Freiburg that voting for the Fuhrer was voting for organic union of the German people with a leader who spoke "from" it. He was deeply anti-democratic, as were most serious thinkers of the period and of the 20th century, who tend to be suspicious of the disenchanted lumpenproletariat voting for "its own" "interests" (which are really either ideology or short-sighted and underdeveloped instrumental ends).

Nazism for Heidegger was a possible opening for an escape from modernity.

[Anonymous No.10435679]

>>10435655
>Nazism for Heidegger was a possible opening for an escape from modernity.

Which is absolutely retarded, and he should've known that because Nazism is literally the pinnacle of modernism. The ideology is purely utilitarian and rationalistic, not to mention materialistic in that racism and economics are the most important things.

[Anonymous No.10435688]

>>10430178
Said the joker to the thief

[Anonymous No.10435692]

>>10435679
I'm glad we accepted anti-semitism as utilitarian and rationalistic measure.

[Anonymous No.10435787]

>>10435679
He abandoned the version of Nazism you are talking about, but it wasn't always or necessarily that version.

[Anonymous No.10436000]

>>10435692
The JUSTIFICATIONS were utilitarian and rationalistic you moron.

Need I really remind you that Nazis never were antisemites because they believed Jews murdered Christ.

[Anonymous No.10436523]

>>10436000
Jews didn't murder Christ?

[Anonymous No.10436912]

>>10435446
can you flesh out this idea you’re presenting here of language and reality and also how you perceived N. to interpret/“solve” it? very interesting

[Anonymous No.10437257]

>>10430174
Who? The most significant philosopher of the 20th century? Only if you have a thorough understanding of the western canon.

[Anonymous No.10437284]

>>10431417
>lol, how is problem of being even a problem nigga?
>just leave yourself behind
>just take a walk to somewhere where you aren't
>like, just close your eyes nigga

[Anonymous No.10437324]

>>10432666
Sure
>I thought I had to sein the papers, but then I remembered I had already seiende them

[Anonymous No.10437354]

>>10430522
I havent read Heidegger, but I have a strong feeling this is a really good post. Thanks anon

[Anonymous No.10438019]

bump

[Anonymous No.10438043]

>>10436523
Do you know nothing about the history of christian thought?

[Anonymous No.10438166]

>>10438043
Nope

[Anonymous No.10438227]

>>10435584
Mate, Heimat is a central subject in Heidegger. Heimat means home.

[Anonymous No.10438299]

>>10432666
sein = to be, the verb that you conjugate with different personal pronouns.
seinde = is the adjective of that verb, which - as far as i know - doesn't have an equivalent in English, for example "seinde Mensch" would be translated to "the human that be" If that makes any sense.

[Anonymous No.10438924]

>>10438299
Thank you.

[Anonymous No.10438938]

>>10435692
>utilitarian means correct
>rational means truth
fascism does not send its best nor its brightest tot his board

[Anonymous No.10438970]

>>10431235
you just asked if we regard him as so

[Anonymous No.10439049]

>>10435679
Heidegger was modern anyway.

The whole notion of reducing Being to man's being in the world and temporality is a humanistic project

Traditionally being was the eternal, Heidegger rejects eternity as do all moderns

[Anonymous No.10439212]

this is a good thread, come back smart people pls