[ 3 / biz / cgl / ck / diy / fa / ic / jp / lit / sci / vr / vt ] [ index / top / reports ] [ become a patron ] [ status ]
2023-11: Warosu is now out of extended maintenance.

/lit/ - Literature

View post   
File: 40 KB, 484x578, Heidegger_1955.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
13896689 No.13896689 [Reply] [Original]

So is this guy's only achievement to bastardize Kierkegaard and Augustine into non-christian mumbo jumbo? His "care structure" (thrownness, projection and fallen-ness) is literally ripped off of Christian thought.

I think he realized Kierkegaard was right but still wanted to justify his nazism. Someone tell me I'm wrong.

>> No.13896695

>>13896689
You're wrong.

>> No.13896718

>>13896695
Please expand

>> No.13896800

>>13896689
>His "care structure" (thrownness, projection and fallen-ness) is literally ripped off of Christian thought.
hahahahaha wut?

>> No.13896843

Yes, it's been fairly commonly noted that his "present as the zero-point between past and future" conception is Augustinian and his existentialism is already in Nietzsche and Kierkegaard. His Sorge conception, and similar philosophical-anthropological ideas in his later work, are more transcendental than Christian though, even if you could make the argument that transcendental philosophy is itself a transposition of Christian thought (as a subset of Platonism).

Being and Time made a big splash and maybe people took it as a prod to developing their own forms of existentialism, many of them Christians actually, and some outright adopted it as a systematic basis for their own thought. But his existentialist aspects are his least interesting, and he abandoned the analytic of Dasein fairly quickly. He's best read as trying to grapple with the problem of nihilism at an epistemological/transcendental level, the possibility of politics and meaning within this problem, and the problem of the individual within the scope of political or post-political possibilities under nihilism.

Also you should beware people who detect the whiff of Christian thought in Heidegger and then assume they've understood everything. Certain things are false friends in the etymological sense: fallenness is not Christian fallenness e.g., although it does have strong Kierkegaardian resonances. In fact, understanding Heidegger's analytic of das Man as a mode of Dasein, and the related danger of fallenness, is a good entry point to Heidegger's thought because it will let you see some of the things he's doing at the conceptual level, so you can get a sense of whether you find him insightful or not.

Heidegger's Nazism was sincere but misguided. He wasn't a particularly good guy. But he did sincerely want to save humanity as such.

>> No.13896869

>>13896689
Well you do know he literally wanted to be a priest before he lost his faith anon. Of course he is hugely influenced by Augustine and Aquinas. But you should read some more by him before making such a hasty judgement.

>> No.13896933

>>13896800
"Projection" was a key concept stolen from Kierkegaard. The possible range of actions human can take, and the freedom we have to take any action in that range combined with our absurd relation to existence is the primary cause of anxiety.

"Fallen-ness" goes back to the story of Genesis, in which Adam has fallen from Eden, and thus mankind. Pascal discussed the existential implications in his Pensées, he makes the point that Christianity is strange as it simultaneously sees individuals as fallen from a relationship with God in total abjectness, yet individuals are expected to act as God on earth, Jesus Christ.

"Throwness" or saying that one is born without being asked into physical, social, political and any type of conditions is not unique to Heidegger. Kierkegaard saw this as a cause of living an inauthentic life. Heidegger's concept of authenticity also being taken from Kierkegaard. Though I will credit him for his concept of the "they", which Sartre really drew on I believe.

>>13896843
As I said, having read Genesis, and specifically Kierkegaard and Pascal's account, I don't see much in his concept of fallen-ness that isn't Christian. I also don't see anything new in his grappling with nihilism, though I may be wrong.

>>13896869
I still don't see how it isn't just Christian thoughts without Christ.

>> No.13896956

>>13896933
You should try reading Being and Time before seeing or not seeing differences between it and other works.

>> No.13897042

>>13896956
I'd rather read Kierkegaard, I'll get the original ideas without Heidegger's phenomenological mumbo jumbo.

>> No.13897057

>existentialism
Not even once.

>> No.13897081

>>13897042
You misunderstood, I wasn't telling you to read the book in the sense that I care whether you read the book, I was telling you that you are a retard if you comment on a book without having read it. Feel free to read whatever you want, obviously, just be aware you look like a retard when you talk about things you don't know anything about, regardless of what the things themselves are.

>> No.13897177

>>13896933
KEK...you simplistic idiot. You might as well say we're all Christians.

Yes, he borrows, but more from Aristotle than anybody else and nowhere do your Kierkegaard and your Christians put it in everyday practical terms that a normal human being can live by. That's his achievement; even if flawed it's highly original and right there in front of you and other common sense people. It's in the everyday phenomena. Biblical Christianity is absolute garbage to him.

Also, your definitions of care are all wrong. I am not going to correct them.

Plus you've completely ignored his ideas on Time. And besides your Kierkegaard is not a Christian at all, as you might think. His concept of God excludes the supreme being. And neither is your Augustin free from the Greeks.

Concept of authenticity and they are just common sense. If you want a philosopher for them then you're a moron.


>I still don't see how it isn't just Christian thoughts without Christ.
Heidegger has no concept of agape love or afterlife or heaven or hell or "mumbo jumbo". He doesn't care about such nonsense.


AND HERE'S THE BIGGEST DIFFERENCE.
HEIDEGGER DOES NOT BELIEVE THAT YOU SHOULD BE PUNISHED AND CONFESS AND REPENT FOR HAVING A DESIRE TO FUCK YOUR MOTHER. HE DOESN'T GIVE A SHIT ABOUT THAT. HE IS NOT A RELIGION. HE DOESN'T BELIEVE YOU'RE BORN SICK LIKE CHRISTIANS DO.

I couldn't care less about what you want to believe in. Believe in dog shit if you like.