/lit/ - Literature

[Anonymous No.20095008]

I was reading some material by this piece of shit Nazi fuck Heidegger the other day and I'm paraphrasing here obviously but he said:
>Heisenberg could get up here and explain some physics but only 2 or 3 of you would get it right away the rest of you would have to go home and think a great deal about it (if you even bothered to) because it's hard and we all accept this as fact. But as soon as I start doing philosophy everyone thinks it's supposed to be 'practical knowledge' and a 'Way to the Blessed Life' that should be immediately clear to everyone in the room like I'm Tony Robbins. Na, I'm about to say a bunch of unintelligible stuff you're not going to understand that doesn't make sense either that you have to think a lot about otherwise it's all a bunch of useless gibberish. Anyways here's three different ways to interpret "es gibt"

Shouldn't these philosophers explain themselves better though? I feel like these books they write are usually incomplete or could be elaborated on by the author a great deal. I think half the reason Nietzsche is popular is because he's decent at explaining himself and writing prose. Is this perhaps a feature of the time they were written? That they could actually talk to and explain themselves to students directly rather than through the portal of time that is the written word?

idk man I'm getting sick of these assholes

[Anonymous No.20095010]

Bait thread

[Anonymous No.20095013]

>>20095008
>Heisenberg could get up here and explain some physics but only 2 or 3 of you would get it right away the rest of you would have to go home and think a great deal about it (if you even bothered to) because it's hard and we all accept this as fact. But as soon as I start doing philosophy everyone thinks it's supposed to be 'practical knowledge' and a 'Way to the Blessed Life' that should be immediately clear to everyone in the room like I'm Tony Robbins. Na, I'm about to say a bunch of unintelligible stuff you're not going to understand that doesn't make sense either that you have to think a lot about otherwise it's all a bunch of useless gibberish. Anyways here's three different ways to interpret "es gibt"
FUCKING BASED.

[Anonymous No.20095053]

>>20095008
i hope the point of this thread was to make me like Heidegger

[Anonymous No.20095128]

>>20095053
OP here. Of course it was faggot. Only a retard would unironically think Heidegger was shit.

[Anonymous No.20095143]

I still remember that thread about some guy who was getting filtered by this nazi.

[Anonymous No.20095149]

>>20095008
>these books they write are usually incomplete
You do understand that Being and Time is literally one third of the original plan, right?
Ignoring that, Heidegger is extremely good at explaining himself and making things as clear as he can. I honestly just think that you and people like you get upset when you read Heidegger because you're insecure about yourself and he makes you feel dumb.

[Anonymous No.20095157]

>>20095149
You probably got filtered without even knowing. Yikes.

[Anonymous No.20095200]

>>20095149
I don't think I will ever get the man without sprachen de deutsch

[Anonymous No.20095238]

>>20095200
Not who you were replying to, but if I might offer some advice, its been my experience that most people who don't get Heidegger have one thing in common: they never actually read Heidegger because even though they're reading his words, they're smuggling in a bunch of metaphysical concepts and presuppositions which directly clash with his project. This is easy to do, because a lot of what he discusses sounds like it corresponds with concepts we already know to some extent, but it very rarely maps neatly. Even Sartre read Heidegger like this, which is to say, he misread him terribly.

[Anonymous No.20095245]

>>20095128
"Into this world we're thrown / Like a dog without a bone"
t.Honkler Heidegger

[Anonymous No.20095291]

Heidegger only really makes sense with the context of Kant, Hegel and Nietzsche.
All other philosophers are nice fluff, but it is those three that make a hermit talking about "the Quotidien" the most profound philosophical text.

[Anonymous No.20095309]

Invitation to a Barbecue
---
How do we produce and plastic wrap
An episode of life?
How can we, when it is illegal
To save the world right now?
A prank on Existenz, he says, headline:
"You bring the being, I'll bring the thyme."
Local Friendly Man
Displays Hand Drawn Sign

[Anonymous No.20095325]

>>20095149
what are the other thirds? 'time and being'(?) and what

[Anonymous No.20095351]

>>20095149
This. Heidegger is "autistic" in his pains to explain himself clearly. His thought is very unique and original in many ways but if you take it slowly and don't rush ahead before grasping what he's already said, he makes nearly every other philosopher seem confused and impenetrable in comparison. I remember approaching Heidegger as a dipshit 19 year old and thinking "ZOMG hes so whacky what is this nazi guy even saying" but after coming back and trying again several times I can't imagine anything more lucid and thoroughly, methodically grounded in factical experience.

[Anonymous No.20095378]

>>20095238
I don't get it so are you saying the best way to read this guy is not to understand metaphysics and just goin in that way?

[Anonymous No.20095409]

>>20095008
I can’t take it. My favorite board is now filled with Redditors and Trannies… I just wanted to talk about the Greeks…

[Anonymous No.20095418]

>>20095378
Nobody "understands" metaphysics, Heidegger's position is that taking an outside view of physis is impossible because we are within it. It helps to have familiarity with the history of attempts at theories of metaphysics, particularly of Plato, Aristotle, Descartes, Kant, Hegel, and Husserl in order to understand the ideas and misconceptions he's often responding to, but his work doesn't depend on any in particular. Try reading Introduction to Metaphysics slowly and carefully, and if you find that it's going over your head read some of the above authors and come back later. He doesn't write for the "uninitiated" but once you have some training in how to read and think sympathetically he's not particularly difficult either.

[Anonymous No.20095474]

>>20095378
I was slow to respond but honestly >>20095418
has the right of it. Its not that Heidegger doesn't engage in conversation with the rest of philosophy or that hes writing for a lay audience, its that he uses common terms rather idiosyncratically in order to shake the reader out of their usual way of looking at things through various subject/object distinctions or being as presence or whatever else we've inherited through our everyday language and understanding.

[Anonymous No.20095538]

>>20095418
thx

[Anonymous No.20096791]

There's nothing wrong with this at all. Normies equate philosophy with ethics and ethics with practicable self-help maxims. Higher normies will get into aphorisms like the abyss that stares into you and the Categorical Imperative, basically little "kernels of wisdom" that ostensibly say something even when extricated from a broader system. That's why Neech is popular. So they'll get to a lesson by this dude and be wondering how the fuck are hidden eggs going to help me get a promotion, or help me be less stressed out about my bills, or how to get a gf. I am already cognizant of my thrown-ness mister egg hider!

[Anonymous No.20096830]

>>20096791
That's not really true. When I was stressed out about my bills and shitty job reading Heidegger helped me have a psychotic break from which I never managed to fully recover back into a "functional person". Now I have $30K of debt liabilities and no income. I've realized how limited our knowledge is and how people get through life by assuming or pretending answers to unanswerable questions, even on the scale of civilizational history. Life is an endless mystery with the potential to surprise us with earth-shattering happenings at any moment. Gods exist and we are gifted with their spark. I love Heidegger.

[Anonymous No.20096876]

>>20096830
OPs paraphrase is about the Egg Hider saying that his material shouldn't be reflexively explicable as normoids expect it to be. Their perception of philosophy is "maxims that can help me live a better life" which is why Heidegger's thought is useless according to their filtering process. And they're right about that, your story is evidence of it even.
This:
> I've realized how limited our knowledge is and how people get through life by assuming or pretending answers to unanswerable questions, even on the scale of civilizational history. Life is an endless mystery with the potential to surprise us with earth-shattering happenings at any moment. Gods exist and we are gifted with their spark
is tldr to that sort of person. How is any of that shit gonna help me pay off my 30k in bills? I'll read a motivational Nietzsche sentence instead. That's what Egghider had a problem with. If the uninitiated can't understand complex physics, why should they think they can understand complex philosophy through their heuristic of condensing philosophical material to self-help?

[Anonymous No.20098325]

martin "hide egger" hid so many eggs that the nazis changed his name from hiedegger to hide egger. he would hide eggs in the nazi pariliament. many nazis would be like bro wtf where are all these eggs coming from! and there would be martin just chilling and smoking laughing at the pure win that was unfolding unbeknownst to the nazi parliament members. h e even hid an egg in hitlers bunker and hitler called him was like "bruh ur a savage i know it was you!!!!" and heidegger just chilled and lit up a cigar and said "yeah... lol". next day his office placard was changed to hide egger!!!! history of phil... just another win

[Anonymous No.20098367]

I think he's right that if something immediately makes intuitive sense to you, it can't be that meaningful. You basically already had the thought.

[Anonymous No.20098490]

>>20098325
>the chicken may have invented the egg, but I invented the egg... UP MY ASS!
>t. Hide Egger