He says nothing new and original within the philosophical tradition and yet his writings are still profound. What is it about Heidegger that makes him a good thinker?
>>18426130A synthesis can be greater than the sum of its parts, which is what he managed to do. That said, if you like Heidegger you should absolutely read some Dilthey to see just how much he "borrowed".
>>18426130His work on Nietzsche and Holderlin was pretty original to say the least.
>>18426130>He says nothing new and original within the philosophical tradition and yet his writings are still profoundMeasuring the value of an author on the basis of originality is what makes anglo and american culture a total joke, and the reason why you are absolutely shit to the eyes of the rest of the world.Your entire existence is based on wrong conceptions and wrong assumptions. You would need to be completely reset.
>he says nothing new and originalRead his works first, faggot
>>18426130>He says nothing new and original within the philosophical tradition and yet his writings are still profound. What is it about Heidegger that makes him a good thinker?Kudos for coming up with a take this retarded.
>>18426130Not related, but Heidegger's aesthetics would be perfect if he wasn't such a retard about music.
>>18426130He plagiarized The Book of Tea. So fuck him.
>>18426130Heidegger was the German Parmenides.Heidegger completed the system.
>>18426145>"borrowed"Heidegger was evolving in a milieu where Dilthey and his work were well known. It's not his faults Anglos never heard of him (there's been an effort of translations but only since the 1990s and it is relegated to the domain of meme erudition).
You have this backwards, he is highly original but not very profound.
>>18426130he was thoroughly refuted by panagiotis kondylis
Is it one guy who is spamming this anti Heidegger stuff lately or what is this trash?He surely msut be anglo.
>>18428553Funny how you lot can't defend his absurd doctrines. You just think he's a great because people told you to think that.
>>18428651kek it is you again, you pathetic anglo shit.why are you so obsessed?
>>18428553I don't think so, seems more like /lit/ is starting to become aware of the Heidegger scam. A critical re-evaluation has been long overdue.
>18428667stop repeatedly (you)ing me. It's cringe.
>>18428651you can't attack his absurd doctrines
>>18428553I made the other heidnigger thread but I didn't make this one.It's not that I hate him but that I hate how he is namedropped everytime for nothing. And people never use his ideas but his name, and they can't explain why he is relevant.Also, it's not about originality but about being interesting.
>>18428686See the other thread. Aletheia for starters. And pic related. The burden of proof is on the Heideggerian to show this bullshit is true.
>>18428713>this quoteI now see the scam, thanks anon.Fuck heidnigger and all those who refer to him.
>>18428675Take your meds. You sound like the schizo Frenchman from the Jung threads.
>>18428713>that quoteDid he skip Parmenides?
>>18428767He definitely skipped Plotinus.
>>18428767>>18428733prove him wrong
His being-towards-death and auntheticity/inauthenticity ideas are the only things I really take from him.
>>18428792You have to prove it right first, which you won't, because you can't.
>>18428813His being towards death is bogus too. "Death is the possibility of all possibilities of Dasein" and "the possibility of the impossibility of any existence at all". Tell me what's useful about such a formulation?
>>18428713Time is not a being itself. Makes sense.Dasein can’t be addressed “temporally” because it is always in time and time is not a being.
>>18428865To what end (lol btfo) do you want to “use” it?
>>18428813>>18428690His rejection of Cartesian dualism for a more holistic view of being-in-the-world represents a fundamental challenge to the 300 years of philosophical canon that came before him, and appears more prescient each and every day. There's a bite-sized summary for you idiots that are too dumb to pick up a book.
>>18428875It is capitalized Being though, and I am pretty sure time is contained within Being since otherwise time wouldn't have any intelligibility at all.
>>18428875That's not a proof of their reciprocal coderermination is it? And he says being, not Dasein. Anyway, there can be no processes beyond time, which is what this implies, so it's false.
>>18428898No it’s lowercase, as in Seiende“Time cannot be addressed as A being”
>>18428895>Heidegger solved the Hard ProblemNo, he didn't
>>18428903The quote says Being, not being, you fucking retard, how can you not understand the ontological difference and still put forward “critiques” of Heidegger?
>>18428920Rejection is not solving
>>18428939>you made a typo therefore Heidegger's right after allNo he isn't. This is a man who once claimed Thales was as exact as Einstein, since after all Shakespeare is no more advanced than Aeschylus. Just utter confusion.
>>18428941There's still an irreducible ontological gap. In denying it he's no wiser than Daniel Dennett.
As much as I despise Adorno his denunciation of Heidegger as the person who came up with a pseudo oracular type of writing is on point. Of course, what really bothered Adorno is that Heidegger aped the Jewish style while being a goy. Derrida, a shameless Heidegger copycat, brought the Heideggerian loots to their legitimate place, ie the Jewish motherhouse of pure chutzpah.
>>18429017That irreducible ontological gap is not necessarily Cartesian in its expression; Heidegger merely posits a different expression.
>>18429024>[Adorno's] denunciation of Heidegger as the person who came up with a pseudo oracular type of writingthe irony. And nonsense.
>>18429030Can you elaborate? To me Heidegger is a monist.
>>18428991Only an anglo can misunderstand the terms>This forgetting, says Heidegger, is now entrenched in language. If the “question of being,” the Seinsfrage, strikes us as vacuous, or as a mystical word game, or as purely and simply nonsense—and Heidegger knows that it is one or a combination of these reactions that make up “common sense”—the reason is, literally, linguistic. “Many words, and precisely the essential ones, are in the same situation: the language in general is worn out and used up—an indispensable but masterless means of communication that may be used as one pleases, as indifferent as a means of public transport.” But the current emptiness of the word “being,” the disappearance of its original strength of calling and presentness, is far more than a symptom of a general exhaustion of language. For this exhaustion is itself symptomatic of the fact that our relations to existence, which constitute the core and rationale of human speech, have receded into grammatical banality (the word “is” diminished to a mere copula) or into forgetting. Thus it follows for Heidegger that any serious inquiry into being, failing which there can be no authentic personal or public destiny, must take linguistic considerations as its starting point. Radical insight goes to the root of words.>It is hardly an exaggeration to suggest that Heideggerian thought, the ontology or “thinking of being” which Heidegger developed over some sixty-five years, derives from a grammatical feature present in German and most Western tongues but not, as it happens, in English. In German the noun “being” is Sein and the verb “to be” is sein. As in French, être and être, the noun is identical with the infinitive of the verb. In English, it is identical with a participial form. In other words, Sein, the verbal noun for “being,” is at its syntactic base a process, an activity, a “being-there.” The noun is, as it were, the momentary pause or fiction of an act; it has the same linguistic form as the act because the latter is wholly operative within it. This dynamic nominalism is fundamental to Heidegger’s existential phenomenology and theory of language. But it is not with the German roots that we must start; it is with Greek etymology, for “along with German, the Greek language is (in regard to its possibilities for thought) at once the most powerful and the most spiritual of all languages.
>>18429059>>18429030>>18429017Monism, dualism - these are historical metaphysical interpretations of Being and beings, not Being qua Being
>>18428792Time is just the succession of beings. Time is a being.What is this category which goes above being for him ? Supra-being (so being) ?
>>18428895>Heidnigger : "I have a more holistic view of being-in-the-world" crowd : "Based !" *keeps applauding to this day*You sure keep proving me how his thought can be of interest in discussions... How it can be shared by normal human beings and how it informs those who name-drop him.
>>18429092Oh I forgot, it's ONTOLOGY, not metaphysics. Just like when the fourfold of earth, sky, mortals and gods poetically determine things...
>>18429163Heidegger’s thought literally encompasses all metaphysics and all possible metaphysical systems there can be - have you figured out why yet?
>>18428713Being is beyond change (time). Time is a quality of being, it's no different than the processions of beings. beings are not caused by time but by being. I don't know why he wants to construct a new category for time and separate it from the pure Being or beings.Seems he didn't understood metaphysics
>>18429092based. metaphysicians and ontotheologians btfo
>>18429187>have you figured out why yet?Why ? The quote above is against metaphysics.
>>18429092Being qua BeingYou mean the nature of pure Being, or the Good ?It was always the object of traditions and philosophies.
>>18429208Because Heidegger takes a step back and sees metaphysics and philosophy engaged in formulas of the sort “Being is x”, where Being, and “is”, is always taken as something else (as substance, presence)
>>18428713Time is the transcendental foundation of all experience. Read Descartes, Brentano, James, Husserl, Bergson and Merleau-Ponty. Skip Heidegger.
Heidegger asks the question about the nature of Being: "what is Being?" Being is a concept, the most fundamental concept, and everything that we come across in life has Being as it's most basic property, but Being itself does not exist in the same way; Being is not a being. Our only method of examination then is to attempt to extrapolate or abstract away from what we can experience: beings. Thusly, Being is always only extricable as the Being of a being. Being is also not merely a property that denotes a common set or collection of things united by that property. We cannot take Being as self-evident. To ask about Being, or anything at all, takes a being (us in this case), and the nature of our asking reflects our own Being. Because our asking reflects our own Being we cannot ask separately from our Being. Thus this must be the fundamental starting point of our investigation; we cannot inquire, as it were, from an outside perspective. This does not mean that we cannot try our own particular being from the question of Being, only that it is fundamentally impossible to succeed completely from the outset.We beings, who have Being, investigate Being through interaction with other beings (with regard to their Being). We are Dasein and must first ask about the Being inherent in Dasein.
>>18429243This was his one and only good point. Not one of his groveling simps has even tried to prove his core doctrine that Being shows itself then fucks off somewhere unspecified for arbitrary stretches of time because it's sheer nonsense. Errors and omissions just happen in philosophy. Received wisdom that Heidegger is a genius because he brought one to light is just wrong.
>>18429243What a genius ! God is the Good, that means God and Good are not separated ? Nor are they separated from the word "is" ? God is infinite, that means he is not limited to the way we say he is not finite ?Maybe by "Being" you don't mean God though
>>18429311>infinite>GodNo, the opposite direction is taken in that it is the beginning of explicating the facticity of Dasein - the being who has a privileged relationship to Being by being able to pose the question of “What is Being?”. And this Dasein is finite, which is why she cares about Being and beings.Heidegger said that philosophy has to take Nietzsches “god is dead” seriously and turn its face away from god if it wants to inquire into Being, else you end up with ontotheology where you have chains, and hierarchies of beings, who make up a sort of metaphysical and philosophical assurance for Dasein (“This Dasein is finite, but God, he is infinite and caused my existence”) which in the end just contorts the finite relationship to Being. This doesn’t make Heidegger an atheist, he’s just concerned with the way god always takes the form of a metaphysical thesis or substance which will ensure the validity (and infinite character) of philosophical systems
>>18430379>he’s just concerned with the way god always takes the form of a metaphysical thesis or substance which will ensure the validity (and infinite character) of philosophical systemsBut that is the whole point. God ensures the validity of everything, because God, the One, to Agathon etc. IS the source of everything.Why would you even try to remove that. Philosophy, just like the world itself, would turn into an incoherent mass of meaninglessness coming from nothing to nothing. Pure nihilism.
>>18430883>Why would you even try to remove that.Because you are reifying god as a theoretical construct - this is ontotheology. And this ultimately results in the death of god and nihilism as Nietzsche exclaimed. God can be much more than that. This is not how the early Christians experienced god, nor the Greeks and their deities.By turning away from god in philosophy we leave room for godpic related has a good discussion of Heidegger's engagement and fascination with the early Christians who experienced their being-in-the-world in terms of parousia, the second coming - and where god is NOT taken as a "concept"God can be taken as Being, or God can be taken as God for "his" own sake. Being can be taken as "grounded in God", or Being can be taken as Being for its own sake. The latter terms are preferable because it doesn't force analogies, metaphysical systems, and leaves room for something outside of our own theorerical grasp.
>>18428713>that quoteHow was this man even a student of Husserl?
>>18426663Seethe harder lol
>>18431698Husserl is known for his torturous prose.Heidegger, on the other hand, is seen as a stylist and wordsmith on the same level of literary modernists.
What do I read in order to understand what this guy is talking about? It reads like gibberish. I might be a brainlet. I got "Basic Writings" edited by David Krell and I just don't get it.
>>18431724I was not talking about any "literary" talent. Heidegger is also very tortuous, arguably in a good way.
>>18429311>Maybe by "Being" you don't mean God thoughAnd neither should you.
>>18431720But is he wrong?