Heidegger

What the fuck is he talking about?

Just for personal interest…

I have asked myself that same question many times. Try reading only every other sentence. It helps.

Just as Kant made the notion of the thing-in-itself incoherent and nonsensical, Heidegger, by plumbing its darkest depths, made the idea of being (Being) useless and empty. He mistook existence as a thing-in-itself, as a something. As such, he is a useful deadend. After reading Heidegger, you will be able to add to your list of things not worth thinking about.

You might read Husserl and Bergson first, if you haven’t.

ha! Perhaps you’re right… Any dissenters?

Here, that’s like asking a Metal band if they have any tatoos.

I have read Husserl’s Ideas though I didn’t love it… do you find him and Bergson to be more worthwhile philosophically?

As soon as people start talking about “essences” in a mystical sense, it tends to lose me… unless it’s Plato or Descartes and I can just give it up to historical interest…

I was just contemplating on starting a thread about him. I had started to read his “Being and Time” in German, and quickly came to the idea to compare him to the following:

I can’t seem to find an online English translation of Being and Time, but just read the beginning of section 2 for an idea of the slipperiness of Heidegger’s basis, Being.

kid - no, it’s not that I think either are better philosophers, it’s just that some of their ideas were immediately influential to Heidegger.

In general, the runup to Heidegger is Kant, Kierkegaard, Nietzsche, Bergson, Husserl.

Husserl was, I think, actually one of Heidegger’s teachers. You can skip the Bergson, I suppose. No one reads him anymore.

That’s unfortunate for Henri…

Yes, my understanding is that Husserl’s phenomenology greatly informed Heidegger’s philosophy, although what I’ve read so far of him feels very different stylistically… thanks for your help!

Just out of curiosity, who are currently your favorites, both in philosophical and literary senses?

On both scores, Nietzsche. I also read the Logical Positivists (very inclusively), logicians in general. Hume, because I keep having different thoughts about him and his influence. Hegel was a great stylist, I think. Kierkegaard is such a good writer that he can be reread limitlessly.

Heidegger was obviousy very conscious of style. Look for him in Derrida.

yes, i am a dissenter… that was purely idiotic.

you’re better off doing some research on whatever encyclopedia on the internet for Heidegger…
or get michael gelven’s book as a secondary source… it will atleast make you feel like you know it.
or just read each page 5 times minimum before moving on…

adn whatever you do, don’t think reading husserl is going to be any easier.

Yeah, but moonoq - if you skip every other sentence, it will take half the time.

Wasn’t Heidegger also influenced by Karl Jaspers (who was a lovely little philosopher; it’s a shame not many people read his work anymore)?

Heidegger, smeidigger, I don’t need to read
philosophy anymore. Everything I need to know
is in Harry Potter. I am waiting for hermione to come
of age and zoom, I am going to hit on her.

Kropotkin

Yeah, Jaspers. Forgot him. Need to remember to Wikigoogle everything.

Jaspers is not really that interesting. Besides, he had even less of a sense of humor than Heidegger himself.

Read Jasper’s book on Kierkegaard if you are interested in the latter.

And Husserl? I hesitate to recommend him either. I not sure that Heidegger is a dead end, as such, but you could probably do better by just skipping him and reading Bergson, Whitehead, and Deleuze instead. Heidegger was not really influenced by Bergson, and presents only a superficial reading of him in Being and Time.

Or perhaps just read a book on Heidegger. I would recommend the one by Miguel Beistegui.

Heidegger’s run up is Aristotle, Augustine, Husserl, and Nietzsche. Kant and Hegel are also there, in the background, as well as St. Paul. Duns Scotus cannot be forgotten either.

James

James, I would rarely suggest reading a book on a philosopher over reading that philosopher himself but this might be that rare occasion. Yeah, Aristotle, but I assumed that anyone reading any modern philosopher has read Ari. Agree on Jaspers. Heidegger tried to rethink Hegel, but I’m not sure you really have to read through Hegel - maybe a summary.

In the end, Heidegger is still incoherent and only of historical import. I think that’s why we seem to be struggling in our search for a method. Nothing really helps.

It seems to me that Heidegger was trying to formulate Being in other terms than those of Being. For instance, in Being and Time, he says:

“Das Sein des Seienden “ist” nicht selbst ein Seiendes.”
[section 2.]

Translation:

“The Being of that which is “is” not itself something that is.”

This may become intelligible when we replace all forms of the verb “to be” in this sentence (except the one between quotation marks) by the corresponding forms of the verb “to run”:

“The running of that which runs is not itself something that runs.”

So what is this Being of that which is, if not itself something that is? - Again, I will quote from section 2, this time the beginning of the next paragraph:

“Sofern das Sein das Gefragte ausmacht, und Sein besagt Sein von Seiendem, ergibt sich als das Befragte der Seinsfrage das Seiende selbst.”

Translation:

“In so far as Being is the object of our inquiry - and “Being” means Being of that which is -, that which is proves to be itself the object of our inquiry after Being.”

This is because the Being of that which is is not itself something that is. So the Being of that which is has itself no Being. Only that which is has Being, and it is this Being that is the object of our inquiry. Therefore, as that which is, is [i.e., has Being], the object of our inquiry is that which is itself: it is this that we shall endeavour to understand.

The problem is that you have not substituted for “to be” in each instance. It should be “The running of that which runs runs not itself something that runs”.

As I said, “except the one between quotation marks”. It is not between quotation marks for nothing.

Yeah, I know, Sau. But that this is intelligible doesn’t make Heidegger so, which I took to be your point. Sorry if i misunderstood.