Thoughts on Heidegger?

SARTRE DID NOTHING WRONG

Except
1. being a tankie
2. massively misreading kierkegaard
3. massively misreading Heidegger
4. being a pedophile
5. being ugly af
6. being pretentious
7. being an urban intellectual
8. literally ruining existentialism

"I am not an existentialist"
t. Heideigger.

1.Respecting the power of the USSR
2.He had a differentiate reading from that of mine :_: why how dare he
3.He had a differentiate reading from that of mine :_: why how dare he
4.having a superior taste in women age
5.being confidante in his look
6.recognizing his superior intellect
7.being down to earth humble man
8.literally giving existentialism its end logical conclusion

D I D N O T H I N G W R O N G

Repeating what I said in the lit thread, there's interesting things going on with his view of technology and Marx conception of the production process.

Well he wrote on Hegel's conception of truth, but I'm fully sure if it's his own.

Heidegger was great except for his Nazism and anthropocentrism, the latter was his one negative holdover from Kant and Nietzsche. Marxists and braindead anprims should actually read his views on technology, they're invaluable for a modern critique of liberalism and its techniques of societal management.

You didnt even try did you.

t. expert on an-civ/anprim lit
This is why nobody would take you seriouse yui, ignorant statements can make you quicky idiotic.

“If you reread all my books," says Sartre after the rebellion of May 1968 in Paris, "you will realize that I have not changed profoundly, and that I have always remained an anarchist.”

What did he mean by this?

People don't like you because you make really condescending posts.

It means you can spell 'satire' without 'Sartre', but it would be pretty difficult.

If anybody legitimately knows, I'd be interested in how Sartre got Heidegger wrong.

Nah, Yui is just repeating what some other critic probably said about Sartre.

Isn't the guy still an undergrad?

IMO, it's not so much that Sartre got Heidegger wrong, so much as that Sartre just stole most of his ideas from Heidegger and extrapolated differently from the basics of phenomenology.

Yui doesn't even study philosophy academically m8

That was my understanding of Sartre as well. I'd figure I'd ask anyway.

he named his book after Heidegger's

already got my hot fresh anger fueled {you}s
i already won nigga

Top lel i just wonn the present.

Sorry to butt in OP just wondering why we emphasize studying philosophy academically or take people less seriously for being undergraduates?

I just take Yui less seriously for it, since he's a young kid posturing as some adult intellectual.

Obviously there is nothing wrong with being an undergraduate.

youtube.com/watch?v=S8DqBRgKvIY

Yui pissed off an anprim with the IQ of a below average neanderthal I see.

*misreading Kant

It means he retracted all his work and decided he only wanted to be remembered for his plays.

1. claims that existentialism was a humanism meant Heidegger had to write letters just to correct him. Humanism is anti-existentialist, it's dogmatic morality. Literally why would you be one?

2. The nothings is ahistorical. Sartre can't into Hegel. Nothingness and being sublate to becoming, becoming sublates to existence.

So being precedes existence. Thrownness is how Heidegger accounts for this, but Sartre can't.

This user gets it. Dasein/10

kek'd

You people just don't have freedom-towards-death. I'm gonna visit a graveyard today mk?

Also Yui, what the fuck.

Read Letters on Humanism. Heidegger is literally fighting against anthropocentrism. There's nothing anthropocentric about him. You're thinking of Sartre.

I someone is expecting people on this board for Phd students one is making a severe mistake in general.

I've probably never been as chocked by the utter ignorance of the phil students (and staff!) at my campus, but it's generally because it's utterly overtaken by analytics. As case examples: didn't read Heidegger or Foucault until Sociology of Religion. Even worse, in Philosophy of Religion the professor of claimed one must study religious beliefs in the same way as a scientific hypotheses, resulting in us reading Popper and Kuhn to see if Religion was "falsifiable".

Every tripfag on Holla Forums, especially A.W.

daddy what's a monad?

Ew, Popper and Kuhn.

AUGHAUGHAAAA!!!!!!!
STOP RUINING LAIN YOU STUPID PIECE OF SHIT I HATE YOU TRIPFAGS REEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEAAAAUUUUUUUUUUUUUUURGH!!!!!!!!!!

literally me

somebody explain these terms to me

=( swans is a good band though!

Ignore him, he didn't even use the terms correctly, it's being and nothingness and being and time. They're separate, the titles just refer to the subject. There's no such thing as "being in time"

It's sartrefag being sartrefag.

although if you want me to run you through being and time I'd be happy to do it.

sure, go ahead.

what went wrong?

Pic related. First a few misconceptions are that Heidegger is a humanist, but he is actually the opposite and he wrote something called "letters on humanism" which is actually a polemic against Sartre's stupidity. Heidegger claims not that existence precedes essence (one is what one does) but something even more radical: being precedes essence. But being cannot be separated from time, or the world. We are predicated in time. One is what one does, but only after a certain amount of reflection, this is why Hegel is the true father of existentialism, think the science of logic diagram. Also, it's a misconception to say Heidegger is an ontologist. His aim is to destroy ontology, to make sure we don't need it anymore.

He claims we are "thrown" into the world and this fact means we do a few things
1. we recognise that we are going to die
2. we run away from that fact into "average everydayness" (meaning the hustle bustle of life and our habits).
3. We project ourselves onto the world

Heidegger claims the only way to be truly authentic (and thus satisfied of life) is to take death into one's self, not to die but to keep death in mind and live as the cliche goes, as if each day were one's last. Thus ends reflection.

"Being" is the first thing anyone can understand, the first thing in conception. This comes from Hegel. We are therefore bound to objects.

A lot of it comes from Kierkegaard E.G., concept of anxiety

He shoulda read kant better still, the synthesis renders choice necessary

People think he's anti-systematics but he's not. He's an aesthete and so he fell into the same trap as Epicureans. His prose is great, and he's okay when it comes to some of Kierkegaard, but then he messed up by "uhh do what you want guys it's just that simple". One must become one's self. In fairness, his philosophy reflects his madness quite vividly. Where he splits with Heidegger is when Heidegger says we do not know the object by conquering it, but by rather letting it be what it is, allowing it to reveal itself as what it is. Truth isn't about looking deeply into an object, but by not having something hidden (by rational symbolism).

I claim that Heidegger does Nietzsche better than Nietzsche. We cannot hear the cry of Nietzsche until we ourselves begin to think, Heidegger tells us (paraphrasing from irrational man). Thinking is not that easy, because one is stuck in rationalism (again not to say irrationalism is good, the point is that rationalism is abstract).
Zarathustra says "remain true to the earth". Is this not the entire point of Heidegger's philosophy?

again, kantian synthesis. Choice. Necessary.

Also, bit the pre-socratic pill WAYYYYY too hard.

I always thought like this too
How does someone go about allowing an object to reveal itself?
This sounds contradictory, in order to understand objects we must rationalize, but one can't understand truth by thinking deeply?

By reverting to Dasein prior to willing! It's will, according to Kant, that prevents us from holding the noumena, so it makes sense that prior to will we can understand more than just representation.

Will is a part of projection which is on the left of the diagram somewhere, right below "being-in". That's what I mean by saying we're rooted in objects. We project ourselves onto them.

Nah you got it wrong. The point is that because we're rooted in objects we rationalise, but rationalisation can never reach the truth because it works in too abstract categories and language. It's not that thinking deeply is bad, but thinking for-the-sake is bad, and rationalisation is rooted in objects and so is for-the-sake.

How can one understand without willing to understand first though? Why must I go back to uncertainty, and confrontation? Also, do you mean our subjective experiences affect our cognition of objects?
You mean thinking of the object in-itself, and attempting to understand it inherently through pure reason?

It's not about not willing period, it's not buddhism, it's just about not projecting will. You don't go back to uncertainty, you just look at the object without expecting anything from it- only Sartre would claim that the object reveals itself naturally as it is without you having to do anything first because he can't into Hegel. It requires prep from the observer first. In the same way as the subject takes death into one's self to overcome anxiety, the observer frees one's self from the object and goes back to DaSein. If that part sounds like "just do it nigga" then that's where you're right to criticise Heidegger and why I say he needs to re-read Kant.

Pretty much.

Your bit on Nietzsche confuses me and it, as I understand it now, does not seem very accurate nor descriptive of Nietzsche nor his writing. Would you mind specifying?

e.g.: you imply that Nietzsche's epistemological ontology can be reduced to "uhh do what you want guys it's just that simple", but Nietzsche actually wrote quite little on ontology. Instead he focused on the experience of being and how it interweaves with understanding - ontological epistemology, not ontology. (As fitting for a "Dionysian".) Vis-a-vis: "lying the truth", the analogy of the abyss and so on.

Also, nitpick, but Heidegger would split with Nietzsche, not the other way around.

This makes more sense, but:
this sounds extremely difficult to do, I'd essentially have to go through ego-death, no?

I meant by that that when he agrees with Kierkegaard on things like levelling/passive-nihilism/systematic conceptions of ideas, he also doesn't explain the way in which the self can properly be one's self- he seems to be holding onto bad conceptions of "ego" (EG in Zarathustra he talks about self vs. ego as if one can free one's ego from the fixed idea like Stirner would argue) but ego is very much oudated as a concept and ahistorical. So it's the same as "bee yourself" as far as I can see. I'm aware that he wrote on ontology, but he never really overcame ontology without the concept of the void, something which you can't even really begin to actually talk about because it seems to fall into the same pitfall as stirner's, what was the term, ah something. Oh, creative nothing, It's a cop out.

Yeah sure, but I had already typed it and didn't bother to backspace.

No, I don't understand why you would have to go through ego death? First of all, don't talk about ego. Ego isn't a thing. There's only the self as in it is rooted in the world. It's a historical thing, and ego can't account for such things!

World doesn't mean just objects. The world is pre-ontological for Heidegger.

I'm referring to freud.
How is the self historical? Do you mean as in it's constantly evolving and changing based off our actions?
How can this be conceived?

o. I think you think I mean projection in a Freudian sense. Nonono, it's different. Projection in this sense is one of objects. It's not Freudian.

Not just our actions. I mean, our actions produce and reproduce a structure, but that structure also affects us in irreversible ways. Just getting rid of the structure doesn't get rid of that structure's effects on you. Get me? The idea of a "centralised thing" in a person that produces ideas and actions is silly, no?

We are able to see what we did in the past and change our actions based on it and make predictions also. These 2 things are what it means to be historical- it can account for the past, whereas ego can't.

Wot u mean? I don't wanna try defending this, because I'm not any sort of brilliant philosopher who understands these things you see. I like Heidegger because he makes a lot of sense in his processes, and arrives at Kierkegaard's conclusions independently of Kierkegaard, and that's about it. I can defend Kierkegaard if you have queries about him, but not so much Heidegger past how I've already relayed my understanding of him, because I'm still learning. sorry

When you refer to structure do you mean our current self, our essence, or what? Also, does this mean the creative nothing doesn't exist?
I'm confused on the definition of the World, and how it's pre-ontological. Is that statement not ontological, where does the regression end?

I mean structure as in in the world, so society. I'm not trying to create an advanced concept of self here, just talking about how society affects us much more deeply than shallow thinkers like Stirner and Nietzsche would have one believe.
This is why the "Just ignore him" Lacan vs stirner meme is so funny for me.
yes, doesn't exist

There's a nice lecture I watched before first reading Heidegger which really aided me. Want a link?
youtube.com/watch?v=xFtVQz_o-fk

There's a wikipedia article which isn't that bad somewhere too

I suppose Marx was right in the end after all? Anyways, I'll listen to that lecture after I'm done making some notes. I think I'll continue reading kant as well, thanks for the nawlej.

No, because Marx took a lot more influence from Stirner than marxists like to admit. There was such a good essay on this but I can't find it, sorry.

Engels at least would say people act egoistically, but that the real rational self interest is one that helps their material conditions most, so should still aim for collective liberation.

Stirner was still a commie, as his followers, friends, and critics point out, but he was just a very different one. His ideas are important, but ultimately are wrong.

this is why stirnerite marxism doesn't make much sense- marxism is stirnerite.

Like ignore discussions about whether stirner was materialist or idealist. The point is that he tumbles from idealism to materialist abstractions, it's dialogical. It doesn't make a difference for him.

Rebel, why have you been posting with the satan flag in half your posts?

I think it's a cute flag. There's no other reason, nope!

Great thread! I've thought about getting into Sartre but it looks like I should get into Heidegger first…but should I read Kierkegaard before that?

...

If you want my recommendation who's spent a while studying this stuff, I'd recommend starting with a book called "Irrational Man". It's the best intro to existential thought, and remains it IMO. It'll probably put you off Sartre though (thankfully).

by the way for anyone partaking in this thread I recommend that book (Irrational Man) to literally anyone interested in existentialism

After that I would begin with Hegel. Have you read Hegel? You don't *need* to read Hegel for a lot of it but you won't understand existentialism properly without Hegel and I assume you want the full understanding.

Trips confirms, Heidegger is huge qt.

The universe is my will.

This is a Hegelian statement.

you forgot to put your shitposting flag on.

Problem?

I thought ancap was your shitposting flag?

You mean this?

but does marxism not accept that society influences and shapes the individual rather than the other way around? Is that not the very application of historical materialism itself?

Is Kant not important to know as a background of Hegel?

I DON'T UNDERSTAND AGHHHHH

No, not really. It says material conditions affect individuals, individuals acting in self interest IE the proletarians overturn superstructure. There's nothing particularly spooky about it, it's just recognition of individuals being exploited so they decide that the best way to overcome their exploitation is to group up and destroy capitalism. Marxism's ethics are very poor, it's often just Stirner rehashed to make way for holism.

Of course. You should really start w/ greeks I'm not gonna lie. But some people don't care to and are fine just learning the basics enough to get context.

Kant is also important for Kierkegaard and Heidegger even separate from Hegel so yes

I thought it was the development of material conditions affect society's' development and causes antagonisms in the current base to produce another base. The individual is recognized as a part of the collective who belongs to either class.
I agree, but I don't think Marxism is focused on ethics more so than just being focused on the contradictions of capitalism.

Yes yes, they accept society's development by virtue that individuals affect the structure of society. Marx claims that proletarians (those w/out) working in their rational self interest will eventually organise to overthrow the superstructure. The individuals still form the base.

Marxism definitely has an ethics (not to be confused with petty moralism) but you're right to say it's not focused on it. It's just what it says on the tin: historical materialism. Marx doesn't say it's *necessarily* good that these things happen, but they will happen according to Marx.

Marx never really works in "should".

((He doesn't work in should partially for that reason by the way, because he sees the universals of ethics that each class has an inevitable result of material conditions and self interest of each class.))

I think you mean the base, no? The revolution will care about reorganizing the production process, not that which is unrelated to production. The superstructure will reorganize itself accordingly.

Yeah, I think this is the extent of Marxist ethics to be honest.

Rebel, have you ever read Terry Eagleton, particularly his earlier work on religion?

Happily yes I've read Hegel, one of my favorites. Master-Slave dialectic, Phil of History, Shorter and Greater Logics (none in entirety but I understand dialectics and the gist of him)

who /absolutely crushed/ here? I have constant thoughts of just giving up tbh, my own self-actualization isn't even an ideal worth pursuing to me.

I don't know about that essay, but see pic from Chapter 3 of the attached book.

Hold on here isn't Heidegger usually percieved as an anti-humanist? What's Heideggers anthropocentrism?

I mean sure, I meant overturn the superstructure then.

Pretty much, and that's why marxism has such poverty of ethics

Nopes, soz =(

Thank goodness! Then after you've read that first book (Irrational man) start with this short (10 minute max) essay:

historyguide.org/europe/present_age.html

After that you might wanna start w/….eh…..most people go for Fear and Trembling. It depends to what extent you want his christian thought and to understand his "task". My favourite of his stuff personally is The Concept of Irony. I guess it's a good idea to start w/ Fear and Trembling + Either/Or though.

Go visit a graveyard user! Don''t give up! It's just one more absurd act in an absurd existence! Plus I'd miss you

It wasn't that one. I'm not a big fan of that by the looks of it, I wouldn't say Stirner or Marx "hated" idealism. I'd say Stirner and Marx both rightfully thought such a divide would make no sense for Hegelians (Hegel later in his life called himself an ideal-realist to show that it was meant to bridge the two).

Had a convo with Yui about this. It's because he thinks that Heidegger upholds the Kantian subject/object dichotomy (which is not true, he just doesn't argue against it directly but prefers to point to how a more hands on approach, a practical engagement with the world shows that the perspective of the dichotomy breaks down, and this demonstrates that there is something more primordial to existence than object/subject that is the titular being)

It seems like you have a pretty good grasp on this stuff. If you were looking for a book to read after "Irrational Man", I would suggest Luijpen's introduction to existential phenomenology. I had to read both books for a class on existentialism.

Prior to reading Hegel,who else do i need to have read or have a good understanding of(except Kant)

Plato. Aristotle. Um…just get a good secondary text for Hegel and you should be fine.

Or do you mean for the existentialists? Well it depends. Husserl is useful for Heidegger. Augustine is useful for Kierkegaard.

Sounds interesting, thanks!

One chapter I did not agree with was the one on modern art. I sincerely don't find it aesthetically pleasing for the most part (there are exceptions).

If you do read it, be warned that he does get Kierkergaard wrong at points. But the book (as you can probably tell) is focused more on phenomenological existentialism and phenomenology anyways… so more Husserl, Heidegger, Sartre and Merleau-Ponty.

I thought the chapter was interesting but ultimately yeah I see where you come from there.

Thanks for the warning

For Hegel and thanks for the advice,and after reading it,which work should i start with?

Easiest stuff is philosophy of history.
AW says Science of Logic is the most important, and that you should read the phenomenology of spirit after. I haven't read science of logic though.