Being and Time

why do I get the feeling you are a philosophy teacher or student that specializes in heidegger

Aristotle, in his Physics, anticipated Einstein. Stop this childish war between "muh science" and philosophy.

He took Husserl's method and turned it into poetic nonsense. Unknowing students took up his ideas because they seemed to be a way out of German idealism, which was everywhere at the time.

> His background in formal logic and theology is superb (and should give one pause in the face of logical arguments posed against him)

No it shouldnt. He didnt study FOL or any other modern formal logic, he studied Aristotle and Husserl, and Husserl was the one to be bested by Frege who created FOL.

Even if he did, that shouldnt make anyone "pause".

>Aristotle, in his Physics, anticipated Einstein.

Who gives a fuck about anticipating anything if it isnt expressed and clarified.

lol

>why read Heidegger when I can read Einstein
>Heidegger was a philosopher, and Aristotle was a philosopher, and Aristotle is a far far far far far back precursor to Einstein
>See? Theyre the same

No one anywhere claimed they were the same you gibbering STEMfag. Calm down and go check your centrifuge

Hey, philosophy majors don't go around giving our opinions on polymerase chain reactions or renormalization, so how about you STEMvirgins do the same with philosophy?

>Why read Heidegger when I can read Einstein
>Aristotle, in his Physics, anticipated Einstein

Embarrassing. Pretending the implication isnt that Aristotle being a precursor to Einstein and a philosopher means that Heidegger should be read just as much as Einstein

If that isnt the answer to the question then you couldnt even manage to answer the simple question, why read Heidegger when I can read Einstein? You could have easily just said that a work on ontology and a work on modern physics arent mutually exclusive and leave it at that, but you bring in Aristotle as justification, for what purpose?

See
I did undergrad research on Being and Time and to not embrace his sentiment that the sciences are fine but separate to his work on ontology is sad.

Bringing up Aristotle as some half-ass justification for reading modern philosophy is pathetic.

>obvious concepts, in complex words

thats all of philosophy though

No thats just the bad philosophy. Good philosophy is aimed at clarification, or rarely therapy

False. Aristotle, in his Physics, anticipated rebuttals to special relativity, and as such, should be studied as much as Einstein.

I'm not even the person you originally responded to, but the implication is that one ought not to make hasty judgements about things one hasn't read on the basis of a contrived division between science and philosophy because one likes the former more than the latter. The point seems to be that philosophy and science build on one another, and for a scientist to dismiss philosophy as useless or for a philosopher to dismiss science as vulgar (like Epictetus) is a mark of fatuous thinking in both cases. But you are clearly spoiling for a conflict, since you're making up effigies to immolate, which is why you need to calm down and return to whatever minor step you're on in the minor research project you're probably conducting

This is a completely asinine attitude that makes academia being the fragmented entitiy it is today. You don't give opinions on polymerase chain reactions because it is much younger and cutting edge knowledge that the one any person encounters typically on a philosophy degree. Would you quote the atomists on any serious conversation about genetics? The answer is my ass. Though positivism might be a cancer when understood in categorical terms, there is very much a line of progress in knowledge and its utility with time. This applies to even the most abstract of philosophical domains like ethics and aesthetics. Philosophy majors like to convince themselves that their knowledge is somehow superior and separate from anybody that doesn't study phil.

nigger I cant understand a word youre saying

but stemniggers tend to say the most retarded shit when they barge into philosophy discussions.

The only thing contrived is to try and bring Aristotle into a talk of physics since he is the forefather of nearly everything. What should have been said is that ontology is not physics, not some flaccid attempt to justify philosophy by bringing Aristotle's completely and utterly outdated perspective on physics from the perspective of modern science. Why talk of potentiality and actuality when we can talk of kinetic energy? The only time that would be relevant to bring up is when we want to discuss history of philosophy or metaphysics.

And your petty barbs are only that

>The only thing contrived is to try and bring Aristotle into a talk of physics
I think youre completely misunderstanding what user was saying

Its more like "apriori, deductive views on natural phenomena can be valid and valuable, see just look how far Aristotle got"

Valuable if we are discussing metaphysics. Or ontology. Or history of philosophy. Or if we are an ancient Greek attempting science for the very first time and the bar is that low.

Not modern physics. If someone wants to read Heiddeger for ontology, fine, but dont go reading Aristotle for physics, and dont use Aristotle's outdated work on physics to justify why we should read philosophy at all, or specifically, Heidegger.

Philosophy doesnt need this kind of defense.

>Philosophy doesnt need this kind of defense.
I feel you but I do think that there is room for synthetic a priori judgments and that this is a good arguments against uber-empiricist STEMlords who think that philosophy is all bullshit because doesn't use the scientific method (tm)

>Not modern physics.
I think philosophy (not Aristotle and the like tho) should inform modern physics since we're getting to the point where we can no longer use traditional empirical methods.

>I did undergrad research on Being and Time
What is the most significant, important, special, awesome, fruitful thing you learned about it?

>embrace his sentiment that the sciences are fine but separate to his work on ontology is sad.
if one embraces the sciences and makes enough money from the conclusive results of this successful embrace: all ontological problems disappear, as one would be most free to explore their being in this infinitely far from primitive world (though could feel free to be primitive if they wanted, one supposes)

I dont agree, which makes sense considering how this thread has gone

Id want to talk to you more about what you think of idealism but I have to get to work

Philosophy in general is not Aristotle, as you pointed out. That was my gripe. Of course philosophy has its place with science.

On a personal note, that the question of meaning can be answered with, to care.

His focus on methodology is very interesting to me, which is why I eventually studied more analytic philosophy. His attempt to strip ontology from metaphysics is a good example of that. That metaphysics pushed ontology aside, and that our methodology for doing philosophy was the clue and the culprit that this was happening.

I dont agree with this, but at the same time, I dont really want to talk about Heidegger

>I dont agree with this, but at the same time, I dont really want to talk about Heidegger
ok, well is the basic of Heidegger, like that of many philosophers:
Our individual and collective lives could possibly be better, a little better, a little more better, a lot better, if we thought and acted differently?

you are bound to death, who cares

>Obvious concepts
That's the point. Other philosophers were just too blind to attend to Being's everydayness.

either samefag or Veeky Forums really is full of ass-kissers that don't know they could get such a superficial knowledge of Heidegger's influence by google'ing him a few times.

Physical models are descriptive, not explanatory. The phenomena that relativity purports to describe is not even "being" or "time", so shut the fuck up.

Unlike the supreme gent and scholar that you are
I agree fuck stemniggers and their retarded comments, we need more comments like yours

Nope, just have fun reading him. Not even my favorite philosopher, it just seems important to take his challenge seriously.

Bullshit, his initial papers before the 20s all concerned the study of formal logic, both Aristotelian, and the newer developments of the period, and in at least one early essay, he makes citations to Frege.

Plenty of Heidegger's lecture courses into the 20s discuss logic as it had been passed down to the tradition, which he contrasts with what he thinks Aristotle was doing. He devotes an entire course in 1926 just to that before writing Being and Time.

Einstein takes what time "is" for granted in his papers, he even acknowledges as much.

You really think other philosophers didn't think about that?

Today I learned that Aristotle knew what the fuck tensors, functional derivatives, complex numbers and optimizing integral equations were.

Any hack can say "Shit's relatives Dude! LMAO." It takes actual fucking knowledge to get a coherent idea across.

Name one philosopher in the past that anticipated the speed of light in a vacuum, the relativity of events such that one different observers can have different perceptions of contemporary events or the notion of time-travel.

>tensors, functional derivatives, complex numbers and optimizing integral equations
oh boy wow you sure know a lot about sophomore math wow!!

care to enlighten any of us liberal arts plebs??

If you want to understand time study Boltzmann.

Seems like a philosophy undergrad stole your oneitits and now you are taking it on Heidegger and Aristotle, calm your tits and start with the greeks.

They literally didnt ask the question since Parmedides

You are missing the point so much it hurts

Entropy is also interesting as the arrow of time.

You are quite right. I should not be so proud of my knowledge. Why even a child could learn the details of tensors, functional derivatives, complex numbers and optimizing integral equations! It follows Heidegger, having no knowledge of such things must be a moron and a simp.

Heideggers' description of a World-Disclosing Event appears completely obvious after reading it. Its something incredibly common and relatable to everyone but to understand the connotation that it has you have to understand his terminology first. Its obvious, but only within the context he provides. Other philosophers build on existing terminology that was thousands of years old, whatever was obvious within that context was already documented. Thats Heidegger revolution.

>Entropy is also interesting as the arrow of time
It doesnt solve the problem though

>You are quite right. I should not be so proud of my knowledge. Why even a child could learn the details of tensors, functional derivatives, complex numbers and optimizing integral equations! It follows Heidegger, having no knowledge of such things must be a moron and a simp.
A child could rat off the names of different random mathematical and physical topics, yes

how about you try losing your virginity instead of reading wikipedia articles?

Arrow of time doesn't exist. It only appears to in some areas of the phase space.

youtube.com/watch?v=vDmMnSKEYnI

The fuck are you on about? How do you not get the idea that, mere long past "influence" aside, Aristotle is *fundamental* to physics, even into its modern form? How do you not get the simple idea that Einstein couldn't have done what he did had someone else not determined the field he ended up working within?

I will never underatand the significance pf Being And Time. It seemed self-evident to me

>mfw I responded to a troll thread

Heidegger shows how something like Einstein's theory (or any theory) is not "the truth" but a functional language like many others.
There is not a presence of being, a "frozen time", to allow logic. Truth is "discovered", not found out by transforming what you already know (equations).
Thomas Kuhn made those claims more concrete by showing how scientific revolutions actually happen and how theory failures are ignored by scientists just because the theory as a whole work.

I will never underatand the significance pf Being And Time. It seemed self-evident to me

Lol wtf i rhoughr it throygh when i was like 10

Ironically if you read Heidegger you would understand the answer to this question but please, by all means, persist in your ignorance.

>deduction is impossible
>interpretation of the original meaning of a text is impossible
>we are prisoners of the language, never being able to reach to something "outside" or "previous" to it
>everyone since Plato is wrong, because there is no metaphysics
>Our languages contains negativity and incompleteness and we can't get rid of them because they are in its own structure.
>this makes us feel angst but angst and all our emotions help usunderstand the nature of our existence
>we anticipate a future of completeness and positivity which can only be achieved when we reach death because our possibilities cease and we cease to change.

You had a sad childhood.

i'm reading being and time with a professor as we speak and i still don't understand what heidegger means when he says Being. someone help

i actually have a paper due about it on monday but i can't bring myself to start it because it's so fucking difficult.

Heidegger and enthusuiasts refuse to explain what they say in common words. To be respected by then, you have to learn the idiom he invented.
But if al you need is to understand the concepts, read Merleau-Ponty's phenomenology of perception.

>>Heidegger and enthusuiasts refuse to explain what they say in common words. To be respected by then, you have to learn the idiom he invented.
that's why i fucking hate reading it. how can i possibly understand this concept just by context? it doesn't make any fucking sense. and he's always using this idiosyncratic terms just so he can avoid the common connotations of words, but it never goes anywhere. he never elaborates

i'm starting to think that russell and the analytics were right and that this stuff lacks any content whatsoever

The integral with lower limit q subscript b minus p subscript a and upper limit q subscript b

Applied to PHIsubscript b,1 (q)dq

Is the amount of utility relinquished in a first piecemeal transaction to obtain an equivalent utility from one unit of a discontinuous demand curve.

Whew, Walras sure is thorough

Fuck off retard, you are responding to someone who is actually smart

>i'm reading being and time

Would it be readable to a newbie like me?

i mean i'm a philosophy major and it's easily the most dense and difficult thing i've come across. more than kant, hume, wittgenstein, russell, etc.

i can't tell if it's because the concepts are hard to grasp or if it's just because he uses purposely difficult and esoteric language and never fully explains what he means by anything. he is not writing to be understood in any sense. i can tell he's making it purposefully obscure.

plus my professor keeps insisting that we try to translate from the original german text whenever we can and that's so goddamn tedious

actually passed out for a second reading this

>Aristotle, in his Physics, anticipated Einstein
>this is what philosophyfags actually believe
lmao

>it's easily the most dense and difficult thing

Well, I pass then. The Heidegger's concepts seem interesting, however as merely literature reader, it would be impossible to read.

yeah i don't think it's written for the layman. it would also be helpful to have background in husserl and hegel as well, and probably neitzsche too (if you ever decide you want to tackle it)

oh, and kant and plato

I read a whole chapter. My calculus knowledge is really coming in handy, this stuff is intricate and complex!

Have you read Physics?

Have you read Relativitätsprinzip und die aus demselben gezogenen Folgerungen?

No.

He's not being purposely obscure; Being and Time was written in a rush in order for him to get an important chair to work from, which he was told he might not get because of his lack of publications in the 20s. Being and Time is in the first place unfinished (section three of the first part got committed to the flames after Heidegger realized it dead-ended what he was doing, leading to the sort of abandonment of the originally conceived section part of Being and Time). The book we have now is basically a much redacted form of the contents of his lecture courses, arranged and reformed as he saw the contents coalescing into a whole. Most of that material is "phenomenological" translations of Aristotle and Plato.

In short, read the 20s lecture courses if you think B&T is unclear. They have all the same material in large part, but don't suffer from the concerns of having to be abbreviated for publishing purposes, and you get more in the way of the arguments in support of his conceptualizations.

But you're agreeing that it seems unclear, right? My professor told me about the unfinished nature of the work and the publishing difficulties, but I don't see how that would stop him from being more clear in the parts he did manage to finish. Sentences like "Being is the being of all beings." just seem needlessly obscure. I know some translations say "Being is the being of all entities" or something to try to make it more clear, but it seems like they're taking liberties that even Heidegger might not advocate for (according to my German-speaking professor)

I think "unclear" is an apt and fine accusation. If he filled it out with the sort of analyses that informed his lectures, you'd end up with an even larger book, however!

Some of the issues one might have are precisely issues of translation (We just capitalize Being to show it's different from being, whereas German has Sein for the former and Seiendes for the latter). In more than a few cases, he's perfectly willing to use a German word in its ordinary use and then to have it transform its meaning through analysis or dialectical reasoning, but he usually indicates when that happens, albeit too suddenly sometimes.

Heidegger's one of the few major thinkers I read who I'd almost never suggest to read the main works of to start out. I wouldn't even say that about Hegel. But there's plenty in Heidegger that is perfectly intelligible, and sometimes better explained than by Heidegger himself (in his major books; I don't think that's nearly as true in the lecture courses).

In short, if you're still interested in giving Heidegger a chance, take a look at a lecture course from the 20s, like any of the courses on Aristotle, the Logic course from 1926, or course on Plato's Sophist. They're still hard (and partly because of the use of Greek in staying close to interpreting Greek thinkers), but most translations of those courses offer good glossaries to help maneuver through the Greek and German terms. There's also quite a wealth of good books on him, such as those by William Richardson, Richard Capobianco, and especially Thomas Sheehan, all of whom attempt to give a clear view of the whole of the deautschbag's philosophy. There's also a very good book by Theodore Kisiel on the development of Being and Time, and very good critical literature such as Mark Blitz's reading of Being and Time, and Stanley Rosen's critique in his study The Question of Being.