I keep hearing that Heidegger corrected errors that have been present in philosophy since the Greeks...

Wack

Literally already figured out by the Greeks.

heidegger got btfo by scheler and shouldve killed himself

No.
Yeah, it's pretty self-evident but it's a bit more complex than just that, and Heidegger reputation doesn't stand as much on getting it as in how he engaged with it to understand the meaning of authenticity and meaning in itself.

Yeah, I admit that. I really liked his reading of Greeks, definitely idealistic man in my opinion.

It turns out that the answer to the question: "What is the meaning of the verb 'to be'?" is not a really big being. If it doesn't sound as revolutionary in the current year, it's because you live after centuries of ontotheology and Heidegger, so the achievement was already unlocked and had quickly become part of mainstream metaphysics, ontology, theology before you were even born.

go on

>and not an entity in itself.
Why was Heidegger still talking about this when Nietzsche was already over it?

Nietzsche never freed himself from nihilism, he thought revaluing values could change man's destiny but ultimately remained entrenched in a value system and subject to Gestell.

How can you understand what a word means, if a word should be well defined from the get-go ?

I dont know the literature but as youre portraying it here, its only a definition of words, not a big revelation.

>Nietzsche never freed himself from nihilism
Define nihilism.

>Define nihilism.
Define definition

Why would anyone posit being as an entity in itself? What philosophers did that?

Where does Nietzsche say he's over it? Not disagreeing I just want to read it.

Every philosopher who explained the being with metaphysics.

productionist metaphysics innit

An outline of one's understanding of a word. Now go ahead and define nihilism.

can help you with that
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nihilism

>links to page that contains definitions of several variations of nihilism
Thanks a lot. I'll assume the very first one is the one you are referring to:

>Nihilism is the philosophical viewpoint that suggests the denial of one or more reputedly meaningful aspects of life.

In which case, Nietzsche is not a nihilist, by this definition of nihilism. Will to power affirms all things in life — it does not place the center of gravity anywhere else but life itself. It does not deny anything; characterization of something as weakness is not a denial of it. He writes repeatedly about the significance of weakness in things and the necessity of shadow.

Parmenides thought the being never changed, there was no "nothing", only the being.
Heraclitus favored the opposite, everything was an ilusion, there was no "Being" aka truth, things were changing perpetually.
Plato and Aristotle tried a middle ground: things came for nothing, existed for some time and then went back to nothing. From them on, everybody just accepted Plato and Aristotle's version.
Heidegger thought this way of thinking was wrong, because it makes you forget the question of Being, and start just thinking about beings around you. He thought this way of thinking generated science and technology as we understand today, instrumentalizing everything and everyone. He wanted to go to the genesis of the problem and question the Being itself.
At first he thought the way to do this was through the Dasein, the men. But he lost faith on men and he started hoping for an Event that would change our way of understanding things.

>Being is not an entity
Well, fucking duh. Saying that Being is an entity is saying that Being is a being. It's not. Being is Being.

Everyone can see right through your half-baked beliefs when you make posts like you've made in this thread

It was implicit in the post, but sure. Metaphysics as objectifying being and seeing it in a certain way, the attempt to boil down what is into first principles. For N this was value qua will to power, and his project to reevaluate values fails because it is still trying to overcome metaphysics with more metaphysics, guaranteeing the continued turning away toward oblivion of being: nihilsm.

top kek

I didn't believe in cancer at first sight, but now I do

If this is your characterization of P and H I invite you to read Heidegger sometime.

>Metaphysics as objectifying being and seeing it in a certain way, the attempt to boil down what is into first principles.
>his project to reevaluate values fails because it is still trying to overcome metaphysics with more metaphysics
How does Nietzsche "objectify being" and "attempt to boil down what is into first principles"? In his description of the world as will to power, the world is

>a monster of energy, without beginning, without end,

The idea that there are "first principles" in his will to power already seems invalid.

>a firm, iron magnitude of force that does not grow bigger or smaller, that does not expend itself but only transforms itself;

So the world as will to power is a becoming, not a being. There is also no subject or object being outlined in this world; objectification is thus impossible in it.

>as a whole, of unalterable size, a household without expenses or losses, but likewise without increase or income; enclosed by "nothingness" as by a boundary; not something blurry or wasted, not something endlessly extended, but set in a definite space as a definite force, and not a sphere that might be "empty" here or there, but rather as force throughout, as a play of forces and waves of forces, at the same time one and many, increasing here and at the same time decreasing there; a sea of forces flowing and rushing together, eternally changing, eternally flooding back, with tremendous years of recurrence, with an ebb and a flood of its forms;

etc. etc.

>This world is the will to power—and nothing besides! And you yourselves are also this will to power—and nothing besides!

This sounds nothing like any other metaphysical premise. It does not sound like a metaphysical premise. There is no separation between the physical and a metaphysical being made here.

>guaranteeing the continued turning away toward oblivion of being: nihilism
The "turning away toward" part is a little confusing, but at no point do I see Nietzsche's work bringing us back to the "oblivion of being."

:(

Maybe Heidegger was just trying to make his own name in criticizing Nietszche while providing justification for the Nazis in a more direct way.