Anyone here like this guy?

>when you don't know what the words mean but hope nobody else does either

undergrad af

“The ontical distinction of Dasein lies In the fact that it is ontological”

Humans are only as such because they care

Wouldn’t that assume that you can separate the question from its frame? Lol

Do you like cock?

god I hate people like you

>wa la
HEE!

prove that heidegger's characterization of anxiety isn't cultural

prove that dasein isn't literally heidegger

you can't

anxiety presupposed reality

not even undergrad. Finish high school, ma boi.

reminder that if heidegger took max scheler's criticisms seriously he'd have to kill himself

and so should you

Kindergarten?

there are several blind assumptions that heidegger makes and all of his followers assume and they froth at the mouth in rage whenever someone points them out

heidegger can't actually distinguish what is fundamental in anxiety and what is cultural

call me as many names as you'd like, but you have to deal with this.

Unborn?

very interesting debate

I think this a brief summary of Spurs.

Fucking poser always making this vagina-lips look to pictures.

His books on language are just a bunch of nonsense, the academic-language-mist that Calvin talks about in one of his comic strips.

In the words of Nabokov:

>A nonentity, means absolutely nothing to me

>What are irrealia

I have never in my life read a man with so much contempt for Western civilization. He openly admits to being against logic, science, the entire Western cannon of literature. The man goes on for pages upon pages about the need for a "mass brownitization" and how he wants a "vagina-cracy"

>Someone, not me, comes and says the words: "I am interested in the idiom in painting." You get the picture: the speaker is impassive, he remained motionless for the duration of his sentence, careful to refrain from any gesture. At the point where you were perhaps expecting it, near the head and around certain words, for example "in painting," he did not imitate the double horns of quotation marks, he did not depict a form of writing with his fingers in the air. He merely comes and announces to you: "I am interested in the idiom in painting." [...] Does he meant that he is interested in the idiom "in painting," in the idiom itself, for its own sake, "in painting" (an expression that is in itself strongly idiomatic; but what is an idiom?)? That he is interested in the idiomatic expression itself, in the words "in painting"? Interested in words in painting or in the words "in painting"? Or in the words " 'in painting' "? That he is interested in the idiom in painting, i.e., in what pertains to the idiom, the idiomatic trait or style (that which is singular, proper, inimitable) in the domain of painting, or else—another possible translation—in the singularity or the [...]

He is fucking grating. This is what everything I have read from him is like. He beats around the bush and questions the stupidest shit. What an asshole.

>Fucking poser always making this vagina-lips look to pictures.
That's what speaking French does to your face.

No, this is a deleuzian board.

He's questioning your notions and predispositions on words/statements/questions etc.

He's sort of like a Zen master in this regard.

I don't dislike him but his philosophy is mostly useless. He tried to reinvent something that Wittgenstein and particularly Heidegger had already mastered.

He's a dipshit. The title of the book is The Truth in Painting yet he makes it clear from the start that he doesn't care about painting at all.

This is Veeky Forums right? This guy is easily top 5 in most important literary theory guys in history, there’s got to be people here who at least acknowledge his importance.