Let me capitalize a few random nouns and come up with unnecessary jargon every other sentence in order to sound deep heh

I haven't read it, but I don't need to, because I already know there is no such relevant question to ask. But you made the assertion that there is, so back it up.

He did make very poor choices in trying to write his work and it is plagued with begging the question, unfulfilled promises, and an unwillingness (I dont think ignorance) to justify his claims, or to consider the obvious criticisms that would come from his claims. Besides his introduction he makes a good case for his project there, but after it seems strangely haphazard

Still if you want a philosophy of experience you dont have many options, and he is one of the most important after Husserl.

And lets be honest, when you are faced with honest skepticism and and trying to find your first foothold, the promise of immediate experience and consciousness seems promising in becoming a foundation for all of philosophy.

Attached: heidegger-crop.jpg (1024x768, 356K)

You are a literal moron. It's been cited more than 1500 times, which is more than a lot for a philosophical essay. You already admitted you never read it, how am I even supposed to start? This isn't how philosophy works; you don't distill monumental works down to points of "philosophical merit" to be passed around like platitudes. It is more or less the philosophical work we have used to approach being and truth's relationship to technology. Just read it ffs, it's like 15 pages long you fucking psude.

>what if I spelled Sein with a y
>hmm really makes me think

>1. On the Orgy of the Will. Consider the fact that the manifesto has 76 mentions of the term PuA (pick-up artist).

The fucking state of this board.

A sign of understanding a work is being able to explain it to others. I understand your frustration when they should just read it, but people have many things to do. They might already have a book list 30 long and this is just a passing interest in Heidegger

>You are a literal moron.
And then you have the gall to mention that it has been cited X times, as if this matters AT ALL regarding the philosophical merit of a work.

You are clueless and didn't understand at all what my dismissal was about. If the title is accurate, which should be a given for anything written competently, then the work itself is IRRELEVANT no matter what it says. There is no question concerning technology for anyone other than psuedointellectual retards looking for something to fawn or by fawned by. And if the Wikipedia summary is anything to go by, the entire book says nothing of significant import at all; it's like his other works, a whole lot of elaboration over very inconsequential things, inconsequential to anyone who isn't a pseud at least.

No one understands Heidegger. You would understand that if you ever read Heidegger, or had any faint inkling of continental philosophy, or even just philosophy writ large. It would be like asking someone to sum up the "philosophical merit" of the preface of Phenomenology of Spirit for you, anyone who knows anything will look at you like you are a mental deficient. I'm not here to try and hold babbys hand through their first work of phenomenology.

>And if the Wikipedia summary is anything to go by
rip Veeky Forums, you used to be a beautiful place.

A sign of idiocy is dismissing a work without having read it. That's what the dude was reacting to. lrn2context.

Jesus fucking christ, I share a board with this mouth-breathing chucklefuck. Holy shit. 10/10 if you're trolling, the satisfaction of knowing you will never amount to anything if you're not.

>No one understands Heidegger.
>but that's everyone else's fault, not his
>but I do understand it btw just read it you fucking pseud
The problem with fags like you is even if I were to read it and completely shit on it, you would come up with some other excuse to not actually put forth any backing of your own thoughts on the matter. It's clear since the beginning. You made the assertion, back it up.

Also, the guy you replied to is right. Unless there is a strong case for why I should give a shit, when the evidence so far indicates the opposite, why should I put time into it when I see so many more valuable books to read that I am working on?

Read a secondary work on him and pretend to get him like everyone else. No reason to whine about it.

You are a retard and you shouldn't bother with philosophy if you seriously think some anonymous weebs on a chinese cartoon board is going to explain a motherfucking philosopher to you and sum it up in a few paragraphs.

>And if the Wikipedia summary is anything to go by

Attached: 1519439271218.gif (320x213, 1.3M)

>let me capitalize a few random nouns
Are you aware that all nouns are capitalized in German?

I don't need an explanation of the work itself, just a good reason for why it is relevant or should be relevant to me and worth a read.

Who is this?

>why should I put time into it when I see so many more valuable books to read that I am working on?
You shouldn't. If this 15 page essay is too much for you, and you need it dumbed down for you before you even read it, you are not the type of person who will succeed with continental philosophy. Some things are easy in life, I'd go for those instead. Genre fiction is a fun time.

So there is no good reason to read it, is what you're saying. Thanks.

If you had read it, you probably would have embarrassed yourself a bit less in this thread. There's a reason for you, hopefully one you can wrap your big brain around. Or do you need someone else to explain the merit of my post to you?

In all this time being an edgy shithead you could have instead supported your original assertion. Good job wasting everyone's time, I'm out.

>It is more or less the philosophical work we have used to approach being and truth's relationship to technology.
>Buh but I need muh merits
Hopefully out of the Veeky Forums board

>please don't make me explain anything. please please please it scares me.

I have read Heidegger, which shows how incompetent your whole line of reasoning is.

If you cant explain concepts and arguments fine, but you need to realize others do and can frequently.

>That's what the dude was reacting to. lrn2context.

The proper context is that one person claimed that an essay Heidegger wrote about technology had philosophical merit. The other user asked what that was, and the first user decided to call names rather than back up his argument

The latter user then jumped to generalizing because he fell for the first user's tantrum.

Theyre both acting like embarrassing children. Thats the context and you missed it

literally conty philosophy after being and time has responded to heidegger so much and he is still very important and is regarded as the most important thinker of '900 especially in europe. What more credit do you need? But i guess everyone is dumb and doesn't get it like you do.

all Nouns are capitalized in German, you Dork.

>there is no question concerning technology
i agree neuroptic feeds, neural nets being mistaken for humans, people wanting to fuck cartoon characters en masse and internet addiction are not questionable.
>cottong gin
>air plane
>nuclear power
those are questions best left to engineers honey. what do you just gawk at random things like some kind stupid homeless man? fucking pseuds

>>let me capitalize a few random nouns
>in German
Are you trolling or legit that dumb? I feel like it could be the second, and I worry.

fucking BASED

>The proper context is that one person claimed that an essay Heidegger wrote about technology had philosophical merit.
Literally read the first post in this thread

That isnt relevant if that post isnt from one of the two anons, and I cant tell if it is or not since the first post is just a quotation

>No philosophy in The Question Concerning Technology or anything.

This remark was the first thing they interacted over, at least where it is far more obvious that two people are talking to each other

>Heidegger had so much time after he gave up writing that he even became embroiled in politics — even politics attracted him more than his pathetic, botched attempts at philosophizing.
The post implies that Heidegger stopped doing philosophy post-Being and Time, hence why he brought up his later work. Plus he seems to have given his answer early on, regarding "being and truth's relationship to technology", the other person read the Wikipedia article and felt he knew enough to argue.

>The post implies that Heidegger stopped doing philosophy post-Being and Time, hence why he brought up his later work

Yes, Im not arguing that there isnt a line you cant follow. I dont care about that

You wanted to make the point that how I framed what the proper context was incorrect because I wasnt looking at the very first post in this thread

It doesnt matter why one user wanted to make a claim in the first place. He made a claim, was asked to explain it, and decided to call names like a child, and the other responded in like

There isnt any more to say. Theyre both children

heidegger was a hack
the only nazi scum worth reading is schmitt

>Plus he seems to have given his answer early on
Not much reading comprehension for a Heidegger thread...

>>Plus he seems to have given his answer early on

I dont understand what you are going on about. What does this have to do with me saying they are acting like children? Do you think that validates this user's posts post hoc?

Which is specifically what I referred to?

>The other user asked what that was, and the first user decided to call names rather than back up his argument

Twice now because of you?

>He made a claim, was asked to explain it, and decided to call names like a child

I have been consistently pointing this out and you act as if I havent

Whatever you wrongly claim about my "reading comprehension", your ability to make an argument or stifle your pettiness is far, far worse

What is there to question? The morality of those things? There are much better books to read for addressing the problem of morality.

whats up with the heidegger hate?
jidf?

>icycalm
>jidf

because we know in this day and age that there aren't people being paid to post on the internet right?

You're a retard. The criticisms presented in this thread don't even have anything to do with his affiliation with the Nazis. If anything you should actually read icycalm, he's pro Hitler and much closer in frame of mind to him than any Nazi ever was.

holy shit what an empty, nothing post

Attached: 1515388281254.png (558x614, 24K)

there is no relevant question concerning technology? am i reading you correctly?

actually, this is wrong, heidegger did write "Time and Being," which, while not explicitly the "completion" of Being and Time, does take up the themes and ideas projected for the later divisions, including the eponymous one.

>>nuclear power
this is unironically a question better left to engineers as long as non-stem niggers keep bitching about "muh safety"

what is "philosophical merit" even supposed to mean lmao

you're so stupid lol

Based Heidi.

Attached: cabin woods.jpg (610x340, 86K)

Max Scheler destroyed him and Heidegger should have killed himself.

this

also, schmitt didn't really like heidegger but didn't waste too much time thinking about him

>jidf?

reminder that heidegger = derrida

It's time for you to stop posting

Attached: martin-heidegger-4.jpg (900x750, 264K)

I sometimes try to picture myself the strange mix of surface knowledge and sheer ignorance which produces such ideas. The exact combination seems almost impossible to reach, yet you and your kind seem to flourish and be extremely widespread.
One more, little bit of knowledge of the works you are discussing in this thread --- and by little bit I mean simply having read them, or at least some introduction to them ---, and you'd have realized how stupid your ideas are.
But this exact, particular mix, which I always think highly improbable, is, however, always frequent enough that the responses to your thread exhibit the same level of ignorance, albeit in a different form ; perhaps the misreading or simple lack of reading had a different object, or perhaps a different wikipedia article was read, or even a different opinion was learned from Veeky Forums ; the minute changes to the different forms of ignorance which are exhibited by each user, are the stuff your thread is made on.
Each response adds more to the general ignorance, and no one here, has read the works they're discussing.
We are crawling upon the last depths of human mediocrity.

Which one of you has read Heidegger's works? Or even his Introduction to Metaphysics? Or some conferences?
Then which kind of madness so compels you to speak of things you have no knowledge of?

Heidegger was the last great philosopher. All who came after him were essentially politically (specifically Marxist) oriented.

Being and Time is the most important philosophical work of the 20th century at least and Heidegger is the most important philosopher since Descartes.

>let me capitalize a few random nouns and come up with unneccessary jargon

The capitalising of a noun is the way his work was translated from German which is a language where new words can be made by stringing others together.

Also being able to come up with and create new language to communicate ideas and concepts to you is uneccessary and a way to sound deep?

What the fuck are you doing on Veeky Forums you pleb

>being a Nazi with that nose

ugh philosophy was practical i.e. "poliitical" since Fichte, you want to claim that's all non-philosophy too?

Practical =/= Political

No I don't but if you can't clearly see that Sartre, Beauvoir, Foucalt, Derrida etc aren't simply looking for an intellectual justification of Marxism in the face of the empirical evidence of its failure present in their contemporary world then you're a brick.

>empirical evidence
>Sartre, Beauvoir, Foucalt, Derrida

Attached: pqafkb6d9ba01.jpg (645x729, 49K)

When has Derrida ever tried to justify Marxism? Marxists criticise his work specifically because it isn't political (specifically Marxist). The great emancipatory utopia of dialectical materialism is as much within the scope of deconstruction as any other philosophy.

Heil Heidegger! Heil Hitler!

Attached: 415C9FD7-DB87-4217-BEB9-76E24898F803.jpg (686x1920, 348K)

Some things don't have to be read very deeply to understand that they are not worth reading deeply. That's the benefit of having read a lot of things deeply prior.

>When has Derrida ever tried to justify Marxism? Marxists criticise his work specifically because it isn't political (specifically Marxist). The great emancipatory utopia of dialectical materialism is as much within the scope of deconstruction as any other philosophy.

wtf are you talking about derrida wrote tons of of political works. rogues, the death penalty lectures, the animal that therefore i am, the list goes on and on. he even wrote a book on marx and marxism called spectres of marx.

of course is a fucking peterson fag so everyone should just point and laugh anyways

>That's the benefit of having read a lot of things deeply prior.
Then, why haven't you?

It's because I have that I can see that Heidegger is not worth the time. I even have Being and Time still on my bookshelf after maybe 9 years and I did not finish it. Nietzsche -> Baudrillard -> icycalm is a so much more valuable reading path, and I started with Nietzsche long before even knowing icycalm's name.

You are icycalm, you fucking bald homosexual autist.

Spengler was the last great philosopher; Heidegger was the beginning of a long line of deconstructionists who contributed nothing to philosophy except the destruction of the Western idea of it.

Spengler was correct that the Faustian soul would see its end via a philosophy of history, but he was wrong about what could actually deal the death blow. His decline of the west sees its beginning via the mathematical idea, the Western "functional analysis," therefore its end belongs there as well.

The Faustian math died with Godel, who proved that its project of grasping the infinite expanse of mathematical knowledge with a finite number of axioms was impossible.

Now all that's left to do is to continue watching the Derrida's, the Foucault's, the Sartre's, the Deleuze's, and really the whole world of intellectuals who have so readily expressed their contempt for "conformity" aka the communal Western destiny. Their philosophy is antithetical to the thinking mind, and their politics are so painfully incompetent to meet the needs of their countrymen that it's a wonder anyone even bothered asking them for their opinions on the matter.

All that's left to do is wait for another 200-300 years for some other civilization to come and end our shameful display.

>256. The Israeli government is being accused of attacking, murdering, stealing, lying, etc., which is to say of performing the proper work of government. In a turn of world-historic irony only the Jews, the perennially stateless people among the powers of the Western world, still seem to remember how to govern. And why not attack the Arabs? Why not lie to them, steal from them and murder them? After all, one Jew is worth 10,000 Arabs. The only thing we can reproach the Jews with is that they haven't called on their American buddies to carpet-nuke the entire Middle East already. Just think of how much trouble we'd be spared if all those bearded retards and towelheads were exterminated (seriously, a towel for a hat in the middle of the desert? How much more proof do you need that they are retarded? Or full-body black dress? Is it supposed to be a compulsory weight-loss scheme for women?) Inbred illiterates. Just send the B-2s to clean the place up already and then ship in a bunch of Chinamen to dig up our oil for us, problem solved.

Umm that's all German philosophy

Attached: 1520720407890.jpg (647x656, 126K)

On the question concerning technology Heidegger wrote that science doesn't think, the minutiae of developing technology is not the job of the philosopher( the big picture is) however it is the destiny of mankind to continue to advance technology

Doesn't make him jidf when he also says that Jews have the mission to disparage civilization and that Hitler was right.

Gestell