Did this guy have any substantial impact on philosophy? Why should we take a nazi like this seriously?

What's problematic about authenticity?

Oh, It just lead him to be a fucking nazi.

but why is the idea of authenticity problematic? Is it inevitably connected with nazism or was that just contingent?

resisting nazi is fake bravery
being a nazi is true bravery...

His understanding of Nietzsche was very shallow.

why?

>Nietzsche's philosophy is the end of metaphysics, inasmuch as it reverts to the very commencement of Greek thought, taking up such thought in a way that is peculiar to Nietzsche's philosophy alone. In this way Nietzsche's philosophy closes the ring that is formed by the very course of inquiry into being as such as as a whole. Yet to what extent does Nietzsche's thinking revert to the commencement? When we realize this question we must be clear about one point at the very outset: Nietzsche by no means recovers the philosophy of the commencement in its pristine form. Rather, here it is purely a matter of the reemergence of the essential fundamental positions of the commencement in a transformed configuration, in such a way for these positions interlock.

>What are the decisive fundamental positions of the commencement? In other words, what sorts of answers are given to the as yet undeveloped guiding question, the question as to what being is? The one answer — roughly speaking, it is the answer of Parmenides — tells us that being is. An odd sort of answer, no doubt, yet a very deep one, since that very response determines for the first time and for all thinkers to come, including Nietzsche, the meaning of is and Being — permanence and presence, that is, the eternal present. The other answer — roughly speaking that of Heraclitus — tells us that being becomes. The being is in being by virtue of its permanent becoming, its self-unfolding and eventual dissolution. To what extent is Nietzsche's thinking the end? That is to say, how does it stretch back to both these fundamental determinations of being in such a way that they come to interlock? Precisely to the extent that Nietzsche argues that being is as fixated, as permanent; and that it is in perpetual creation and destruction. Yet being is both of these, not in an extrinsic way, as one beside another; rather, being is in its very ground perpetual creation (Becoming), while as creation it needs what is fixed. Creation needs what is fixed, first, in order to overcome it, and second, in order to have something that has yet to be fixated, something that enables the creative to advance beyond itself and be transfigured. The essence of being is Becoming, but what becomes is and has Being only in creative transfiguration. What is and what becomes are fused in the fundamental thought that what becomes is inasmuch as in creation it becomes being and is becoming. Both such becoming-a-being becomes a being that comes-to-be, and does so in the perpetual transformation of what has become firmly fixed and intractable to something made firm in a liberating transfiguration.

He picks up on the mechanisms, but not on the subtleties; he writes like an outsider to Nietzsche's point of view, to Greek thought, rigidly compiling it into a metaphysical system. Something is lost in the process due to the characteristics of Nietzsche's philosophy. Character is relevant here. One's understanding of Nietzsche is proportionate to how much one's character resembles an elevation of his; Heidegger's philosophy indicates not an elevation, not even an imitation, but a regression of it, one that seems entirely insensitive to it, and for that reason I deem him a departure from Nietzsche. He will not guide you towards a better understanding of Nietzsche, only a worse one.

>Character is relevant here. One's understanding of Nietzsche is proportionate to how much one's character resembles an elevation of his;

This is an important point about Nietszche I don't see discussed a whole lot. I think this is the reason why in all of his books he vaguley refers to "my type", "my kind", "I am a law for my kind", "my friends" and how one has to be of a certain type and temperament to understand him.

He is arguably the singular most important philosopher of the 20th century and has had a massive impact. Everybody in the continental tradition has some relationship to Heidegger.

Badiou in the opening to Being and Event remarks that Heidegger is the last ‘universally recognizable philosopher’.

His work directly provoked Sartre, Derrida, Levinas, and Gadamer, and everybody including Zizek comments on it in their work.

In fact at my school library there is at least one volume of essays directly addressing the question Heidegger’s relationship to Nazism and the implications to his philosophy.

and what type might that be?

Not Heidegger's, that much is certain.

digitalcommons.du.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=2195&context=etd
Missed Appropriations : Uncovering Heidegger's Debt to Kierkegaard in Being and Time

Attached: 1514238228003s[1].jpg (202x235, 5K)

>When Nazism failed he retreated into the woods and invented a way to deny reality
He retreated into the woods before nazism too, he wrote Being and Time in a cabin in the black forest. Also checked.

>Why should we take a nazi like this seriously?
Every civilized country in the world allows nazis in their ranks.

Wasn't it common knowledge that Heidegger was influenced by Kierkegaard?

It's pretty cool that he was a Nazi-philosopher desu

I think its a little more than influence as I've read from books on Kierkegaard some of the shit approaches verbatim. I haven't read Heidegger though.

One that craves power and demands excellence of itself and its readers far beyond the humanitarian sphere; one that, before writing, took to its journey a long time before, and never intermingles the journey with writing; one that thus comes to present its seriousness as a playfulness, has the abundance and joy to do so freely; one that dances when it craves and demands, like a god. A type suiting to be placed among the Greek pantheon without corrupting its purity in any way.

Just to give you an idea.

why?

You don't understand any philosophy if you don't take him seriously.
I have more respect for a Nazi than millions of earth-raping capitalists.
Delusional.
>reality
Doesn't exist.

so someone like Saul Kripke?

Nope, not at all. He in no way resembles Kierkegaard in any relevant way. He resembles Nietzsche because he read Nietzsche. Why would he have read a random Danish writer?
No, his understanding was the only correct understanding at the time

Not familiar with him to say.

He's basically a retarded version of Schopenhauer who can't write

Oh look, you don't understand Nietzsche OR the presocratics. How cute!
Found the existentialist moron.
You don't understand Nietzsche, or Heidegger. Go away please.

But even Nietzsche intersected with Kierkegaard.. Both used indirect communication, ubermensch vs hiin enkelte

>you don't understand Nietzsche
Explain.

You're going to make me vomit.
>indirect communication
What? No you fucking idiot, Nietzsche just communicates bodily. That isn't indirect, that is much more direct.

I have begun to read reality as a colloquial weltanschauung. When you strip the word of an objective association, a plasticity comes through to elaborate a term which is bound to a historical and ontological context. I essentially agree with what you are saying.

t. retard who quotes Nietzsche out of context just like someone would Kierkegaards psuedonyms

>When you strip the word of an objective association, a plasticity comes through to elaborate a term which is bound to a historical and ontological context.
what a horrendous sentence

>to read reality
user, your text is showing

Attached: 29597277.jpg (1300x957, 77K)

god, you're such a faggot

Quality post.

quality life.
just imagine yourself back here on the next go 'round, star-dancer.

Another quality post. Why are you even here?

to be your mirror

Nope. Fuck off, individualist illiterate.

I'm not attempting to goad others into irritable states like you are, so it's a distorting mirror, not a faithful one.

take your pills

t. shill

i am as still as a pond at daybreak
the ripples you see on the surface are put there by your own breathing

Okay.

I apologize. Was I being verbose? What could I do better to express the idea? I am afraid my understanding of syntax is still wrapped around a hopelessly poor imitation of English translations of 19th century German theorists and philosophers.

Because the National Socialists were one of the greatest movements to arise the in the history of the world. Their martyrdom will go down as the last legendary attempt at deafeting international Jewry

If they were so great, why did they fail? Checkmate athetits.

No you are a retarded version of Schopenhauer who can't write. Please i'm curious to know how schop and heidegger have anthing in common lmao

You are a fucking clown if you don't understand why Nietzsche employs indirect communication in a work like This spoke Zarathustra. Why would he try to directly communicate individual virtue and will to the universal?

Thanks for confirming that you haven't even read Nietzsche.

Thanks for confirming you lack even the most basic understanding of his work

Attached: kuL9OWP.jpg (2268x4032, 466K)

yeah especially his essay about technology and lectures on Nietzsche, also showed the Greeks didn’t understand ontology and neither did anyone else for 2400 years

read shoplifting from american apparel

I'm sure you're making a joke but how would Tao Lin help?

>Heidegger resembles Nietzsche
In what sense?

I think they were both German

What didn't the greeks understand about ontology?

Sorry that my understanding is remotely complex and not based in meme individualism!
You might be a moron. Heidegger's early work is almost a direct copy of Nietzsche, but called 'phenomenology'. Later, it just became more complex, but is still just a better reading of Nietzsche.

why nazi scum like heidegger are even allowed in philosophy universities?

>ask a question
>get called a moron
Great...

How is it a direct copy?

Maybe you should do your own research, you painful autodidact

he's trolling
guy, you can't even explain why the others might be wrong without having to spout such very hurtful words
kill yourself

>anybody i dont like is trolling because im an illiterate retard

Hey buddy, this is a literature board. Your posts aren't contributing to the discussion, because you aren't discussing anything, just insulting others without basis, which makes me wonder why you are here. Explain what you said before or stop posting.

you're an ass desu

muh white contribushun to white civilizashun

>anyone who is not explaining why others are in the wrong whilst cussing them out is trolling
correct!

Found the towdy little American

t. cuck

You smell like reddit, why not go back to /r/badphilosophy?

>If they were so great, why did they fail?
Let's say a baby is born. This baby has the ultimate genes (potential cure for cancer, intelligence, beauty etc. off the charts) and good parents. However, in the hospital where he is meant to be nursed, he is killed off and thrown in the trash.
How could this baby not win?

Sounds cool, but what makes you think the Germans are these genetic wonders you speak of?

It's called being in a cult.

>but what makes you think the Germans are these genetic wonders you speak of?
The fact that every other group had to copy its achievements and feats. Granted, they didn't go for nuclear technology.

Many of them are drunks though and when they speak it's like they're yelling in your face.

The last great philosopher was Heraclitus.

*Parmenides

you smell like le NIGGER XDDD

Fucking schizo brainlet

he was a boring old timey le wrong generation faggot

but the Germanic race isn’t perfect, the Anglos and French have as many accomplishments as them as do the Americans who are mutts. They also were no babes, they were a mature people who started two world wars and lost totally both times. You’re pretending to this status of being a star child, but you’re really an arrogant youth.

>fire meme

>for some strange reason his ideas were the hot new thing
Applying his ideas to Third Worlders' struggles against Europeans became popular among European leftists.

same reason muslim trash like Averroes was taught

Attached: u.png (201x250, 9K)

autistic basement-dwelling virgins with superiority complexes

projecting

there's not a single thing Nietzsche ever wrote that doesn't read like a dressed-up r9k post

if i saw this NAZI piece of GARBAGE irl i would deck the fuck out of him.... nazi punks FUCK OFF!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!111

you would know faggot