Was he right?

But he fucked Arendt's brains out. You're not even trying to make sense.

>"[Heidegger] lies notoriously always and everywhere, and whenever he can." - Hannah Arendt, Heidegger's onetime lover, as quoted in Hannah Arendt/Martin Heidegger, by Elżbieta Ettinger, Yale University Press (1997), p. 28.

Why are you working to make yourself look stupid?

Just because you fucked someone several times, doesn't mean someone loves you you fucking moron.

Besides this thread isn't about Hannah Arendt you mongoloid derailsperg.

>doesn't mean someone loves you you fucking moron.
Are you a crazy person? I said Heidegger was right, Arendt was a fine piece of ass.
I have no idea what you're trying to do.

You know it's against Veeky Forums rules to be antisemitic outside of /pol/, right? I could have you banned at this point. Back off.

>Watch this video.

Danke. Very gud.

It's funny because you're the one actually derailing. That user contributed appropriately.

Heidegger was very right on a lot of things concerning hermeneutics and understanding, the existential condition and our being-in-the-world. I also feel his critique of metaphysics is justified and quite right. His philosophy can quite easily be distinguished from his politics and as it is evident, it can be interpreted in multiple ways - both left (Luc-Nancy, Derrida and Agamben) and right (Dulgin).

He is one of the philosophers I draw most influence from. And I would consider myself a lefty, though not in the traditional sense. Certainly not an authoritarian or nazi.

The Arendt-Heidegger is more complex than what it is trying to be turned into in this threat btw.

Talking about a completely different person, and Heidegger's love affair with her, is derailing the thread.

I wanted to talk about his claims, not where his dick has been.

*Arendt-Heidegger relationship

The OP asked if Heidegger was right. Dude replied that he was right to fuck Arendt in the ass.
Don't see a problem.
You should probably ask a better question.

>I also feel his critique of metaphysics is justified and quite right.

Which is what I wanted to talk about. In his essay "What is Metaphysics?", he talks about how "nothingness" actually is a function of reality, and that when you are in certain moods, specifically existential anxiety and boredom, you are actually engaging with this "nothingness".

I find it hard to disagree with, but I suffer from tremendous anxiety attacks, and sometimes my mind goes completely blank from it.

since I suffer*

Did you know Pierre Bourdieu believed you couldn't distinguish between Heidegger's politics and philosophy? He produced a study with the specific intention of uncovering Heidegger's latent crypto-Nazism.

The idea there is that das Nichts (the nothing) is intimately linked to Sein (Being), as Being is always finite as it is linked to the human being-in-the-world. And anxiety rises from here.

But Heidegger's point is also that the finiteness of Being is what makes our lives meaningful since it makes our choices carry meaning in the face of das Nichts (his idea of Being unto Death).

I find his hermeneutical explanation of how the now is contingent upon the past (thrown-ness) and the future (the directedness of consciousness) as really rewarding. Also, his critique of metaphysics where philosophers operate in subject-object dichotomy and ultimately end up with a fundamental problem of epistemology. And how it never gets at what Being truly is, but rather trying to find a grounding category. He shows how counterintuitive it is, and I found that to be such a great relief since it never sat that well with me before I even read Heidegger.

He makes a model of our immediate experience and understanding of the world that is philosophically rich and very fruitful. I know I sound like a dick-rider, but Heidegger taught me a lot (and still does).

Have you read Bourdieu's study of Heidegger? He doesn't equate Heidegger's philosophy to crypto-nazism. He actually says in that study that there is no place for racism in Heideggerian philosophy.

And if the politics are so ingrained in his philosophy (which largely deals with ontology and hermeneutics) how come the vastly different appropriations of Heidegger to both radical left and right political ideas?

Which is why it's more likely that Heidegger himself got, ironically enough, stuck in the inauthenticity of Das Man under the Third Reich.

That's not to say he didn't turn anti-semitic, but he clearly can't always have been like that since he considered Husserl his mentor and friend.

youtube.com/watch?v=21tpya19Qbw

I'm with you on that and it is ironic. and yeah, both Husserl as mentor and friend and Arendt as student and lover (who he seems genuinely caring for in some of the letters I have read).

To the unaware, Heidegger lost his rectorate at Freiburg at some point during the nazi regime and actually ended up in a work camp the last time of the war. He was not considered true to the nazi vision.

Btw, not trying to be a nazi apolegetic. And I do believe he turned anti semitic.

She popularised his work in America even after he fucked her and sided with the Nazis. After the war they met up and she asked him why he did that and he couldn't explain himself.

He wasn't a Jew hating nazi (he did say antisemitic-cum-racist things in his notebooks tho), he did get swept up in the volk revolution thing that the Nazis used to ride their way into power. Beyond very early on when he betrayed his mates he didn't do very well at all under the Nazis since his philosophy was anathema to the party line.

jew rat detected

The only thing I've ever seen relating to him was some £34 companion to Being & Time in Waterstones.

The best lit on him is in German. He's important to existentialism in general and Derrida in particular too. Lacan even talks about him a fair bit.

He didn't understand Husserl. What a retard.

Not to mention hermeneutics and phenomenology?? :)

If analytics hate it then yes Heidegger is behind it. I used to post on here about how similar he was to Wittgenstein to wind some of the posters up. Since then a book has been written about it tho so I guess it's a much less sensational claim now.

Heidegger is the epitome of verbose continentals with no substance.

>m-muh poesis

>he only read translations of Heidi

Yes, he was far right-

Which Heidegger?

>Heidegger is the epitome of verbose continentals with no substance.
Sounds great to me. Have fun with your garden hose.

I'm pretty sure you're talking about Hegel.

Yeah, the problem is that he doesn't use any thought experiments about aliens and hypothetical planets, or talk about neurochemistry. What a pleb.

just because she said he lies once doesn't mean she hates him either

>Elfride then gave birth to Hermann in 1920. Heidegger knew that he was not Hermann's biological father but raised him as his son.

>it's another cuckold-fixated shitposter episode

history is filled with it

its one of the main themes of many literature

whoops forgot this was a blue board

Being
Being
Tao harder

Ended up in a work camp? Pretty sure that's just made up.

He thought he could be philosopher king, realized quickly he couldn't and got out of there.

"Back from Syracuse?"

>Ended up in a work camp?
I don't remember seeing that. I know he was quite desperate to stay on the lecturing circuits, I think that was to escape enlistment or something like that. But I can't honestly remember.

Seconded, I spent a long time on his essay "On the Essence of Truth" and it became one of the most impactful philosophical works on me.

As far as philosophers who can abruptly change your perspective on existence and reality go, he's second to none.

DUDE SHROOMS LMAO

Is that his analysis of Plato's cave?

If not check that one out

why did he look like a penguin

Never heard of it, will definitely look it up. Thanks user

they literally fucked every year post-war in his cabin

>His philosophy can quite easily be distinguished from his politics and as it is evident, it can be interpreted in multiple ways - both left (Luc-Nancy, Derrida and Agamben) and right (Dulgin).

No, it's really just Nazism. Derrida & co. are being dishonest. I know total hacks succeed quite well in academia but Victor Farias was right.

To admit that risks not being able to continue publishing papers easily. He literally says Nazism has to be the "Custodian of Being" and his philosophy is just romanticized German neo-Paganism, with an exception being made for Lutherans.

Heidegger reifies the nothing. He gets mad that all of philosophy thinks everything comes from a thing, then he says, "No, it comes from a non-thing, thing!" Stupid. It ends going nowhere, because, politically, it does not succeed (Germans, who think in the superior language that can speak Being) just end up being technophiles.

But Heidegger has worked himself into a corner, denying democracy and Marxism as concealers of Being. So when the Nazis dismissed Heidegger's philosophy, there was nothing for him to say. He was too proud to admit there were holes in his philosophy. That his philosophy was the kitschy romanticizations of some German provincial.

Heidegger's philosophy is a radical Lutheranism. (That's a bad thing)

>total hacks succeed quite well in academia
So where do you teach?

Yes on the question concerning technology.

Don't. The guy may well teach somewhere and it still doesn't validate the idea that politics has contaminated Being and Time.

It's a really dumb argument that goes back decades that goes something like "we straight talking liberal analytic philosophers are the true progressive intelligentsia unlike you obscurantist continental 'marxist' or 'existentialist' philosophers who are secret Nazis" with the other side going "analytic? Continental? Huh what even are those?" And generally having nothing to do with the conversation.

It's essentially the myth of Anglo liberal philosophy, and big bad Heidegger works towards that.

>The guy may well teach somewhere and it still doesn't validate the idea that politics has contaminated Being and Time.
You missed the joke.

I have been contaminated by Heidegger's German philosophy. I no longer have any need for humor.

That was quite good Kek.

No, I have never read the thing itself. I have only seen it referred to in an interview Bourdieu did with his protégé Loic Wacquant in a strange book entitled "An Invitation to Reflexive Sociology". For the record, I do not believe Heidegger was a crypto-Nazi. I think his support for Nazism did not come from any firm ideological conviction, but rather from a kind of ontological nativism implied in his ideas of primordiality and everydayness. He saw himself, quite simply, as a German man, in Germany, following the course of national and historical events.

Yeah she hated him so much she fucked him, excused his war crimes, and still visited him when he flat out refused to apologize for being a nazi.

In reality she was in love with him and anything you read otherwise is Jew damage control desu

>politics has contaminated Being and Time.

You can't accept the fact that Heidegger's philosophy amounts to Nazism because then your profession and worldview = shattered.

Don't be an idiot like Sartre.

>still visited him when he flat out refused to apologize for being a nazi.

Well, he did tell someone in private that it was his biggest mistake in life.

>You can't accept the fact that Heidegger's philosophy amounts to Nazism

Please give a single cogent argument for how you can in any way shape or form justify Nazism with Heidegger's philosophy.

Go on. We are all waiting.

'Was X right' is the lowest question you can ask after reading a philosopher.

Lads someone justify why Dasein's essence is that it has no essence besides its potentiality.

(Also, how does this square with the fact Dasein is historical?)

Not him, and I don't agree with him, but it's worth pointing out that his philosophy is utterly incompatible with liberalism and Marxism (probably to a slightly lesser extent), so it's not all that surprising, or as objectionable as it's typically made out to be, that he supported the Nazis.

>utterly incompatible with liberalism and Marxism

How? How do you even generate a political opinion from his writings?

Daseins not the whole of the human essence persay, Dasein is literally just being which can be at issue for itself. Because Dasein is potentiality, it is by definition at issue with itself because anything it is can't be it's essence.

It's historical insofar that we see others, beings with Dasein, and see their actuality

>Lads someone justify why Dasein's essence is that it has no essence besides its potentiality.
>(Also, how does this square with the fact Dasein is historical?)

It's pretty obvious if you follow Heidegger's argument. Dasein is always contingent upon a given historicity (or thrown-ness in general), and this is exactly why the historicity can't be a defining essence. The directedness of consciousness always sees the world as Zeug's, but these are also contingent upon our projects. It has to be Dasein's potentiality in light of its temporality that is its essence.

Or maybe I don't quite get Heidegger.

Hey user. It's good to see someone who seems to have learned a lot from heidegger. As someone who hasn't read anything by him, I'm curious to know more.

Could you elaborate further on the following statements?

> that the finiteness of Being is what makes our lives meaningful since it makes our choices carry meaning in the face of das Nichts
how does it make our choices carry meaning? this is circular. "it makes our lives meaninngful because our choices carry meaningfulness". it doesn't explain where the meaning comes from and how it relates to "das nichts". really need more explanation here.

>I find his hermeneutical explanation of how the now is contingent upon the past (thrown-ness) and the future (the directedness of consciousness) as really rewarding
that is a very safe and nonradical statement to make. of course the now is contingent upon the past because it came to be as a direct consequence of the past which built up to the "now". how is the "now" contingent upon the future? elaborate on this?

>Also, his critique of metaphysics where philosophers operate in subject-object dichotomy and ultimately end up with a fundamental problem of epistemology.
literally anyone with half a brain can and does understand the subjectivity of human experience. it's not as if he uncovered some great unknown truth. that the world is fundamentally tied to our perception of it and they cannot be separated is philosophy 101.

Am I really missing something here? I don't see what is so great about heidegger. I appreciate that he emphasizes the need to question the "nature of being" but its not as if he gives any profound insight (at least going by what anons have posted here).

>how does it make our choices carry meaning? this is circular. "it makes our lives meaninngful because our choices carry meaningfulness". it doesn't explain where the meaning comes from and how it relates to "das nichts". really need more explanation here
Heidegger's point is that meaning is generated as Being relates to itself through Dasein. The finiteness of Being in the face of nothingness makes the choices we make carry weight. Does this make sense to you?

>that is a very safe and nonradical statement to make. of course the now is contingent upon the past because it came to be as a direct consequence of the past which built up to the "now". how is the "now" contingent upon the future? elaborate on this?

It goes back to his teacher, Husserl, who elaborates on a concept of intentionality; that our experience is always 'directed' or 'pointed'. It is thus a projection of intentionality, and our experience is always contingent upon this.
But the point is really that it shows how we are always in a hermeneutical relationship with the world (and that hermeneutics is not restricted to textual analysis). Dasein is not something that is, but it is always becoming through a hermeneutical process or spiral.

>literally anyone with half a brain can and does understand the subjectivity of human experience. it's not as if he uncovered some great unknown truth. that the world is fundamentally tied to our perception of it and they cannot be separated is philosophy 101.

Well, yes, everybody understands subjectivity but that is not the point. (And the point you make is kantian, that our perceptions are always a posteriori. This is what Heidegger is trying to solve/revolting against). Philosophy before Heidegger is very much concerned with the human as an isolated subjectivity and how we can have knowledge of an outside. Descartes' 'cogite ergo sum' and radical skepticism is the most radical consequence of this. But it is also present in Kant with the problem of the thing-in-itself and a priori experience (and Heidegger is also very much responding to the neo-kantians that dominated german intellectual life in his time). This is a huge problem / a main focus in western metaphysics and epistemology.

Heidegger's point is that it is counterintuitive to our immediate experience of the world, and that the human is always 'being-in-the-world' in order to even question that. Thus it never gets at what being truly is, but instead circles around a counterintuitive abstract dichotomy. To understand being we must look at being as it relates to itself through Dasein.

Liberalism practices atomisation, Marxism takes each individuals relation to the world to be fundamentally economic.

About? He made no explicit truth-apt claims but just spouted shit.

Sounds like your misguided devotion to mere correctness has blinded you to the true unconcealment of pure aletheia, user

>Heidegger's philosophy amounts to Nazism
Even the Nazis didn't think it amounted to Naziism. He developed his really very exciting ideas under Husserl who himself was Jewish, so make of that what you will. There's more Husserl than Hitler in Being and Time for sure (which isn't hard, but there is an immense influence from Husserl).

Most of his racist remarks in his notes amount to "the Jews have done this so we should do thistoo". Like he talks about jewification but he actually wants jewification.

And I agree with the politics of nearly no philosophers but it doesn't stop me reading their stuff and evaluating it. This whole thing is melodrama and it doesn't belong in serious philosophical thought.

Looks about right.

First things first: Thank you for the detailed reply. I really appreciate it.

>The finiteness of Being in the face of nothingness makes the choices we make carry weight.
I see why one might be tempted to believe that but you still need to see the gap in logical deduction here. The finiteness of being in the face of nothingness does not in any way dictate the amount of weight to the choices. In fact, if anything I would argue the exact opposite. The finiteness of being implies that these have only finite significance as opposed to an infinite nothingness and therefore all of them have 0 weight. The finiteness of being does not necessarily imply that the choices made magically attain significance.

>that our experience is always 'directed' or 'pointed'. It is thus a projection of intentionality, and our experience is always contingent upon this.
maybe. I could argue that moments in one's consciousness can exist in which the consciousness is immersed only in the present without any intent or direction to the future. say when one is meditating or just appreciating a beautiful landscape. aren't those moments completely undirected and exist only in the present? or is the "directedness/pointedness" something different here?

I agree with the hermeneutical relationship with the world however. the spiral/cycle of experiencing things, interpreting/understanding them, and then experiencing them again with the newer perspective/interpretation/understanding. but isn't that just the process of learning?

>Heidegger's point is that it is counterintuitive to our immediate experience of the world
yeah I agree. it is counterintuitive.

I want to know what you think about radical skepticism though. I ask because I have adopted it and I feel that it is the only tenable position to hold. I feel that certainty is never justified EXCEPT in my personal assertion "I am conscious" which is the solipsistic view. How can this be refuted or argued about? What would heidegger say to solipsists?

the counterintuitive abstract dichotomy that you talk about is the dichotomy between what is perceived and the idea of the consciousness/self perceiving it? right?

Please respond. I know I'm a noob so I apologize if my questions sound stupid but I really am curious and you seem like a person who knows what he is talking about.

>In fact, if anything I would argue the exact opposite. The finiteness of being implies that these have only finite significance as opposed to an infinite nothingness and therefore all of them have 0 weight. The finiteness of being does not necessarily imply that the choices made magically attain significance.
Not sure of the solidity of your reasoning there. I wouldn't try too hard to foist logic on this either, we're very far off the comfy beaten path here.

As for the "being in the present moment" schtick, that's part of what Heidegger is talking about. In simple terms different philosophies spring up in different situations, we're not thinking/existing in the same way when we barely consciously open a door to get into a room as when we are sitting down wondering if we exist or something.

>not sure about the solidity of your reasoning here
exactly what i want to say to heidegger when he asserts that the finiteness of being causes weight to be attached to the choices that are made. how does the latter follow from the former? there is a gap in reasoning here in my opinion.

>we're not thinking/existing in the same way when we barely consciously open a door to get into a room as when we are sitting down wondering if we exist or something.
of course. the difference is in the "awareness" of being. we're mostly lost in an unaware state which lacks lucidity because we do most things by habit or by routine or by whatever it is that we've learnt to do. these actions do not stem from any contemplative insight on "being" but from what we've learned from "they"/"the chatter".

when you sit down and think however, you try to achieve a state of thinking which looks at everything from a meta perspective. only then does one begin to stand a chance of viewing "being" or thinking about it in any significant way. but here again, i don't see anything profound or deep that anyone with common sense can't deduce.

I think one thing you have to remember: the parmenidean paradox Being and Time is based upon is about the absurd resultof reasoning about the world. Heidegger is looking at how one can even begin to reason about "being" and it's like an attempt to undo it.

I think I get what you mean about awareness of being, yeah that's there too. That's part of why it gets compared to (zen) Buddhism and Taoism. He's apparently really quite popular with some Japanese philosophers I guess for this reason too.

He literally quotes Marx on TV and then says "lol forgetful of Being. Into the trash it goes."

>TV
?