Was Heidegger full of shit?

Was Heidegger full of shit?

Was he one of those low idea per paragraph faggots that disguise their shallowness with complicated terminology and sentence-structure?

>i'm a fucking moron, therefore everyone else must be a moron because i can't understand them

great thread

he wrote slightly stiffly, but if you speak German, the terminology is very intuitive - of course he was one of the guys who thought there's some grand further content in the words through made up etymology, so the necessity of his terminology is debatable, but he's not deliberately obtrusive, that's pretty clear.

He's also not shallow, his systems of examinations are quite densely developed.

He did basically just describe depression a lot of the time though.

go fuck yourself, you incapable pedestrian piece of shit

Stop being rude to me

>don't shitpost in my shitpost

Dude shut up

seriously, don't be rude to the poor guy.

Thanks man. Wish I could give you gold

>Was Heidegger full of shit?

Is ontology full of shit? If you think yes to this, then you'll probably think yes to the former.

Seriously you can read Plato and Aristotle when they talk about Being and see where Heidy-boy is coming from. But if you don't give a fuck about Being then you probably will not care no matter who is writing about it, and I can't blame you.

>obvious postering

Heidegger's project was basically attacking the entire tradition of western ontology, remember laddie?

...

So what? I don't get why everyone here pretends to hate Reddit. I bet 90% of you have a Reddit tab open right now but you think you're oh so cool to admit it

>>>/reddit/

no it wasn't, he was critical of onto-theology. heidegger was critical of pretty much everything after plato because it just became hegelian absolute idea circlejerking (i'm looking at you plotinus, you faggot) but that also presupposes that ontology got something right, which is precisely what he's pointing to in what is called thinking (aka nietzsche and parmenides, tha homies). he himself is part of the tradition but isn't some radical just tossing everything into a bin; he is one of the better readers of plato in the 20th century and is basicaly unthinkable without schelling (who himself falls victim to the onto-theology horseshit) and kant.

>basically everyone between the presocratics and master Nietzsche were screwing up metaphysics
>'Heidegger wasn't attacking ontology'
Of course he is part of the tradition and not just some radical, and of course he formulates his own fundamental ontology to try and fix the bullshit, but pls.

The entire tradition after Aristotle*

Someone hasn't read B&T

if you think Heidegger is critical of "basically everyone" between 600BC and 1880AD you should probably read some more Heidegger. he was either influenced by or wrote directly on the ontologies or metaphysics of Kant, Schelling, Hölderlin, Meister Eckhart, Plato, Aristotle, Thomas Aquinas, Kierkegaard, Husserl and St. Augustine. and i'm leaving out many others. the radicalism of heidegger's ontology is precisely that it traverses the entire history of philosophy. his great enemy is ontotheology, not ontology proper.

>his great enemy is ontotheology, not ontology proper

Would you mind helping a layman understand the difference between the two? I'm fascinated.

shut up horrible piece of shit

>8999999

You intolerable fucking slime. Neck yourselves immediately.

...

yeah no worries BUD. ontology is the study of being. it is an attempt to ideally grapple with things like the nature and ground of being. what can we say about things that exist and are present to being? this was heidegger's project and reworking in Being and Time, which took a look at the history of ontology and offered to it in a new way.

ontotheology is a term that first appears within kant (i believe in religion within the bounds of reason) as the shorthand for ontologies that really have just reduced thinking about being as god's immanence. what is the ground of being? god. what is true of being? god. all ontological questions are destroyed or washed away because the ground of being is pre-given as a oneness within god, and therefore ontological questions are really just clarifications of the being of god.

problem is, as heidegger says in the introduction to metaphysics, that ontotheology cancels the possibility of actual ontology. if being is nothing but god or oneness (as hegel will later say, the absolute idea), then being itself is nothing worth studying if it does not help us understand the being of god. this is precisely the problem that heidegger is looking to expose: the historical treatment of the question of being has terminated in nihilism (as nietzsche wrote in twilight of the idols). but heidegger is intent on heading back into ancient philosophy to underscore the fact that proper ontology is actually what guarantees a non-nihilistic relationship to life itself. as plato wrote in the sophist, our relationship to truth itself is an ontological one. (heidegger wrote a short essay on this, it's worth reading) therefore, we must attend to being if we are to have any hope of salvaging anything (question concerning technology, letter on humanism).

hope that helps.

Soon.

Thanks BRO. I might not completely understand though. Forgive my ignorance.

>what is the ground of being? god. what is true of being? god. all ontological questions are destroyed or washed away because the ground of being is pre-given as a oneness within god, and therefore ontological questions are really just clarifications of the being of god.


I mean couldnt you also say that being is an aspect of god and then also go on to describe in more precise terms what else being is? I mean the part about being being part of god seems arbitrary if you make the assumption that god encompasses everything. Being is only God on a certain level of analysis. Is that what heidegger's gripe was? Maybe what I mean is that you could say being=god on some ultimate level but it doesn't say anything about how being is for the being experiencing it. Idk my brain hurts.

all these insults yet none of you pandafags even attempt to explain Heidegger's thought or why it means anything

Satan, pls go

Heidegger makes a distinction between Sein and Seiendes, or you could say, between things that are (Seiendes) and the fact that they are (Sein, their Being). Grounding 'Being'/Sein in God/a higher ground is really reducing Sein to another Seiendes/thing that is and as a result actually never getting to the Real question of ontology: the fact that the world/anything IS (its being).

Bump

Oh sure like you can make someone so ignorant comprehend anything on a fucking chan post. Are we the school of life now?