Summarise Heidegger's philosophy in one comment

Summarise Heidegger's philosophy in one comment

Unnecessary

Kill the Jews

Gya haa haa

muh Being

Redpilled

forgetting of Being

Husserl

>Come on man, being a human is just intuitive, everything we do is affected by us being a human, man.

/thread

Das Sein des Seienden ist nicht selbst ein Seiendes.

Joke

this

Burn the Jews.

maailmassaolo

>The Being of Beings is not itself a Being.

Hmm.

Yes. The ontological difference. Or in english 'translation' which doesn't really work, the fact that a thing/a being IS is not itself a thing.

Making itself intelligible is suicide for philosophy

HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAAHHAHAHAHAHAHA YOU GUYS ARE ON FIRE ALRIGHT! KEEP UP THE FUNNIES!

common sense written down

Heidegger wrote what everyone knows but nobody thinks about

mitä vittuu penis

Consider a hammer.

Made up words

I am, I am is not

You depend on being

Elementary.
The fact that it is not possible to define being without falling into a circularity, thus making it impossible to consider "Being IS [Def.]" was well known before Heidegger.

The nazi succeded in giving a description of how being "must" be understood - the "must", although it appears in many textbooks, it is by no means a norm. Heidegger rather shows how Being is understood, being descriptive rather than normative.
It is one aspect in which the Heideggerian influence upon Wittgenstein is evident. "Philosophy leaves everything as it is" is the case with Heidegger's philosophy on Being, whose end mean is "leave it all in the open" and naturally looking for a less contaminated USE of Being in the Greek language, from which follows Heidegger's batshit thought about the philosophical superiority of germany.

Are we is?

Muh Juden much juden

this should've been the only post itt

feels > reals bc feels is reals

>from which follows Heidegger's batshit thought about the philosophical superiority of germany

More on this?

All my life? It has been for Lichtung.

is he really the end of philsophy?

or is it wittgenstein?

or am I on the wrong path?

I thought it was the being of being is inside of its being

Right, because everyone already knows that the essence of technology is truth, the essence of *modern* technology is Enframing.

He spent a great deeal of his career concerned to move us away from what we think already. His "descriptive" phenomenology, as the enframed analyfags put it, is just one part of the point.

It was schopenhauer, newfag.

Plagiarise the Chinese

Uh, no. I read Schopenhauer when I was like 12.

That's baby shit

monism is just another spook

>Schopenhauer's baby shit
>Stirnerposts
wew lad
t. other

>he thinks stirner invented the concept of the spook!

I'm not hating on Schopenhauer, just saying he's been superseded by heideggerian phenomenology and/or analytical philosophy

>The Nothing itself nothings
What did he mean by this?

Heiddeger is all about finding a new meaning of philosophy. It has just started.

Spinoza

underrated

He meant the same thing as this:

>We put thirty spokes together and call it a wheel;
>But it is on the space where there is nothing that the usefulness of the wheel depends.
>We turn clay to make a vessel;
>But it is on the space where there is nothing that the usefulness of the vessel depends.
>We pierce doors and windows to make a house;
>And it is on these spaces where there is nothing that the usefulness of the house depends.
>Therefore just as we take advantage of what is, we should recognize the usefulness of what is not. - Tao Te Ching

The concept was there, but give me another person other than Stirner who called it a spook or a haunted house
Hence, in the context, x is a spook = Stirnerpost

kek

Wow, this is completely trivial.

Athene's neuro-spinozism actually

Of course it's trivial when someone else has already said it.