Veeky Forums view on Heidegger?

le ebin hitler meme

Anthropocentric, anti-scientific obscrutantist.

Germanic neo-pagan who would get high off reading Luther. Basically Varg Vikernes' exact worldview except Heidegger explicitly denies the possibility of an after-life. Only contemporary philosopher he respected was Derrida. Tried to dodge Max Scheler's critique of his philosophy with a back-handed compliment. Lived a cowardly life and thought he was better and smarter than Ernst Junger. Was a literal cuckold (read about his wife's son) and shtupped Arendt in his cabin annually, where Gods dwell also, I guess.

He returned to Catholicism at the end of his life though.

I always visualize him sitting on his wooden bench outside his Black Forest house, alongside his wife who, with her perverse knitting enthusiasm, ceaselessly knits winter socks for him from the wool she has shorn from their own Heidegger sheep.

I cannot visualize Heidegger other than sitting on the bench outside his Black Forest house, alongside his wife, who all her life totally dominated him and who knitted all his socks and crocheted all his caps and baked all his bread and wove all his bedlinen and who even cobbled up his sandals for him. Heidegger was a kitschy brain….. a feeble thinker from the Alpine foothills, as I believe, and just about right for the German philosophical hot-pot. For decades they ravenously spooned up that man Heidegger, more than anybody else, and overloaded their stomachs with his stuff. Heidegger had a common face, not a spiritual one, Reger said, he was through and through an unspiritual person, devoid of all fantasy, devoid of all sensibility, a genuine German philosophical ruminant, a ceaselessly gravid German philosophical cow, Reger said, which grazed upon German philosophy and thereupon for decades let its smart little cow-pats drop on it….

Heidegger is the petit-bourgeois of German philosophy, the man who has placed on German philosophy his kitschy nightcaps, that kitschy black night-cap which Heidegger always wore, on all occasions. Heidegger is the carpet-slipper and night-cap philosopher of the Germans, nothing else.

I have a question for Veeky Forums on H-dog. In a thread a few days ago, someone said that Heidegger sympathized with Nazism because the core tenant of National Socialism was "take life seriously". What did he mean by this, and could anyone expand on this point? What are some books about this topic?

just read sein und zeit

what are heideggers philosophical views? What's his position?

I know nothing about him. What did he argue for?

give me a rundown

The School of Life has a cool video on the great thinkers.
Search for "School of Life Heidegger". They give a quick rundown of the big shots in several topics.

Philosophy is not fastfood.
Also, asking for the 'what' of Heidegger's philosophy is very ironic. Both seeing his critique of this way of engaging with philosophy (read the intro to Sein und Zeit) and seing as to the actual insights of his philosophy.

The most important philosopher of the 20th century.

His aesthetic writings are based desu

so basically you can't explain it

If by 'explaining' you mean condensing his entire oeuvre and the radical implications of his insights into a neat little one-paragraph sugar pill, no.

Also,
School of Life are reductionist shits who does the thinkers they discuss unjustice.

Meditate on the line "langauge is the house of being. In its home man dwells" for a while and you'll basically understand as much about Heidegger as the average grad student.

*in

>The most important philosopher of the 20th century.
>Not Wittgenstein

Cmon now

Heidegger does a great job of constructing a system that finally extends beyond the cartesian problem of the subject and the object, mentally, the question of duality or singularity of the mind and the world around it, by classifying being (us as Dasein) as something that extends only as far as the world extends, because we are in the world, and everything we can ever imagine or discern concerning ontical or ontological thought is a reflection of that, bar nothing else. It's a bit one dimensional, but if you embrace what he says, in my opinion, the system makes more sense than other constructions. However, just as he is described as being the capstone of a long, millennia culminating train of thought, we must of course be cognizant of the fact that there will eventually be some form of thought that, even if we were to formerly be trusting of Heidegger's system, will nevertheless fit the language and culture we create for ourselves out of his thought better than his writings could. That is of course the process of using language to have this discourse in the first place.

To follow up, it then becomes mostly a question of whether or not we can agree with him on his larger assumptions of what is ready to hand, what is logically fallible, or what is logical at all, and if that reflects how we live in our lives as well. And it's this ability to deliberate within his system that makes his philosophy more valuable than other existentialist-esque thinkers that followed him that had (in my opinion) less dialectic depth.

Witty wins for influence on analytic phil, but H is by far more influential, and arguably the most influential, in continental philosophy. Hence why Wittgenstein and Heidegger are often lumped together as the 'two most important'.

Yeah true, but I consider 20th century continental philosophy to be mostly a failure and their most prominent thinkers a bunch of edgelords. This is just my opinion though.

Man on a mission to reinvent Western metaphysics contributes to the philosophies of phenomenology, ontology, language, mind, technology, hermeneutics, death, poetry...

literally watch the dreyfus lecture on youtube if you need express arguments.

>what are heideggers philosophical views? What's his position?
>I know nothing about him. What did he argue for?

Basically, being and time is just an exposition (there's no real arguments, he just describes) the ways in which the world around us is structured, and the ways in which we relate to it.

He says there's essentialy a spectrum in the way we see and interact with things, going from seeing them as scientific objects with weight/height/etc, to *using* them as tools, for example when we drive a car we don't see it as an object with mechanical properties etc, we *use* it as something to get us somewhere, for a particular purpose.

He basically says this scientific way of seeing the world metaphysically (as atoms, space, etc) is wrong because that's not how the world actually is in our day to day lives.

there's also some other stuff about time and death and it's really hard to understand and it's written in this horrible style that makes it the most confusing it could possibly be and I'm not entirely convinced it's worth slogging through

haha this wins thread, Heidegger review by THomas Bernhard, am actually attempted to ask whether Bernhard actually wrote this or are you just ventriloquizing with some success...