Would Heidegger aprove his lifestyle?

Varg is truly living the dream.

He lives in the ass end of France with kids and an autistic fascist wife spending his days busting out ambient metal albums, making /pol/ rants and playing RPG's. What an absolute GOD.

Why is this always the picture that gets posted of Heideggar?

Which of those things is appealing exactly?

It's fun and you can see the dasein ghost floating above the tap

I'm not sure. Individually none of them sound very good at all, put as a package it sounds like the way to live.

Oh, ok

>what's appealing about cruising around the french countryside in your landrover wearing all flecktarn everything making youtube videos while your barefoot pregnant wife tends to the homestead

Really user?

I saw his wife talk in an interview and she doesn't seem autistic at all.

She has autism for real, he mentions it sometimes.

Most real autistic people are more normal than you'd expect.

user...

youtu.be/Syir5-5u2UA

ancestralcult.com/atala/

Indeed, viz. section 35 of Sein und Zeit.

>Would this Christian academic approve of a church-burning murderer?
I doubt it.

>Doesn't listen to black metal
Kys my friend

> Heidegger
> Christian

nigga u srs? Heidegger is basicallty advocating for all the things Varg is doing, except belief in an after-life (I'm not sure what Varg's stance on this is, but Heidegger is explictly anti-after-life)

Heidegger's philosophy amounts to a German neo-pagan revival.

She's bona-fide autistic. I think she wrote an essay on how autism may be related to either neanderthal or cromagnon genes.

He is more away from civilization and society than me
And I hate civilization and society

Thats his past, he is good boy now
And is not like Heidegger wasnt a nazi tho

His wife is the one that writes all his content and forces him to live like this lmao

i googled 'varg vikernes autistic' and this was the first image that came up, had a good laugh desu

>never should have come here

heidegger is by no means a christian, his argument is fundamentally trying to remove semitic religion (jewish or christian, islam wasnt a thing at that time) from germany

didn't he kill someone and commit arson?

He went over to a communist's house in the middle of the night and then stabbed him once in self-defence in the back of the head. The other thirty alleged stab wounds were from the communist falling on some broken glass.

Sooo you'rė såyïng hė dïdn dö nüffïn?

He's a good boy, he was turning his life around. He just wanted to get into pagan permaculture and the Christians and communists framed him.

fuck off last man

it:s interesting isn:t it
what rpgs does varg play?

>kill
no the dead guy just fell on some lamps

He made his own. It's called MYFAROG. amazon.com/MYFAROG-Mythic-Fantasy-Role-playing-Game/dp/1522969586/ref=sr_1_3?ie=UTF8&qid=1451941673&sr=8-3&keywords=myfarog

The people here who say H was opposed to christianity are clueless to the fact that Heidegger was fascinated with early christianity and held a lecture series on St. Paul, whom he had a massive boner for. Also, they are forgetting his obvious love for Meister Eckehart.

*stabs you 23 times in self defense*

NEVER SHOULD HAVE COME HERE!

Would Evola and Nietzsche approve it?

It's hardly orthodox Christianity. It has more in common with Tolstoy's vision of Christianity. And Heidegger's Christianity amounts to "just seize the day, that's the Kingdom of God!"

There's no after life in Heidegger. There's no infinity. All Gods must die according to Heidegger.

he was only one of the biggest fags in black metal so it wasn't a huge loss

Almost every single statement he puts out is factually incorrect. Quite an accomplishment because he doesn't even appear to be an idiot. His current love affair with neanderthals is hilarious. Don't tell him that asians and Jews also have neanderthal DNA. He might self-destruct.

lel

>"It's hardly orthodox Christianity."
I did not imply H was orthodox. What does it matter if he isn't? He is clearly drawing on Christian influences in the heart of his work, especially with his concept of time. Do you fail to realize that religions are not static phenomena, but their ideas undergo historical and contextual metamorphoses?

>"Heidegger's Christianity amounts to "just seize the day, that's the Kingdom of God!""
You just outed yourself as someone who has no clue about Heidegger. This is exactly the type of thinking Heidegger criticizes with regards to his writings on Sartre and Humanism.

>"All Gods must die according to Heidegger."
If by 'Gods' you mean an ontotheological conception of a highest 'something', then yes. But it's shallow to say that Heidegger wants to kill all Gods; rather, the divine should be reimagined. That is, the divine/gods are an integral part of the fourfold structure of the Seyn-event in later Heidegger, and that is how H wants to think 'God'; conceptualized through the fundamental-ontological Event, Ereignis. Just like everything else for Heidegger is to be reimagined through this lense; Human being, world, etc.

No, there's no afterlife in Heidegger and there's no metaphysical infinity. But clinging to this idolatry is the mark of an individual who has not properly dealt with and appropriated the Erfahrung of the western tradition. Even Christian theology itself has moved to a post-metaphysical conception of God. Sorry to tell ya buddy, but we don't live in the middle ages. Not even Christians.

>You just outed yourself as someone who has no clue about Heidegger

I'm quoting Sheehan on this.

And I don't get the point of ironically worshiping finite gods. And neither does anyone else. Which is why there is no post-metaphysical spirituality in Europe. The Heideggerian aporia justs allows capitalism to get stronger.

> But clinging to this idolatry is the mark of an individual who has not properly dealt with and appropriated the Erfahrung of the western tradition.

You ought to read some Scheler.

So what?

>ironically worshipping finite gods.

I feel this critique is understandable, but somewhat misguided. Is Heidegger telling us to worship finite beings? Is he telling us to worship das Seiendes? Though Ereignis is always finite, the images of the fourfold are marked by a certain ambiguity.

In Heidegger's image of gods/divinities in das Geviert, is the presence of the gods in this manifestation not a reminder that though the event of enowning Being is always finite, Being is never solely reducible to a particular epochal enowning? This is the meaning of the heideggerian usage of the image of divinity, that being is not reducible to a particular something but remains concealed in any particular event of appropriation/enowning.

This is why I feel that there could be said to be an interesting solidarity between heideggerian thought and apophantic theology.

With regards to your comments on capitalism, I am not sure where you are going with that.

>is the presence of the gods in this manifestation not a reminder that though the event of enowning Being is always finite, Being is never solely reducible to a particular epochal enowning?

not him but is he not implying that Being has the same quality in any epoch? how can he make that claim through his philosophy?

>With regards to your comments on capitalism, I am not sure where you are going with that.

I'm saying what Heidegger has given us hasn't made us less prone to concealing Being. Is it because we can't rise to the challenge? How come there hasn't been real post-metaphysical spiritualities that have taken off?

This is where I find classic Marxist theory to be more valid and useful. Derridean aporias, as perceptive as they are sometimes, merely allow neoliberal capitalism to continue to spread its power. Why should I be scared of idolatry via metaphysics when Heidegger and Derrida haven't amounted to anything? I have bills and rent to pay. Why should I still give a shit about Dasein? I can be overworked and earning a shit salary and fully Heideggerian and I'm really just enabling neoliberalism. Heidegger or Derrida can end philosophy but the world doesn't care.

Excuse the rant but I don't find Heidegger or Derrida useful. Heidegger just seems too quaint and the more honest Derrida is still dodging important questions about money and making everyone paranoid that what they say could be wrong. At this point, I think it's Heideggerians who are beating a dead horse and living in the past. Time to move on.

More importantly, would Heidegger endorse based Kevin MacDonald?

I don't think so at all. Too materialist. Not enough about language.

Heidegger was anti-semitic in regards to culture. I don't think he ever believed in a material conception of race. But definitely race through language. I can't imagine Heidegger endorsing certain genes as being good or bad. Heidegger's problem is that certain cultures and languages are more ignorant of the fact that existence comes out of nothing and returns to nothing. But this ignorance is kind of natural because existence must hide itself, so its easy to forget that existence will return to nothing and to think instead that existence exists forever.

This is Heidegger's world view.

Varg believes in the pagan circle of life, he believes he'll be reincarnated into his descendants.

First off, the language of "quality" and "substratae" is one of verry un-heideggerian presuppositions. Surely Heidegger does not want to think Being as substance.

That being said, actually, the 'sense', quality or 'meaning' of Being is for Heidegger of course completely a historical matter; history ultimately is the enactment/unfolding of Being playing itself out through the Seyn-event. The whole late Heidegger project of seynsgeschichte is the study of this.

Yet what Heidegger is clearly getting at with the ambiguous nature of the language used to get at the fourfold is exactly that *something* remains undisclosed through any historical manifestation of Being that nevertheless remains integral to this very manifestation. Here arises another ambiguity with regards to the whole project of restating the question of being, since it in some places seem to concern the MEANING of Being (Ein Frage nach dem Sinn des Seyns) and other places being "as such" (for lack of better terms).

This way of talking about Being of course can lead to imagining Being as *a* constituent, an Origin. This is basically Derrida's whole critique of Heidegger in the beginning of the grammatology, that Heidegger's thinking, through his use of language, falls prey to the ontotheological tradition he is trying to overcome, by thinking Being as a transcendental signifié. In many ways Derrida's whole project becomes an attempt to overcome this heideggerian failure you are pointing out, by trying to think a pure becoming without a ground; différance as the origin without an origin, and the trace as infinite deferral.

I actually quite sympathize with this position; as both a heideggerian and someone horrified with the current state of affairs, you can imagine the internal quarrel at times.

But I ultimately think that it is naive to attempt a regression to old moral conceptions by
simply throwing the heideggerian/derridean insights out and discarding them. In fact, is it not the fact that we still haven't properly appropriated this thinking that the inhumane trajectory keeps rolling - its in spite of Heidegger and not by his enablement that the ball keeps rolling. Neoliberalism/capitalism and marxism indeed from a heideggerian point of view both fall prey to the trap of this thinking that must be overcome if we want to see real change.

My discourse here amounts to nothing more than "For an ontological revolution, not an ontic revolution!" Or rather, an ontic revolution necessitates an ontological one to even be a possibility. This is where heidegger is basically the polar opposite to the orthodox marxist imagining of base/superstructure.
H says it best himself: youtube.com/watch?v=OxmzGT1w_kk

So we need thinkers, not partisans. Of course the problematic part is that the world is spinning to fast for us to keep up, and I feel your frustration as deeply; yet I don't think your solution amounts to anything resembling a renewal. But surely we are fighting the same battle.

*too