UnderGround Forums
 

PhilosophyGround >> I can't grasp Heidegger


6/14/05 6:21 PM
Ignore | Quote | Vote Down | Vote Up
sanguine cynic
Send Private Message Add Comment To Profile

Edited: 14-Jun-05
Member Since: 06/13/2004
Posts: 525
 
Man, that guy is tough. I can't understand what the hell he is talking about...anyone else have this problem?
6/15/05 4:13 AM
Ignore | Quote | Vote Down | Vote Up
Calbert
Send Private Message Add Comment To Profile

Edited: 19-Jun-05 05:09 AM
Member Since: 01/01/2001
Posts: 1951
Heidegger was my least favorite part of my existentialism and phenomenology class. We read "Being in Time" and I thought it was boring.
6/15/05 3:37 PM
Ignore | Quote | Vote Down | Vote Up
Subadie
Send Private Message Add Comment To Profile

Edited: 19-Jun-05 03:41 PM
Member Since: 10/09/2004
Posts: 125
YES, but I've given it a shot. Are you reading his early stuff - e.g. Being in Time or his later writings in which he basically says that he got it all wrong with his ideas in Being in Time. Remember, he's German at the time of Hitler. His antithesis, Sartre, has the advantage of choosing to participate with the resistance, a highly moral act, so he can make ethics/personal responsibility a legitimate part of his philosophy, especially as expressed in Being and Nothingness. He can do this because he acted very morally responsibly. Heidegger's unwillingness/inability to criticize the German actions during the war (even during his old age-long after the war) - implies some kind of mental gymanstics that may have had some effect on his ability to think or express himself clearly. I think if he could have brought himself to criticize his peoples actions, he would have been able to incorporate ethics into his philosophy and thus would have risen to be the top philosopher of the 20th century.
6/17/05 7:08 PM
Ignore | Quote | Vote Down | Vote Up
sanguine cynic
Send Private Message Add Comment To Profile

Edited: 17-Jun-05
Member Since: 06/13/2004
Posts: 539
Ok I just read a book by another author about him, and it seems he talks about the exact same things Sartre did. ( i have previously read Sartre). Wow Sartre copied everything from him.
6/19/05 5:12 AM
Ignore | Quote | Vote Down | Vote Up
Calbert
Send Private Message Add Comment To Profile

Edited: 19-Jun-05
Member Since: 01/01/2001
Posts: 1962
"Wow Sartre copied everything from him." Blasphemy!
6/22/05 1:55 PM
Ignore | Quote | Vote Down | Vote Up
luchador1
Send Private Message Add Comment To Profile

Edited: 22-Jun-05
Member Since: 01/01/2001
Posts: 934
I saw an interesting report on the news about Sarte. Apprently he isn't thought too well of in France. They said that American & British students and academics think way more of him than do the French.
6/22/05 4:03 PM
Ignore | Quote | Vote Down | Vote Up
Subadie
Send Private Message Add Comment To Profile

Edited: 22-Jun-05
Member Since: 10/09/2004
Posts: 134
I heard an American Professor speak of this very topic, of how all of the French post-structuralists (Derrida, etc etc) will go to great lengths to say how wrong Sartre was and how their thoughts were so different than his. The professor's comment was - if he is so worthless, why is every modern philosopher over there spending so much time saying how worthless he is.
6/23/05 4:58 PM
Ignore | Quote | Vote Down | Vote Up
sanguine cynic
Send Private Message Add Comment To Profile

Edited: 23-Jun-05
Member Since: 06/13/2004
Posts: 561
luchador that is true, the structuralists really put a hurting to Sartre's thinking.
6/24/05 5:28 AM
Ignore | Quote | Vote Down | Vote Up
Gorgeous
Send Private Message Add Comment To Profile

Edited: 24-Jun-05 05:41 AM
Member Since: 06/14/2002
Posts: 6737
It's Husserls fault. All of that convoluted sentence structure that translators feels compulsed to retain.
6/25/05 8:36 AM
Ignore | Quote | Vote Down | Vote Up
Gorgeous
Send Private Message Add Comment To Profile

Edited: 25-Jun-05
Member Since: 06/14/2002
Posts: 6777
Calbert has a point about boring with Being and time 2. For example, Heideggar posits that one needs to become aware of the possiblity of Non Being in order to choose an authentic path for one's self rather then being formed after the other. NOT. There are many events in a person's life that could trigger self-relisation. etc etc
7/27/05 5:07 AM
Ignore | Quote | Vote Down | Vote Up
asymmetrik
Send Private Message Add Comment To Profile

Edited: 27-Jul-05
Member Since: 01/01/2001
Posts: 395
why all the Being and Time hate?... Heidegger moves from a phenomenological hermeneutic of human being toward a fundamental ontology of Being. In looking at beings he uncovers the core of human being in its basic structure of care and the unity of being-in-the-world. "In being-in-the-world, whose essential structures center in disclosedness, we have found the basic state of the entity we have taken as our theme. The totality of being-in-the-world as a structural whole has revealed itself as care" on the basis of the concern about its own being-in-the-world, human being is then able to be concerned and take care of other beings. of course there's much more to it... Gorgeous: it's not just a matter of a moment of "a" self realization, but rather the realization that allows a being to be authentic in the face of feeling anxiety from its thrownness. the recognition of the death's inevitability gives us a certainty that nothing else can give us. when a being begins to live in recognition of its death it can live authentically in anticipation of and in the face of death. "Anxiety in the face of death must not be confused with fear in the face of one's demise. This anxiety is not an accidental or random mood of weakness in some individual; but, as a basic state-of-mind of Dasein, it amounts to the disclosedness of the fact that Dasein exists as thrown Being towards its end." Being and Time = incredible.
7/27/05 8:54 PM
Ignore | Quote | Vote Down | Vote Up
sanguine cynic
Send Private Message Add Comment To Profile

Edited: 27-Jul-05
Member Since: 06/13/2004
Posts: 660
asymmetrix, Then how do you live your life differently after reading being and time
7/28/05 12:05 AM
Ignore | Quote | Vote Down | Vote Up
asymmetrik
Send Private Message Add Comment To Profile

Edited: 28-Jul-05 11:46 AM
Member Since: 01/01/2001
Posts: 398
there is (es gibt) difference. over ten years have passed since then. if you want to be more specific, i'll try to oblige.
7/28/05 6:05 AM
Ignore | Quote | Vote Down | Vote Up
Dogbert
Send Private Message Add Comment To Profile

Edited: 28-Jul-05
Member Since: 01/01/2001
Posts: 14865
"Heidegger's unwillingness/inability to criticize the German actions during the war (even during his old age-long after the war) - implies some kind of mental gymanstics that may have had some effect on his ability to think or express himself clearly." Wow, what an understatement. Heidegger was a highranking Nazi and has never distanced himself from Nazism.
7/28/05 11:46 AM
Ignore | Quote | Vote Down | Vote Up
asymmetrik
Send Private Message Add Comment To Profile

Edited: 28-Jul-05
Member Since: 01/01/2001
Posts: 401
"Being and Time" was published in 1927. "Dedicated to Edmund Husserl in friendship and admiration. [Todtnauberg in Baden, Black Forest 8 April 1926]" Husserl of course was jewish. Heidegger didn't become a member of the national socialist party until 1933, when he was appointed as rector of the University of Freiburg (which he only held for one year before resigning). Whether there was no alternative for him at that time (to be able to remain within the university, which was under nazi administration) or not, [in my opinion] his association with naziism is inexcuseable. However, the work ("Being and Time") is _not_ the man.
7/28/05 12:37 PM
Ignore | Quote | Vote Down | Vote Up
Dogbert
Send Private Message Add Comment To Profile

Edited: 28-Jul-05
Member Since: 01/01/2001
Posts: 14866
Well, he removed the dedication in 1941. Here is a nice overview of Heidegger's nazism. It is also incomplete. Heidegger actually wrote a book about philosophical underpinnings of Nazism, which has never been published. A friend of mine, a doctorate student in philosophy read it once. In Heidegger and the Nazis, a readable book by Jeff Collins one can read that Heideggers influence was far beyond Freiburg, Heidegger was a major player in the "education policies" of the Nazis. "However, the work ("Being and Time") is _not_ the man." True dat.
7/28/05 6:09 PM
Ignore | Quote | Vote Down | Vote Up
asymmetrik
Send Private Message Add Comment To Profile

Edited: 28-Jul-05
Member Since: 01/01/2001
Posts: 402
Good article. It truly is terrible, his involvement. A really great interview with Levinas on Heidegger is in his "Ethics and Infinity" (Duquesne Univ Press, 1982). Here's some snippits: "[Sein und Zeit] is one of the finest books in the history of philosophy— I say this after years of reflection." "My admiration for Heidegger is above all an admiration for Sein und Zeit. I always try to relive the ambiance of those readings when 1933 was still unthinkable." "Sein und Zeit has remained the very model of ontology. The Heideggerian notions of finitude, being-there, being-toward-death, etc., remain fundamental. Even if one frees oneself from the systematic rigors of this thought, one remains marked by the very style of Sein und Zeit's analyses, by the "cardinal points" to which the "existential analytic" refers. I know that the homage I render to Sein und Zeit seems pale to the enthuiastic disciples of the great philosopher. But I think the later work of Heidegger, which does not produce in me a comparable impression, remains valuable through Sein und Zeit. Not, you well know, that it is insignificant; but it is much less convincing. I do not say this owing to Heidegger's political engagements, taken several years after Sein und Zeit, even thought I have never forgotten those engagements, and though Heidegger has never been exculpated in my eyes from his participation in National-Socialism." This coming from a man who went to Freiburg to study with Husserl, met Heidegger, encountered "Being and Time," was later put into a Nazi pow camp and whose family was murdered by the Nazis. If he can was able to disassociate the man from the work, then I think anyone should be able to as well.
7/29/05 6:31 PM
Ignore | Quote | Vote Down | Vote Up
sanguine cynic
Send Private Message Add Comment To Profile

Edited: 29-Jul-05
Member Since: 06/13/2004
Posts: 661
"there is (es gibt) difference." I don't know what that means. Anyway, Heidegger is an existentialist and gives pointers or tries to help man understand life. What are some things you do or understand about your life from reading Heidegger that have enabled you to be happier/live yoru life better?
7/31/05 10:29 AM
Ignore | Quote | Vote Down | Vote Up
asymmetrik
Send Private Message Add Comment To Profile

Edited: 31-Jul-05
Member Since: 01/01/2001
Posts: 403
Heidegger didn't like the classification of his thinking as existentialism, but that's beside the point. Having read Heidegger's writings without the intention of seeking function, I can say simply that reading the writings has given me an understanding of Heidegger's writings. Basically, I didn't read [the] texts for answers or to establish life- changing points-of-view. However, I'm sure others have and have written endlessly on the matter. "You can be fascinated even by a tree frog if you watch it long enough." -Eco
10/4/05 9:49 PM
Ignore | Quote | Vote Down | Vote Up
Furey
Send Private Message Add Comment To Profile

Edited: 04-Oct-05
Member Since: 12/13/2002
Posts: 2918
u dun underztand hydegger bcuz u r a phuKing n00b!!!!1one!!!!!!!!.
10/5/05 5:06 PM
Ignore | Quote | Vote Down | Vote Up
Subadie
Send Private Message Add Comment To Profile

Edited: 05-Oct-05 05:07 PM
Member Since: 10/09/2004
Posts: 241
"luchador that is true, the structuralists really put a hurting to Sartre's thinking." Sartre's the man ! He will still be taught and respected long after all of your structuralists and post-structuralists are forgotten. Who are they again ?
10/6/05 2:09 PM
Ignore | Quote | Vote Down | Vote Up
sanguine cynic
Send Private Message Add Comment To Profile

Edited: 06-Oct-05
Member Since: 06/13/2004
Posts: 786
Foucault, Levi Strauss, Lacan
10/6/05 5:37 PM
Ignore | Quote | Vote Down | Vote Up
asymmetrik
Send Private Message Add Comment To Profile

Edited: 06-Oct-05
Member Since: 01/01/2001
Posts: 466
Derrida, Deluze, Guattari, Barthes, Kristeva...
10/7/05 11:23 AM
Ignore | Quote | Vote Down | Vote Up
Subadie
Send Private Message Add Comment To Profile

Edited: 07-Oct-05
Member Since: 10/09/2004
Posts: 242
uh, the question was rhetorical...
10/9/05 6:15 PM
Ignore | Quote | Vote Down | Vote Up
sanguine cynic
Send Private Message Add Comment To Profile

Edited: 09-Oct-05
Member Since: 06/13/2004
Posts: 788
Subadie, Right. But it doesn't make sense for it to be rhetorical because those guys are very very famous.

Reply Post

You must log in to post a reply. Click here to login.