Yeah, well, boredom made me do it ...↪180 Proof I wasn't going to write anything in this thread, since the less oxygen given Heidegger, the better; but tha[nk] you for your summation as to why. — Banno
Read S. His latin is crystal clear as are the excellent english translations by Stuart Hampshire & Edwin Curley. (Also, S is the ontologist par excellence.) H's german, on the other hand, is as clear as mud, which many scholars have also attested to, such that even very fine translators like Joan Stambaugh could not render H's meandering mumblings into serviceably lucid english.I'm not sure why you include Spinoza, however. Surely not the clearest writer either. — Xtrix
And so H uncharitably interprets N in his own 'onto-If you mean the opposite of what Nietzsche thought, then all I can say is that Heidegger discusses "being" a lot where Nietzsche thought it was a "vapor" and "mistake" -- but that's Heidegger's entire philosophy ...
Apparently I have not "shown" anything to you since clearly you've not studied H's works enough (or any of the philosophers I've cited in my previous post) to recognize the pearls I've cast before you. :roll:But you haven't really shown you've read his works -- have you?
You've already answered your own question, Xtrix:Where does [Heidegger] go wrong?
Heidegger discusses "being" a lot where Nietzsche thought it was a "vapor" and "mistake" ...
As for Nietzsche's ideas about values, [Heidegger] doesn't have much to say about that.
[Heidegger] ignores social and politicalissues[implications] ... That's just not his concern.
As for obscurantism -- yes, a common charge, and one he anticipates ... the same charge has been made against Kant and Hegel as well, not completely unfairly.
... the neologisms and awkwardness of translating a complex analysis of "being" from idiomatic German ...
It's more a question of where the soil seems most fertile. — Banno
I'm not sure why you include Spinoza, however. Surely not the clearest writer either.
— Xtrix
Read S. His latin is crystal clear as are the excellent english translations by Stuart Hampshire & Edwin Curley. (Also, S is the ontologist par excellence.) — 180 Proof
H's german, on the other hand, is as clear as mud, which many scholars have also attested to, such that even very fine translators like Joan Stambaugh could not render H's meandering mumblings into serviceably lucid english. — 180 Proof
And so H uncharitably interprets N in his own 'onto-theological' terms rather than in N's philological-genealogical & psychological-axiological terms — 180 Proof
But you haven't really shown you've read his works -- have you?
Apparently I have not "shown" anything to you since clearly you've not studied H's works enough (or any of the philosophers I've cited in my previous post) to recognize the pearls I've cast before you. :roll: — 180 Proof
Where does [Heidegger] go wrong?
You've already answered your own question, Xtrix:
Heidegger discusses "being" a lot where Nietzsche thought it was a "vapor" and "mistake" ...
As for Nietzsche's ideas about values, [Heidegger] doesn't have much to say about that.
[Heidegger] ignores social and political issues [implications] ... That's just not his concern.
As for obscurantism -- yes, a common charge, and one he anticipates ... the same charge has been made against Kant and Hegel as well, not completely unfairly.
... the neologisms and awkwardness of translating a complex analysis of "being" from idiomatic German ... — 180 Proof
Making itself intelligible is suicide for philosophy. — Heidegger
I’m interested in definitions of Besorgen and Sorge and the use of “care” and “concern”. These seems to me, in spirit, more like engagement. Any thoughts? — Brett
Perhaps we focus too much on the authors and not enough on the intensity of reading. I'm used to people hating on Nietzsche, because Nietzsche can be outright obnoxious. But if one stays with Nietzsche and grows up while reading Nietzsche...one uses Nietzsche to criticize Nietzsche. — path
To me this passage just destroys our mentalistic assumptions. We don't have some isolated subject gazing on Platonic meanings. The inside is outside. — path
Lots of famous people being influenced and interested is of course no proof that Heidegger or whoever is great, but it might give one pause. — path
'That fad didn't suck me in. I'm too shrewd.' I don't know if we are ever done deciding if we are lying to ourselves in either direction. — path
Better to reserve judgment or acknowledge your superficial engagement, rather than feign expertise. — Xtrix
I love this. Exactly right. I know it gives me pause. In the same way that a good friend who knows your taste makes a recommendation for a place to travel or a book to read or a movie to see -- something I may have otherwise considered garbage, and therefore ignored, now I'm much more likely to want to take a look at. — Xtrix
I think there's personal reasons involved perhaps, but also the question should be asked: What is most useful not only to me now (and to the current world), but the future world? — Xtrix
This happens far more often on this forum than I would have expected, even for "amateur" philosophy people. It's just ego I suppose. — Xtrix
Again so there's no huge mystery: I think the key to the future isn't space travel and artificial intelligence as far as technology goes, but eugenics (not in the Nazi sense!), and in terms of spirituality (in the philosophical-artistic sense) in the most general sense. — Xtrix
I agree that tech won't save us. If something can save us, I (also) think it will be spiritual in the philosophical-artistic sense, which will manifest politically. — path
From my reading I don't see him saying there is no "inside" or "outside," but that indeed there is an "inner" and that "inner concepts" can't be really linked to objects. But I don't know the full context of Wittgenstein to be confident in that reading. — Xtrix
The eugenics theme is fascinating. Elaborate if you feel like it. — path
Philosophy and politics in some ways seem like polar opposites, but are connected in very clear ways. — Xtrix
They have belief systems. Thought systems, perspectives, in which they interpret the world and set their agenda. Much is tied up with values, and the values with "religions," but I'd argue they are really philosophical at bottom (even the Christian "ontology" in the sense of a worldview). — Xtrix
But oddly enough, this is something Heidegger worried about. With the advancements in genetics, the only thing that stands in our way (truly) are ethical (philosophical) concerns. Eventually the taboo will be lifted, and we can in a sense "engineer" human beings. I think that's probably the next stage of our evolution. — Xtrix
Eventually the taboo will be lifted, and we can in a sense "engineer" human beings. I think that's probably the next stage of our evolution. — Xtrix
:yikes: :rofl:Perhaps one begins to see why the predilection for Heidegger. — Banno
Thanks for this - so I didn't have to.Making itself intelligible is suicide for philosophy.
— Heidegger — path
Given that S was an excommunicated Jew, the first openly secular philosopher in Christendom in the last half or so millennium and the father of biblical (Tanakh & Xtian NT) criticism, he certainly wasn't "struggling with Christianity" (Judaism, Islam or any 'religious faith').As for ontologist par excellence -- one of the greatest, no doubt. But the fact that he's still very much (like Pascal) struggling with Christianity makes me less likely to delve in further. — Xtrix
If you're literate in deutsch, then that earlier 1962 translation more than suffices. It's the version I first read in the early 1980s since it was the only one available until 1996 (which I read a decade later). And since Stambaugh's is based on H's 1976 revisions of SuZ instead of the 1927 manuscript on which Macquarrie's & Robinson's translation was based, I'll stand by Stambaugh's as more authoritative (pace Dreyfus et al).I've also heard from Dreyfus, and others, that the John Macquarrie and Edward Robinson version is still the best we have (although quite a few adjustments need to be made there as well -- for example of their translation of "woraufhin").
Be-en there, Do-ne that. :yawn:So perhaps that's worth a try, if attempting to take a serious look at it.
If you say so. Clearly, neither of us is convinced of the other's bona fides. For me, sir, H is not worth my time to delve any deeper than I have - e.g citing chapter & verse - in order to more thoroughly critique his work (or the relevance to ANY existential project, as I've said, of the question of a "meaning of being" (vide Adorno, Levinas, Arendt et al)).But I have studied Heidegger, carefully, at length, and in detail. I think I've demonstrated that as well, numerous times on this thread and in this forum.
A philosophy which is either of no consequence to or concerned even tangentally with its own implications for "politics, ethics, social issues, etc" is not worth bothering with - EXCEPT that H's has blitzkrieged universities throughout the West since the end of the Second World War, and in order to make sense of all the p0m0 backwash in his wake, H has to be studied. If one is serious, one doesn't choose philosophers a la cart or from a buffet table; serious study includes running down significant sources wherever and whomever they are. If you are serious, Xtrix, then you know that, and that your question is disingenuous.... "the meaning of being." If that's not what you're interested in, and prefer learning or thinking about politics, ethics, social issues, etc., then why bother with Heidegger at all?
Maybe; I don't think so. We'll have to agree to disagree on this point.That's much less a criticism of his thought than it is a reflection of your interests.
Get involved in philosophical discussions about knowledge, truth, language, consciousness, science, politics, religion, logic and mathematics, art, history, and lots more. No ads, no clutter, and very little agreement — just fascinating conversations.