Funny— I’ve offered to explain (and have done so) Heidegger several times. — Xtrix

That's not funny at all.

There’s no code to break. It’s not a mysterious thesis. — Xtrix

It must be me, then. Incapable of understanding him, I must await a revelation, as I've said. Perhaps Heidegger selects us. I may yet be his greatest apostle.

Talk about Heidegger being a Nazi is boring. Don’t like it? Fine— go do something else. — Xtrix

Yes, that someone is a Nazi means less to some of us than others, I know. De gustibus non est disputandum.

And I'm afraid I'm also different from you in that I view capitalism as a disease, and this was one of the points that your much beloved Nazi philosopher also propounded (although of course, he wasn't the first). — Janus

Could you point me to where he discusses capitalism? I'd be very interested to take a look.

There’s no code to break. It’s not a mysterious thesis.
— Xtrix

It must be me, then. — Ciceronianus

What is so mysterious, exactly? Once you understand his nuanced language, it's not quantum mechanics. He's saying that since the Greeks, entities have been interpreted in terms of the present (ousia), which is a particular human state (the "present at hand"). That's the thesis. Not particularly difficult, but with interesting implications.

Yes, that someone is a Nazi means less to some of us than others, I know. De gustibus non est disputandum. — Ciceronianus

Maybe it is a matter of taste. Ditto with any thinker or artist in history. Not all a bunch of great guys (or gals). But if Michael Jackson isn't your cup of tea because of what he did, for example, don't listen to his music. Simple.

I dig the Groucho picture, btw. Beat me to it.

Could you point me to where he discusses capitalism? I'd be very interested to take a look — Xtrix

I tried looking into it. The best I could find was his critique of technology and American ‘gigantism’. He was certainly no fan of Marx, though. One would assume he would critique Enlightenment and modernist philosophical groundings of capitalism.

My guess is post-marxist postmodernist political positions like those of Foucault, Derrida, Rorty and Deleuze may have some overlap with Heidegger.

His discussion of capitalism is not explicit, but implicit in his critique of technology and the understanding of nature as a "standing reserve", as I interpret it.

I agree, my astute friend. I agree. And I hope Epicurus, and the the dicoveries of that tradition do find a way to come in and lead us. I fear that such is our only hope as a society moving forward. Great chat, bud. Think about that Dirigisme thing for me, if you would. It's important, if you follow the trail. — Garrett Travers

It seems we are pretty much in agreement, Garrett, on the most pressing issues at least. I haven't heard of the "Dirigisme thing" before, but I'll certainly look into it, suffering from chronic curiosity syndrome as I do.

He's saying that since the Greeks, entities have been interpreted in terms of the present (ousia), which is a particular human state (the "present at hand"). That's the thesis. Not particularly difficult, but with interesting implications. — Xtrix

Seems obvious enough. So much for Heidegger, then.

Seems obvious enough. So much for Heidegger, then. — Ciceronianus

Hehahah. Gotta love that NAzi profundity.

Okay— I draw similar conclusions. I thought perhaps there were texts I overlooked.

Seems obvious enough. So much for Heidegger, then. — Ciceronianus

Well that’s obviously a very broad summary, but I did so to show that it’s not that mysterious.

Well that’s obviously a very broad summary, but I did so to show that it’s not that mysterious. — Xtrix

Not that remarkable, either .

He's saying that since the Greeks, entities have been interpreted in terms of the present (ousia), which is a particular human state (the "present at hand"). That's the thesis. — Xtrix

:shade: Big whup.

Seems obvious enough. So much for Heidegger, then. — Ciceronianus

:up:

Hehahah. Gotta love that NAzi profundity. — Garrett Travers

:smirk:

Not that remarkable, either — Ciceronianus

It all depends on whether and to what degree you have an interest in phenomenology, psychotherapy and philosophy of science, postmodern philosophy , embodied and enactive cognitive approaches to the study of feeling, mood and emotion and their relation to psychopathology and mood disorders. If these disciplines don’t thrill you, then yes, his work is unremarkable. But if they do interest you, then his writing is essential.

Not that remarkable, either . — Ciceronianus

:shade: Big whup. — 180 Proof

Yes, we all know that neither of you are serious about this matter, and come here simply to register your uninformed “thumbs down,” but what I was responding to was the claim that he’s incoherent, mysterious, etc.

So, given that you’re unwilling (or unable) to read, I wanted to show that it can be synopsized. If you now want to mock how simple that summary is, then I guess the jokes on me for engaging with trolls.

The summary is fine. I don't mock it.

Those who know that they are profound strive for clarity. Those who would like to seem profound to the crowd strive for obscurity. For the crowd believes that if it cannot see to the bottom of something it must be profound. — The Gay Science

Stop whining. Your synopsis is spot-on, it's just that H's "thesis" is unoriginal and uninteresting – Laozi, Buddha ... Schopenhauer, Bergson, Dewey et al say more or less the same thing far less obscurely. Xtrix, you're hypnotized by H's oracular sophistry and, because we're not, you trollishly call us "trolls". :sweat:

Those who know that they are profound strive for clarity. Those who would like to seem profound to the crowd strive for obscurity. For the crowd believes that if it cannot see to the bottom of something it must be profound.
— The Gay Science
↪Xtrix H's "thesis" is unoriginal and uninteresting – Laozi, Buddha ... Schopenhauer, Bergson, Dewey et al say more or less the same thing far less obscurely. — 180 Proof

I’m glad you quoted Nietzsche. Assimilating his critique of
Schopenhauer, and by implication Bergson and Dewey, brings one to the doorstep of Heidegger’s project.

Heidegger’s project. — Joshs

re: Bullshit and Time :sparkle:

Your synopsis is spot-on, it's just that H's "thesis" is unoriginal and uninteresting – Laozi, Buddha ... Schopenhauer, Bergson, Dewey et al say more or less the same thing — 180 Proof

“More or less”? That’s quite vague. So I suppose they’re uninteresting as well?

trix, you're hypnotized by H's oracular sophistry and, because we're not, you trollishly call us "trolls". :sweat: — 180 Proof

I’m not hypnotized by Heidegger any more than any other thinker I’ve learned something from.

And I don’t call you a troll because Heidegger isn’t your thing — I don’t care about that. I call you a troll because you contribute nothing except Twitter-like one liners.

“Heidegger is obfuscating. No one knows what the Hell he’s saying!”

I point out, as simply as possible, what he’s saying.

“Heidegger is so unoriginal and uninteresting.”

:yawn:

I’m glad you quoted Nietzsche. Assimilating his critique of
Schopenhauer, and by implication Bergson and Dewey, brings one to the doorstep of Heidegger’s project. — Joshs

Don’t feed the trolls. It’s the mistake I keep making.

Heidegger’s project.
— Joshs
re: Bullshit and Time :sparkle: — 180 Proof

You’ve been hanging around Joe Mello too long.

Looooow blow. :sweat:

IMO, "misunderstanding" Heidegger isn't possible because there really isn't anything to understand that hasn't already been said more clearly elsewhere.

:up:

IMO, "misunderstanding" Heidegger isn't possible because there really isn't anything to understand that hasn't already been said more clearly elsewhere. — _db

True, but he did Nazi it that way. YouknowwadImeen?

doorstep of Heidegger’s project. — Joshs

The one bearing the words "Arbeit Macht Frei"? Perhaps that was another doorstep, though, and the project of other Nazis.

Fol de rol!

The one bearing the words "Arbeit Macht Frei"? Perhaps that was another doorstep, though, and the project of other Nazis.

Fol de rol — Ciceronianus

Or as Xtrix would say, Fol de troll

:lol:

A small and relatively insignificant corner of his philosophy. If you find that part the most interesting, then by all means read that, and refrain from troubling yourself about the other 99% which remains incomprehensible to you, or perhaps inaccessible on account of your poisoned feelings.. — Janus

Heidegger was not a good person for several reasons, with his Nazism foremost among them. However, I have no desire to either prosecute or defend his absurd politics.

But I have long been interested in the nature of being. And anyone interested in the nature of being would be a fool to ignore Heidegger, particularly Being and Time.

And anyone interested in the nature of being would be a fool to ignore Heidegger, particularly Being and Time. — Arne

This is true only of someone who, IME, hasn't already studied e.g. Laozi-Zhuangzi, Epicurus-Lucretius, Spinoza, Schopenhauer, Wittgenstein, Karl Jaspers or P.W. Zapffe ... thinkers who have much more cogent things to say about "the nature of being" than Herr Rektor-Führer. :eyes:

Karl Jaspers or P.W. Zapffe ... thinkers who have much more cogent things to say about "the nature of being" than Herr Rektor-Führer. :eyes: — 180 Proof

Gadamer’s conversation with Ricardo Dottori:

D.: Hence the analytic of Dasein in Heidegger. Is this the same thing as the illumination of existence of which Jaspers speaks?

G.: Insofar as Jaspers even thought conceptually at all, one could an­swer this question very harshly. On the other hand, it is a very elegant expression — the illumination of existence — an expression that one understands immediately, but not one, in any case, that suggests a fundamental critique of the history of being in the West.

…these days, all of a sudden, I find Jaspers wrongly being
considered important. He wasn't really all that important.

D.: To what extent is he now considered important?

G.: One detects it everywhere. One notices it in every corner. When­ever we don't want to read Heidegger any more, we read Jaspers.”