Being and Time
— Beebert
It's easy to define Heidegger in terms of other philosophers, but harder to define N or K in terms of others.

Firstly, that has no bearing on the quality of their works. The fact Heidegger was able to integrate the works of such brilliant varied philosophers as Kant, Hegel, Husserl, Nietzsche, Eckhart, and even Kierkegaard into his work is an accomplishment in itself the other two didn't approach.

Secondly, Nietzsche wasn't a professional philosophy scholar; he was a Classical Studies master, and Kierkegaard was a Lutheran minister well-studied in Hegel, so their projects were much different than the Philosophy/Medieval Theology scholar, Heidegger.

It is a work impossible to really understand, and it stinks imitation and careerism about it

No, it's impossible for you to understand, as millions have understood, valued, and taught it. Thanks for proving you never read it; your post stinks of ignorance and hubris.

No, it's not impossible to understand, but if you haven't understood it, then effectively you haven't read it, and thus have no justification for your judgements of it.

Heidegger seems to possess all of Nietzsche’s conceit but none of his wit or talent for self-criticism. Heidegger himself seems to be filled with pride everytime he has found a complicated and forbidding formula and then treats it as if it had been delivered by an oracle.

↪Thanatos Sand Heidegger seems to possess all of Nietzsche’s conceit but none of his wit or talent for self-criticism.

Another unfounded statement that shows you never read it. And you said it was impossible to understand (meaning you couldn't understand it), so you can't say anything about what it says.

Heidegger himself seems to be filled with pride everytime he has found a complicated and forbidding formula and then treats it as if it had been delivered by an oracle.

The only one filled with pride is you as you are attacking a great work because it was too hard for you and you couldn't read it. So, we're done. I won't read anymore of your unfounded nonsense.

Kierkegaard was a Lutheran minister — Thanatos Sand

No, he earned his degree in Theology, but was never ordained.

Thanks for the info.

I have never even read Heidegger, I am just certain that he was a little wannabe and prick

I'm not sure how to resolve the contradiction. Perhaps something akin to Wittgenstein's throwing away the ladder once one has climbed it? Or maybe rejecting his metaphysics altogether as just one more historically-conditioned manifestation of Being (Heidegger's position) which will ultimately give way to something else? — Erik

Or we could accept that he was wrong. Just a suggestion.

But of course truth is what is still there despite what you say about it. A post-truth world must fail. — Banno

We tend to talk about Big Truths at the expense of little ones. It's the little ones that come back to bite.

Truth is still there after the lie. There were a certain number of people at the meeting; as there were at the inauguration. Saying otherwise, and even believing otherwise, does not change that. Buggering the health system will result in more misery. Push the oppositional defiant North Korean government and they will push back.

Truth is still there after the lie. — Banno

The snake oil salesman is pushing a certain narrative. The Stoic says that snake oil can only succeed in the short term. Nature will eventually wreck that narrative, and so be weak-eyed unto things of little value. Trust nature.

This hasn't come close to happening, as millions of Americans are rejecting and protesting against Trump, and he has some of the lowest opinion ratings of any president in history. — Thanatos Sand

Yes, but what you call "protest", I think of as 'faux-protest'. How much do you think the peolple who protest would really be willing to put on the line to get rid of Trump? Would they give their lives? Their wealth and status? Their comfort? Their lifestyles?

Is it the sort of thing that could even be wrong...or right?

Why should the opinion of one who is certain of something without any evidence be taken seriously?

Yes, but what you call "protest", I think of as 'faux-protest'. How much do you think the peolple who protest would really be willing to put on the line to get rid of Trump?]

You can mistakenly call it what you like. But they're still protesting and clearly aren't buying into his lies, so whether they're willing to put it on the line--as few protesters do--is irrelevant to their not buying into his lies. So, my point still stands.

Would they give their lives? Their wealth and status? Their comfort? Their lifestyles?

Again, not only are these questions pointless since few protestors of anything are willing to give those things up, but we're not discussing the extent of their commitment. We were discussing whether they bought into Trump's lies or not. They clearly don't.

Yes, but the point is that what constitutes protest exists on a spectrum from genuine full-blooded commitment (to the truth,say) and attenuated commitment that is so watered-down that it could hardly be said to be commitment at all. For me, that is just what the idea of 'post-truth' captures.

Also I am not convinced that the people who "protest" against Trump are objecting so much to his lies, as they are to the whole idea of a man such as himself, perceived to be lacking in any moral integrity at all, being in such an important position. His lies are tossed off with such careless abandon and scornful indifference, it seems, that people are unlikely to even take them seriously.

Yes, but the point is that what constitutes protest exists on a spectrum from genuine full-blooded commitment (to the truth,say) and attenuated commitment that is so watered-down that it could hardly be said to be commitment at all. For me, that is just what the idea of 'post-truth' captures.

Sorry, you're still wrong as even most of the protests in the 60's didn't involve people willing to give up their lives. So, protest today is not a watered down-version. And you're even more wrong since if it were, that would be an issue of "Post-effort," not "post-truth," since none of the protesters are believing Trump's lies.

Also I am not convinced that the people who "protest" against Trump are objecting so much to his lies, as they are to the whole idea of a man such as himself, perceived to be lacking in any moral integrity at all, being in such an important position.

What you're convinced of is irrelevant since the protestors clearly arent' buying his lies, so their protests flies in the face of a notion of a "Post-Truth" world, showing that concept is ridiculous.

People were certainly injured in protests in the sixties. And protestors, for example asylum seekers and people living under oppressive regimes, early Protestants and early Christians among countless others who have stood for ethical, religious and ideological faiths, for what they understood to be 'the truth', have been prepared to die for their causes.

Such causes always consist in "speaking truth to power". Today comfort has become more important than truth. That's what the notion of post-truth represents, for me at least. Sure, this is an interpretation that you might not find congenial to your mindset, but it's pointless arguing about it, since there is no objective fact in this matter that could be used to demonstrate the truth of one interpretation or the other. It's basic hermeneutics.

People were certainly injured in protests in the sixties]

Some were. Most weren't. Some protestors are willing to die now. And back then there was a war and Jim crow laws to fight against. So, no, people aren't bowing because of Trump. And again, this is irrelevant since we're talking about whether they believe his lies, not whether they're willing to die in a protest against him. You're very slow in grasping that, or you know you're wrong so you keep pushing the same irrelevant issue.

And protestors, for example asylum seekers and people living under oppressive regimes, early Protestants and early Christians among countless others who have stood for religious and ideological faiths, for what they understood to be 'the truth', have been prepared to die for their causes.

And none of this was any different under Obama then it is now. So, you're again bringing up irrelevant issues that don't show we're in a "Post-Truth" world at all.

Such causes always consist in "speaking truth to power". Today comfort has become more important than truth.

That's your completely biased and unsupported view that just further undermines your erroneous position. Comfort was more important than Truth to most Americans before Trump, as well. And DAPL and BLM protestors are still speaking truth to power with Trump in office. A lot of Americans lay down to Obama when he unconstitutionally monitored our phones, too. Americans just bent over and took it. They also bent over and took it when Obama refused to prosecute the Banks after O8. So, you're wrong about people speaking truth to power before Trump and you're wrong about a "Post-truth" world.

Sure, this is an interpretation that you might not find congenial to your mindset, but it's pointless arguing about it, since there is no objective fact in this matter that could be used to demonstrate the truth of one interpretation or the other.

No, it's a matter of your incorrect interpretation only being congenial to your mindset with no evidence to support it. You know you have a bad argument about "Post-Truth" so you try to support it with such a fallacious interpretation.

since there is no objective fact in this matter that could be used to demonstrate the truth of one interpretation or the other. It's basic hermeneutics.

No, there's always objective facts involved--it's not just hermeneutics--and Trump and the protestors to which you referred to are some of them. Just because objective facts show you to be wrong doesnt' mean you can erroneously try to wave away their existence.

Comfort was more important than Truth to most Americans before Trump, — Thanatos Sand

I haven't denied that and have nowhere claimed that Trump either brought about the post-truth condition, that it was synchronous with his becoming president or that it has even reached its culmination. People just seem to me to have become more and more concerned with comfort and less and less with the truth of political ideals. As I said, this is an interpretation and cannot be rigorously demonstrated to be either right or wrong. If you think it can be demonstrated to be wrong then lay out your demonstration.

Really, your approach to discussion is appalling! Why do you suddenly feel the need to resort to bolding and an aggressive and insulting attitude? Perhaps you need to see an anger management therapist? :-}

"Truths are simply lies that people believe in" — Agustino

Ignoring the explicit contradiction, it's import is that there are no truths, only beliefs. This could be believed with a sort of internal consistency, so long as one does not expose one's beliefs to reality.

I haven't denied that and have nowhere claimed that Trump either brought about the post-truth condition, that it was synchronous with his becoming president or that it has even reached its culmination. People just seem to me to have become more and more concerned with comfort and less and less with the truth of political ideals. As I said, this is an interpretation and cannot be rigorously demonstrated to be either right or wrong. If you think it can be demonstrated to be wrong then lay out your demonstration.

Of course it can be demonstrated to be wrong and I've already done so in my previous posts. Go re-read them if you wish. You certainly haven't countered them yet.. And you haven't come close to demonstrating it's right. Sorry.

Really, your approach to discussion is appalling! Why do you suddenly feel the need to resort to bolding and an aggressive and insulting attitude? Perhaps you need to see an anger management therapist? :-}

Sorry, all that anger is all yours, as well as the need for an anger management therapist, and you just proved it there with your angry personal attack. I, on the other hand, haven't made one yet. And that also shows the only bolding, aggressive and insulting attitude is yours...:)

And seeing how I made all my arguments without resorting to angry attacks, and you failed to make yours and made angry attacks, the appalling approach to discussion is also yours.

Cheers. I won't be reading any more of your hostile, irrational posts.

Yes, although I do think there is a "true for you" and a "true for me", each one just consists in what you or I, respectively, believe to be true. What is actually true might be something else altogether.

Oh man, talk about outrageous projection!

Cheers. I won't be reading any more of your hostile, irrational posts. — Thanatos Sand

Count up how many different posters you have given this response to; it might just reveal a tendency. :s

A truism - "I like vanilla" may be true for me but not for you; or a falsehood - that this post is written in English is true for both of us.

Sometimes when you and I disagree, one of us is wrong.

Yes, another example might be that I think it is true that Francis Bacon wrote Shakespeare's works (I don't actually think that) and you might think it false. One of us must be right, and yet we don't have any way of proving which one of us is right. I do believe there can be truth in that sense, independent of what anyone thinks.

But "Hamlet" was either written by Bacon, or it was not. Such truths are independent of belief. One of us must be right.

Right, I agree; and that's pretty much what I had said.

Hey Banno!

I think that what you're getting at here, given the context of 'post-truth', be best put a bit differently. Sharpened up a bit, as it were. I'm sure you'll agree with the following on it's own terms, although you may not prefer the framework...

The truth conditions of neither lie, nor statement includes the speaker's belief.