Jesus supported the genocide of the old testament btw

You didn't live back then.

I know there has been books written about this, but can anyone now present a passage from Heidegger's *philosophy* that has anything to do with "Arianism"

I'm not fascinated by Nazis. I just recognize it was easy for Heidegger to fall for the Nazi ploy.

This is all very confusing. I just I started a tar puzzle. If rolling a dice has a probability of coming up with a 6 only 1 out of six times, each time I roll the dice the probability is the same. Yet there is no equivalence between each roll taken by itself and the sun total

I guess nothing is completely random. When we see things floating in space, they move randomnly. But they still make sense; they are not irrational in their movements

That's fine

My mistake. Two people born in Nigeria are more likely to be similar than a Nigerian and a Russian

The

People simply fetishisze the evil of Nazi leaders

Anthropologists will try to throw you off track on this by saying "there is more diversity within species than between". But this only says that there is much individuality within the species, not that two Nigerians likely are more related than a Nigerian and a Russian

Anthropologists say that race doesn't exist in spite of the fact that everyone know knows that a race is not a discrete unit. A lot of people don't like talk about race, and the word itself is becoming less and less acceptable

During the period from Darwin until WWII there was a lot of pseudo science about race going around. I don't think we should be judging Heidegger or Jung to strictly about what we know so many decades latter about the subject

There seems to me something infinite about randomness. Light exists in eternity says the physicist, and this is a type of infinity. Randomness seems to "break rules" to an infinite degree yet how we experience it in the real world indicates it follows certain rules

Race is similarities among people sharing a past history. You can call a single immediate family a race, their past ten generation, or any other combination you like. The fact that there are similarities is genes among groups of people is uncontestable. It's hard to discuss though because it seems to get into taboo territory and I honestly don't know enough about the science to discuss it much further. They say Asian people have the highest amount of Neanderthal genes (usually) and African people have none. But I am sure there are black people who do because race is not really a discrete thing. It's all a continuum, yet it is still certainly true that you are more similar to those in your side of the continuum then to people at other places in it

Reading that did make me feel noxious, especially since I have Jewish family, but there are Hindus who say you cannt be a true Hindu in heart unless you are indian. Racial identity goes from history straight into our psyches and archetypes (to use a word from another man suspicious of Jews: mr. Jung). Whether race is truly a biological thing or not does not change the history and psychology of it

Germany had a population of 85 million at the start of the war. The majority supported the Nazi party but compared to the number of 85 MILLION hardly any Germans murdered a Jewish person. There were a select few in charged of the whole thing and Hitler was a schizophrenic trying to modulate his mental illness with meth, coke, heroin, and literally 70 other dubious substances. When the news of the concentration camps was dropped on Heidegger and the rest of Germany, most of them got a "I just cant talk about this" syndrome. Can anyone here prove that a single life was lost that is directly linked to Heidegger? The German clergy before the war said it was best to consider Jewish people as "guests" in the German nation. There were murderous thugs early on, but that was not your typical Nazi party member before war exploded. Hitler was a psychopath with incredible charismatic skills. Who really knows what was going on in that head the whole time. There was certainly some seriously evil malice behind the Holocaust, but this obsession with trying to figure out who was to blame where and when is just not healthy and distracts us from the seeing others evils in proportion

According to the Wikipedia article Heidegger struggled over the new law expelling Jewish teachers. Here in America we have conspiracy theorists everywhere, and in the 20's and 30's the conspiracy theory was that many Jews had a coordinated plan to make Germany modern and communist. Yes, the conspiracy theory was an exaggeration. But what many meant in that day by "the Jew" was what the national conspiracy thought was an attempt to change their culture, values, and entire political system. Nobody saw how far it would go once the war started, and not all members are the Nazi party thought all Jewish people were subhuman. There is many examples of certain Jews being called "noble Jews" by Nazi members, to distinguish them from who they thought were political enemies. Lastly, the majority of Germans didn't even know about the concentration camps until after the war

Prove that the term "the Jews" meant all racially Jewish people for Heidegger. If Trump says the Chinese started the virus, does this mean every mom and pop store owner in Beijing is responsible for the pandemic?

I didn't say violence is right. Nobody can prove within reason that a fetus is not a person. In all reasonableness, emotion aside, it could be a person. But half the world has violent emotions towards it and many follow this to its end. Just add to this the violence done to those who have been born and you can see its a horribly violent world. There was nothing unusual about Hitler. He was just another Stalin, Napolean, Atilla, Caesar, ect. It's a terribly violent world, a very violent day this day. People need to get over their Nazi fetishes

When someone feels their nation is threatened, they will kill. The English starved the Indians in WWII, Americans destroyed two cities in place of their soldiers lives, Russia and China had concentration camps. It's not just Germans who do this

Probably all nations are heinous, morally repugnant, and savage. Most people are. To be intolerant only of intolerance is the new doctrine, but there is nobody who is tolerant and unbiased. Did not Nietzsche say all this already?

If Heidegger wasn't for killing anyone I could care less what he said and thought

In theory all men are equal. In practice that principle can never be perfectly established. The Nazis saw the Jews as promoters of communism and modern art and in fact many were. I judge the Nazis for their crimes against humanity (genocide, abortion, sterilization) but finding one's national Volk or whatever is something all nations do. Cite the worst text from Heidegger on the subject and I think under scrutiny it can be shown he's position was no so unusual.

People exaggerate German self promotion in relation to other peoples because of non-German fascination with Nazis. Most countries, tribes, and civilizations thought themselves superior to their enemies. This holds for Huns, Zulu, Arabs, and Jews. There have been more books written on Hitler than any other human because of the aesthetic fascination of it. What Nazis did many others did or would have done if they had the logistic capacities of the Nazis. The greatest killer in history was actually a Dutch king who ordered the slaughter and butchering of Africans over his lifetime. People won't get over WWII until they realize that there was nothing unusual about it. Heidegger was a very sheltered man, but since he never ordered the murder of any person whatsoever, I don't consider him a Nazi. He was simply swept up in a cultural revolution

Thanks everyone.

Logicism is the breaking down of mathematics into its simplest components. I don't know if this is possible with randomness, because since any outcome is as likely as another, we can't really say what the probability of rolling a 5 is, yet we know how it works in the real (i.e. practical) world

Randomness seems like a type of freedom while determinism is Newtonian. I appreciate that you saw no difference between between them in my first post. That was the purpose. If any thing can happen with randomness then it seems any result must be accepted. So my conclusion is that pure randomness cannot be understood by us (that is, randomness has parameters)

"Without contraries there no progression" sic William Blake

Yes. I think it was Hitler who reinspired theism (of some sort) in Heidegger's soul. This happened in the early 30's after some years of atheism

Hegel used the word in the title of his first major work in 1807. This is because he invented phenomenology. Kant was in the tradition of Berkeley and Locke. Fitche tried to break from this mold and make a new type of thinking possible, but he only made the prototype blueprints. Schelling invented a lot of ideas for Hegel (who wrote an early work on Fitche and Schelling, siding with Schelling) but his philosophy was Vendentic, simply mystical idealism. This is not what Hegel is because he defends realism AND idealism in a unified system, which is phenomenology. Hegel's works presents experiments of thought that move and pass into other in long sequences. You have to actually read large portions of these pages to really understand what he was talking about and why he was an innovator

Heidegger worked in the early 20's under Husserl, along with Edith Stein. Edith thought this philosophy led straight to God and apparently sided to Kierkegaard about the reason\faith divide. Heidegger left that group an atheist, having turned his scholastic training against the movement of the ever quibbling "schoolmen" (Protestant and Catholic) and forged into territory that has yet to be fully explored. His relationship with other cultures was typically German (of its time), yet the self-called "schoolmen" of traditional China had pondered questions that latter concerned him marvelway before he was born. The Japanese took the idea of "being and nothing" in many interesting directions too, more abstractly than the Chinese. What Heidegger added to the conversation among cultures was an emphasis on time, although Hegel ("Self-Consciousness" chapter of PoS and middle section of Philosophy of Nature) and Bergson had paved the way. Heidegger in fact did give to credit to his fellow German by ending B&T on Hegel, although I never remember him talking about Bergson

Well thanks, if I read more of him I'll check out that work

Here in California christians are up in arms, saying "the Bible is under attack". They think their religion trumps safety over the current virus and they go crazy if you tell them that Jesus is not God. I told one crowd to " recall Jesus" instead of the governor. Ye they don't like me sometimes

Take the confessional. If the priest is invalid, no sins are removed. Because all repentance is insufficient. But if the priest is valid, ah hoc there goes the sins. There is no way to justify the legality in Christianity. If we say its just above our thoughts, well so is the mysticism in all other religions. So why give preference to the Bible in our society?

Most of the saints in the Church were great sinners. They are said to be better than others because of the grace and merit Jesus gave them. Which is my main problem with Christianity: they think they are "Jesus"

What I thinked happened is that the Jewish court accused Jesus's mom of being a whore and his response was as a man, not a child or demigod. So they inferred then that he had lied when he said he was the perfect ,"son of God"

It's a dilemma because reason says its immoral to take someone else's merits yet spirituality seems to necessitate it in order to become new again. Even Jesus must have had some assertion with his penis in order to be "man" instead of "child" but how and should we reproduce if the whole of our being is mired in sin?

I think Augustine was such a big sinner that he had to posit the idea of taking on Jesus's merits in order to feel clean again. I think he went to hell, if there is such a place. I don't know enough about Kierkegaard to say more than I've already had. I appreciate his influence on Heidegger

I like to talk to all kinds of thinkers, but some schools of thought i dont like to read. What could eventually resolve Kierkegaard's anxiety if God is a fiction? He did not want to go to reason, it was a path too arduous with its anxiety for him. Hegel's dialectic comes to an end while continuing forever. I do not know what Kierkegaard's final conclusion was. He is too Augustinian for me

"Now, immediate actuality as such is quite generally not what it ought to be; on the contrary, it is a finite actuality, inwardly fractured, and it's destination is to be used up. But then the other side of actuality is its essentiality. Initially this is what is inward, which, being mere possibility, is similarly destined to be sublated. As sublated possibility of is the emergence of a new actuality, for which the first immediate actuality was the presupposition.. (A)ny such immediate actuality contains within it the germ of something else altogether.: Hegel, lesser Logic

Hegel united the Eleatic school with Heraclitus's dogmas, into a moving principle intimately united with material principle. What is transcendent is immanent in this. Some of Hegel's arguments can take days to read

Kierkegaard clearly was not a very abstract writer and was intimated by Hegel's logic. That's enough context for me