NationStates Jolt Archive

Seeing the Marx thread, I thought it might be interesting to discuss the ideas (albeit unrelated) of annother German philosopher.

Martin Heidegger was a German philosopher and lecturer during the early 1900s up untill World War II after which he was banned from teaching because of his Nazi sympathies. He is widely regarded as one of the best philosophers of the century if not ever for his work in the area of ontology (the study of being), and is credited with being the first truly "postmodern" philosopher.

Personally, I don't give much credibility to Heidegger. His idea of "post-humanism" is very underdeveloped. He never really specifies what the "being" he is refering to is supposed to be and is essentially so vague, he looses all hope of being understood. Also, I can't really respect his philosophy given his potential Nazi implications and the fact that he viewed Hitler as the true embodiment of being, whatever that means.

Thoughts?

Wasn't he the one who invented Germany's version of the "Killer Joke"?

He supported naziism and I heard his writing is so confusing that in places, it approaches stream of consciousness.

Seeing the Marx thread, I thought it might be interesting to discuss the ideas (albeit unrelated) of annother German philosopher.

Martin Heidegger was a German philosopher and lecturer during the early 1900s up untill World War II after which he was banned from teaching because of his Nazi sympathies. He is widely regarded as one of the best philosophers of the century if not ever for his work in the area of ontology (the study of being), and is credited with being the first truly "postmodern" philosopher.

Personally, I don't give much credibility to Heidegger. His idea of "post-humanism" is very underdeveloped. He never really specifies what the "being" he is refering to is supposed to be and is essentially so vague, he looses all hope of being understood. Also, I can't really respect his philosophy given his potential Nazi implications and the fact that he viewed Hitler as the true embodiment of being, whatever that means.

Thoughts?He was a boozy begger whou could think you under the table... :D

Wasn't he the one who invented Germany's version of the "Killer Joke"?
See this:
http://evans-experientialism.freewebspace.com/hitler'sdoggie.htm

and then this:
http://www.jumpstation.ca/recroom/comedy/python/joke.html

He was a boozy begger whou could think you under the table... :D
And David Hume could out consume Schopenhaur & Hegel...

He had an interesting take on death, that I got to present on for a class project. That was two years ago though, so I'll resist trying to recall it. ;)

I think his popularity was over-inflated through the 20th century. Over time, we'll consider his contributions as minor...
But he invented many concepts that were further (and better) developed by the next generation.

What do we need the most?
Uneven explorers who point to new paths, but stop short of exploring them?
Or happy followers, who will take the path and get through?
Maybe we need both.

Jean-Paul Sartre is probably more influential, and certainly more relevant to my own life.

And David Hume could out consume Schopenhaur & Hegel...

You beat me to it, (by quite a time, but it, well I was going to use Kant and Hegel, was what came to mind)

You beat me to it, (by quite a time, but it, well I was going to use Kant and Hegel, was what came to mind)

Sing it Bruces! (http://www.library.adelaide.edu.au/guide/hum/philosophy/philos_song.au)

Immanuel Kant was a real pissant
Who was very rarely stable.

Heidegger, Heidegger was a boozy beggar
Who could think you under the table.

David Hume could out-consume
Schopenhauer and Hegel

And Wittgenstein was a beery swine
Who was just as schloshed as Schlegel.

There's nothing Nietzche couldn't teach ya
'Bout the raising of the wrist.
Socrates, himself, was permanently pissed.

John Stuart Mill, of his own free will,
On half a pint of shandy was particularly ill.

Plato, they say, could stick it away--
Half a crate of whisky every day.

Aristotle, Aristotle was a bugger for the bottle.
Hobbes was fond of his dram,

And René Descartes was a drunken fart.
'I drink, therefore I am.'

Yes, Socrates, himself, is particularly missed,
A lovely little thinker,
But a bugger when he's pissed.

:D

Coming from a Levinasian perspective, I have a lot to say about Heidegger, but I can't do it now. Wait an hour.

This the promised post I mentioned in the one above this:

Emmanuel Levinas, now considered in Continental circles one of the most important moral theorists of the 20th century, was a college student when he first ran into Heidegger (and Husserl, but that's rather incidental to what we're talking about). Levinas became a devoted student of Heidegger - a substantial portion of his earliest published work was on Heidegger. Once Hitler rose to power, Heidegger wrote a paper using Plato's Republic to justify Nazi political philosophy, and generally became identified with the Nazi party. Levinas, as a devout Jew, was not happy about this development. He began to break with Heidegger, and wrote an enormous amount of work that was very critical of Heidegger, particularly after his experiences as a Holocaust survivor. Here are two of his most important:

1. Heidegger conception of being (Dasein) is a flawed and enormously dangerous one. Heidegger treats all of human existance as part of Dasein, and in his philosophy treats all individuals as a part of it, and thus subordinates their individual identities to it, essentially turning the radically Other into the same. There's two problems with that: 1. Not all people fit the conditions that Heidegger sets for Dasein. Each individual has unique characteristics that can't be ignored. Further, the logic that all people are inherently part of a whole is the same one that allowed for the Holocaust to occur, because it's easy to justify exterminating someone by labelling them outside of the norms that define humanity.

2. Being towards death - Heidegger defined human existance as a continual process, or march, towards death. However, if humanity is defined by its endpoints, it's impossible to create any sort of bond between human beings because life is simply a march towards death and outside that, human interaction has no purpose. As Levinas believed that an ethic of responsibility for the Other was the only way to create a coherent system of personal ethics, you can see why he wasn't a being fan of being toward death. More on Levinas another time.

bump

I read your post, but I must say, my knowledge of Philosophy is more or less puny, and so I don't qualify for a meaningful response...

I am thinking.....what if I was a game, and everyone in the world was in on the joke, watching me, testing me, etc..........maybe if I turned around suddenly...it might just.......oooyah my neck hurts

I read your post, but I must say, my knowledge of Philosophy is more or less puny, and so I don't qualify for a meaningful response...

Shamefully enough, I have both a BA and an MA in philosophy, but managed to avoid reading more than a couple of hundred words of Heidegger in getting them, so you are not alone in that feeling of not really being qualified to contribute here.

Is there any connection between Heidegger and the movie "Dasein ohne Leben"?

Is there any connection between Heidegger and the movie "Dasein ohne Leben"?
No idea.
"Dasein" is not some mystical word though. It means "being".
Dasein ohne Leben = Being without Life.

No idea.
"Dasein" is not some mystical word though. It means "being".
Dasein ohne Leben = Being without Life.

I always thought dasein meant "Existence".

"Existence without Life" - the films seemed to focus on the idea of existing as some sort of biological freak rather than having a "real life" as a "normal" person.

I bet that a lot of people would buy the argument presented in the film series.

I always thought dasein meant "Existence".
Well there is a german word "Existenz".
Dasein is more like a noun for the verb "to be". It's subtle, but it makes a difference in my opinion.

Well there is a german word "Existenz".
Dasein is more like a noun for the verb "to be". It's subtle, but it makes a difference in my opinion.

Perhaps it's a question of idiom. The way we use "existence" may be subtly different from the way the Germans use the word "Existenz".

I had significant trouble with German and French (past the standard grammar and vocabulary in class) because there was so much idiom used in everyday speech and in fiction.

Perhaps it's a question of idiom..
Possible. My English is probably not good enough to pick up all the subtleties, but I do know that these little things happen all the time when you translate things.
Especially in an area like Philosophy.

I think the linguistic problem is a major one with Heidegger. He uses "dasein" endlessly, but never really elaborates what this "being" is. He also uses the term "being there" alot, which I frankly fail to understand. Apparently, he advocates placing little emphisis on "individual identity" or "human being" in favor of "being" in general, whatever this may be. It could possibly be similar to the transcendentalist idea of the "oversoul" but with postmodern mutations. It goes the same for his innovation of "post-humanism". I find the fact that he was a leading kritik of the humanist movement strange when he repeatedly uses humansit reasoning.