Talk:Martin Heidegger/Archive 3

Intro should have Heidegger as Existentialist or Continental

I removed the stuff about existentialism from the intro. I hope this is ok since I thought existentialism was a strange thing to mention so early in the article since it is not clear if he was or not an existentialist. I also removed mention of existential commonplaces. The term sounds odd, who is an existentialist today? Instead I said he provided some of the basics for Continental Philosophy. Lucas

Though Heidegger disavowed the term, I see this as a distinction without much difference. Sartrean existentialism is inconceivable without H.'s work. And just read S&Z! "Existentialia" appear from the start of the book onward. Regardless of today's fashions, H. is an existentialist. Talking of "Continental Philosophy" only makes the article more vague (and thus less informative): "CP" includes Hegel, Benjamin, Schelling, etc., all of whom are quite different from Heidegger. Likewise, your edit introduced a bunch of obscure jargon -- "modulated", "re-orientate". May I recommend Orwell's "Politics and the English Language"? Or merely Strunk and White? 271828182 02:24, 9 December 2006 (UTC)

Continental does not make it more vague. Existentialism is not really practiced heard of at the moment but Heideggerean practice is still if a context iongoing in general in Continental philosophy.

I think you are making an assumption about Heidegger being an Existentialist, just as Sartre did, it is not justified.

Heideggers influence is quite direct on some Continentals, vague on others. However, the influence of Existentialism is really just associated with Sartre and some kind of pop phenomenon.

Heidegger's refusal of the term Existentialism is pretty convincing, in his Letter on Humanism he says:

existentialism says: Existence precedes essence. In this statement he is taking existentia and essentia according to their metaphysical meaning, which from Plato’s time on has said that essentia precedes existentia. Sartre reverses this statement. But the reversal of a metaphysical statement remains a metaphysical statement. With it he stays with metaphysics in oblivion of the truth of Being.

Nor do I think that because Heidegger mentions existentiale and existeniel a number of times in B&T that it makes him an "existentialist" (since Sartre defined it and, though was influenced by Heidegger, he got him quite wrong). Sartre never understood how extensive Heidegger's criticism was, it even included a rejection of humanism.

--Lucas

Lucas, how does replacing "existentialism" with "continental philosophy" not increase vagueness, given that existentialism is one type of continental philosophy?

And just because Heidegger refuses the term, does that make it "pretty convincing"? The Letter on 'Humanism', you will notice, is strenously interpreting sentences Heidegger himself wrote, such as "Das 'Wesen' des Daseins liegt in seiner Existenz" and "der Vorrang der 'existentia' vor der essentia". Could you explain how section 9 of S&Z is not existentialist? In particular, aside from the preceding sentences, the passage that starts: "Alle Explikate, die der Analytik des Daseins entspringen, sind gewonnen im Hinblick auf seine Existenzstruktur." (You may also wish to consult Gesamtausgabe v. 20, p. 152, which makes it clear that Heidegger's existentialism is crucial to his break with Husserl.)

And after that, I still await your explanation of what jargon such as "modulated" and "re-orientate" add to your edits. 271828182 09:52, 9 December 2006 (UTC)

Using Continental instead of Existentialism does not increase vagueness but does increase accuracy. Which existentialist did he influence? Sartre. Which Continental philosophers did he influence? Almost all (if even more Marxist oriented philosophers were negatively influenced, they didnt ignore him).

I agree it not enough that he just refuses the term. What I find convincing is the Letter from him I quoted above. There it is clear that Heidegger considers "Existentialism" as still within the kind of philosophy he repudiated.

I am not going to try interpret a section from Being and Time to verify if it is existentialist or not. Existentialism is an invention of Sartre, he came upon it after reading Heidegger and mixing it with Descartes' cogito and Hegel's dialectic. Remember Sartre was a Marxist. So since existentialism is just a misreading of B&T I don't think it can be folded into it as you, with Sartre, are attempting. It might be appropriate on pages for Sartre or Existentialism but since one of Heidegger's biggest influences was Derrida and other non-Existentialists (or do you also call Derrida existentialist?) it is too narrow to litter the intro with Heidegger and Existentialism.

As a compromise the best thing to do is make a section "Heidegger and Existentialism", there we can include quotes from Sartre, from Heidegger's rejection of Existentialism and some of the material yoiu presumably are considering in this argument.

By the way, "modulated" and "re-orientate" are not jargon they are just ordinary words, check a dictionary . Jargon is stuff that belongs to a particular technology or subject (like philosophy).

--Lucas

So why exactly (since you find it so convincing) does Heidegger repudiate existentialism? How is it a distortion of S&Z? You are convinced, so how do you know that section 9 of S&Z is not existentialist?

If reading S&Z is too hard, I still recommend Orwell's "Politics and the English Language". 271828182 20:22, 9 December 2006 (UTC)

The both of you should take a break from editing this page, or at least the introduction, for some time. It seems to be getting personal and less about collaborating for the benefit of the article and the community. If you both do not find it objectionable, I could read over and edit the best-case scenario versions of the introduction in each of your points of view, and then post a merged version here. Take me up on the offer, find another way to resolve the issue, or take a breather - in any case, please be more civil and good natured. - Sam 20:30, 9 December 2006 (UTC)

Thanks Sam, it sounds like a bit of a risk since we still are discussing this and I don't really find 2718... or whatever the name is, too personal. What in any case is your opinion? I don't really have a problem with someone wanting to claim him as existentialist, I just think that existentialism is something Sartre invented and doesnt take into account the wider effect of Heidegger especially on that anti-existentialist, Derrida.

To return to 2718... It is clear he repudiates existentialism (almost as long as your name!) since he says in the quote above I gave you that Sartre merely inverts the two metaphysical words, essence and existence. Sartre wants to preference existence over essence. Heidegger does not only want to do this, he wants to question not only the syntax or ordering but also the history and meaning of these terms. This is what is called destruktion, and like deconstruction it does not simply mean inverting or reversing the existing order, like putting body before mind, woman before man, matter before idea, etc.

I know section 9 of S&Z was not existentialist when it was written, because I know that Sartre read B&T (maybe only section 9), interpreted it in his own way (adding Descartes cogito, lots of stuff about consciousness, and Hegel on nothingness). Sartre then wrote about and invented the idea of "Existentialist" philosophy, saying that Heidegger was also a part of this new philosophical movement. Some people even believed him!

--Lucas

My edits are intended to make the article clear and accurate. I have opposed Lucaas's edits since they routinely add needless verbiage and buzzwords. When asked to explain or justify his claims with reference to the primary sources, Lucaas fails to do so (e.g., in the comment immediately above he discusses Sartre but continues to avoid discussing Heidegger's own words). He identifies existentialism exclusively with Sartrean existentialism, which goes against well-established usage. He has provoked several edit wars (see philosophy of mathematics, philosophy of science, ontotheology), particularly with his arbitrarily rigid distinction between "analytic" and "Continental" philosophy, which is never sourced and appeals only to his private and often false conceptions of that divide (cf. KD's comments above, or Talk:Philosophy of science). If I oppose his edits, it is for the benefit of this article and Wikipedia's philosophy articles in general. 271828182 22:51, 9 December 2006 (UTC)

This is very general comment (and why call me "he"), let us try and stay focused on this issue of Heidegger's existentialism. As to the issue of Continental and Analytic, it is not a minor issue and in the additions I have made in trying to come to terms with it and what it means for an encyclopedia has been largely based on Analytic philosophy. I have made ample references, to some if not all of the 13 majors scholars including the U.S. philosopher, Richard Rorty who finds this "schism" of interest to contemporary philosophy (I suppose, since it is a new thing in the history of philosophy that two sides do not talk)

Anyhow, as I said let us remain focused on Heidegger. Note, I was the one who provided the quote above from Letters on Humanism, as to your referencing, well, enough said. I identify Existentialism with Sartre of course, who do you think came up with the idea and name of "Existentialism"? I have also, in deference to you, left the word prominent in the article since Existentialism took on its own meaning in certain schools and in pop culture. And we added the quote I gave on Heidegger's rejection of Existentialism. So I really don't know why you write this blustering comment now after there seemed to be some compromise with the new edit of the intro which we both re-wrote together.

--Lucas

It's not bluster, it's a matter of objective record: your edits regularly provoke multiple reverts and acrimonious discussion, and those discussions typically end with your views being thoroughly discredited. Your record of contributions speaks for itself. 271828182 17:28, 10 December 2006 (UTC)

This is untrue, the recored speaks for itself. Yes it provoked some responses when I tried to establish that all these departmentalised philosophies were not separated out disciplines in Continental or Eastern philosophy. A number of these issues have been resolved amicably.

Unlike you, I do not go stalking you to pass remarks about your edit history, but if most philosophy editors on here are Analytic and I say something about Eastern or Continental or even Greek philosophy, they often dont see it immediately, since they are, understandably, immersed in an Analytic way of philosophy.

--Lucas

Sure. And I suppose you see how parochial and narrow-minded the "analytics" are because you are not immersed in any particular way of thinking. In more than one sense.

Feel free to "stalk" my record on Wikipedia. For example, compare the article on Gilles Deleuze in Nov 2005 with what it is today. Anyone reading this should feel free to compare Lucas's edit history and see what his record says about his contributions to WikiKnowledge. 271828182 19:34, 11 December 2006 (UTC)

Well, I certainly do not deny my own prejudices, I'm not a 'plant without roots', I was merely pointing out some of those that I had come across I think it not unusual that some pages become quite one-sided, especially something like phil of language which is of course mainly done by Analytic.

Yes I compared the article you did on Deleuze, and well done, it is immeasurably better (except I prefer the big photo of the old page and do not like the infobox). It is probably one of the more difficult pages on here to get right.

It is a different thing to edit a philosopher's page than to change a more general mistake on older pages that are resisted.

--Lucas

Perhaps we might agree as to some references to provide an adequate range of perspectives on the subject tied to verifiability and clear use of credible sources? I wonder as well whether one can talk about Heidegger being characterised as an existentialist without discussing the broader issues of his French reception and translations of his work into the French language. (To be direct about it, I think that is somewhat consistent with Lucas's view by implication.) Might I suggest off the top of my head Ethan Kleinberg's Generation Existential as one such source and Dominique Janicaud's Heidegger en France as another?

Let's remember that, despite the fact that Derrida had so few kind words for Sartre's work for much of his career (and there were much later extended references, including if memory serves a treatment of Antisemite and Jew in "Abraham, l'autre"), he was willing to credit accounts of his work that indicated some filiation with Sartre (sorry, I don't have any cites on hand for that one on hand, let alone any particular mastery of the details). Sartre may have been taken down a few notches in the French canon, but just about everyone continued to read him, to the point that influence may be quite understated and even a bit subliminal outside of the brighter lines drawn around the "Letter". Buffyg 22:10, 11 December 2006 (UTC)

I remember a time when it was hard to communicate Husserl's thought accurately because it was so often viewed through a distorting Heideggerian or Sartrean lens. Now -- fashions have changed, and new generations have forgotten the history and context they claim is so determining -- it seems impossible to discuss Heidegger without saddling him with a Derridean cart. Lebensphilosophie, Neue Ontologie, and Existenzphilosophie were all German philosophical movements before Sartre became famous. Klages is virtually unknown, though his exaltation of the body and championing of the anti-rational associations of language directly presage postmodernism (and Klages, despite his overtly reactionary politics, at least had the good sense to never support the Nazis). Is it too much to ask that an article about Heidegger should be about Heidegger and his historical context, rather than about his Francophone acolytes and imitators? 271828182 09:42, 12 December 2006 (UTC)

I can only buy rather less than half of what you're selling. For one, it's weak to claim that earlier receptions of Heidegger's work should be privileged simply because they came first -- that would serve to put us right back at a level of fashion you deride. It is in any case impossible to divorce Heidegger from his French context because Heidegger sought out that context as a matter of calculation. You might as well insist on excising treatment of the rectorate, which was another moment of Heidegger calculating his influence against a massive historical moment. Which is also to say: I agree that there needs to be some extended accounting for Heidegger's work per se, but, frankly, there are quite a few carts Heidegger saddled himself with that you have to look to other commentators to explicate, as Heidegger's own reflections on these matters are at times unsatisfactory, to say the least. You can look to Derrida as one of several eminent commentators required to give us insight where Heidegger does not.

That being said, Derrida was always quite clear that he had a lot to say about Heidegger, and we can't load down this entry with all of that, any more than we should elevate Derrida as though he were the only or only preeminent commentator or somehow undisputed in his views. Does this boil down to putting out Satre because of the "Letter" and taking on Derrida because Heidegger was said to commend his work? No, this isn't even a great way to judge fidelity or infidelity. But where there are gaps in Heidegger's own account (which is, I think, beyond dispute), you have to look to the commentaries with the most powerful explications of these gaps, and my view is that deconstruction happens to produce loads of such explications by what we might call independent Heideggerians, all of whom seem clearer than you're prepared to acknowledge on matters of history and context in excess of the French reception. On the flip side, the Heidegger that appears here should not be dominated by this or that reception, and the reception of his work should be clearly tagged against difficulties in reading Heidegger that should be generally informative. Buffyg 13:02, 12 December 2006 (UTC)

As to Lebensphilosophie, Neue Ontologie, and Existenzphilosophie movements, a few of the hundreds of movements the Germans like to extrue why not put some comment in the article on them.

The cart problem you discuss well above, but the origin of this dispute here on the talk page came from my attempt to remove Existentialism from all over the intro. I did not attempt to replace that with Derrida or Deconstruction but with the fairly neutral cart of Continental philosophy since he has influenced most Continentals but had little cited acknowledgment from Analytic (though someone suggested to me that Wittgenstein II came out of Husserl/Heidegger and Deleuze's idea of Affect may also have been from Heideggerean mood)

--Lucas

I don't love the Continental tag, but I think it's the best option on the table. Amply illustrated in the course of this exchange is that there was extensive circulation of influences between French and German philosphers (phenomenology, existentialism, deconstruction, hermeneutics all being transnational traditions with determinate institutional roots in languages and institutions largely nationally configured), where Heidegger was, as you have suggested, a major element of this circulation (incidentally I would add that there is a closely related phenomenon that also involves Heidegger, which is the circulation of literary interests, of which Celan would be a privileged example). As I've said previously, it would be difficult to argue other than that Heidegger's consciously staked his work on these circulations (one could cite other instances than the "Letter" and France: earlier at Davos and later at Athens, for example). A central stake of all of this seems to me to be translation (both within and across languages, as Derrida so often insisted), but that would be, at least in part, another way of confessing myself a Derridean.

In any case, I take the view that the circulation is the most massive and imposing phenomenon before us and that to describe Heidegger in terms of any particular circulating movement would be to understate his influence and its stakes. I think one can say that without violating NPOV or OR. Buffyg 15:37, 12 December 2006 (UTC)

I am not claiming that "earlier receptions of Heidegger's work should be privileged simply because they came first". As frère Jacques would say, I challenge anyone to cite where I wrote or implied any such thing. I would merely point out that while a philosopher can be strongly influenced by his contemporaries, it is somewhat more challenging to be influenced by the future.

And I severely doubt that the "independent Heideggerians" of deconstruction provide "the most powerful explications" of the "gaps" in Heidegger. Derrida, Lacoue-Labarthe, Nancy, et al. pay precious little attention to Dilthey, Rickert, Lask, or Jaspers, all of whom are key players in the debates that Heidegger was wrestling with while he was writing S&Z. (To say nothing of more distant background such as Klages and the George-Kreis.) You will learn a lot more about Heidegger by reading Ott's or Kisiel's painstaking empirical, documentary research, or just by reading the primary sources themselves, than you will by reading reams of quasi-Derridean periphrasis. Unfortunately, most of the primary sources are in German and, for all their much-ballyhooed emphasis on "textuality", today's lit critters are often ignorant of foreign languages.

At any rate, my foregrounding of existentialism in my initial rewrite of the introduction was intended to allude to this broader context in which Being and Time was written and made its first impact. As befits an introduction, this is pretty important and basic stuff. (For example, it's impossible to understand Heidegger's Nazism without understanding Division II of S&Z -- that is, the existentialist Heidegger.) However, as an introduction, I could do little more than gesture in the appropriate directions -- which seems to have produced more heat than light. The, ah, "massive and imposing" "circulation" of later developments gets its due later in the introduction.

As for "continental philosophy", I repeat that (at the very least) this term is unhelpfully vague. Imagine:

A: Heidegger? What's he about?

B: He's a big-time continental philosopher.

A: What's a continental philosopher?

B: You know, Hegel, Nietzsche, Heidegger, those guys.

A: Oh.

"Existentialism", despite its own ambiguities, is more specific. (Note that I removed, in a second draft, the immediate reference to existentialism, which may have been too jarring for some.)

In sum, I can now see that it will likely be quite challenging to completely overhaul this article's philosophy section, at least without protracted wrangling. I'll see what I can do, briefly, sticking to cited passages of H., and leaving aside contentious issues of context and reception. 271828182 18:05, 12 December 2006 (UTC)

As I said before, I don't love the Continental tag, but when someone uses it, I have some idea what they're talking about. It may well be that I go through the dialogue you've rehearsed every time. One gets from it a sense of breadth as the expense of referring to something that has little coherence outside of a generally shared set of references. I can live with that. As for "earlier receptions of Heidegger's work should be privileged", I go on to read that your motive was to allude to where Heidegger's work "made its first impact" (a claim that is itself debatable). I don't think this point needs to be further belaboured.

As for your remark that, "I would merely point out that while a philosopher can be strongly influenced by his contemporaries, it is somewhat more challenging to be influenced by the future." I believe Heidegger's quotation of Kleist at the conclusion of the Wisser interview speaks to this in speaking of the "coming mind": "I step back before one who is not yet here, and bow, a millennium before him, to his spirit." Apart from all the calculation as to his contemporary influence and however difficult, Heidegger evidently anticipated his future reception to take on just such a challenge.

To be frank, everything else seems to be arguing the toss. I don't concede any of your further argument, and I see no need to specify my objections. Further argument seems to me to serve no other purpose than to distract from editing, as I don't see it having any clear consequence for the entry. A number of the issues you've raised definitely need to make it to the article (is it just me, or does Dilthey make no further appearance than on list of influences?), so I'd prefer to encourage your contributions there rather than to drag out our exchange here. Buffyg 21:13, 12 December 2006 (UTC)

'Question re Heidegger qua existentialist': I should think (borrowing this idea from elsewhere on this page) that it is erroneous to judge the question of Heidegger and existentialism based on the actions of his French successors/imitators; rather Heidegger must have essential existialist aspects in his work, or be following a tradition. I am not sure that there is a definition of existentialism (my personal one is "issues arising out of existence") and 'existence precedes essence' is Satre, not a tradition. So to turn to the second question, Heidegger's place in a tradition, are we right to say that Kirkegaard was the first existentialist? Kirkegaard's influence on S & Z is obvious, both in the concept of Angst, but one can also see the birth of das Man, which Kirkegaard tends to express more poetically and less 'objectively' than Heidegger does. So, thus: was Heidegger influenced by the existentialist flavour of Kirkegaard? - Indubitably. I think the article should concentrate on the basic precepts/concepts of existentialism as applicable to Heidegger, stating influences if possible, but perhaps largely ignoring the question of French influences. 'Letter on Humanism', while a response to the French situation (Satre), need not be seen as a engagement with Satre's thinking. Does anyone know if Heidegger ever read Being and Nothingness? ````

Book burnings?

The article says that there have been book burnings on his campus during nazi-time - the German article says that he stopped book burnings which is also what my fairly dim memory suggests. I can't find any source right now but is there anybody here who is sure there have been burnings or maybe even has a source? --Kricket 14:40, 11 December 2006 (UTC)

btw. @ Mtevfrog: great work!

In Rudolf Otto's Heidegger: A Political Life, it states that the national day of book burning (May or June 10?) was "celebrated" at Freiburg too, and that there was nothing Heidegger could have done to stop it. KD

The Kehre

This doesn't seem to have much treatment at all. First we're told that it happened, then we're told that Heidegger never went along with it. It's not really clear what's at stake in arguing either way. I'm going to hunt for some sources and would be grateful if someone else could provide more of the same and/or have a stab at revisions. Buffyg 20:35, 19 December 2006 (UTC)

This article needs a better picture.

The actual picture of Heidegger is all pixeled and without strength. If the problem is that other pictures have copyrights, I would recommend this one, wich at least has better quality: http://i49.photobucket.com/albums/f258/tito-/Heidegger.jpg (I didn't change it myself cause I don't know how).

German Atheist?

Heidegger wasn't exactly an atheist, it seems a bit misleading to label him as such. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 74.12.131.148 (talk) 19:13, 13 April 2007 (UTC).

Opening paragraph

The introduction does not need to come before the early life and right after the table of contents. Its info should be condensed and put in the beginning introductory paragraph at the top and the article should begin with his life right after the contents. Afghan Historian 19:20, 30 April 2007 (UTC)

Additionally, does the sentence "Philosophers are divided in their opinion . . ." belong in the article at all? Although the statement is cited, it contributes nothing to the article and isn't really a statement of fact since we haven't polled philosophers. Also, just one or two agreeing with the quote would satisfy its terms. Furthermore, the paragraph is understandable and informative without the sentence.166.165.207.67 (talk) 16:58, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

I have deleted this sentence, because I think there is no philosopher that is not controversial. -- Tischbeinahe (talk) φιλο 19:11, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

Heidegger at Freiburg

(Cut n paste from the Reference Desk, in case it might prove useful Wetman 04:21, 21 May 2007 (UTC))

You might want to begin with The Rectorate 1933-34: Facts and Thoughts, Heidegger's post-War memoir on the period, though I should caution you that this is a work of self-justification, which disguises as much as it reveals. In essence, his rectorship at Freiburg collapsed for of a variety of reasons, including good old-fashioned departmental politics, vicious and treacherous as always, no matter what regime they operate under! Beyond that, one has to take into consideration Heidegger's own political naïvete and his gross over-estimation of his importance, both in the Nazi academic world and the broader scheme of things. One also has to take into account the nature of the Nazi system itself, and its underlying theory and practice. No matter what stress was placed upon the sublime, Nazism was shaped by mediocrity, not excellence. It was the world not of the Superman, but the Supermouse.

In his memoir, Heidegger maintains that his position at Freiburg was undermined by a conspiracy, involving his academic rivals and the district student leader, Dr Gustav Scheel, who later became Reich leader of students and university lecturers, and Gauleiter of Salzburg. Heidegger certainly had opponents at Freiburg, especially in the Law Faculty, though not all were doctrinaire Nazis. The matter, though, went far beyond the confines of the University. In November 1933 the Nazis created their own structure of leadership within the whole university system, elevating Party mediocrities and time-servers to important positions in the Reich Association of German Universities. It was a clear declaration that Heidegger's bid for leadership of the German university system had falied, and that the Nazis had no real use for him, no matter his international stature. Abandoned by many of his more important colleagues at Freiburg, and snubbed by the government, Heidegger was in a personal, professional and political limbo.

There were also those in the Nazi movement, led by Erich Jaensch, his former colleague at the University of Marburg, who made every attempt to ensure that Heidegger would not be offered a leading position in Prussia or the Reich, because they did not wish him to be seen as 'the philosopher of National Socialism.' Jaensch complied a memorandum arguing against a proposal that Heidegger be appointed head of the Prussian Academy of University Lecturers. It would be against all reason, he wrote, " ...if what is possibly the most important post in the intellectual life of the nation in the weeks and months ahead were to be filled by one of the biggest scatterbrains and most eccentric cranks we have in our university system: a man about whom men who are perfectly rational, intelligent and loyal to the new state argue among themselves as to which side of the dividing line between sanity and mental illness he is on." And this on one of the best philosophical minds Germany produced in the whole of the twentieth century! Against this background it is no great surprise that his rectorship failed. He finally resigned in April 1934, not February, as he says in Facts and Thoughts. You will find much more detail on this whole affair in Part Three of Martin Heidegger: A Political Life by Hugo Ott. Clio the Muse 00:26, 19 May 2007 (UTC)

English Translations

The very fact that Holzwege is translated as Off the Beaten Track instead of Paths Through the Woods indicates that translations of Heidegger's works into English must be regarded as doubtful and useless.Lestrade 14:17, 12 July 2007 (UTC)Lestrade

In fact, holzwege implies ways which deviate from the main path and lead nowhere, rather than paths through the woods. The English expression is therefore quite apt.KD Tries Again 18:36, 12 July 2007 (UTC)KD

Holzwege in German implies exactly that, a deviation from the main path or being on the wrong path! KMJagger 08:48, 2 August 2007 (UTC)

Is that KD Tries Again's subjective implication or is it common knowledge that "…holzwege implies ways which deviate from the main path and lead nowhere?" After all, holz means wood, woods, or forest. Wege means ways or passages. There is no explicit mention of destinations. Literally, holzwege means forest paths. I've always experienced paths leading somewhere. Their whole purpose is to provide a passage from one place to another. I don't share your implication.Lestrade 22:01, 12 July 2007 (UTC)Lestrade

I was wrong. Looking into my old German dictionary, I found that the definition of holzweg is "way in a wood that leads only to a place where trees are felled and does not go any further; glade; dilemma." (Sehr or stark) auf dem holzwege sein means "to be quite on the wrong track." Maybe that could mean "off the beaten track."Lestrade 23:39, 12 July 2007 (UTC)Lestrade

On the other hand, since the holzwege are paths that lead to a sunlit clearing or glade, instead of merely nowhere, they might be interpreted as being attempts at understanding or enlightenment. This is because the dark forest might represent obscurity, nescience, and ignorance.Lestrade 15:25, 13 July 2007 (UTC)Lestrade

Of course. See "Vom Wesen der Wahrheit" or the Heraclitus seminar - truth (or aletheia) as clearing.KD Tries Again 15:00, 16 July 2007 (UTC)KD

Obscurantism

I think Heidegger is considered to be obscurantist by many readers.--Markisgreen 12:11, 22 July 2007 (UTC)

note that "obscurantism" is a polemical rather than descriptive term, often used against opponents on personal or ideological grounds, and accusations of incomprehensibility don't equal actual incomprehensibility.Ehmhel 22:04, 22 July 2007 (UTC)Ehmhel

It is clearly inappropriate to link to an article on "obscurantism." Ask: would Britannica have such a link? Answer: no. Reason: because they take the idea of neutrality seriously. Regardless of whether "many readers" consider Heidegger to be obscure, such a link is clearly a way of introducing non-neutrality. MHJDBS 23:53, 22 July 2007 (UTC)

There are millions of people out there who consider philosophy of any kind to be obscurantist. The link is certainly inappropriate.KD Tries Again 15:14, 23 July 2007 (UTC)KD

I disagree. Surely we must not say "He IS an obscurantist" in encyclopedia. BUT we must not hide a well-known controversy neither.

"A democrat criticized a republican for blah blah" is a completely neutral news and doesn't mean the republican IS so.

And I cannot figure out how MHJDBS so easily concluded that Britannica would exclude such a link.Cosfly 05:26, 26 July 2007 (UTC)

The proper term is not "obscurantist" (since it may be confused with meaning 1 from the Merriam Webster, namely "opposition to the spread of knowledge"), but "a cryptic writer" or "uses a purposefully obscure language" would be more appropriate. "Nature loves to hide" and so does Heidegger. He confessed in the Spiegel interview that his purpose was not to allow his readers to write many books based upon his theories. He did that by writing an extremely difficult text, comparable to Pierre Bourdieu's obscurantist writing style. Contemporary philosophers could be classified in two categories: those who understand Being and Time by reading it and those who cannot understand it without reading somebody else's commentary to it. Tgeorgescu (talk) 01:26, 8 August 2008 (UTC)

Criticism

The criticism section needs revision to be more accurate and fair, such as citing its many claims, naming Heidegger's critics, and have a more neutral appoach.

Responding to the above, I have been putting off reading this section but finally did so. First, while the criticism section - if we must have one (not all philosopher articles on Wikipedia do) - is bound to be critical. But it should just focus on the main, authoritative criticisms, not gather up anything which can be found. I'd suggest:

1. Something from his contemporaries, maybe Cassirer. 2. Something representative from the Frankfurt School - Adorno. 3. The well-known article by Carnap. 4. Something else from the analytics - either Russell or Ayer, preferably the former. 5. I can also add some criticisms of his classical scholarship.

Is anything else essential to an encyclopaedia article? I may have forgotten something.

Second, the existing section should be ruthlessly trimmed where no appropriate cites are given. Examples:

This [1]is a link to an Amazon page, which doesn't even make the point it's supposed to be supporting.

This [2] is a link to an unsigned article on an internet Quotes cite. Not up to Wiki standards.

I'm guessing the Tom Rockmore cites should be to Heidegger's Nazism and Philosophy - but it doesn't say. And then we have a silly summary of Sein und Zeit with the comment 'citations needed'. I am of the view that citations should come first, and that this - and the other unsupported material - should go. If there is agreement, I'll prune the section to the important and supportable points.KD Tries Again 18:58, 1 August 2007 (UTC)KD

The summary of Sein und Zeit doesn't look silly to me. Why do you call it silly? Something is silly if it is senseless, foolish, stupid, absurd, or laughable. Can you give a clear, unambiguous, direct, specific answer?Lestrade 19:07, 1 August 2007 (UTC)Lestrade

It does lack sources and is a hodge-podge of comments, many of which seem vague or inaccurate. Ehmhel 14:34, 2 August 2007 (UTC)

Lestrade, I enjoy entertaining you but time is short today. I know from your contributions that your German is perfectly good enough to recognize that Dasein is not to be translated as "Self". Dasein does not "find" a world, it is always already in-der-Welt-sein. And I could go on. I might mention that [Sein und Zeit] does additionally have a little bit to say about time. Anyway, if there was an appropriate reference for the summary, maybe there's be justification for it. But I don't see one.KD Tries Again 14:40, 2 August 2007 (UTC)KD

It may or may not be true that Dasein is not a Self or that it does not find a world. However, in the Wikipedia article Dasein, it appears that Dasein is "engaged in the world." Also, Dasein makes a choice whether to dismiss a tradition or else dismiss an experience that requires a choice. We also find, in the article, that Dasein is capable of contemplation. Misunderstandings of this obscure concept are not silly. What is silly, or foolish, is for Heidegger to think that he could communicate an ambiguous, confused concept such as Dasein through the use of imprecise, obscure, peculiar language. Also, translation of his idiosyncratic language from German to English does not facilitate communication of the concept without error.Lestrade 15:47, 3 August 2007 (UTC)Lestrade

Whether silly or not, the criticisms should be presented as clearly and accurately as possible regardless of what one considers to be the faults or merits of Heidegger. What's wrong with revising the section so that criticisms have sources, are clearer, and thus potentially more convincing? Ehmhel 17:18, 3 August 2007 (UTC)

I assume in the above that Heidegger had a desire to communicate his concept through the use of words. However, there is a possibility that he was not interested in communicating his thought. Instead, as an academic in a German university, he may have been interested in appearing profound and disguising the banality of his thought, thus assuring professional advancement and the accompanying remuneration.Lestrade 18:21, 3 August 2007 (UTC)Lestrade

One can accuse anyone of politics and personal ambitions, whole television networks are based on this. I find it more rewarding to examine the arguments without presupposing a universal skepticism or hermeneutics of suspicion. Approximate if not always good sense and critical debate has been established on many points and arguments in Heidegger, there is even a whole "respectable analytic" literature on Heidegger (as well as Hegel) today (with pragmatic, transcendental, and Wittgensteinian arguments for and against). Ehmhel 18:43, 3 August 2007 (UTC)

One sure effect of obscure, neologistic writing (Heidegger and Hegel come to mind) is that it generates a wealth of respectable literature, for and against, and thereby ensures academic job security. Throughout history there has been a need for a priestly caste that can translate the hieratic into the demotic.Lestrade 19:51, 3 August 2007 (UTC)Lestrade

Since Lestrade's views, even if correct, have no relevance to how we write the article, does anyone disagree with my positive suggestion above or have any additions?KD Tries Again 19:58, 3 August 2007 (UTC)KD

I already began to make changes in this direction, including changing the summary and adding a contemporary European reception section, but it needs much more work. Ehmhel 20:07, 3 August 2007 (UTC)

I did what I could to make it more precise and historically accurate. The analytic criticism section is more wordy than the others. Should this be a brief portrayal of different kinds of criticisms or should each be as developed? Ehmhel 21:27, 5 August 2007 (UTC)

Being-towards-death

Being-towards-death is fairly simple in it's proposition the the human Dasein is the only ontology aware of its "demise". It is from this proposition that Heideggers notions of Throwness/Angst/Anxiety are formulated. It is also the interstice where Phenomenology becomes misused and mistaken as Existentialism; as the latter formulated anxiety as a key concept to found its philosophy (especially Sartrean existentialism which championed choice and authenticity as products of anxiety.)–124.179.62.108 12:11, 4 August 2007 (UTC)

New photos at Commons

There are now some new Photos at http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Category:Martin_Heidegger I have added an english description to the images. You'll find there:

• Heidegger birthplace (choose the one you like best)
• Heideggers grave
• Heideggers "Feldweg" - Heidegger often walked the Feldweg (field path), when some philosophical problems troubled him. There is also a small text Heidegger dedicated to this field path ("Der Feldweg").

I have no user account at the english Wikipedia so far, you can find me as user "Tischbeinahe" in the german Wikipedia. Greetings from Berlin, Tischbeinahe

Kuki Shūzō

Mtevfrog -- In deciding who should or should not be included in the info box, please reconsider your entirely understandable opinion, but this time taking into account these further factors:

• 1. There are no other non-Europeans in this list.
• 2. In 1927, Heidegger was introduced to Kuki in Edmund Husserl's home in Freiburg before Kuki began attending lectures at the University of Marburg.
• 3. In 1933, Kuki published the first book length study of Heidegger to appear in Japanese, The Philosophy of Heidegger (Haideggā no tetsugaku).

Source: Nara, Hiroshi. (2004). The Structure of Detachment: the Aesthetic Vision of Kuki Shūzō with a translation of "Iki no kōzō." Honolulu: University of Hawaii Press. ISBN 0-8248-2735-X (cloth) ISBN 0-8248-2805-4 (paper)

• 4. Heidegger referenced a conversation "between a Japanese and an inquirer" in On the Way to Language (Aus einem Gespräch von der Sprache).

Source: Heiddeger, Martin. (1971). On the Way to Language. San Francisco: Harper & Row.

Note Gesamtausgabe (Heidegger)

I. Abteilung: Veröffentlichte Schriften 1910–1976

• Aus einem Gespräch von der Sprache. (1953/54) Zwischen einem Japaner und einem Fragenden

• 5. In 1957, Heidegger himself expressed a desire to have written the preface to the German translation of Kuki's 1930 book, The Structure of "Iki"「chic」 (「いき」の構造,, "Iki" no kōzō).

Source: Light, Stephen. (1987). Kuki Shūzō and Jean-Paul Sartre: Influence and Counter-Influence in the Early History of Existential Phenomenology. Carbondale: Southern Illinois University Press. ISBN 0-8093-1271-9

Since Heidegger himself acknowledged a significant, years-long relationship with Kuki Shūzō and his work, this name does belong amongst the small group of students in Wikipedia's Martin Heidegger info box. --Ooperhoofd (talk) 19:35, 21 November 2007 (UTC)

Weblinks

After initial approval, (link was up for a week), why did you remove my article link from the WORKS ON HEIDEGGER section? Here's the link to article entitled IN DEFENSE OF MARTIN HEIDEGGER http://www.artsandopinion.com/2007_v6_n6/lewis-32.htm Artsandopinion (talk) 16:49, 15 January 2008 (UTC)Robert Lewis

Your contributions to Wikipedia are entirely links to your own essays. These are non-notable opinion pieces (original research by Wikipedia's standards) which add no valuable information to these articles, and just waste readers' time. This has been discussed extensively on your Talk page, and also on the Discussion pages of other articles in which you have either spammed or otherwise lobbied to include links to your website. Does this conversation really need to be repeated on every article you spam? Please do not re-submit this link. Thanks. / edg ☺ ☭ 17:01, 19 March 2008 (UTC)

Notes

I did the article on Heidegger in the german Wikipedia and would just like to point out a few things. Sorry for my awkward english – I hope you'll get the point anyways.

• Heidegger’s philosophy is essentially an attempt to marry two insights. → Like Hannah Arendt said: There is no such thing as Heidegger's philosophy. If you like, you could point out that it's more a way of asking. There is no canon of conclusions or statements. This is also important because the article takes into account his later works, where Heidegger changes his point of view in regard to Sein und Zeit.
• ...that experience is always already situated in a world and in ways of being. → Heidegger does not use the term "experience" in Sein und Zeit. This is because he is not concerned about how we experience things, but what things are. His question of being is not just towards what something is like for us, but what something is.

Well, this amounts to realism. A phenomenologist cannot become a realist without ceasing to be a phenomenologist in that very moment. Heidegger's answer to the dillema "let's speak of how things are in their own being, without being or becoming realists" is to explain in Being and Time the root of the word "phenomenon" as apophainestai, i.e. how an object shows itself to the Dasein. Herein appearance does not mean superficial (i.e. fake, deceiving) phenomenality, but simply the way objects are presenting themselves to us. So, Heidegger does not assume that objects could have a reality outside of (bereft of) human awareness. As in that classic example: if a tree falls and there is no one to hear it, there is no sound, but there are just mere air vibrations. This means that sounds are specific to the Dasein's awareness, and outside of Dasein's awareness there are no sounds, just air vibrations. Animals display unaware responses to air vibrations (since animals are not beings-in-a-world, they lack awareness; all they display are reactions to stimuli, called vigility). So basically, Heidegger equates being-in-a-world (i.e. the fact that Dasein bears its own world with him/her as the snail bears its house with it) with Dasein's awareness, and outside of being-in-a-world there is no reality, there are just inanimate objects which could never constitute a reality, except when a Dasein comes around them and gets their impressions (appearances, i.e. how they show themselves to him/her). This is not to be confused with Berkeley's theory, because Berkeley did not admit an inter-subjective reality, if I am correct about his solipsistic empirical idealism. Heidegger's viewpoint definitely rejects the conclusion of realism, namely impersonalism as decidedly as it rejects the conclusion of idealism, namely solipsism. Tgeorgescu (talk) 01:06, 8 August 2008 (UTC)

I agree to your explanation, but I still don't like the term "experience" in connection with Heidegger. This is because Heidegger would not say, that we "experience" a hammer as a tool, or a sea as water-supply. You can not experience things in such a way, because they are what they are only in a world and you can not experience the world, because the world is the transcendental background of understanding. I think Heidegger did not use the term "experience" in Being and Time, because he did not want to be associated with a cognitivistic point of view. (Maybe Heidegger would use the term "experience" only in connection with heat, pressure and so on. So far I never found this term in one of his writings.) Heidegger askes the "question of the meaning [Sinn] of being". But you can not "experience" a meaning of something. (In German it's not "meaning" but "Sinn" which also means "direction". "Clockwise" for example in German is "Uhrzeiger-sinn", where "sinn" means the direction the watch hand goes. This direction is later in Being and Time revealed as the time itself, so meaning is interconnected with time: To understand the meaning of a hammer you got to have a future plan, like building a house or so. But you can not "experience" neither this future nor the plan). -- Tischbeinahe (talk) φιλο 20:36, 8 August 2008 (UTC)

• all experience is grounded in "care." → Not experience is grounded in care, but Dasein is in fact care. This again is an answere to what (Dasein) is and not to what it is like. But maybe you could keep this paragraph and the explanation using "experience" as kind of introduction and than later make it clear, that it's more than just a phenomenological question, but an ontological question.
• that would have made of the existential analytic only a kind of “limit case” (in the sense in which special relativity is a limit case of general relativity). → Just delete that one. It's way to metaphoric. It's enough to explain that existential analytic is only the first step of the deconstruction of the history of philosophy.
• Die Kehre → Essential for the Kehre is Heideggers understanding of truth as aletheia. While in Being and Time truth was the openness of Dasein (Erschlossenheit) it now changes to the openness of being itself. The first paragraph of "Later Works" should be moved to "Die Kehre". In any way it should be mentioned that the Kehre is connected to his understanding of truth. („Indem es das Wort Sinn von Sein zugunsten von Wahrheit des Seins aufgibt, betont das aus Sein und Zeit hervorgegangene Denken künftig mehr die Offenheit des Seins selbst als die Offenheit des Daseins (…) Das bedeutet die ‚Kehre‘, in der das Denken sich immer entschiedener dem Sein als Sein zuwendet.“ – Heidegger: GA 15, S. 345)
• Against the revealing power of poetry, Heidegger sets the force of technology. → Not "force" because technology is also a way of revealing. But what is characteristic for the technological way to reveal the world, is that every object that is revealed, is revealed for a subject. Technology so enhanced the subject-object-structure and centers the world around the human subject. By technology all meaning is directed towards human wishes, while in contrast poetry (like Hölderlin's) reveales meaningfull references that do not center around the human subject. (By the way: the article "Gestell" uses a misleading translation. Sure Gestell=enframing, if you look it up at a dictionary, but this translation does not get the philosophical point. Ge-stell derivates from stellen (to stand someone on something). This would also make it clear for the reader, why the universe is transformed into a "standing reserve", as the article says: By technology the human subject stands the world as an object.) A very important point is not mentioned conerning Heideggers critic on technology: Heidegger links modern technology and western metaphysical thinking. The advancement of the modern subject (Descartes, Kant) is an important condition for the development of modern technology. But it wasn't Descartes nor Kant who "invented" the subject, but being itself showed for them as an object for an subject. This makes up Seinsgeschichte (history of being) which leads to our age of technology.
• The article does not say anything about Grundstimmungen (en: mood, sentiment, humor?) which are very important througout Heideggers whole work. While in Being and Time anxiety reveales the whole of Being-in-the-world, it later becomes boredom (as in Die Grundbegriffe der Metaphysik) and concerning the Ereignis (enowning) it is awe (or dread / timidity). While the modern subject is bearish and crude towards the world (because everything is explainable to him, even the new) Heidegger is concerned about a mood that overcomes this attitude and keeps an openness for the new, for the enownding.

-- Tischbeinahe (talk) φιλο 19:53, 2 March 2008 (UTC)

Hydrogen Bombs in 1949?

In the section "Heidegger and Nazism/Post-war period" there is a quote dated 1949 in which Heidegger supposedly mentions hydrogen bombs. This is strange since the first such device did not come along until 1952.RandomTool2 (talk) 16:45, 4 April 2008 (UTC)

Well, the idea was around since 1942. 'The H-bomb was suggested by Teller in 1942. Active work on it was pursued in the summer of 1942 by Oppenheimer, Teller, myself, and others. The idea did not develop from Teller's "quiet work" at Los Alamos during the war. When Los Alamos was started in Spring 1943, several groups of scientists were included who did work on this problem specifically. However, it was realized that this was a long-range project and that the main efforts of Los Alamos must be concentrated on making A-bombs.' Quoted from http://www.nuclearfiles.org/menu/key-issues/nuclear-weapons/history/cold-war/hydrogen-bomb/comments-bethe.htm Tgeorgescu (talk) 14:38, 27 July 2008 (UTC)

All quite true, but would Heidegger have known all this? - and, if he did, would he have assumed that his audience shared this knowledge? RandomTool2 (talk) 15:24, 27 July 2008 (UTC)

Educational Philosophy of Martin Heidegger

Above article is basically one person's essay. It has been languishing in the articles in need of wikification since June 2007 and I am trying to help clear the backlog. Is there anything that you would like to rescue from it? I'm hoping you will know whether it is best improved, merged or just deleted. Thanks. Itsmejudith (talk) 22:52, 7 July 2008 (UTC)

Zygmunt Bauman's thesis and the disputed quote from Heidegger's works

I made on the article the following contribution:

From Zygmunt Bauman's perspective, Heidegger's remark is understood as proper.

So, my question is: could this be considered interpolation. If it is no interpolation, but I was simply stating the facts, I would like to see it added back to the main article. Tgeorgescu (talk) 12:27, 16 July 2008 (UTC)

In 1819, Schopenhauer clearly explained how reason could be used for good or evil. Reason is amoral. We can use reason to plan a church bake sale or a massacre. Machiavelli demonstrated the amorality of reason.Lestrade (talk) 01:02, 17 July 2008 (UTC)Lestrade

I suppose the above is an answer to my argument. Heidegger and Bauman did not unmask reason as amoral, because this would have been unoriginal ("Reason is and ought to be the slave of the passions." Hume -- and we know that genocidal hatred is one of the possible passions, just as brotherly love is, too.) What Heidegger said in that specific quote is that the technological organization specific to the modern times, defined through an incomplete enumeration of specific modern technologies, is one of the causes (factors) which is essential to modern mass murder. Bauman masterly developed such insight into a comprehensive account of the intimate link between modernity and the Holocaust (which is as far as it can be from Holocaust denial). Therefore, from Bauman's viewpoint (print-published), Heidegger's quote is perfectly reasonable, and it is far from being suspicious at all. So, Bauman's thesis is a systematized rendering of the gist of Heidegger's quote. As such, Heidegger's affirmation may no longer be constructed as denial of the Holocaust. Is this interpolation, or simply explaining what Bauman wrote? Tgeorgescu (talk) 14:21, 27 July 2008 (UTC)

If the answer supra is not convincing enough, then certainly Bauman's thesis is simply a particularization of Heidegger's thesis about the Gestell (the ghost in the technical-economic system, arising from thinking errors which began in the Antique Greece and went along Middle Ages and the modern time) and of Heidegger's thesis about the nefarious role of the metaphysics of subjectivity (which leads to a nihilistic-autarchic state policy wherein the fight between races is simply the offspring of Cartesian-Kantian philosophy which dominates the political lives of the nations, wherein the subject, i.e. the national, becomes the measure of all things and of all other people). Tgeorgescu (talk) 19:17, 4 August 2008 (UTC)

Merge Dasein with Being & Time

The sections "Being and Time" and Dasein could perhaps benefit from merging, and might also perhaps, by getting to the point more quickly and then only then to background. I'm not going to touch this article myself, however.

Dasein is defined okay...A slight stab at time seems to pass adequately... There is little or nothing defining care, thrownness, falling, authenticity...Stuff I came here to read about.

Slogging through background about the relationship of Heidegger's mentors and antecedants to B&T is important stuff, I suppose, but save it for lower down and start with a highly concise description of the book. I wonder how the separate, B&T Wikipedia article is (in a non Heiddeggerian sense). Calamitybrook (talk) 02:52, 5 August 2008 (UTC)

Request for Help on the deconstruction article concerning Heideggers influence on the development of deconstruction

I would like to bring to your attention to the fact that the article on deconstruction currently lacks a passage on Heideggers influence on the development of deconstruction. This would greatly improve the current article and the expertise of the one of the Heidegger editors familiar with this aspect of deconstructions development is therefore kindly requested.Seferin (talk) 19:19, 9 August 2008 (UTC)

Ridiculous Disambiguation

Seriously? Some minor Final Fantasy character (named after him, no doubt) calls for a disambiguation page? Who's for this? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.167.199.34 (talk) 05:48, 10 November 2008 (UTC)