Is Martin Heidegger, /ourphilosopher/?
> Supported the NSDAP
> Investigated Being
> Talked about living authentically
> Warned against the dangers of technology
> Told people to spend more time in graveyards to become existentially aware of our own impending death
> Warned against (((them))) in the black books
What books can I read about Heidegger that haven't been kiked? Almost every article about Heidegger is SJW whining about the NatSocs.
Bump, c'mon Sup Forums, don't make me go to /lit/
Heidegger set the bar high indeed. There's no one who's moved it further since he died.
I also hold some appreciation for (((Wittgenstein))).
Oh, and notice how the greatest philosophers of the last few centuries studied theology.
Have nothing to say, but bump as I'm curious
Agreed, Wittgenstein is honorary. The only thing I can remember from his stuff though is the idea of private language and the incompleteness of language, roughly speaking. Do you have any recommendations for understanding their stuff, or am I just going to have to buy Being and Time and get it over with?
Why not just read what Heidegger wrote? Evola and Guenon had some thoughts on Heidegger as well so its a good expansion on his original work.
>Is Martin Heidegger, /ourphilosopher/?
absolutely
where buy book
Well, I don't read German, and the English translations have been pretty brutal. Also, my brain has been turned to mush by Godel's Incompleteness Theorem and skepticism, I read a book called "Philosophy is Bullshit" and have more or less not picked up a philosophy book since, but Jordan Peterson is inticing me back into thinking about philosophy vis a vis pragmatism
Life is suffering.
Yeah, it seems like it. I've been asking myself the three following questions lately:
Do you want to continue to live?
Do you want to continue to be a part of society?
Do you want to be successful?
If you answer yes to all three, you will organize yourself and your ideas/beliefs to ascend to the top of the social hierarchy, and answering not-yes to any one of those questions will send you off in a very different direction
>Do you want to continue to live?
>Do you want to continue to be a part of society?
>Do you want to be successful?
those are young man's questions, as you get older you care less about the (((rat race))) and care more about leisure, contemplation, family, and friends
Jung was slightly anti-kike as well
Search for the last heidegger thread on /Lit/ the one with over 300 posts.
Sure, that's why I said I have been thinking about them. Leisure, contemplation and time for family and friends are the rewards of the old.
I know, and since (((they))) control the universities, they have successfully sidelined these two thinkers until the internet brought them back to attention, more or less
the corporate world is a false world based on false values, make sure you work to live, otherwise you'll end up living to work
Carl Schmitt and Heideggar are influential to this day in regards to conservative thought, they are probably the most important along with Plato, Nietzsche, and Leo Strauss. Strauss was Jewish but had communication with Carl Schmitt who was a Nazi Jurist and political philosopher. Hanna Arendt went as far as saying if Leo Strauss was not Jewish himself he would have stayed in Germany and colluded with the Nazi's.
There's also /our poet/. Read some his broadcasts, they're pretty much the kind of thing you'll see on this board.
Heidegger is the most cited philosopher of the 20th century. Mostly by French post-modernism, but still. You are extremely new to philosophy aren't you.
Heidegger isn't relevant only to the French pomos, that's the point
Of course he isn't. But noone has sidelined him. It's just that the entry barrier to have even heard of him is high. The masses have heard of descartes and nietzsche, but even the basic ideas of heidegger can't be put into memes so ofcourse a 20th something Anglo stemfag would not have heard of him just from pop-culture
> Can't be put into memes
Wanna bet?
Wittgenstein is a true genius. One in a million.
Not a book but look up "In our Time Wittgenstein". In Our Time is a really REALLY good podcast
>but even the basic ideas of heidegger can't be put into memes so ofcourse a 20th something Anglo stemfag would not have heard of him just from pop-culture
his central point is criticism of postmodernity based on lack of authenticism (=inacordance of lifestyle with da Sein). that is why he joined NSDAP since he finded them as reactionaries? (although they werent reactionaries).
t. not on expert on heidegger
read counter-currents, plenty of good articles on heidegger
My suggestion is trying to get a vague sense by reading secondary literature the German Wikipedia page in this case is somewhat decent and offers plenty sources. I can't really tell, if you can completely translate it into English I have read a little bit into two translations, but feel that it's not really accurate at least to my knowledge. You have to understand his goal is nothing short of bringing about of another philosophical beginning, because he believed the first (Ancient Greek) to be flawed. If you have questions (specific) I'll try to answer them.
Read this as an intro: counter-currents.com
What does Heidegger say about skepticism?
Mate he didn't experience post-modernism. He criticized modernity with it rationalist Becoming that never goes anywhere authentic.
Are you fucking kidding me nog? Just because he supported the NSDAP doesn't mean his work was any good? Have you read Being and Time? Have hyou tried to either read the German or English translation...
It is the most impenetrable, piece of SHIT garbage I have ever read. You do realize he's part of what is called "theory" nowadays i.e the garbage that forms cultural Marxism and other continental philosophy and deconstruction and nonsense like that?
In fact it was Being and Time which made me realize that analytic philosophy is the only real philosophy and all continental philosophy is pure fucking garbage, there is not one continental philosopher who deserves to mentioned along with the famous anayltic philosophers.
God damn this thread really triggered me.
How can you guys complain about cultural marxism, deconstruction, Frankfurt school etc. all day (CONTINENTAL PHILOSOPHY) and then read this trash? It's fucking impenetrable. Like all continental crap, it just makes wide sweeping statements and generalizations in obscure multisyllabic and vague language with zero evidence and expects you to nod and stand in awe at how "insightful" they are.
FFS
Junger and Kaczinski (yes, Ted is a philosopher)
t. rationalist degenerate who changes his subculture every month
...
This is why everyone assumes right-wingers are stupid and anti-intellectual. If your worldview can't withstand criticism, it is probably shit. Reason and intellect have their place, though not at the top.
>Mate he didn't experience post-modernism.
depends how you define it.
>He criticized modernity with it rationalist Becoming that never goes anywhere authentic.
yeah, that is mine level of understanding Heidegger
>In fact it was Being and Time which made me realize that analytic philosophy is the only real philosophy and all continental philosophy is pure fucking garbage, there is not one continental philosopher who deserves to mentioned along with the famous anayltic philosophers.
piss of nigger. Russel was a literal hippie trash, as were the rest of futuristic Anglo thinkers...and Kierkegaard was the greatest philosopher that ever lived.
Although, I agree that overthinking is a problem, but so is underthinking of empiricism.
>inb4-simpletons say that existentialism is leftism
Okay, you convinced me
I'm gonna check it
>It is the most impenetrable, piece of SHIT garbage I have ever read. You do realize he's part of what is called "theory" nowadays i.e the garbage that forms cultural Marxism and other continental philosophy and deconstruction and nonsense like that?
The dichotomy of continental and analytical theory is completely arbitrary. Because the analytical philosophical project was to create an ideal language of logic, which isn't really tried anymore.
>God damn this thread really triggered me
You really need to stop acting like the sjws
>The dichotomy of continental and analytical theory is completely arbitrary.
I hate to say it, but proper philosophy is in the middle. Hegel is a continental meme, while plebs like Mill and Locke are Anglo memes.
Both sides can help each other.
How do you stop thinking? I was talking with a business guy yesterday, and he studied philosophy and theology in university, but had gone on to make ~50 million or so and now just invested his money and hung out with his family. Christian guy too. He said a lot of his success was due to the fact that he cared about people more than ideas, and that really struck me.
Which skepticism do you mean? I guess the Cartesianism skepticism?
This is decent
bu.edu
>How do you stop thinking?
what do you mean? you mean stop thinking about philosophy? If that is your question, my answer is by existentialism.
Kirk is the first to criticize Becoming as the ultimate end of a person or race/nation. You know the parts where he shits on the busy people around him who always have some goal(materialist) but never stop to think about deeper things or contemplate nature. Apply this on a civilizational level.
Heidegger would say something in the molds of :Being-torward-death you can achieve authenticity . Metaphysics/rationalism are a disguise of nihilism
>You know the parts where he shits on the busy people around him who always have some goal(materialist) but never stop to think about deeper things or contemplate nature. Apply this on a civilizational level.
its like the late 19th century described - functional car whose driver is getting bored and old. But isnt fascism just that - functional, but nihilistic?
>Kirk is the first to criticize Becoming
help me out with the term "Becoming" in this context, what has Heidegger meant by it?
How is rationalism in any way degenerate? It is continental philosophy that is not only degenerate in of itself but is the cause of mass degeneracy in the media and modern Western "culture".
I disagree Mill and Locke are certainly not included in the analytical school by almost all definitions. The most credible definition of analytical philosophy is that it is the try to create an ideal language of logic like Frege, Russel, Whitehead and Wittgenstein tried. The other philosophers like Quine, Putnam are not analytical philosophers in the strict sense, because they don't work on this project anymore. I don't debate that there is maybe truth to some ideas of people who are wrongly or rightly referred to as analytical philosophy.
>young man
In other words, summerfag
In heidegger's view it establishes a subject/object distinction (i.e. Descartes cogito) which doen´st really exist. And this is the first step in perceiving the material world as a repository of things which we then use to fulfill our desires (part of his critique on technology). This separation breeds restlessness, disenchantment and then nihilism in us, because we can no longer dwell on the world when we see it through a rationalist lens
>It is continental philosophy that is not only degenerate in of itself but is the cause of mass degeneracy in the media and modern Western "culture".
Who is Russel?
Who is J S Mill?
Who is Bentham?
Continentals are no way perfect, but islanders have some seriosuly degenerate philosophers if not completly pleb level.
>I disagree Mill and Locke are certainly not included in the analytical school by almost all definitions.
I know, I was reffering to them as a good example of where does purely anti-theory thinking end.
obligatory pic.
archive.org
>ctrl+f
>jew
>325 results
>Hardy's England, aye, aye sir, where is it? Did Rothschild save it? He did not. Did the Goldsmid save it? He did not. Does Churchill endeavor to save it? He does NOT. I repeat the rot and stink of England, and the danger to her empire is inside, and has been: from the time of Cobbett.
I think I understand, what you wanted to say. In the discussion, what the exact relation of theory/rationalism and empirism, i personally also think that the discussion is somewhat of a non started, since every empirical/sensual observation itself leaves us completely clueless about the world (if we don't build a theory about the relation to other invents). A theory which doesn't take sensul data into the equation is also basically impossible.
My problem is that they claim of the people, who fancy themselves as analytic philosophers today is that they hide behind a project that isn't persude anymore and by this cover up their metaphysical axioms as somehow not metaphysical in nature.
>is the claim of the people
Do you have the word stava in croatian as in becoming something or getting up from sitting.
Good luck on finding classical philosophy without it being contaminated by modern marxist interpretation. Getting ahold of classic books without kikery is almost like searching for gold in Alaska, its almost impossible.
Even if the subject/object dichotomy doesn't exist per se, don't our brains do it automatically? It would seem to be an evolutionary adaptation that we perceive tools. And what is the alternative, and why would one wish to change their perception in that way?
>Do you have the word stava in croatian as in becoming something or getting up from sitting.
"ustajati" (verb, infinitive) - to sit up.
"bivstvovanje" (noun from verb "biti" - to be) - being (like from being in time)
>Good luck on finding classical philosophy without it being contaminated by modern marxist interpretation.
from my exp, that isnt the tactic (((they))) use, (((they)))just make you read more marxist philosophers and less "problematic" thinkers. Its hard to spin classic and newer right wing thinkers into leftists.
I have a personal interpretation on what "becoming" means, derived through linguistics.
Ancient Egyptian - Xeper "to become (something)"
Greek - Praxis "experience"
Latin - Experientia, self-explanatory
Notice the common phonemes?
To become is to experience. You are what you do, whatever that is.
>stava
There is "stav" which means "attitude", it shares the root with "stajati" - "to stand" and all the derivations, i.e.:
ustanak - uprising
postati - to become
postanak - becoming/beginning, the Book of Genesis is named Postanak in the Croatian translation
>from my exp, that isnt the tactic (((they))) use, (((they)))just make you read more marxist philosophers and less "problematic" thinkers. Its hard to spin classic and newer right wing thinkers into leftists.
I agree with my fellow countryman. Source: actually studied philosophy for some months, a lot of material was contaminated by (((modern))) interpretation, but it was there where I was acquainted with Heidegger&co. too.
Youre all fucking livestock
Cant help being that. You were thrown into the world to be livestock
You could wake up and leave but then youre just fake LARPing fags
Why dont just be the best livestock you can, faggots?
/nutshell
>actually studied philosophy for some months
where have you studied nigga?
can you explain, what did the fascist meant by this >Kirk is the first to criticize Becoming
FFZG. Had attended more good than bad lectures though.
I have no idea what he meant. Either him or Kierk confused something. Living like automaton can't be considered becoming, it's being, in an animalistic sence, where neither one's past nor future matter, only the present moment. Such people are carried wherever the four winds take them, rather than blowing the winds themselves, if I may express it figuratively.
If that's what he meant.
t. a nihilist
Not nihilism. A variety of existentialism. Its Heidegger.
>FFZG.
lol, figured that much. that being said, if you can split the good from bad, FFZG/croatian Berkley has the best philosophy program in Croatia. I studied smth similar.
You took introductionary classes from philo there I assume?
Regarding>Kirk is the first to criticize Becoming
its hard to tell what did he meant, due to incomprehensibility of Heidegger and different interpretation of different folk.
Bump.
Kirk in his book on irony has criticism of hegels philosophy where history is theologically becoming something. The nation-state of hegels time is the endgame of history of the early 19th century. I am not adequate enough to explain this now.