*ruins philosophy*
>>24841409Filtered
>>24841439It is a waste of time to ask a heideggerian to argue for his points as that would require him to use logic, but heidegger is strictly irrational.
why?
you know if you think someone is wrong you can just ignore them.However if they comprehensively prove you are a fraud and aren't doing actual philosophy... makes more sense why you feel the need to performatively post stuff like this.SAD!
>>24841409Ben Kingsley?
>>24841580Heidegger is just a nihilist who wasted so mich ink pretending that he is not a nihilist
>>24841409That’s not Nietzsche
>>24841409>>24841763These two rescued, ruined and ended philosophy. And no, I shan't be elaborating.
Sometimes, you see some retards talk about how Heidegger "naturalizes anxiety"The problem is that Heidegger's anxiety has exactly two things in common with the ordinary understanding of anxiety: jack and shit.Heidegger's anxiety does not actuqlly hqve anything to do with being qnxious, stressed, fear, etc. He explains as much. It's right there in the text of What is Metaphysics.>By this anxiety, we do not mean the quite common anxiousness, ultimately reducible to fearfulness, which all to readily comes over us. Anxiety is basically different from fear. We become afraid of this or that particular being that threatens us in this or that particular respect. Zzzzzzzzzzz>Anxiety does not let such confusion arise. Much to the contrary, a *peculiar calm* pervades itBasically, heidegger's anxiety is just made up crap that has absolutely nothing to do with anxiety.
>>24841844He's distinguishing between senses, quote beyond where you stopped:>Angst never lets such confusion occur. On the contrary, angst is suffused with a peculiar kind of calm. Yes, angst is angst of, but not of this or that thing. And angst is always angst for, but again, not for a specific thing. What we have angst of and for is indeterminate--not because we are unable to define it, but because it itself cannot be defined. This may be illustrated by a familiar experience:>The whole recedes, the nothing is revealed. During angst we say “It feels so strange!” What is the “it”? and “who” feels it? We cannot say what makes one feel so strange. It just is that way for “someone”--as a whole.He's saying that the phenomena he wants to discuss pertaining to his talk on metaphysics isn't a fear of determinate beings, like fear of a bear or of a burglar, he's just clarifying the sense he's after. The German word Angst can have both the sense of fear that he's distinguishing his subject from, and the sense of anxiety or dread, however one cares to translate that. It doesn't therefore follow that he's not talking about anxiety as we would otherwise recognize it, especially if you aren't both attending to whether Heidegger has had any influence on how we understand that word, given the popularity of the movement of existentialism that claims ideas and influence from him, and making clear what sense of anxiety you think is supposed to be the common sense we should all recognize.
>>24841881>It doesn't therefore follow that he's not talking about anxiety as we would otherwise recognize itIt does. Anxiety in common parlance means being anxious, fear. It has nothing to do with beings as a whole "receding". That is not what most people think of when they think of anxiety and hence Heidegger's anxiety has really nothing to do with being anxious and he says so himself. It is characterised by calmness. It is basically just the feeling of thinking that everything is meaningless.
>>24841895You're getting confused reading him. He's not defining anxiety as "beings as a whole receding," that's a phenomenon correlative to the experience of non-fearful anxiety. This is what philosophers and thinkers do.This isn't even an unusual sense, see Kierkegaard in the century before, or talk to people who experience frequent anxiety away from public places. Words aren't Platonic Forms with One Strict Sense For All Time, nor are they exhausted by dictionary entries. Nor is it usually considered proper form to define a word by it's derivative, such as defining anxiety as "being anxious," as though "being anxious" wasn't the issue in question.
>>24841927>Words aren't Platonic Forms with One Strict Sense For All TimeI am not saying that. I am saying that Heidegger himself says that his anxiety does not have anything to do with feeling anxious and it is instead characterized by a peculiar calm. That is not how most people, today, in common parlance, envision anxiety. Heidegger says himself that by anxiety he does not mean fear at all and that anxiety is actually different from fear. He's not talking about people who feel anxious and afraid. He's talking basically about feeling like everything is meaningless but being very calm as well. That is what he says right there in the text. Why you refuse to admit this is beyond me.
>>24841936>>24841927Basically, you are not special because you feel anxious. Your particular anxiety probably has nothing to do with what Heidegger is talking about.
>>24841936>That is not how most people, today, in common parlance, envision anxiety.Anxiety isn't a word exhausted by the notion of someone shaking and covering their head with their hands or a blanket. Even psychologists and psychiatrists would recognize Heidegger's meaning, which is why catatonia is a recognizeable symptom of both schizophrenia and depression. All due respect, but your experience regarding this is too narrow.>He's not talking about people who feel anxious and afraidHe is; that he avoids the use of Furcht is in order to avoid the specific connotation of being afraid of specific things, but his sense would be perfectly legible to people with anxiety, people who know people with anxiety, and people in a medical field who deal with people with anxiety. The "calmness" isn't about some restful or enjoyable calm, that's why he says it's "peculiar," because the character of the anxiety he has in mind isn't of the sort where someone's pacing or even of going over anything in their mind.>Why you refuse to admit this is beyond me.Because you're misconstruing it and holding it up almost against a Hollywood-style understanding of anxiety.
You guys are arguing about the sense of a word, and neither of you is even wrong, because Heidegger never gave it any sense in the first place. He kept it obscure so that retards like you would debate it endlessly without ever realizing that it has no meaning. Philosophy has been dead for almost 200 years
>>24842002>Anxiety isn't a word exhausted by the notion of someone shaking and covering their head with their hands or a blanket.I did not say that. But Heidegger explicitly states that when he talks about anxiety ot has absolutely nothing to do with any of those things. That is what I am saying.>Even psychologists and psychiatrists would recognize Heidegger's meaningI don't think that Heidegger's meaning has anything to do with what the psychologist or psychiatrist mean by anxiety. Again, his anxiety is completely removed from fear. It's not really catatonia either since he explains it as a mood that one can easily shake off with idle talk. Why you refuse to admit this is beyond me.>He is; that he avoids the use of Furcht is in order to avoid the specific connotation of being afraid of specific things, but his sense would be perfectly legible to people with anxiety, people who know people with anxiety, and people in a medical field who deal with people with anxiety.Again, I disagree. He says so himself that anxiety is basically different from fear and he is explicitly not talking about being anxious precisely because that always refers to being anxious toward specific things and not being as a whole. He quite literally makes a disclaimer that he is not talking about feeling anxious or afraid.
>>24842024>I did not say that. But Heidegger explicitly states that when he talks about anxiety ot has absolutely nothing to do with any of those things. That is what I am saying.But you're saying, "and therefore, Heidegger's not even talking about anxiety in a way anyone would recognize," and cutting off any sense of it that you may be unfamiliar with, as though the standard Heidegger ought to be held to is whether *you're* familiar with a sense or experience or not.>I don't think that Heidegger's meaning has anything to do with what the psychologist or psychiatrist mean by anxiety. Again, his anxiety is completely removed from fear. It's not really catatonia either since he explains it as a mood that one can easily shake off with idle talk. Why you refuse to admit this is beyond me.I said it would be recognizeable, not the same. But again, you're handwaving what doesn't comport with your familiarity, as though a word like anxiety only connoted fear of concrete things. It doesn't, and a sign that this is acknowledged beyond your familiarity is by the word's ready use in describing mental illnesses that don't necessarily have any concrete objects of fear. And the presence of catatonia as a symptom in anxious illnesses like schizophrenia and major depression is a sign that Heidegger is speaking with sense when he mention a "peculiar calm." >Again, I disagree. He says so himself that anxiety is basically different from fear and he is explicitly not talking about being anxious precisely because that always refers to being anxious toward specific things and not being as a whole. He quite literally makes a disclaimer that he is not talking about feeling anxious or afraid.And again, he's distinguishing a specific sense that he thinks is irrelevant to his talk; he avoids using "fear" and its derivatives because they would present too great an impediment in a one-off talk, all he's saying is, "when I say anxiety, don't mistake me for saying fear *in this sense*," that's all. I don't see how it follows that he's thereby not talking about feeling anxious. The translation you're using doesn't say what you're asserting it does, when it says "we do not mean the quite common anxiousness..." that doesn't mean "we do not mean anxiousness."
>>24841409Yeah I get it Martin, I’ll die one day, maybe tomorrow, so what fag?
>>24842110>"and therefore, Heidegger's not even talking about anxiety in a way anyone would recognize,"If you are going to use quotes, then you should actually quote what I actually said.>But again, you're handwaving what doesn't comport with your familiarityHeidegger does not really explain sufficiently in what is metaphysics what his anxiety means. But he quite explicitly states that it is not common anxiety and that it is completely removed from fear. I he quite literally says that fear is always about particular things and that's not what his anxiety is about. There is also no reason to think that Heidegger is talking about catatonia since he mentions that one can easily shake off the anxiety with idle talk.>don't mistake me for saying fear *in this sense*Not "in this sense," but at all. His anxiety has nothing to do with fear or confusion in his own words.
>>24842160>If you are going to use quotes, then you should actually quote what I actually said.Which would be the following:>The problem is that Heidegger's anxiety has exactly two things in common with the ordinary understanding of anxiety: jack and shit.>Heidegger's anxiety does not actuqlly hqve anything to do with being qnxious, stressed, fear, etc.>Basically, heidegger's anxiety is just made up crap that has absolutely nothing to do with anxiety.>Anxiety in common parlance means being anxious, fear. It has nothing to do with beings as a whole "receding". That is not what most people think of when they think of anxiety and hence Heidegger's anxiety has really nothing to do with being anxiousSo, when I sum up your position as "and therefore, Heidegger's not even talking about anxiety in a way anyone would recognize," exactly how am I misunderstanding you when that summary is the same as what you said?>Heidegger does not really explain sufficiently in what is metaphysics what his anxiety means.He gives a perfectly fine characterization of the mood he's talking about, a feeling differentiated from fear by not being directed at anything specific or in particular; *we* would *tend* to define that as a kind of fear, but Heidegger's already using fear in Being & Time for a mood about specific or particular things, so he reasonably avoids it because he wants to get particular kinds of attitudes and awareness.>But he quite explicitly states that it is not common anxiety and that it is completely removed from fear.Which has nothing to do with whether his sense of anxiety is recognizeable as a common sense of anxiety today, which is the *only* issue under debate, and which was the contemtion you raised, "does anxiety today also connote a generalized dread without particular objects," and it does.>There is also no reason to think that Heidegger is talking about catatonia since he mentions that one can easily shake off the anxiety with idle talk.I was very cautious not to suggest anything of the sort, but the presence and recognition of catatonia in anxious illnesses is precisely a sign that Heidegger still makes sense when he mentions "a peculiar calm," since we readily recognize mental illnesses that can be both characterized by the presence of anxiety while manifesting the peculiar calm of catatonia.
>>24842224>*we* would *tend* to define that as a kind of fearWe might but not Heidegger. He explicitly states that it is removed from fear because fear is always directed at something. To emphasize, he explains that it is pervaded by calmness. Other than that, he doesn't say much about what it is other than the feeling that everything is meaningless.>Which has nothing to do with whether his sense of anxiety is recognizeable as a common sense of anxiety todayIt does. He quite literally says that he is not talking about feeling anxious or anything particular for that matter. The emotions it evokes in you are neither fear nor anxiety. He does not say that anywhere. It's just a vague mood that he feels a particular attachment with and desires to raise up into a privileged position because he is an egotistical retard.
>>24842241>We might but not Heidegger. He explicitly states that it is removed from fear because fear is always directed at something. To emphasize, he explains that it is pervaded by calmness. Other than that, he doesn't say much about what it is other than the feeling that everything is meaningless.Heidegger doesn't say much about it in What Is Metaphysics? because he's already given analyses of both fear and anxiety in Being and Time, what he says in What Is Metaphysics? about both is meant to be a brief summary of longer discussions in Being and Time; What Is Metaphysics? is for its part concerned with boredom. But Heidegger's also perfectly aware of how both fear and anxiety are used as words with tied up meanings, he says as much in Being and Time; but he's a phenomenologist, which requires that he detail certain experiences, and that necessitates distinguishing words *for the simpler purpose of distinguishing experiences* so that his accounts can be followed at all. The fact that he begins his summary in What Is Metaphysics? with the acknowledgement that fear is a sense of anxiety is his recognition of how both words are used in ordinary colloquial speech. But, and this is my point, *we recognize those senses too*, the distinction he draws is not an unusual one.>It does. He quite literally says that he is not talking about feeling anxious or anything particular for that matter. I addressed this very point at >>24842110:>The translation you're using doesn't say what you're asserting it does, when it says "we do not mean the quite common anxiousness..." that doesn't mean "we do not mean anxiousness.">The emotions it evokes in you are neither fear nor anxiety.It absolutely is anxiety, it's generalized anxiety distinguished from anxiety as fear. You claim comes down to, "but I don't recognize that as anxiety," and the reason I'm bringing up schizophrenia and major depression is because those are modern examples that manifest precisely the kind of anxiety Heidegger is talking about.
>>24842274>It absolutely is anxietyNo. Again, he makes a disclaimer more than once that he is not talking about feeling anxious. He calls it more of a malaise. It has nothing to do with people who "suffer from anxiety". Those people generally do not come to the conclusion that being is groundless, i.e. that the world is fundamentally meaningless.
>>24842297>No. Again, he makes a disclaimer more than once that he is not talking about feeling anxious.Again,>The translation you're using doesn't say what you're asserting it does, when it says "we do not mean the quite common anxiousness..." that doesn't mean "we do not mean anxiousness."He doesn't say "we do not mean anxiousness," he uses the qualifiers "quite common" to denote a sense, he absolutely means anxiousness.
>>24842319Yes. He is saying that he is not talking about what people commonly mean when they say "anxiety". That's the point. He even clarifies that it doesn't really have anything to do with fear because fear is always about something particular.
Heidegger just closed the doors to any higher meaning and purpose and now everything is just a gigantic shopping mall where people pick and choose ideas based on how well they scratch an itch and give meaning to their meaningless lives. It's a real sordid affair and a shame that I cannot kill him for it.
>>24842351>Yes. He is saying that he is not talking about what people commonly mean when they say "anxiety". That's the point. He even clarifies that it doesn't really have anything to do with fear because fear is always about something particular.*By the colloquial, i.e., 1920s meaning of anxiety, more specifically angst.*Is there precedent for his distinction?Yes, Kierkegaard in The Concept of Anxiety from 1844:>The concept of anxiety is almost never treated in psychology. Therefore, I must point out that it is altogether different from fear and similar concepts that refer to something definite, whereas anxiety is freedom's actuality as the possibility of possibility.Is this sense of anxiety as distinct from fear of concrete things understood as a sense of anxiety today?Yes, from Wikipedia:>Anxiety is different from fear in that fear is defined as the emotional response to a present threat, whereas anxiety is the anticipation of a future one.Note that, *even in differing with Heidegger's specific sense*, the distincton between anxiety and fear is so accepted that there's a section in the wiki article on anxiety called "Anxiety vs. fear".From Wiktionary's entries:>anxiety(countableanduncountable,pluralanxieties)>1. Anunpleasantstate of mentaluneasiness,nervousness,apprehensionandobsessionorconcernabout some uncertain event.>2. An uneasy or distressingdesire(for something).Endeavor(to please). (pathology)>3. A state of restlessness and agitation, often accompanied by a distressing sense of oppression or tightness in the stomach.(informal)>4. Anyanxiety disorder, especiallygeneralized anxiety disorder.Notice the absence of the word "fear" (which probity requires I report *is* present in the dictionary.com entry).From a Google search of "anxiety about nothing":>Does anyone else get anxious about nothing at all? : r/Anxiety>Does anyone get anxious over literally nothing? : r/Anxiety>Does anyone else have anxiety over absolutely nothing? No particular ...>does anyone get anxiety over having nothing to do, nowhere to go, and no ...>Is it common having an anxiety attack out of nothing?>I hate that I get anxiety over nothing>Does Anybody Else feel anxious when you are not doing anything?>Do you ever feel anxious even when nothing is happening? : r/AnxietySo, is Heidegger's sense of anxiety as both distinct from fear, and as having to do with nothing, a sense common enough to be understood today?Well?
>>24842452>a sense common enough to be understood today?Not as anxiety, no. I don't think so. The people you take as examples to show that anxiuousness can be directed at nothing does not really have anything to do with heidegger's idea of a nothing that nihilates. If you look at these reddit posts, you find that they do not really have this in mind. Just that they feel anxious, but are not being confronted by heidegger's nothing in any meaningful way. They do not feel like the beings as a whole are receding, losing their hold and meanings. It's not like they are realizing that everything is ultimately groundless and without any real and ultimate meaning (this viewpoint, in fact, is becoming quite common-sensical in the west).Again, heidegger's mood is not some disorder. You are not this special chosen one because you are scared or distressed all the time. That's not what heidegger is talking about. It's a much more peculiar mood.As for fear. I don't see how being afraid of potential future is not fear. It just feels like hairsplitting to me. Also, apprehension is a kind of fear. Specifically, a feeling of fear that something bad may happen.
>>24842452>>24842465Also, I am going strictly by what heidegger says. He says that anxiety is different from fear in that fear is directed at particular things. Not that they are directed at present things. He is very clear about this because he thinks that metaphysics can only ever be about being as a whole and not particular beings.
>>24842358You might be retarded. It was Nietzsche that did this to philosophy.
>>24842494Heidegger did this. Heidegger's main insight is that there ultimately is no real meaning to being. Being is groundless. What's left is a playground where people just arbitrarily make shit up in order to gratify their desires.
*makes it obvious who is capable of actually doing philosophy and who isn't*really funny to see all the posters in this thread who just don't have what it takes, please get a physical hobby like music or something
>>24842520Well, as Carnap said. Heidegger was just a musician without any musical skill. Perhaps, many continental philosophers are just wannabe artists without any real artistic skill.
>>24842465>As for fear. I don't see how being afraid of potential future is not fear. It just feels like hairsplitting to me.What? But your entire argument is hairsplitting. "Heidegger says that anxiety isn't fear, but I say it is, and I don’t think that sense has anything to do with what anyone means by anxiety. Therefore, anxiety is fear, and fear is anxiety, therefore Heidegger is making shit up."As for the rest, you're skirting the whole issue, you can't start by saying his concept is nothing like what we mean today, and then, when his concept is shown to be apropos, shift your complaint to "well, but no one who has this anxiety today intends to talk about metaphysics." Heidegger's giving a particular account of anxiety as it relates to the topic of metaphysics and ontology, and as a phenomenological account it intends to get "behind" the experience being considered. Again, what you said to start this off was "The problem is that Heidegger's anxiety has exactly two things in common with the ordinary understanding of anxiety: jack and shit." And I just showed that for someone who's interested in anxiety only as it relates to ontology, he speaks of it well enough that it's common to speak of anxiety as being anxiety of nothing or nothing in particular, and to be distinguished from fear. To quote Heidegger: "Anxiety strikes us dumb. As the unified whole of what-is slips away and the nothing crowds in on us, all utterance of “is” falls silent in the face of it. Amidst the strangeness of anxiety we often try to shatter the empty stillness with mind less chatter, but that only proves the presence of the nothing. Later, when anxiety has dissolved, we ourselves offer first-hand testimony that anxiety reveals the nothing. In the clear vision that preserves a fresh memory, we find ourselves obliged to say that what we had anxiety of and for was-nothing, really. And that is exactly right. The nothing itself-as such-was there." This absolutely speaks to what a number of people today think, *because it's become a more common sense of anxiety*.>>24842473>Also, I am going strictly by what heidegger says. He says that anxiety is different from fear in that fear is directed at particular things. Not that they are directed at present things.You're not going by what Heidegger says, and this is exactly the kind of hairsplitting you were just complaining about. Heidegger says exactly this at the start of his analysis of fear in Being and Time: "That before which we are afraid, the "fearsome," is always *something encountered within the world*, either with the kind of being of *something at hand* or *something objectively present* or Dasein-with."
>claims to be investigating the 'meaning' of being >concludes that there is none, it exists only within the horizon of time>defines absolutely nothing beyond this horizonWhat a fucking dickhead.
>>24842553I'm pretty sure Heidegger infamously abandoned the time angle and thats why Being and Time was never finished.
>>24842549Again, you did not show that the common understanding of anxiety has anything to do with heidegger's. People do not think of anxiety as something that reveals the nothing that nihilates and shows being as being ultimately groundless. That's not what people think about. Anxious people are usually anxious about something particular. When they say it is about nothing, it's not about the nothing that nihilates. It is amazing how people can just try to spin philosophers into affirming whatever disorder they have.
>>24842577That's all I know him from him, unfortunately. What I do know, however, is that Hiedeggar had lost his faith before writing Being and Time, which is why (to me, at least) his conception of Dasein comes across as nothing more than a failed attempt to reclaim his loss of faith in the form ontology.
>>24841739>phenomenologist>nihilistI'm so tired of you fucking retards who've never read a philosophy book in your life and just post on /lit/ and twitter but still act smug
It's fine, philosophy wasn't worth much to begin with. Storytelling, on the other hand...
>>24843561You and I have the exact opposite opinion
