Why is it, that every time I’m reading Heidegger, I get the feeling that he is saying something new and profound in philosophy? (Everything else in the history of Philosophy seems to expand on or restate something already incapsulated in ancient philosophy)I’m not yet able to put it into words, but I will work on it in the coming year.
How much Heidegger have you read so far?
>>24970567About 1/3 of being and time (I’m taking my time with this one), what is thinking and an introduction by Peter trawny (he is the chairman of the German Heidegger society).
>>24970567Btw that collection is quite impressive.
>>24970538>Why is it, that every time I’m reading Heidegger, I get the feeling that he is saying something new and profound in philosophy?isn't his whole rhetorical style designed to create this impression? i'm not saying he isn't exploring new territory, but he also makes a big deal of announcing that he's doing so.
>>24970538Because Heidegger is one of few philosophers whose philosophy didn't boil down to [previous philospher] but slightly modified.After Kant and Hegel, Heidegger is the greatest German philosopher.
>>24970610Nietzsche mogs Kant and Hegel.
>>24970610In the past one and a half years I made my way through modern philosophy starting with Descartes and the years prior i was pretty much an Aristotelian-thomist, so reading Heidegger now is like discovering something truly new and engaging.
>>24970602Yes, and his unique terminology. But the question is if it’s just a rhetorical tool or the real deal. I tend towards the latter.
>>24970630I agree that there is something to gain from Nietzsche, but his severe mental illness and instability really took toll on his work.
>>24970630Eh, not really.Nietzsche is miles ahead of garbage like Schopenhauer, but in no way is he better than Hegel.
>>24970538Why is it, that every time I’m reading Kant, I get the feeling that he is saying something new and profound in philosophy? (Everything else in the history of Philosophy seems to expand on or restate something already incapsulated in ancient philosophy)I’m not yet able to put it into words, but I will work on it in the coming year.
>>24971135I mean Kant is alright, but have you read the og?
Most people who are blown away by Heidegger haven't read Husserl and Rilke. Heidegger's writings are not that impressive, his lectures are more worthwhile and he himself preferred lecturing and only started writing because his career pressured it. Heidegger's Introduction to Metaphysics, which was originally in lecture form, is worthwhile for anyone to read, but his purely written works can be replaced by Husserl and Rilke.
Because he literally wanted to continue pre-Socratic Greek thought in his own direction, so he "branched out" way early.
>>24971125Hegel is just the millionth dude trying to come up with some pseudo-logical obscurantist bullshit to convince himself his religiousness is actually very well thought out.Here's a good read: archive dot org/details/hegel-and-the-hermetic-tradition
>>24971236Hegel is fundamentally at odds with Christian theology and presents it as a sort of folk tale for the truth. He is positive toward it as he sees it as the highest form of religion, but still explicitly considers religion to be inferior to philosophy and only good insofar as it helps convey philosophical truths to those lacking these he faculty for philosophy
>>24970538>Why is it, that every time I’m reading Heidegger, I get the feeling that he is saying something new and profound in philosophy? (Everything else in the history of Philosophy seems to expand on or restate something already incapsulated in ancient philosophy)>I’m not yet able to put it into words, but I will work on it in the coming year.>>24970538Because like every termite-of-civilization European 'philosopher' from Kant through Marx and Sartre on, his work is psychotic word-salad hiding his inferiority and envy complex.
>>24971257Do you think Camus felt inferior and envied others? I certainly don't think Spinoza did, if anything panged him it was the inferiority of other humans compared to him, although he wouldn't put it that way.
>>24971257No, you see I bought being and time five or six years ago and I tried to read it. By that time i had only read some Nietzsche and Plato, hence the text was impenetrable to me and I didn’t get anything out of it and dropped it. This year I picked it up again and now I’m finally able to make sense of it. I can tell you, that was such a satisfying feeling to read these once cryptic walls of text and suddenly being able to comprehend what was being said. And as I’ve said in op it is something new in the history of philosophy and it’s very relevant to our age.
>>24971236That book isn't very good. Magee makes his case by quoting Hegel very partially on mysticism and ignoring Hegel's qualified statements on how mysticism may resemble speculative thought. He rejects mysticism as most people understand it straight up. It's "true" inasmuch as every partial viewpoint is "true" in some qualified way in the system, but it's not the same as non-discursive intuition or revelatory experiences. Similarly, he doesn't accept Christianity as most people take it, the anon at >>24971241 has the right idea.
>>24971273>ignoring Hegel's qualified statements on how mysticism may resemble speculative thought.not resemble, brainlet. IT IS SPECULATIVE THOUGHT. your miniscule brain has not grasped the concept of the concept.>Speculative truth, it may also be noted, means very much the same as what, in special connection with religious experience and doctrines, used to be called Mysticism. The term Mysticism is at present used, as a rule, to designate what is mysterious and incomprehensible: and in proportion as their general culture and way of thinking vary, the epithet is applied by one class to denote the real and the true, by another to name everything connected with superstition and deception.
>>24971135What’s remarkable about Kant to me is how retarded he sounds at first, but the more of other philosophy you read the more you see his genius. His books just get better and better the more you return to them.
>>24971291But that’s not what most people mean by mysticism. Just like most people do not mean by Christianity “the picture-thinking version of idealist philosophy.”
>>24971272Most people don’t want to admit it but that’s half the fun of philosophy, simply the pleasure of understanding something esoteric.
>>24971221I look forward to reading Husserl because he’s supposed to be so close to my main man Fichte.Watched a great talk by Hegel scholar Robert Pippin responding to Heidegger. It was bizarre though, Pippin acknowledges that Heidegger genuinely understood Hegel (unlike, in his view, Kierkegaard, Marx, Adorno, etc). But he can’t understand how there could be something non-logical. To me on a gut level it seems obvious that we logically make sense of a fundamentally strange reality, and if you jettison that strangeness, your picture of being is incomplete no matter how intelligent and nuanced it is. I think of a guy hanging on to a ledge trying to clamber up and Hegel saying “don’t fret good sir this is a mere immediacy.” Fichte is more concerned with that radical immediacy, strangeness, terror, and I gather Heidegger is as well so I’ll probably like him a lot. I don’t mean to give Hegel short shrift though, he is gigabased.
>>24971458Someone please post the Husserl PhD screenshot. I need a laff
>>24971458> I think of a guy hanging on to a ledge trying to clamber up and Hegel saying “don’t fret good sir this is a mere immediacy.” There’s a passage in the doctrine of being where Hegel says more or less exactly this. A real philosopher knows how small he and his cares really are.
>>24971273Yes, if there’s one thing Hegel hates it’s the notion of an immediate, irrational, emotional apprehending of truth. Is this what Christian and pagan mystics meant by mysticism? No, but does Hegel ever come to terms with this? So here again Hegel looks rather domesticated.
>>24971458>I don’t mean to give Hegel short shrift though, he is gigabasedHe really isn’t, you’re still in the honeymoon phase. Give it a few years.
>>24971458>Watched a great talk by Hegel scholar Robert Pippin i only know this guy from youtube videos of his talks but they're all excellent. i'm particularly a fan of his talk on Western movies.
>>24971291That is exactly what I'm talking about, you're doing what Magee does. Right after that paragraph, Hegel continues,>On which we first of all remark that there is mystery in the mystical, only however for the understanding which is ruled by the principle of abstract identity; whereas the mystical, as synonymous with the speculative, is the concrete unity of those propositions which understanding only accepts in their separation and opposition. And if those who recognise Mysticism as the highest truth are content to leave it in its original utter mystery, their conduct only proves that for them too, as well as for their antagonists, thinking means abstract identification, and that in their opinion, therefore truth can only be won by renouncing thought, or as it is frequently expressed, by leading the reason captive.That draws a sharp distinction between speculative thought for Hegel and what mysticism amounts to for most people.
>>24971458I'm excited to see what you may say about Heidegger whenever you may get around to him. I actually agree that his written work isn't so compelling (I make exception for some of the late essays), but his lecture course transcripts and notes are incredible and exciting, even when he seems totally full of shit. They're overwhelming insofar as there's so goddamn many courses, but they're worth their weight in gold.
>>24971502my point is that Hegel is a mystic, but a higher order scientific mystic. the mystery is the same, and thus both mystic and speculative philosopher are speaking about the same thing, but the speculative philosopher goes further by explaining the same mystery discursively that the mystic can only express poetically.
>>24971557You really think understanding the Science of Logic is just as good as the union mystics write about? I’m not trying to troll you and I am no mystic but come on man.
>>24971577Reaching that union requires ascesis and contemplative practice. Continental “philosophers” don’t know a thing about it.
>>24971584Hegel (and Heidegger) were former seminarians so they definitely did know about it. In Hegel’s case I think he was so disturbed by the superficial “muh mysticism” of Schelling that he decided to say nothing about it. If you fast and live a good moral life and study philosophy you might see some things, I can only believe based on the testimony of people like Plotinus and Augustine who have done this.
>>24971594Bourgeois fantasy. It may have been real for someone like Augustine but for you it’s just a fever-dream of self-fulfillment and self-perfection, frankly a form of masturbation.
>>24971605Augustine was bourgeois so was Plotinus. Working people don’t have time for this shit. So cry me a river, yes Jenkin Johnson down at the dirt factory is not studying philosophy. Do you have a point or just buzzwords?
>>24971620You are self-refuting self-parody. Have fun ignoring the working class we’ll all find out together how that story ends.
>>24970538Heidegger often frames disagreement as:A symptom of inauthentic thinkingEvidence of being trapped in “metaphysics”A failure to “listen to Being”This is a classic sophistical defense:If you agree Heidegger is profoundIf you disagree you “don’t yet think properly”The position becomes unfalsifiable in practice.
>>24971641I think the working class should be educated and improved, as they empirically have been. You think they should remain as some dark sweaty “other”. There are sexual aspects here. It’s ok to be gay but your gayness is making you retarded and that’s not ok.
>>24971577it's better actually>logic is to be understood as the system of pure reason, as the realm of pure thought. This realm is truth as it is without veil and in its own absolute nature. It can therefore be said that this content is the exposition of God as he is in his eternal essence before the creation of nature and a finite mind.
>>24971221What Husserl and Rilke? You mean Malte Laurid?
>>24971667The issue is that of course “everything makes sense.” But there’s an irreducible core of nonsense, your impending demise being exhibit A.
>>24971660Philosophy does not permit itself to be lowered to the standpoint of the masses; the masses must raised to the standpoint of philosophy if they are ever to taste of the sweet sweet milk of the big round juicy tits of wisdom.
>>24971680skill issue
>>24971655I get that. But let’s be real for a second. If one reads being and time for the first time (and one understands what is being said), how can one not come to the conclusion that Heidegger broke out of the traditional course of western philosophy in order to tackle fundamental problems that just weren’t discussed in western philosophy?For me it’s clear as day.There’s also other stuff Heidegger introduced into philosophy, like reading platonic texts with his students to reconstruct what these texts were about, before him this wasn’t practiced in university. Today at least at European universities this is the bread and butter of philosophical works at universities (mainly reading and discussing the original texts, not just Plato of course).
