Is Heidegger right in seeing the end of western metaphysics in Nietzsche?
>>25458561Seeing these photos triggers my chronophobia. Everything was so real in the past, just as things are now, but all of it is gone and will never come back. This will happen to us too.
>>25458569Yeah, this applies to your childhood as well. In the end we’re all gonna make it, I’m sure. Now answer the question
shut the fuck up
Easy to say yes, given how atomized everyone and everything is. Where are you reading metaphysics now, Medium.com?
>>25458561but Analytic Metaphysics exists. Read David Lewis.
>>25459475>>25458561Yes, what did he mean by "end"? He sometimes spoke of "Ende" and sometimes of "Überwindung" (same phrase that also Carnap used) etc. I don't know what he could mean if he intended "end" like τέλος, why would he mean to say something like this.I am not sure what he meant. I hope he didn't mean that there is no serious metaphysics being done after Nietzsche, for that would be retarded.Heidegger's conception of 'metaphysics' and its relation to (fundamental-) ontology seems to differ wildly in his pre-kehre works from later works. Maybe it was even constantly changing. (There are many lectures/introductions/comments/postscripts to Das Sein und das Nichts, all from different periods and he seems to revise his view on how metaphysics, nothing and fear/Angst hang together)If you are asking because you are interested in metaphyaics, just read analytical philosophy. If you want to understand Heidegger, then good luck. Maybe only pseuds claim to understand him. I tried my bestNietzsche was a bit retarded and did not understand what he was talking about when he critizised the european/greek/metaphysical/christian tradition. I don't know why anyone seriously interested in metaphysical questions should waste his time on Nietzsche. Please educate me if you know
>>25458561The end of that can only be the beginning of something else
>>25459523filtered
>>25459334/thread
Whatever western that stopped in Nietzsche is both irrelevant to the west and to his work.
>>25458561It's always an interesting one to re-enact regardless. The paradox is that Nietzsche was so overly critical of metaphysics that you are just left dealing with the limits. If you view Heidegger's claim as a dialectical unfolding then you invite other philosophers. Hegel for one, but also Spinoza, in Ethics 1 he did have a response for those who seek to transcend traditional metaphysics buried in some of the later propositions, but it's also difficult for Spinoza to strictly claim the title due to his propositions on human essence from Ethics 2.>Zarathustra can only speak in past tense to go first. >to go last, he may never speak at all.>an eternal truth is only eternal for as long as the person is living and cannot perceive a life before learning it.
But Plato already refuted Nietzsche millennia before he was born.
>>25459475I appreciate the effort but all analytics lack soul.
>>25458561D&G
>>25461195Elaborate pls
