Thread 24665701

Should I start with Kierkegaard or directly jump into someone more modern like Heidegger?

Relevant video
https://youtu.be/90m6Hb6_j20?si=ETbkovA2gTPT_Cp-

>>24665701 (OP)
Kierkegaard's a better place to start with Heidegger, although Heidegger will answer your question more thoroughly.

>>24665706
From what I understand Kierkegaard doesn't just tackle this single theme and has a wide range of topics and his "solutions" basically involve christianity while Heidegger is dry and more difficult to understand. I'm leaning towards Heidegger+ a secondary source for an easier but still want to consult with people who are more well read on the subject matter.

Bump.

>>24665701 (OP)
>Should I start with Kierkegaard or directly jump into someone more modern like Heidegger?
Gateless Gate, Idres Shah's nasrudin.

>>24665889
Non-bait answers please.

>>24665701 (OP)
Bump

>>24665701 (OP)
Philosophy brainlet here but I watched The Ister recently and it seems to have been a pretty good primer on Heidegger to decide if you want to go further.

>>24666350
That's an interesting suggestion.

>>24665701 (OP)
Bump.

>>24665701 (OP)
Redpill me on Heidegger lads. I'm mostly into ancient philosophy and idealism so I don't know much about him at all. I am aware I could just read the SEP article but it would be fun to hear an anon's hot take. I've heard Heidegger thinks all of the classical western philosophers, from Plato through Nietzsche, got filtered by the metaphysics of presence. What does that mean? What did all of these guys get wrong, exactly? It can't be subject/object distinction because most of them fight against this in one way or another, dualism a la Descartes is a minority position in Western thought. Spoon-feed me.

>>24666875
Don't think you'll get your answer. I've been waiting all day and only got one concrete answer. I was expecting more. It seems other anons also just start with the greeks and end it with the greeks.

>>24666878
Most anons don't even end with the Greeks they end with Plato and maybe the pre-socratic fragments. Just the other day we had an anon claiming that Aristotle believed essences were 'abstracted' from sensible particulars. They just cobble together bits and pieces from /lit/, reddit, and blogs. Pretty sure the number of anons who actually read philosophy is less than 10 - a couple of Deleuze anons, who seem like alright blokes but I don't know what they're talking about; a couple of Kantanons; maybe two idealistanons who talk about Fichte, Schelling and Hegel, but they may be the same as the Kantanons. And that one guy who starts threads every couple of weeks asking for help with Heidegger and never gets a response oh wait that's you.

>>24666897
Don't forget the schizos, like that one wordsalad anon who's always telling you to "perform the calculation". He'll write multiparagraph posts about Kant that make no sense at all. And don't forget the trolls, like the Parmenides troll and the Descartes troll.

>>24666875
>Cassirer had to approach him after a talk to clarify a misreading of Plato
>Confesses he's an enigma to him.

In light of Plato and later Platonists' development, Heidegger is very silly, gnostically silly even. But that's on the face of it— If you appreciate what he's getting at, he'll still be intriguing the later in his career/life you read.

>>24666932
How? Could you maybe use your words a bit on this one?

>>24666875
A quick and dirty explanation.


Heidegger believes that the metaphysical category of "existent" leads to a bunch of mistakes. For Heidegger there is just being, everything is being, everything has its own being. Heidegger incorporates this into his phenomenology, the subject/object distinction remains, but we to a more fundamental root that Descartes epistemologically speaking(Heidegger rejects cogito ergo sum), and to the acknowledgement that phenomenological objects have being. Heidegger believes that this is what the pre-Socratics already knew before metaphysics obscured being over the history of philosophy.

There is a lot of debate on what Heidegger actually thought of Plato himself.

>>24667210
Answer my question as well anon.

Do people here not read Kierkegaard and Heidegger?

>>24665701 (OP)
You'd do well researching history of "historicism" going back to Herder and their reaction to Anglo-French Enlightenment theories to understand the grounding of where Heidegger's subjectivism comes from.

>>24665701 (OP)
I've read quite a bit of both (but substantially more Heidegger), but I've never really come to them with the topics of subjectivity or realism really in mind, and I'm admittedly not the audience for a video on Nolan. So my recommendation may hit the mark, but it also simply might now, but if you care to expand what it is about those topics you want to know about, or why, that might help.

My instinct would be to say for Kierkegaard that Fear and Trembling might speak well enough to the issue, and it has the advantage of being pretty short and mostly straightforward, though there are some of sections requiring some slowing down to adjust to the philosophical language of German idealism suddenly adopted. I think there are other works relevant, like Either/Or, but I don't think they're as direct unless you put a lot of effort into them.

With Heidegger, pretty much all you really need is Being and Time, largely the second half of that work occupied with death and authenticity. Heidegger shortly after B&T starts changing his orientations rapidly in a way that might seem both less relevant to your interest, and also more difficult.

>>24668413
>So my recommendation may hit the mark, but it also simply might now, but if you care to expand what it is about those topics you want to know about, or why, that might help.

I want to learn more about how subjective truths shape our identity. How we substitute objective uncertainities for what is subjectively true. How our passions, biases, Values, judgements etc...shape our perception of truth. . This is where the video invokes Kierkegaard's leap into faith. Another anon told me that Kierkegaard's leap of faith goes into the realm of theology. To quote them.

>One key point: Kierkegaard presses subjectivity into the realm of theology and philosophy. In Fear and Trembling, he famously argued that ethics (universal laws valid for everyone at all times) can be suspended if one receives a direct divine revelation. This is where the “leap of faith” comes in; jumping into an abyss, because you believe God told you to jump, while every sense, every rational thought, and every societal law warning you not to. It’s radical risk and radical trust with real world consequences.

I was told that more modern existentialists like Heidegger do away with the role of divinity in the topic of subjectivity and offer a more "updated" approach.

>>24668433
You were told wrong, Derrida bastardized Heidegger.

>>24668433
Of course, the role of time and memory in subjectivity as well.

>>24668437
Explain.

>>24668503
They can't help a bitch like you.

>>24668503
Here, let me break it down by using examples in the thread

>>24666875
> I've heard Heidegger thinks all of the classical western philosophers, from Plato through Nietzsche, got filtered by the metaphysics of presence.
This is more the focus of Derrida, Heidegger does touch on this, but it is really about a false sort of ontological positivism which emerges due to metaphysics. Heidegger sees the history of philosophy as a long forgetting of being due to metaphysics, but Derrida basically says everything needs to be thrown away.

>>24668433
>I was told that more modern existentialists like Heidegger do away with the role of divinity in the topic of subjectivity and offer a more "updated" approach.
Nope, literally the opposite, this was Derrida again. For Heidegger, Husserl, and Kierkegaard one of the goals was to bring back the divine, the later existentialists were working to defeat Nietzsche.

>>24666913
>perform the calculation
it's only you

>>24668790
>hfw he's the schizo

>>24668798
What is decisive from the ontologico-existential point of view in the reckoning or computation of time should therefore not be sought in the quantification of time, but must be conceived more originally from the temporality of Dasein reckoning with time. “Public time” is revealed as the “wherein” of the ready-to-hand and the present-at-hand within-the-world with which one meets. This prescribes that we name that being which is not measured by Dasein intratemporal being. The interpretation of intratemporality provides a more originary insight into the essence of “public time” and at the same time makes possible the delimitation of its “being.”

>>24668506
You were saying faggot?
>>24668770
So which religion was Heidegger backing?

>>24668884
None, he wasn't religious. Let me try to make a map to illustrate where Heidegger was operating.

Level 1: "Traditional" Religion
>Established centralized authorities and doctrines

Level 2: Exoteric Paganism
>Decentralized religious worship of ancestors and nature

Level 3: Esoteric Paganism
>Secret worship of the monad(usually) within a pagan religion, the multitude are manifestation of the one

Level 4: Classical Theism
>Deriving theology through reason without religion

Level 5: The Weird Stuff
>In the case of Heidegger, being had a divinity in itself, the gods are below being and being transcends them

>>24668920
I want to be clear that this and my other posts are very flawed, my goal is to do as much as possible to demystify a philosopher who is famous for being incredibly difficult to understand. I am replacing a robot-controlled scalpel with a butter knife in the hands of someone with Parkinson's.

>>24668920
>>24668933
Interesting nonetheless. Thanks.

>>24668933
Btw, what would you consider to be a good secondary source for understanding Heidegger.

>>24669035
Michael Millerman's videos are a good start, he has a Straussian interpretation of Heidegger, but he tends to be very honest and charitable to the other Heideggerians including Derrida and even Bronze Age Pervert of all people.

He has a playlist with all of his Heidegger videos
https://www.youtube.com/live/NCWQun7VcWI?si=hHzRrTF_0wgUZ7nJ

>>24669055
Nice thanks for the link. What do you think of my original request in my OP? on subjectivity whether to choose kierkegaard or Heidegger?

>>24669068
Not to do the meme, but if you have no background in philosophy you should at the very least read Plato's Apology before moving on to more modern thinkers if for nothing else than to get a grasp on what philosophy is. Every philosophical movement in the history of the West can trace itself back to Plato and Aristotle, so understanding the philosophical project is important. You can read Apology in a single sitting, and it is mostly straightforward.

Once you've read Apology then dip your toes into Heidegger, I suggest his essay "The Question Concerning Technology", you will likely need outside resources to help interpret him, but it will introduce you to Heidegger's brand of subjectivity without overloading you completely. You can find a pdf on google.

>>24669167
Umderstood. Thanks for your input. Appreciate it man.

>>24669167
Just one more thing. Are you this anon?>>24668413

>>24669200
Nah, but I agree with him overall.

>>24668884
As long as someone is helping you. Heideggeranons do good work. I can't help you. I also can't fault any of them for not wanting to take my place, Heideggeranons already know how that works. Good luck champ.

>>24665701 (OP)
start with the greeks, this is what the illiad is about

>>24669244
Idk what you mean but I'll take it.

>>24668920
heidegger was training to become a Catholic priest, you can't understand heidegger's religious views if you don't have a solid foundation in the traditional Catholic approach which again was the primary forming thing for him. He specifically wanted a Catholic funeral and always had extensive engagement with Catholic theologians.

I don't think this means "he was catholic/christian" or something in the conventional sense, I think his view is much more complex or even unclear in the sense our relationship with the divine/holy and being and everything is dysfunctional now so there is kind of a separation that just can't be overcome.

I think even now we are in a fairly different world than he was and there's actually a clearer route to that and one where heidegger's rightful criticisms of say some of the scholastic thinkers (though some do argue likely rightfully the issue was more in heidegger viewed them then the thinkers would have actually thought at the time), much of what he talked about is sort of preparing the way for the divine, which I do think he did quite well and I do think in some sense that has meaningfully opened up in some ways though radically closed in others.

the categories you'd use if anything I'd say are more indicative of the fundamentally false view of what the divine or religion is, and that actually traditional religions properly understood are quite compatible with heidegger's view.
We are however I would say only in the beginnings of that opening up though.

The idea of going into heidegger to determine "what religion or religious view" is he backing is precisely the approach that undermines any genuine religion, which during heidegger's time was very much in tension with traditional religion. I think the path for the resolution is clearer now but much work still needs to be done.
(if you want a clear answer of what I mean by this it's the Church as mystical body, as a being, rather than as a set of rules/doctrine)

>>24669307
Of course you don't know. You're a retard.

>>24669368
also just for fun, the main impediment to most people understanding this properly is pearl clutching over heidegger's nazism. blood and soil identitarianism is neccessary to have a historical grounding that actually opens this space up, but that's not something modern scholars can really talk about. that also includes anti-semitism.

if you kvetch about those things (either his catholic influence or his nazi influence) you will never understand heidegger which obviously leaves a very small number of people. no, his philosophy is not seperable from these things.

>>24669384
I lack knowledge but I'm not dumb faggot. Fuck you. I hope step on shards of glass.

>>24666875
A very very simplified way of seeing what Heidegger's doing is to see that his subject, Being, is about intelligibility, and in a very broad way that includes how a being can be understood through predication, identity, poetically, falsely, circumstantially according to culture (e.g., the difference between how we understand an impact drill vs what a tribesman might understand it or not understand it to be), and so on. Most of his arguments with older philosophers come from suspecting that their answers to that question are resolved by appeal to another kind of being, an Idea, a Prime Mover, a God, or what have you. He's not necessarily saying that their answers don't have anything to them, but that they kick the can down the road as far as his own subject is concerned. He also admits that his work taken as a whole isn't necessarily any sign of his superiority, but of how thorny it is to work out his questions in a way comprehensive enough to answer them for us today in a way that holds as well for philosophers 2,500 years ago.

Everyone focuses on Being and Time, but that's on account of how strongly it influenced existentialism and being practically his only available work until his lectures and other writings were edited, published, and translated, but I think the lectures are much more exciting than Being and Time, since at least in the 20s you get to see him work out his analyses in the classroom and adjust them over a number of years, whereas Being and Time makes the work that went into conceiving it somewhat invisible and leaves readers mystified as to how he justifies any of it.

He's also hard to pinpoint on account of how many texts make up his corpus, you could characterize him in a way that may be perfectly true in the mid-20s and be completely off in holding him to those positions just a few years later or by the 60s. But one of his first courses, the 1918 Towards a Definition of Philosophy, has a very good and clear example of what he's after in a passage about a lectern.

>>24669481
>Focus on this experience of 'seeing your place', or you can in turn put yourselves in my own position: coming into the lecture-room, I see the lectern. We dispense with a verbal formulation of this. What do I see? Brown surfaces, at right angles to one another? No, I see something else. A largish box with another smaller one set upon it? Not at all. I see the lectern at which I am to speak. You see the lectern, from which you are to be addressed, and from where I have spoken to you previously. In pure experience there is no 'founding' interconnection, as if I first of all see intersecting brown surfaces, which then reveal themselves to me as a box, then as a desk, then as an academic lecturing desk, a lectern, so that I attach lecternhood to the box like a label. All that is simply bad and misguided interpretation, diversion from a pure seeing into the experience. I see the lectern in one fell swoop, so to speak, and not in isolation, but as adjusted a bit too high for me. I see — and immediately so — a book lying upon it as annoying to me (a book, not a collection of layered pages with black marks strewn upon them), I see the lectern in an orientation, an illumination, a background.
>Certainly, you will say, that might be what happens in immediate experience, for me and in a certain way also for you, for you also see this complex of wooden boards as a lectern. This object, which all of us here perceive, somehow has the specific meaning 'lectern'. It is different if a farmer from deep in the Black Forest is led into the lecture-room. Does he see the lectern, or does he see a box, an arrangement of boards? He sees 'the place for the teacher', he sees the object as fraught with meaning. If someone saw a box, then he would not be seeing a piece of wood, a thing, a natural object. But consider a Negro from Senegal suddenly transplanted here from his hut. What he would see, gazing at this object, is difficult to say precisely: perhaps something to do with magic, or something behind which one could find good protection against arrows and flying stones. Or would he not know what to make of it at all, just seeing complexes of colours and surfaces, simply a thing, a something which simply is? So my seeing and that of a Senegal Negro are fundamentally different. All they have in common is that in both cases something is seen.

>>24669403
His philosophy is definitely separable from nazism as such, insofar as the latter is itself separable from his later philosophy of ge-stell, attunement, placement. His falling out with them and his subsequent sacking was no accident, as they disagreed on key doctrinal points, especially concerning anthropological racialism.

>>24669716
your response is a good example of people pearl clutching to separate him from nazism. I never said his views are identical with nazism, I explicitly also referenced Catholicism which is hardly something that goes along nicely with nazism. But you need to be able to appreciate the positives of both to actually understand what he was getting at, because historically those were actually the influences and things he saw as expressions of them.
Frankly the idea anyone's philosophizing can be totally separable from the historical context that shaped them and that the person themselves said they saw and deeply involved with their ideas is just absurd.

This obviously doesn't mean his views are identical with nazism, which is just a retarded thing to even think anyone is suggesting and your need to try to argue against that retarded claim no one made is a perfect example of what I was talking about. You just don't have what it takes.

>>24670240
Yikes.

Bump.

>>24665701 (OP)
Bump

>>24665701 (OP)
Bump.

>>24665701 (OP)
Final bump.

>>24665701 (OP)
>Heidegger
refuted by Michael Sugrue

>>24671784
Literally who?

>>24671812
bruh

>>24672037
I don‘t have a brother and if I did he‘d probably share my last name (which is not Sugrue)