Talk:Dasein

Dasein, blood and soil, and Nazism

I've added a couple of quotes, taken from Martin Heidegger and Nazism. One where Heidegger discusses the relationship between Dasein and "blood and soil", and another where he invokes the concept in support of the Nazi election campaign. It seems to me that these quotes are pretty clear evidence that Heidegger's philosophy and politics were closely intertwined. However, adding the claim would be WP:OR. Conversely, so would commentary seeking to disentangle them, unless based on WP:RS analysis of the quotes in question JQ (talk) 06:25, 31 December 2022 (UTC)

Removal of wording about earlier usage

Some wording that was present in the article for many years was removed. I suggest that the wording be retained.

Timeline of additions and removals:

• 15 Feb 2008: added "The word Dasein was used by several philosophers before Heiddeger, ..."
• 01 Nov 2009: added "most notably Ludwig Feuerbach, ..."
• 08 Jul 2012: changed "Ludwig Feuerbach" to "Georg Wilhelm Friedrich Hegel" (who was earlier)
• 05 May 2020: added additional details (including citation to G.W.F. Hegel)
• 27 Aug 2023: removal of the above
• 13 Aug 2024: re-added the above
• 13 Aug 2024: re-removal of the above

Reasons to retain the content in question:

1. The content did not clearly violate any Wikipedia policy.
2. The content was sourced.
3. The content was in the article for over a decade (and the original wording for 15 years), with apparently no controversy.
4. The section title "Heidegger's reinterpretation" clearly indicates that it's about a reinterpretation on the part of Heidegger, and this title (or similar) was also in the article for many years. The longevity of that title and supporting content establishes it as relevant, as hundreds of editors have seen it and not removed it. Removing information about previous interpretations of "Dasein" in philosophical contexts negates that section's obvious and established meaning and purpose.
5. Suppression of any information that the word "Dasein" was used in philosophical contexts prior to Heidegger gives the false impression that Heidegger was the first to do so.
6. The article title is "Dasein", not "Dasein (Heidegger concept)", which means the article is not required to contain only Heidegger-specific information. While there may be subjective preference for one philosopher over another (WP:POV), no objective reason has been given why only one preferred philosopher's interpretation should be covered and some other philosopher's excluded.
7. Even readers interested only in the Heidegger-specific information may still need to know the overall history, that the term was used by other philosophers (not to provide a dictionary, just historical accuracy).
8. If other philosophers' usages of "Dasein" are less commonly known, WP:DUE suggests giving those usages less coverage. This was already the case before the removal.
9. Removing long-standing and sourced content, on the basis of one editor's opinion that certain things are not relevant, seems to run counter to various Wikipedia policies, including WP:POV ("Generally, do not remove sourced information from the encyclopedia solely because it seems biased") and WP:E ("Rather than remove imperfect content outright, fix problems if you can, tag or excise them if you can't").

In short: for the above reasons, it's unclear that long-standing content (over a decade) that has potential value and relevance should be removed. I propose that it be retained, or at least restored and then tagged as needed (as suggested by WP:E). -- HLachman (talk) 03:00, 14 August 2024 (UTC)

Hi @HLachman,

Thanks for using the talk page! Article history does not carry any weight on Wikipedia, so I'll respond just in terms of the current version and current policy/guidelines.

As best I can see, the only use of the German term "Dasein" that meets the notability criteria for inclusion on English Wikipedia is Heidegger's use, which is such a departure from the normal meaning of the word (whether in ordinary conversation or in academic philosophy) that translators just threw up their hands. By contrast, all of the English translations of Hegel's work translate his use of "Daseyn", although they do so in different ways.

Put differently, I deleted the mention of Hegel because Heidegger is not developing Hegel's concept; he is starting a new conversation about something else. If mentioning Hegel helped to clarify Heidegger's meaning, I would have no objections. As far as I can see, however, it only introduces unnecessary complications.

I don't think it's worth changing the title of the article, but maybe it would be appropriate to add a hatnote to clarify the topic and perhaps also to link out to German Wiktionary and the English article existence? In any event, I'm going to go ahead right now and change the section header "Heidegger's reinterpretation" to "Meaning". Its opening sentence already clarifies that the meaning under discussion is non-standard.

Cheers, Patrick (talk) 17:43, 14 August 2024 (UTC)

@Patrick Welsh: I reverted your edit to the section header, because it was done unilaterally while the material in question is being discussed (here), and seems to have been done without regard for the reasons why that title was chosen in the first place. This exacerbates the problem I raised rather than solving it. Now, I'll respond to your individual points:

• "Article history does not carry any weight on Wikipedia". Longevity, by itself, was not my point. It's that many editors saw the text over that period, and saw nothing controversial in it. I'm questioning whether, in that situation, the opinion of one editor warrants removing the text (rather than, say, improving or tagging it), while also considering that multiple other editors apparently support including it (i.e., those editors who added or modified that text, plus myself).
• You referenced WP:NOTABILITY. That policy says, "The notability guideline does not determine the content of articles, but only whether the topic may have its own article." Therefore, it's not relevant to this discussion.
• "I deleted the mention of Hegel because Heidegger is not developing Hegel's concept". That, by itself, doesn't justify removing the content. If it did, one might edit the Google article to remove mention of "googol", or edit the Engelbert Humperdinck (singer) article to remove mention of the German composer, or edit the Operation Warp Speed article to remove mention of Star Trek, or edit the Computer article to remove mention of the earlier meaning, "a person who carried out calculations or computations"... all on the basis of the later thing being separate from the earlier thing. But nobody is doing that, or even suggesting it.
• "it only introduces unnecessary complications". It didn't. But if you think the meaning wasn't clear, you could improve the wording to clarify it.
• "I don't think it's worth changing the title of the article". Nobody suggested doing so.
• "maybe it would be appropriate to add a hatnote to clarify the topic". Probably not. It was pretty clear before.

In short, I've addressed all of your points. You haven't addressed all of mine (there were 9 of them). Therefore, for the reasons I gave in my original post above, I'm still in favor of retaining the deleted text. -- HLachman (talk) 01:39, 16 August 2024 (UTC)

It's that many editors saw the text over that period, and saw nothing controversial in it.

Yes, this is merely the standard argument from longevity. It's considered lacking because this is the strongest possible interpretation of events: it's equally if not more plausible that editors do not notice, or notice and do not spend their time correcting, specific flaws. It's simply not an argument worth making in any case, see WP:BEENHERE.

WP:N

It's fairly common (and fairly harmless) for editors to conflate notability with the related intra-article content policies of due weight and balance, as was likely intended here. The point being made is the prominence afforded to this statement in the article does not reflect its prominence in the sources.

googol

Similarly, it's not the most illuminating to make arguments merely based on what errors other articles may or may not contain, see WP:OTHERCONTENT.

Patrick's core point is that the article is not about the German word Dasein, it's about the concept as formulated in our sources—i.e. predominantly a Heideggerean concept. If secondary analysis does not make note of possible connections to the work of others, we shouldn't either just because the same string of letters happened to appear. This could result in claims constituting original research if we insist that two distinct things should be related without any sources having done so first. Patrick has articulated multiple points that indicate Hegel's use is simply irrelevant to the article's subject—what is understood to be a specifically Heideggerean concept. Remsense ‥ 诉 02:01, 16 August 2024 (UTC)

Responding:

• "Patrick's core point is that the article is not about the German word Dasein". Actually, I wasn't suggesting that the article should be about the German word, only that it provide the reader with information about how "Dasein" has been used as a philosophical term.
• "editors do not notice, or notice and do not spend their time correcting, specific flaws". I agree that we don't know their opinions about this content. But some editors are apparently in favor of it (those who added or modified that content, plus myself). And some editors aren't. I'm not sure we have enough opinions to claim consensus on either side.
• "just because the same string of letters happened to appear". I never put that forth as a reason. I'm only concerned about readers who are interested to know how "Dasein" has been used as a philosophical term.
• "Hegel's use is simply irrelevant to the article's subject". I don't personally have a conclusion about how relevant or irrelevant the other authors are (e.g., Hegel and Feuerbach). Cited sources show them all discussing "being" (as a philosophical concept) in one way or another.
• "it's not the most illuminating to make arguments merely based on what errors other articles may or may not contain". I didn't mean to say or imply that those other articles are in error (and to say that they have errors seems to be an assumption). I'm just saying that it's fairly ordinary for an encyclopedia (Wikipedia or otherwise) to include information about prior usages of a given term, especially if it's within the same field.
• "intra-article content policies of due weight and balance". I was the first to reference that policy (see #8, above). Nobody responded to my point on that. Note that there are sources discussing prior usages of "Dasein" as a philosophical term, one is the Hegel citation that was deleted, and here are two others (from plato.stanford.edu and www.researchgate.net). While the prior usages may be far less known than Heidegger's, merely adding a single sentence about them (such as in the deleted text) would seem to be consistent with WP:DUE (in support of my point #8, also #5 and #7).

Therefore, I'm still in favor of retaining the deleted text (while being open to other opinions). -- HLachman (talk) 04:02, 16 August 2024 (UTC)

Hello.

First of all I would like to point out that my old edit (2020) was caused by an error on the page: "The term has been used by several philosophers before Heidegger, most notably Georg Wilhelm Friedrich Hegel, with the meaning of human 'existence' or 'presence'". I had left the first part of the sentence, but I deleted the last part using the original source of Hegel, whose thought had been distorted. Therefore, what had been present on the page for years was at least misleading, and I tried to remedy the errors of others, without wanting to complicate things, but rather to clarify them.

For the rest, I fully agree with the theses supported by @HLachman. NONIS STEFANO (talk) 06:35, 16 August 2024 (UTC)

There's nothing I've seen in what you cited that connects Hegel's use of the term with the Heideggerean sense. You seem to be conflating discussing prior usages with a mere parenthetical mention of the original term used by a text, which is all that each cited source does. This is because the uses are not particularly related, and thus not worth artificially fusing into one topic for an encyclopedia article. It's not one "philosophical term" separate from just Existence. The coherent scope of the topic is Heideggar's use specifically, as we are not a dictionary. Remsense ‥ 诉 06:52, 16 August 2024 (UTC)

Wow! I hope all this attention to the article results in some broader improvements. Thanks all, for chiming in.

The item we need to clearly establish before any further discussion is that the topic of the article is "Dasein" as a technical term in Heidegger's philosophy, and that it is not the German word Dasein or even Dasein as other German philosophers have used it. An article about the word would not survive an AfD, whereas Heidegger's term certainly would.

Readers who (somehow) find themselves here looking when for the general meaning of existence should be directed to that article or to ontology.

I'm am proceeding as if we do agree on this. Please speak up if you do not.

It is certainly true that Hegel means something different by Daseyn (the old timey spelling is preserved in the critical editions, modernized to Dasein in most others) than what Heidegger means (and when Heidegger starts to use archaic spellings, he does intend for this to have philosophical significance). My objection is not even primarily about sourcing or other Wikipedia policy as such. It is about keeping the article on topic and, more specifically, avoid potentially misleading readers into thinking that Heidegger's analysis of Dasein was a response to Hegel specifically. It's just that citing policy is generally faster and easier for all editors involved.

If Hegel is to be mentioned in this context, it should probably be just as one member of an incomplete list, and this should be sourced to the secondary literature on Heidegger. A better solution, however, would probably be explain that Heidegger considered the entire tradition of Western metaphysics to have lost its way. This includes people writing in Latin and French just as much as those writing in German.

The problem is that, according to Heidegger, everyone since at least the Presocratics has misrepresented being as such as the present-at-hand being of entities or substance. They fail to recognize what Heidegger thematizes as ontological difference. His analysis of Dasein is introduced as a methodological starting point into a novel conception of fundamental ontology, that is, an inquiry into the meaning of being qua being.

In short, there are a lot of ways the article could be improved with respect to historical contextualization, but pointing to one or two other German philosophers using the word in a more normal way does not, as far as I can see, provide such context.

An analogy: If I wrote a book claiming that it is phenomenologically impermissible to speak of "the human being" or "the individual", but only of our activity of "exist-ing", it would not help to clarify this willfully idiosyncratic practice by pointing out that Russell uses "exist" and its cognates in different ways closer to the dictionary sense.

Two other points:

1. I initially left the Jaspers section because I have not read him and thought that there was at least a good chance that he was responding to Heidegger in a way that just wasn't clear in the body of the article. Looking at the talk history, however, I see the editor who added this section was working on the assumption the article was about just the word, and that Jaspers's concept has no relation to Heidegger. Unless someone steps up with a source to the contrary, it should be deleted.
2. This discussion and the talk history indicate that this article does need at least a hatnote and maybe a title change.

I will wait to act on these point, however, until this discussion reaches its conclusion.

Cheers, Patrick (talk) 17:28, 16 August 2024 (UTC)

I vote for keeping the wording until 2023. Velho (talk) 17:44, 16 August 2024 (UTC)

Welcome to the discussion. Would you mind explaining your rationale? Wikipedia is WP:NOTDEMOCRACY, and disagreements are not resolved by vote. Patrick (talk) 18:05, 16 August 2024 (UTC)

(meta-discussion)

For the information of other participants: @NONIS STEFANO and @Velho are here in response to solicitations [1] and [2] by @HLachman in violation of the guideline against WP:Canvassing. I am still entirely willing to consider any arguments they put forward. But, please, a little more effort engaging on the issues, okay? Thank you, Patrick (talk) 22:57, 16 August 2024 (UTC)

It certainly borders on votestacking, so it's nice to be made aware. Remsense ‥ 诉 23:10, 16 August 2024 (UTC)

If I may respond to the accusation against me ("violation of the guideline against WP:Canvassing"): I disagree that the guideline was violated. Per policy WP:RUCD and guideline WP:TALK#NOMETA, I address this concern more fully in the User-talk space (here). I respectfully request that we honor those policies and guidelines, along with WP:ASSUMEGOODFAITH. Thank you. -- HLachman (talk) 04:02, 17 August 2024 (UTC)

I'm sure everyone involved would be very happy for us all to just focus upon together improving the article. That's what I take myself to have been doing, but maybe we would have better results if you kicked things off. Please, have a go! Patrick (talk) 05:35, 17 August 2024 (UTC)

I trust that I've adequately addressed your meta-topic in the user-talk space. For now, I've added a "meta-discussion" subsection header, in order to separate it from the discussion about article content. Regarding article content, I've pretty much said what I have to say about it already, but will add a response to your latest comment above. -- HLachman (talk) 06:39, 17 August 2024 (UTC)

Removing italics from "Dasein" in article and title

Per discussion above, "Dasein" has been imported into the English-language scholarship as a technical term, not a German word. I checked the M&R and Stambaugh (1st ed. & revision) translations of SZ, and both render the term in roman, as does at least what secondary literature I have on my shelf. Unless anyone is aware of a recent and widespread change in practice, I will bring the article into compliance.

If the title is going to be changed, as I am now convinced it should be, I would propose adding the paranthetical (Heideggerian term) in addition to removing the italics.

Does anyone object to this or have any alternatives for us to consider? Patrick (talk) 23:38, 16 August 2024 (UTC)