Talk:Martin Heidegger

Archive Created April 5th 2005

• The Discussion archive is available here, and issues raised in the archive may be copied to this page if a editor wishes to reassert or quote a prior comment topic. --Mikerussell 02:38, 9 April 2006 (UTC)/Archive 1

New Nazi section edits April 1st, 2005

I removed large chunck in the belife that they were not needed to offer readers an adequate impression of what Heidegger was thinking/doing. i would suggest readers go to pages on the Deconstructionist authors to further understand the response to heidegger's 'naziam'.--Mikerussell 18:34, 2005 Apr 1 (UTC)

removed:Whether or not this affiliation is distasteful or even ethically horrifying, it cannot as such become the sole criterion for judging the validity of his philosophy; to understand the extent of Heidegger's philosophical wrong one must arrive at a scholarly understanding of the extent to which the one partakes in the other (rather than attempting to "have nothing to do" with either). What is most objectionable in sharply dismissive criticisms of Heidegger's work is conflation of the two or the assertion that the two are simply but thoroughly coextensive (for example: Adorno's remark, offered in mitigation of his concessions to the National Socialist regime, that Heidegger's philosophy was "fascist down to its innermost workings," in contrast to his own failings, incidental by the contrast offered).

Having mentioned the contributions of Derrida, Lacoue-Labarthe, and Lyotard, it is worth noting that Heidegger's relation to the Shoah and Nazism was the subject of great and occasionally fractious debate across various deconstructions, whose stakes included the extent to which specific practitioners of deconstruction could entirely do without Heideggerian deconstruction (as Lyotard in particular may have wished) or were therefore obliged to further (and in the cases of many mis- and uninformed criticisms, recall) already extensive criticisms of Heidegger which considerably predated (in the case of Derrida, by decades) the broad recognition of Heidegger's activities as a National Socialist precipitated by press attention to the Farias book and extensive treatments of the Shoah and its implications (for example, the proceedings of the first conference dedicated to Derrida's work, published as Les Fins de l'Homme, the essay from which that title was taken, Derrida's Cinders and "Restitutions of the Truth in Pointing," or the studies on Celan by Lacoue-Labarthe and Derrida which shortly preceded the detailed studies of Heidegger's politics published in and after 1987). On so many of these matters, please see Avital Ronell's "The Differends of Man" in Finitude's Score. Particularly given that the ways in which various deconstructions have more or less self-consciously inherited from Heidegger is often used to find them complicit in his most reprehensible politics by implication, one ought to review at least the above readings before indulging such a line of argument or when otherwise wishing to understand what filiation has been taken to mean in a philosophical context.

Additionally, I removed a senetence or two that I think I originally wrote, and seems rather cheap, or written in a gossipy tone, Professor Heidegger's life was marred in the eyes of many critics by his affiliation with the Nazi Party and his extra-marital affair with one of his young students - Hannah Arendt. Additionally, the fact that Heidegger engaged in a sexual affair with Arendt while he was married, and she was his student, thus wielding considerable power over her future, reflects poorly upon him in the eys of many. I cut.--Mikerussell 18:34, 2005 Apr 1 (UTC)

To remove all of the above completely on the view that they belong with articles covering deconstruction is to overlook the fact that Heidegger's work is regard as itself already deconstruction. The question of how one is to inherit from Heidegger is a relevant one, and it should not be removed from this article: this is essential to "what is left" of Heidegger. I have therefore moved the second paragraph to be the conclusion to the section on French reception. I think the reference to Adorno should be noted, so I've worked it into the conclusions section on Nazism. Buffyg 11:56, 24 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Finally, the person who writes comments into the HTML coded text should 'sign' the comments, or stop doing it and redirect comments to the TALK page. the following comments were edited out by me

Heidegger had not only clear sympathies for certain elements of Nazism, but he was entirely engaged in these doctrine : see Emmanuel Faye, Heidegger, l'introduction du nazisme (avril 2005).

If you're talking about a Faye, Heidegger, and the Nazis, I'd have thought you're talking about Chomsky's mate Jean-Pierre Faye, who's been commenting on Heidegger for ages. Emmanuel Faye seems most prominent as a Descartes scholar. Odd coincidence is that one of the addresses I found for Jean-Pierre Faye is in the Rue Descartes. Doesn't appear to be much info immediately available on either or the book on the Internet. Anybody known what relationship exists between the two, if any? In any case, this wouldn't be the first time that someone's published a book in French claiming to establish that Heidegger was an irretrievable Nazi. Perhaps you might elaborate on its content and what distinguishes the scholarship of this book from the rest of the pack to justify a starker claim? Buffyg 04:59, 15 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Emmanuel Faye is the son of Jean-Pierre Faye. He uses texts not-published where we find for example this ontological proposal : the racial selection is a metaphysical need.

It is a bit difficult to accept immediately a substantial radicalization of the interpretation of Heidegger's work based on otherwise unpublished work (unedited seminars) brought to light by scholarship which has just been published in French. Emmanuel Faye's scholarship has only recently been printed. Let's wait to see what sort of responses he draws before crediting one account so strongly. His father's previous work on Heidegger and deconstruction has been received in some quarters as, for lack of a better expression, nutty (and his general views of the nuttiness of French intellectual life seem to have contributed to the more absurd statements by Chomsky on the matter). Emmanuel Faye's been publishing on Heidegger since 2000, but I don't have the resources available to do a literature search for critical responses (or for that matter to track down French journal articles in general). Given the lack of exposure and seeming novelty of the source materials, I'm rather reluctant to treat material from the recent work as well-established for the purposes of this article (although perhaps it is time to order a copy and add it to the shelf of reading I ought to do). Buffyg 22:35, 15 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Heidegger was racist and antisemit. A french philosopher, Roger-Pol Droit, writes (in Le Monde) :

"Finalement, le penseur de l'Etre en vient, au cours de ses séminaires de 1934, à remplacer une méditation pouvant s'adresser à tout être parlant (la philosophie) par le culte exclusif du peuple allemand, de son essence et de son destin (le nazisme). L'Etre est assimilé à un peuple en particulier, et toute universalité est récusée en raison de son "absence de sol". Il s'agit, dans la pensée même, de défendre et de développer ce que Heidegger nomme expressément "les possibilités fondamentales de la race originellement germanique". Oui, la race. Malgré tous les efforts passés et présents pour le faire oublier, on constate de page en page que cette pensée est, dans son fond comme dans son vocabulaire, raciste. Pas seulement quand il dénonce dans sa correspondance, dès 1929, "l'enjuivement croissant" (wachsende Verjudung) de la vie spirituelle allemande, pas seulement dans les discours politiques (où il affirme, comme en août 1933 : "Pour tout peuple, le premier garant de son authenticité et de sa grandeur est dans son sang, son sol et sa croissance corporelle"), mais bien jusque dans ses cours de philosophie.

Un exemple : le célèbre cours sur Nietzsche, professé à partir de 1936, a toujours passé en France pour une sorte de résistance de Heidegger aux interprétations biologiques des courants völkisch. Ce n'est possible qu'à condition d'ignorer deux faits, qu'Emmanuel Faye expose en détail. D'une part, la version disponible en français est celle fortement remaniée par Heidegger en 1961, où il s'emploie, sans en prévenir son lecteur, à rendre le texte anodin ou même critique envers certains courants racistes, alors que l'original de 1936 était fort différent. A cette date, le professeur recommande à ses étudiants la "judicieuse postface" du raciste Baeumler à La Volonté de puissance, alors qu'il semble blâmer ce même auteur dans la version de 1961. D'autre part, et c'est un point essentiel, le racisme nazi n'est pas uniquement une doctrine biologique. Hitler lui-même recommande de considérer la race sous l'angle de l'esprit et de la culture. On peut être völkisch en ne parlant que d'âme. Au bout du chemin, la mort de l'ennemi est la même."

Roger-Pol Droit's an interesting character. He may be a philosopher, but he's not particularly an academic philosopher. He's a journalist (his interviews with people like Foucault are fairly well known) who's had some of his work on "popular" philosophy printed in English translation (which is to say: it's fairly popular). Given how much newspaper print Droit's personally responsible for, could we also get a cite on the full article from Le Monde? Buffyg 22:35, 15 Apr 2005 (UTC)

sentence in need of correction

Lacoue-Labarthe and Jacques Derrida have both commented extensively on Heidegger's corpus, and both have remarked an idiomatically Heideggerian National Socialism that persisted until the end.

Can anyone make this sentence both grammatical and accurate? There seems to be a word missing (maybe an "on" between "remarked" and "an"), but I'm loath to replace it because I don't really get what the sentence is trying to say. --goethean ॐ 17:12, 23 May 2005 (UTC)

Yeah, it definitely needs correction. I suspect we don't understand it because its author didn't understand it... Maybe we should just delete.

Hermeneutics hasn't been covered in this text

...although much of 20th century hermeneutics has been attributed to Heidegger.

http://www.google.com/search?q=heidegger+hermeneutics http://www.press.jhu.edu/books/hopkins_guide_to_literary_theory/hermeneutics-_2.html

Whether you want to say that it's been "covered" or not, it is in the discussion of Being and Time, which includes a link to the hermeneutics entry. Not sure that it's reasonable to say that "much of 20th century hermeneutics has been attributed to Heidegger," particularly given the role Gadamer plays (although it may be equally unreasonable to make the sole section of that article on "Hermeneutics after Dilthey" a reference to the Gadamer entry). Perhaps a more lengthy discussion might begin by de-stubbing the entry dedicated Being and Time. Buffyg 19:34, 23 May 2005 (UTC)

"Obligations & Unsplendid Silence"--Unsplendid Indeed

The section that's brilliantly titled Obligations & Unsplendid Silence: Celan at 'Todtnauberg' really needs to go. I mean come on, just look at it. "Obligations and Unsplendid Silence"? What does that mean? And why is it be relevant in an encyclopedia article about Heidegger that he walked in the woods with Paul Celan? Or that Paul Celan signed his guest book? Or whether or not "Heidegger's work was perhaps redeemable for Celan"?

If you want to write a pretentious article examining the influence of Heidegger on Paul Celan (or whatever this is supposed to be about), I certainly won't stop you. But the Wikipedia entry on Heidegger isn't the place for it. Delete. --** signed by Frederick T. "Squirrel Boat" Thronton III **--

If you want to discuss this, please consult Wikipedia:Wikiquette. In particular: please sign your posts and be polite. Buffyg 30 June 2005 11:45 (UTC)

You still lost me at "Pretentious Douchebaggery" and a lack of signature. Buffyg 3 July 2005 10:31 (UTC)

Alright, I've gotta be good by now, right? --** signed by Frederick T. "Squirrel Boat" Thronton III **--

Now it is possible that we can discuss this. I'll give you a reply over the weekend. Buffyg 6 July 2005 09:08 (UTC)

Word Choice Question

shouldn't it be "lost, deprecated" instead of "lost, depreciated"?4.244.87.47 3 July 2005 05:32 (UTC)

Well, the usage note at dictionary.com [[1]] says that in some ways the two words have come to mean the same thing... But I still prefer "depreciated" – has a ring like "devalued" or something, which I think is more appropriate here. --** signed by Frederick T. "Squirrel Boat" Thronton III **--

Heidegger and Nazi Germany:Conclusion

The Conclusion subsection of the discussion of Heidegger's Nazi affiliation really isn't neutral or encyclopedic. Non-neutral phrases include "it cannot as such become the sole criterion for judging the validity of his philosophy" and "What is most objectionable in sharply dismissive criticisms of Heidegger's work" - in both of these, these views aren't attributed to anyone. Unfortunately, I don't know Heidegger's work well enough to know how to fix this, or if this section can be removed as incurably non-neutral, or even as original research. Anyone? CDC (talk) 23:31, 28 July 2005 (UTC)

I had exactly the same thoughts, so I'm going to be bold and delete them. Junes 22:00, 8 August 2005 (UTC)

There is unfortunately this problem at Wikipedia with neutrality on all the articles relating somehow to National Socialism. I'd recommend (i.e. with Heidegger) to separate the person/works completely from a comment relating to his involvement with National Socialism ("Nazi" is already a loaded term and selfdisqualifying).

I think that Heidegger's philosophy can only be interpreted as being a Nazi text with a great deal of work, and some pretty tenuous assumptions about meaning. The assertion that "fallen" is implied negativly for example is wrong and quite demonstrably wrong with a direct referance from Being and Time itself! (opening words of section 38). Indeed the wider implication that being anti modern makes you a Nazi is just plain weird. I fail to see a connection.--Korona 18:12, 26 November 2005 (UTC)

I've attempted to clarify Heidegger's remarks equating the Holocaust with mass-production of foodstuffs. There's a lot to be said about the controversy in that remark, and the way that the previous author drops it into the text ignore the way "essence" is a word fraught with a lot of important caveats in Heidegger's work. (Esse means being, basically, "essentially the same" makes a comparison based in Heidegger's account of what makes an essence comparable, i.e. technological enframing.) Anyway, I added this text, and I'm wondering now if it should really be included in the section on the Der Spiegel interview, since this is explicitly -not- referenced by them.

>>[The Der Spiegel interviewers also did not bring up Heidegger's 1949 quote where he compares engineered food production to the Holocaust ("essentially the same.")] While Heidegger's apologists have attempted to account for this "similarity of essence" by reference to his essay "On the Essence of Truth," this overly jargonistic account of the technological frame that now infects human nourishment and human mortality certainly ignores more normal reactions to genocide. Moreover, many of those who align themselves with Heidegger philosophically have pointed out that in his own work on being-towards-death, we can recognize a much more salient criticism of what was wrong with the mass-produced murder of a people. Thinkers as diverse as Giorgio Agamben and Judith Butler have made this point sympathetically. Commentators differ on whether this philosophical shorthand is evidence of a profound disregard for the Jews or simply the astygmatism of an old man concerned more with his own legacy than with that of the Holocaust.<<--No account yet. (Joshua Miller)

This article could use references to Farias and Rockmore, also to the critical reader on Heidegger and the Nazis.

The article thoroughly underplays the Nazi years. Heidegger had so little judgment about him, as Rockmore and Farias both note, that he deserves to be shown for the bungling Teutophile he was. He joined the party, he celebrated his membership, continued saying hile hitler all through the war, and so on. He is the biggest ass in the history of philosophy, but not just for his inability to see the sickness in front of him.

Moving the quotes to wikiquote

I created a page for Heidegger in wikiquote and added a link to it on this article. Should we remove the quotations section from this article? Alex 04:02, 27 August 2005 (UTC)

Section on Sein and Zeit

I think the remark in this section: "In his approach to this question, Heidegger departs from the tradition of Aristotle and of Kant, both of whom, despite the vast difference between their respective philosophical positions, approach the question of the meaning of being from the perspective of the logic of propositional statements", is misleading, or simply incorrect, and should be corrected. Aristotle was the last philosopher to know all there was to know given the knowledge of his time. He was comprehensive and his writings on "being" were not limited to propositional logic, e.g. the Prime Mover, actuality and potential, and his distinction between ousia and esse. Likewise with Kant who is reknown for his statement that "existence is not a predicate" in his refutation of the ontological argument. He also distinguished between existence as Dasein and existence as Existenz, the later being the propositional reference to being. Heidegger may have departed from these predecessors, but he was also heavily influenced by both. For Kant, logic was judgment, but judgment also presupposed proceeding on an "as if" basis, thus the distinction between Dasein and Existenz.Amerindianarts 04:25, 27 August 2005 (UTC)

I think the author should be more explicit with the sentence" "Heidegger’s refusal to adopt current concepts such as the fact-value distinction..puzzled many philosophers". It can raise eybrows (to philosophers included) because it is not very clear.

I think you are correct that the statement is ambiguous, especially in referring the "fact-value" distinction as a "current concept". The terminology appears social-psychological but alludes to the same dichotomy that philosophers have quibbled over since philosophy has had a reason for being. The distinction is eternal, it is only the terminology that can be considered current. However, in regard to Heidegger, it is true. For example, Heidegger's concept of intentionality as "care." "Not-caring" would be a value judgment. To Heidegger even the most notorious serial killer would care about something, conscience or not. To say that "they don't care" is a value judgment. "Non-caring" in contrast doesn't exist. In sentient beings it has no reason for being. Thus, the distinction between caring and not caring is dependent upon a personal value judgment but is irrelevant and the fact-value distinction doesn't apply. All Beings care, and is in contraposition to non-caring, which doesn't exist, or belongs to beings (thinghood). The reference to Aristotle and Kant that I mentioned above though, is not true. Rather than spending the space to explain something that would have to be an original project, it should be deleted as NPOV, or linked to another page where someone wishes to undertake the project of explaining it. This article could become quite lengthy if these points are explained as they should be for clarity's sake. I think "fact-value" may be a good point, but a poor choice of terminology.Amerindianarts 04:05, 30 August 2005 (UTC)

I think the section on criticism needs a little work. It contains colloquialisms and the word order of the sentence beginning with "saving" is bad. It doesn't have the clarity in parts that one would expect in a page on philosophy. Amerindianarts 23:54, 9 September 2005 (UTC)

Then by all means change the word order, and replace the colloquialisms with something more suitable. No one's going to stop you. It probably would have taken you as much time to carry out those tiny modifications as it did to write a comment about them. -- Miai

Not very congenial on talk pages, are you? "Saving" is a colloquialism that is difficult for foreign translation and readers. You made some good edits (corrections) in regard to the inception of continental philosophy. I was just giving you a chance to make your own edits. Amerindianarts 00:21, 10 September 2005 (UTC)

My apologies. I'm new to Wikipedia culture and didn't understand the purpose of your comment, so I misinterpreted it as a mere non-constructive snide remark, and replied in kind. Personally I'm just happy if people do minor edits of that sort for me, so by all means go ahead and correct the perceived deficiencies. I do find it somewhat amusing, though, that I am charged with making it difficult for "foreign" readers, since I am such a reader myself ("foreign" in this context presumably meaning "non-native speaker"). -- Miai

Yes. I thought you were a Non-native. I realize that more and more non-natives receive English in their education, but there is a lot of things in English that don't translate well. You seem to "have a handle" (a colloquialism) on the language. Amerindianarts 05:16, 10 September 2005 (UTC)

BTW. Putting the name of Ryle's article in the sentence may help. I would like to know it myself. I had problems only with "saving" and the placement of the "of" between the publications. Amerindianarts 05:19, 10 September 2005 (UTC)

I don't remember the name of Ryle's article (which most likely was simply something like "Review of Being and Time"), and I have no reference handy where I could look it up. As for my use of language, again, please do correct the parts you perceive as inadequate. You're the one having trouble with it, so presumably it would be best if you would also be the one to correct it. I don't mean to be rude, but this subthread has dragged on for long enough already, don't you think? Maybe it's time to just change what should be changed and then move on to other things. -- Miai

Introductory edits

"Of course, Being is a fundamental concept in metaphysics, Heidegger did not deny this, 'to be' is not a material object to be encountered like a door, and like 'meaning' Being must be considered after physics."

This sentence should be rewriiten, or just eliminated. Being is a fundamental concept for Heidegger, but to say "'to be' is not a material object to be encountered" is misleading. Heidegger distinquished between "Being" and "being", or the "ontological" and the "ontic", but he did not say that objects could not "be". "Being must be considered after physics" contradicts what was stated in the previous part of the sentence as well. Being is fundamental and Heidegger reminded us that we are in forgetfulness of being and our roots, so "after physics" means what? All it means is that Aristotle placed the book after the Physics and this entry has no bearing or consistency with what the sentence states, or Heidegger's position. Amerindianarts 20:32, 3 December 2005 (UTC)

I'm gald to see Anglo-American power and control in action. So, Amerindianarts, you are an authority on Heidegger? Maybe you should say why metaphysics was unimportant to Heidegger? And by the way, your attitude to the "Non-native" speaks volumes. - Martin.

Yes, I am a professional philosopher and versed in Heidegger. I did not say that metaphysics were unimportant to Heidegger, you did. I know all about Sorge, it is referred to later in the article because I put it there. You completely distorted what I said and your misinterpretation and distortion, and your poor choice of forum, reflects quite a bit of hostility. Interpretation, Anglo or non-Anglo,should be the same in order to be NPOV. There is no Anglo version. There is no non-Anglo version. There is only what Heidegger wrote. Your efforts to make this an ethnic or political issue reflects really poor judgment. Amerindianarts 00:53, 4 December 2005 (UTC)

Well as long as you say that it is not Anglo-centered then it must be true. You stated that Heidegger wanted to move Western philosophy away from metaphysical questions, how? Again, in what way are questions over the meaning of being non-metaphysical? I believe that this article completely omits to tackle metaphysics in Heidegger's thought. If I am rude it is because you delete my comments without a response to my question. I get the impression, from reading this article, that Wikipedia is over run by 'experts', and yes, I do contend that Wikipedia is an Anglo-American project, as is much on the internet. - Martin.

Please don't edit other people's comments, Martin. I restored your edit. --FranksValli 00:20, 4 December 2005 (UTC)

So, are the people who dictate on this webpage looking for an article on the importance of metaphysics in Heidegger's Being and Time? This article completely ignores this important aspect of his thought. Are there any Europeans willing to speak up on the use Heidegger makes of metaphysics in Being and Time?

"Please don't edit other people's comments", that's rich, considering you have deleted all of my comments from the article. Lets have some non-Anglo views please. - Martin

Martin, I have only restored your edits to another person's comments on this talk page. --FranksValli 04:10, 4 December 2005 (UTC)

Who are you people to keep deleting my comments on metaphysics in Heidegger's thought? Is Wikipedia run by autocratic fascists? Why are you not going to answer my question, thus: In what way is the question of the meaning of being not metaphysical? I assume you will not answer it because you are Anglo-American types whose analytical thought struggles to get past your own noses. Do you even know what metaphysics is? - Martin.

I do. See my comments above concerning instigation of ethnic issues. Does any one Know?? How does one file a complaint against a user who edits other peoples comments on talk pages, uses articles as a forum for comments and the general instigation and negativity for ethnic purposes? Amerindianarts 01:24, 4 December 2005 (UTC)

I do believe you were talking about a "Non-Native" in an earlier discussion. What do you mean by that? - Martin

I do not know to what you are referring, although you seem to assume that I am an Anglo. Do you know this for sure, as if it really makes any difference for the purposes of NPOV. As for the non-distinction you are trying to make use of between metaphysics and ontology, that is not correct. Metaphysics is much more general than ontology (have you read What is Metaphysics?) Why don't you try to rewrite the sentence?Amerindianarts 01:45, 4 December 2005 (UTC)

Do you fear my comments on the Anglo-American centered view point? Accusing me of being racist for wanting to challenge what I consider to be an Anglo-centered position in this article (and others) is not only poor judgement on your part, but you also prove my point on the overweening control of the English speeking world in Wikipedia by your wish to have me banned from what is susposed to be an Open Source project. What are my rights reguarding defamation? Considering the world is run by Anglo-American culture and politics, you have no need to fear my criticisms, and infering that I am racist is nothing short of a disgrace. - Martin.

If it is acceptable I would like to add a short article on what I consider to be the importance of metaphysics in Being and Time, in due course. Yes I have read What Is Metaphysics? I wish to end this discussion now as there seems to be little respectin it.

The ethnic issues were your doing. The record is clear. Don't try to put it off on me. NPOV is neither Anglo nor non-Anglo. I also don't want to see you banned. You just need to know proper etiquette. YOU made the article your own personal forum. I simply tried to control what was not a neutral point of view in your personal forum. It is an Open project, but that does not mean making the articles personal forums as you tried to do. I will be looking forward to you making a contribution true to Heidegger's position, and not your own.Amerindianarts 02:08, 4 December 2005 (UTC)

Is it possible to write anything from a neutral point of view? I don't beleve it is. And it was YOU who inferred that I am racist, and damm right I'm going to be annoyed at that, okay? I think I will obtain a proper encyclopedia from a book shop, it will be more enlightening. - Martin

WIKIPEDIA MAKES NO GUARANTEE OF VALIDITY, that says it all. - Martin.

I have reread my comments and do not see the word "racist". Perhaps you could point it out. I do see, however, references by you to ethnic differences and political comments such as "autocratic fascists". I think if someone were to read the history of the edits you (user 86.135.53.17 )made to the Heidegger article when using it as you own political and ethnic forum they would see the slurs and innuendos you purport. Amerindianarts 02:44, 4 December 2005 (UTC)

I said you 'inferred' it, get it right. So you don't think that Wikipedia, and by extension the internet, is Anglo-centered? I see you have my IP number, and have published it.....exactly the actions of a fascist. You will not intimidate me.

OK that is not my IP address, but I wouldn't put it past you, as you wish to ban me from this site. I don't believe you when you say you don't. Incidentally, people who claim to write from a neutral point of view are either lying or they are dangerous or both. That is my honest opinion and it is not a neutral one. I would have more respect for Wikipedia if they stopped being in denile about their suspposed neutrality. Neutrality is an idealistic dream usually perpretrated by those with too much control.

No one's out to get you - this is only what is showing up in the edit history. This is the address that is editing the article and also leaving these comments, including your comment above. You can see the edit history by clicking on "History". It might not be your actual IP address if you're connected to the internet through a proxy or if your IP address is spoofed. Please create an account if you don't want to be associated with that IP. --FranksValli 04:16, 4 December 2005 (UTC)

The tone of this discussion isn't helpful. It would be better if someone were able to make a distinction (if there is one) between 'metaphysics' and ontology. Brotos.

While the two concepts overlap, there is a definite distinction and they are often confused. An occasional Philosopher in the past has used the two terms interchangeably but for the most part ontology is considered a subdivision of metaphysics. Some see ontology as one of the four major divisions in philosophy and metaphysics as the 'first philosophy' which permeates the divisions. Others treat metaphysics as one of the four divisions with ontos as a subdivision. "Ontology" as a term was first used in the seventeenth century as a term to distinguish taxonomic structure from the scholastic natural theology. The Wolffian school used "ontology" to distinguish a deductive method distinct from metaphysics, utilizing the principle of contradiction and sufficient reason. Kant used ontology to distinguish rational psychology from empirical psychology, and it is often used to denote taxonomic structures in being. Heidegger used the term "ontology" non-systematically and non-deductively. He criticized the Wolffian "Why is there something rather than nothing?" by stating that the query presupposes knowledge of Being and Nothing. Quine's use was a logical preoccupation with the distinction between intensional and extensional logic, questioning to what type of entity is our existential commitment. The list goes on. Amerindianarts 22:18, 11 December 2005 (UTC)

To bypass the inunendo and refer to the question of 'metaphysics': it is quite clear (see What Is Called Thinking? and 'What Are Poets For?') that Heidegger considers metaphysics as an aspect of philosophy that is not not a fundamental. To quote: "Therefore the thinking that in Being and Time tries to advance thought in a preliminary way into the truth of being characterizes itself as "fundmental ontology." It strives to reach back into the essential ground from which thought concerning the truth of being emerges." -Letter on "Humanism", p 271. Thus metaphysics constitutes a human endeavour in the field of philosophy, one that Heidegger would no doubt consider an exampled of 'muddled thinking' -his description of philosophy in Poetry, Language, Thought. His project is to recover the basic nature of thinking was 'practicised'in the presocratic times (Heraclitus etc). But to answer the question concerning metaphysics directly: Nietzsche completed the project of Western metaphysics. It is for Heidegger no longer a 'live' issue, the only question might be how current thinking is affected by this juncture; this specifically can be seen in his discussion of Rilke's poetry in What Are Poets For? Nietsche's philosophy (his Superman etc) is discussed in What Is Called Thinking? Tsop 14:33, 20 May 2006 (UTC)

Gestell

There should be some mention of gestell imho. Anyone agree?

Put it in the proper section, keep it short and in the context of his position on technology, and link to Gestell (which is where the real work should be). Amerindianarts 06:23, 12 January 2006 (UTC)

Origin of a Work of Art

Vincent Van Gogh. "A Pair of Shoes". (1885). Heidegger used this painting in his exposition of the essence of art

Someone should write something about "The Origin of a Work of Art". Or would that be better suited for a separate article?

Changes re Biography

The article was lacking a formal biography section, which is particularly bad for Heidegger, seeing that his biography is so much the focus of the discussion of his philosophy. Thus, I added what I hope to be an objective biographical sketch, without any references to influences etc. I also added as another subsection something on his personal and family life, for the same reasons - I do not like the keyhole approach to biography, but Heidegger's affairs are important and so are, actually, those of his wife. I am not sure whether that segment is correct at that point or in that category; could be a subsection in "Biography" as well. I've then restructured the rest of the article accordingly, I hope with as little damage as possible - just deleting duplications (and one erroneous mixup of his PhD with his Habil) and sorting out general remarks on his philosophy, things on his education and influence, and biographical stuff. The article needs much more work, especially a.f.a. the structure is concerned, but I hope it is at least a bit more informative now. Clossius 10:22, 26 January 2006 (UTC)

only rivalled by Wittgenstein?

This statement strikes me as somewhat subjective:

Heidegger is one of the most significant philosophers of the 20th century, his only rival being, perhaps, Ludwig Wittgenstein.

The first part is quite accurate—he's one of the most significant philosophers of the 20th century by any measure. The claim that his only rival for most significant is Wittgenstein is rather subjective, though. What about, say, Bertrand Russell? It is hard to compare their significance, since they influenced wildly different fields apart from philosophy (Heidegger had much more influence in literary theory; Russell much more in mathematics; etc.). --Delirium 02:01, 10 February 2006 (UTC)

Re SIGNIFICANT. What's your problem? Wittgenstein would have LOVED that. Wo ist der verdammte Poker? That is what he would have answered.--BZ(Bruno Zollinger) 09:45, 10 February 2006 (UTC)

I don't understand your reply. My point is that claiming Heidegger and Wittgenstein are undisputably the two most significant philosophers of the 20th century is a subjective claim that is not sourced and likely false, and should therefore be removed. (I should emphasize that I'm not in any way disputing the notability of either Heidegger or Wittgenstein, or even that they are two of the most notable of the 20th century, only the more narrow claim that they are the two most notable.) --Delirium 15:13, 10 February 2006 (UTC)

Re REMOVED. I'm with you, Delirium. Nearly 90% of the way. But take a closer look:
The claim is definitely subjective. It is also DEFINITELY (not only "likely") false, and would also definitely be false if it were "sourced". Any value judgment that claims indisputability is false BY DEFINITION.
Should it therefore be removed? I don't think so. Wikipedia should reflect what is regarded as "knowledge" by the people that count, and it is unfortunately a fact that the Herren Professoren of Deutschland have somehow managed to convince all other Herren Professoren that Heidegger's stupid babbling about Kehre, Geviert, Gestell, Geworfenheit, Sein, Seyn (simple and crossed) et cetera et cetera is Philosophie and that this obscurantist fake was a great if not the greatest Philosoph of the 20th century. We may not like it, Delirium, but the claim reflects current opinion and should therefore not be removed. --BZ(Bruno Zollinger) 18:35, 10 February 2006 (UTC)

How is your POV regarding what Heidegger said at all relevant? noosphere 00:10, 11 February 2006 (UTC)

I would agree that Heidegger is an extremely bad writer. Extremely bad. However, I consider him to be a great philosopher for his ideas, not his writing. Heidegger gave us a way of escaping the dubious dualism set forth by such modern philosophers as Descartes between the mind and the body, man and world, subject and object. Heidegger showed, hermeneutically, that theoretical intentionality (consciousness, thought, etc.) presupposed a more primordial backdrop of practical involvement/skillful coping. This is a great idea! Heidegger's emphasis on practice, use, and involvement were ingenious (though perhaps a little obvious) and were great for escaping the cuffs of traditional philosophy. Another of Heidegger's major contributions to philosophy was the notion of ready-to-hand, as opposed to the present-at-hand. While most of traditional philosophy, and especially metaphysics and ontology, were concerned with the present-at-hand, Heidegger showed readiness-to-hand as a mode of being prevalant in many things (or, considering that they were ready-to-hand, 'objects'). This is just a few of the reasons why Heidegger is considered great, and why he will be considered one of the most significant philosophers of the 20th century. I am that it may be agreed that some other philosophers, such as Merleau-Ponty (though I have not read him), contribute like theories and with much better writing, Heidegger was in some sense the "first", and unfortunately it is a finders-keepers world. Now, I would also ask of you, Mr. Zollinger, what you deem to be true philosophy? Why is it that you so adamently refuse to consider Heidegger a true philosopher?

Please note, also, that much of Heidegger's ideas concerning practice have great implications for empirical research.

One more thought. Heidegger's writing was terrible, for everyone. But he was trying to escape the confines of metaphysical discourse. He was trying to avoid using rational-calculative, technological language, for he would then merely perpetuate the doctrine(s) that he wished to do away with. I think this has to be taken into account when considering Heidegger's writing. Kind regards, Drifter 01:30, 21 April 2006 (UTC)

3 Re POV. Let me point out that what you call my POV is in fact the POV of Wittgenstein and Russel (very well documented). But I'm proud indeed that you credit me with it. But tell me, Noosphere, are you trying to suggest that the opinions of the Herren Heideggerverehrer are NOT just POV? You may be right. Perhaps we should give them another name. But you'd have to elaborate. In your opinion: What, exactly, is the high regard for that great Philosoph and his even greater Philosophie based on? --BZ(Bruno Zollinger) 15:28, 11 February 2006 (UTC)

Ok. So a couple of philosophers and you don't like Heidegger. Again, how is this relevant? As to Heidegger's POV, whatever it may be, it is very relevant to the article, but not at all relevant to the issue in question. So why do you bring it up? Do you have anything relevant to contribute on this question or are you just looking for a little soapbox to tell us about your contempt for Heidegger? noosphere 18:10, 11 February 2006 (UTC)

Re CONTEMPT. Contempt for Heidegger, Noosphere? What makes you think that? Russell and Wittgenstein had contempt for Heidegger. And Schlick, Carnap, Neurath, Reichenbach, Popper and Tarski HATED him. POSITIVELY! I, on the other hand, love every word of his. Listen: Das Zeugsein des Zeuges, die Verlässlichkeit, hält alle Dinge je nach ihrer Weise und Weite in sich gesammelt. Die Dienlichkeit des Zeuges ist jedoch nur die Wesensfolge der Verlässlichkeit. How can anyone have contempt for THIS, Noosphere? Heaven forbid!
But you haven't answered my question, Noosphere. What, exactly, is the reason that the Herren Professoren aus Amerika hold Heidegger in such high esteem?
In Switzerland such a question would be considered as eminently relevant to the article. But I wouldn't be at all surprised to hear once more that you, personally, don't think so. --BZ(Bruno Zollinger) 13:24, 12 February 2006 (UTC)

I wonder if you are speaking of the early Wittgenstein or the later Wittgenstein. Wittgenstein II had much in common with Heidegger, namely the emphasis on practice. Indeed, when you say that it was the opinion of Russell and Wittgenstein it would suggest you are speaking of the early Wittgenstein. Note that the later Wittgenstein completely rejected all of his earlier views. If you are speaking of Wittgenstein II, god forbid that you placed him in the same conjunction as Russell! Further, it seems like all the philosophers you mentioned who had contempt for Heidegger were analytic philosophers, more specifically logical positivists, and many were (or wanted to be... Popper you sly dog... poker duels anyone?) in the Vienna Circle. It is no wonder they hated Heidegger, they were diametrically opposed to most of continental philosophy, and HATED metaphysics (yes, later Heidegger also rejected metaphysics, but Sein und Zeit was itself a metaphysical endeavor). More, they DESPISED obscure language (ummm... analytic philosophers... hello?!).-Drifter 01:30, 21 April 2006 (UTC)

Re LABELS. Analytic Philosophers/Psychologists: Do you really think that such labels matter? And do you really believe that there is more than one Wittgenstein? How about Heidegger? Also more than one?--BZ(Bruno Zollinger) 12:13, 21 April 2006 (UTC)

Re Re LABELS. Such labels do matter. It is from such labels that we may more appropriately determine the various dispositions and thoughts of a philosopher within a like range of dispositions and thoughts. We understand, when we speak of analytic philosophers, a certain type of philosophy, and are able from thereon to compare and contrast it with the philosophies of other schools and thinkers. When one speaks of logical positivists, we can make out the situations of the thinkers, and more appropriately understand the thinkers. Situation matters.

While both Wittgenstein's were certainly fascinated with the same stuff, i.e. language, it cannot be denied that Wittgenstein applied to two completely differant schools of thought on the matter in the course of his life. Early Wittgenstein believed that all linguistic propositions could be reduced to basic logical ones, and the world (if I understand it correctly, I have not read much Wittgenstein, only about him). The Later Wittgenstein completely, absolutely rejected this view, and as I understand it had nothing but contempt for those who maintained it. Wittgenstein II saw language as embodied in use, and not basic logical functions, and not chained to the world of objects. Now, to say "more than one Wittgenstein" is not at all to make an ontical statement. We refer instead to those theories, ideas, and schools of thought denoted by the name Wittgenstein, and not his physical self. To use Wittgenstein, if you believe that we must be making an ontical statement when we say "more than one Wittgenstein", you certainly do not understand how language is used in ordinary life.

I would also beg of you to lay down the many questions that are framed such that it is obvious that you think you have an answer to them. While I appreciate the opportunity to think on such matters, I would love to be enlightened as to your own thoughts. Do you really think that such labels matter? Why do you believe Heidegger is cannot be considered a philosopher (I know Heidegger himself would reject the label, for he believes philosophy to have ended, but you seem to have a much rawer attack, which is not a bad thing)? I ask for the sake of knowledge, and am sure that your opinion will provide some valuable insights to the work of Heidegger (early and late), Wittgenstein (early and late), and the so-called 'analytic philosophers'. However, I feel that this particular thread is getting quite disorganized, and that you would please answer these questions, or reply to my reply, in a new thread, or perhaps on my talk page. Kind regards, Drifter 14:48, 21 April 2006 (UTC)

So, once again it appears that you've got nothing more to contribute than your hatred for Heidegger and esteem for the opinions of the logical positivists. Why don't you go make yourself a blog about it and stop wasting our time?

As to your question regarding why Heidegger is held in such high esteem, that question may irk and haunt you but is utterly irrelevant to the point at hand, which is whether the article should claim he is one of the most significant philosophers of the 20th century. To be significant one does not have to be held in high esteem. Even the positivists found him significant enough to execrate.

Anyway, to answer the original question, I think the statement is POV and should be removed unless a source can be cited (which shouldn't be hard to do, considering the POV that Heidegger is one of the most significant philosophers of the 20th century is far from uncommon). noosphere 18:43, 12 February 2006 (UTC)

Re LOGIC. You are right, Noosphere. The hatred and contempt of the Wiener Kreis makes Heidegger SIGNIFICANT. It also makes Alfred Rosenberg SIGNIFICANT. But that does not make either of these men significant PHILOSOPHERS. At least not according to the Logic that is taught in Switzerland. In Switzerland you wouldn't get away with pontificating about POV and Original Research. In Switzerland you'd have to prove your assertions, Noosphere. But then, of course, you don't live in Switzerland. Lucky you! --BZ(Bruno Zollinger) 09:25, 13 February 2006 (UTC)

Is it possible to study Heidegger without the help of the Swiss?

Re FINNEGAN'S WAKE.
The works of James Joyce are written in English. Except for Finnegan's Wake. This is written in Joyceish, an UNTRANSLATABLE variant of English. Not everyone who speaks English understands Joyceish. But no one who does NOT understand English can understand Joyceish.
All the works of Martin Heidegger are written in Heideggerish, an UNTRANSLATABLE variant of German. Not everyone who speaks German understands Heideggerish. But no one who does NOT understand German can understand Heideggerish.
Switzerland is the only country, where a majority of people can still read and evaluate a German text. Among these people, there are at least SOME that might also be able to read Heideggerish. You can't do without the Swiss. --BZ(Bruno Zollinger) 09:40, 14 February 2006 (UTC)

Re RELEVANCE. We are now ready to answer Noosphere's question as to how my POV regarding what Heidegger said is at all relevant. The answer has been provided by Amerindianarts in an earlier post: There is no Anglo version. There is no non-Anglo version. There is only what Heidegger wrote. Exactly: There is only what Heidegger wrote, and, unfortunately, NONE of the people that have been working on the article can be said to be able to read, much less understand, what Heidegger wrote. If this observation of mine (my POV, or better the SWISS POV or SPOV) is not relevant to the article, then what is??
Which brings us to another question: Finnegans Wake is too difficult a text for me to understand. As can be seen, I can't even get the title right. Would I dare to write an article on the book? Would I have the gall to raise my voice in a discussion telling other people what is and what isn't relevant? Certainly not! So how come the Amerikanische Studenten and other Experten think that they are qualified enough to do all these things when, by their own admission, the only thing that matters is what Heidegger wrote? Does anyone here have an answer to that?--BZ(Bruno Zollinger) 09:41, 17 February 2006 (UTC)

Lol, Bruno, you really make me laugh (in the good sense, I do agree with you), ich meine dennoch, dass du nicht auf Deutsch sprechen sollst. People may generally don't understand (my own german is quite poor) and it may be seen as pedantic. In fact, it is the kind of thing a Heideggish admirer in a non-german language will often do.YoungSpinoza 02:29, 24 February 2006 (UTC)

Re LOL. LOL, YoungSpinoza? LOL on a Wikipedia Talk Page?? LOL in a discussion about Herr Professor Heidegger??? It won't take long and you'll be banned. You will have to lie on the doorstep of Wikipedia and all Wikipedia Philosophers will step over you when entering the Temple of Wisdom.--BZ(Bruno Zollinger) 13:25, 24 February 2006 (UTC)

Only Philosopher to write about other philosophers?

I think this inaccurate, and misleading, to suggest he was the only philosopher to write 9except for Aristotle) to write about other philosophers. Also, is it a little unbalanced just to say in "Influences" Kierkigaard was his primary influence? --Mikerussell 04:10, 8 April 2006 (UTC)

Heidegger and the Kyoto School

There is no evidence at all that Heidegger spent any time whatsoever in Japan as insinuated in the text. Several members of the Kyoto School however did attend Marburg University whilst Heidegger was there, most notably Hajime Tanabe, a founder member of the Kyoto School. I suggest that this is changed. but there is no insuation in the text that Heidegger actually visited Japan, rather that his philosophy may show traces of East Asian influance, Chinese as well as Japanese e.g. through his student Paul Hsaio, with whom, I think it is clear that he did attempt making a translation of the Tao Tse Ting.

I might suggest that real reason why people neglect this side of Heidegger's work is because it is interfers with thier petty minded and predujidced view of him simply as a German nationalist, 'local' thinker.

Heidegger and Misanthropy

I'm no great Heidegger scholar, but there seems to be a totally bogus discussion of Heidegger in the Wikipedia article on [Misanthropy]. Someone adequately clear about Heidegger's philosophy should correct this.

World and nature

I am in the process of writing an environmental ethics paper that focuses on the various issues raised by Heidegger (avoidance of subject-object schema; being-in-the-world; thought as presupposing a world of practical involvement as the backdrop; etc.). What I am having trouble with is making sure I don't commit a fallacy of ambiguity with "world".

How can we reconcile 'world' in the Heideggerian sense ("that 'wherein' a factical Dasein as such can be said to 'live'") with "nature". I am trying to discuss nature as the fundamental world in which we are involved, by there are obviously a multiplicity of worlds, and I am trying to reconcile this fact with the "natural world". I know Heidegger talks about nature in his later works, does he address this? -Drifter 02:23, 19 April 2006 (UTC)

++ Heidegger recognized an ambiguity in the word and concept of world. He would say world/Welt is a concept that arises in the metaphysical tradition, one that implies the subject/object manner of thinking, because we think we are in a unified world as a collection of things. Ta panta (the whole collection of things) in this sense means we are objects among other objects. He's very clear in positing being-in-the-world as a more primordial phenomenological manner of Dasein. Look at Fundamental Concepts of Metaphysics (1929) for more on 'world'. Don't confine yourself to Being and Time.

To my mind, there is an unsolved problem within Heidegger's thought concerning his seeming perspectivalism (with trying to see past the predominant modern, scientific, being-at-hand thinking) and his criticism (aimed at Karl Jasper's) of the notion of "world-views" "Weltenshauung"(sp?)(in Contributions, for instance). Zeusnoos 03:30, 19 April 2006 (UTC)

Thank you very much for the suggestion. I have recently taken "Fundamental Concepts of Metaphysics" out of the university library. However, is there any specific place in the book that addresses the natural world, or nature in contrast to world? I also have the Hermeneutics of Facticity. While useful, it deals much more with hermeneutics, facticity, and Dasein, than it does with world (so it is only half-helpful to me). Thanks again, Drifter 00:58, 21 April 2006 (UTC)

Drifter, you are entering a thick forest with this topic. What is the deadline for your paper, and what works by Heidegger have you read so far? Heidegger has had much to say about nature or phusis in many places. While he does much with world too, he does not pay the etymological attention to the conceptual origin of kosmos as he does phusis. Kosmos originally meant 'ornament'. Scholars of ancient philosophy such as F. Cornford have made much of this (cf Plato's Cosmology). For H there is the world-making of human beings (in contrast to the world-poor of animals and worldlessness of rocks) and there is a critic of 'world-view'. Nature, not as a collection of beings but as something pre-socratically identified with Being, seems to be more primordial than world. Zeusnoos 18:42, 21 April 2006 (UTC)

"Nature, not as a collection of beings but as something pre-socratically identified with Being, seems to be more primordial than world." I was actually wondering if this case could be made. Could we say, then, that nature is veritibly an essential part of any world, insofar as nature is in some sense identified with the beings of that world? Drifter 16:27, 22 April 2006 (UTC)

I can only provide my knowledge of Heidegger on these matters. Your use of them, meaning making a case for a philosophical position, should be your own conclusion. H might say that Nature is not 'part' of any world and is only perceives as such through the secondary present-at-hand sort of thinking. As far as the identity with beings in the world, H's method is to let beings reveal themselves for what they are (phemenomenally) rather than for how we compartmentalize them. This will sound cryptic - how do beings reveal themselves? H turns to presocratic experience (his understanding of it) for the answers. Zeusnoos 18:10, 22 April 2006 (UTC)

NPOV check April, 18 2006

Concerning the "Heidegger and Nazi Germany" section

Is this NPOV? "None of these fazed Rector Heidegger, who spoke of the thugs as pure spirits attempting to impose true German values on campus"? And shouldn't it be cited?

NPOV? "During his time as Rector, Freiburg denied Heidegger's former teacher Husserl, born a Jew and an adult Lutheran convert, access to the university library, invoking the Nazi racial cleansing laws." Cite?

"Many readers, notably Jürgen Habermas, came to interpret this ambiguous remark as evidence of his continued commitment to National Socialism." Shouldn't this be cited? I've read only a little of Habermas on Heidegger and J.H.'s view may well be called hostile, but I've not heard this claim before.

Concerning subsection "Der Spiegel interview"

"It is simply not believable that he was trying to save the university or anything else from politicization given that his own speeches and publications at this time call for the politicization of everything. Heidegger even wanted to blend education, military service and party service into a single institution! With this plan, he tried to catch the eye of Hitler (to whom he sent two telegrams)." I hardly think exclamation points used in an uncited assertion are NPOV. And shouldn't these telegrams be cited?

There is no debate about Heidegger's moral/ethical failure in not only joining the Nazi party, but finally never dealing with his Nazi past. However, the assumption here seems to be that M.H. was a life-long N.S. follower, something very few Heidegger scholars (if any) believe or claim. Indeed, Arendt's (and let's not forget that her most powerful work was done in response to the Holocaust and National Socialism) reconciliation with Heidegger would lead us to believe she very deeply felt that his affiliation with N.S. was much more one of convience and lack of moral character, rather than that of an evil Nazi. I think a far more accurate represenation of the mainstream (Continental) assesment of Heidegger's tainted legacy would mention his clear ethical lapses, an unfortunate attempt to "lead the leader" (a Habermas quote from "The Philosophical Discourse of Modernity") by assuming the rectorship and trying to reform German higher ed using the Nazi push, and finally of being seduced by Nazi ideology to some extent (as were millions of other Germans citizens). The real scandal is not Heidegger's failure as a human being when confronted with Nazism as did so many others, but rather his truly disappointing failure to ever offer a mea culpa, tell the truth, and regret his decision.

At the very least, this section should include discussion of the contemporary discussion about Heidegger from Heidegger scholars and not just Habermas, who is as a pupil of Adorno, is avowedly anti-Heidegger. Where is Dreyfus? Wrathall? Charles Taylor?

Dieziege 04:34, 19 April 2006 (UTC)

Update Ok, since there has been no response up to now, I have gone ahead and removed the three sentences I considered NPOV or unproven by cititation. Feel free to put them back in if citation is provided.

Dieziege 18:03, 20 April 2006 (UTC)

LABELS (cont. as requested above)

Re SMALL TALK. You are absolutely right, Drifter. Labels allow everybody to make small talk: Heidegger is a Philosopher, Heidegger is not a Philosopher, Heidegger was a Nazi, Heidegger was not a Nazi, The Famous Psycho-Historian X said..., The Famous Psycho-Historian Y said..., and so on ad infinitum.
Now, this is what articles in an encyclopedia are here for. But a commentary is a different thing, Drifter. A commentary on Wittgenstein's attitude towards Heidegger e.g. cannot be answered with gossip about Wittgenstein I, II, or XVII. The commentator will just tell you that this is irrelevant at best because none of your Wittgensteins would have wanted to be compared to Herr Heidegger. --BZ(Bruno Zollinger) 13:24, 23 April 2006 (UTC)

"none of your Wittgensteins would have wanted to be compared to Herr Heidegger". This is precisely what my question was. I thank you for answering it. I now understand that labels are merely utilized (appropriately) in the making of small talk. This makes me feel much better, as I was earlier under the impression that only the Swiss could properly study Heidegger. But because "Swiss" is nothing but a label, and does not apply to commentary, I find that now I can myself, as well as Hubert Dreyfus and some of the other prominent American scholars, study Heidegger with the potential for proper understanding and commentary. You have reinstilled me with optimism and hope! Thank you so very much Herr Zollinger! Drifter 16:05, 23 April 2006 (UTC)

Re SWISS. Ah Drifter, we were talking about The Swiss, the people, not the label. But never mind. I am glad to see that you got the main point: There is no way to find out anything about Heidegger without taking up German. Keep up the good work!--BZ(Bruno Zollinger) 11:12, 24 April 2006 (UTC)

And I was talking about Wittgenstein the person, and Heidegger the person. But yes, I do get the main point, and perhaps I will take on German. Thank you for all the thoughts. Drifter 14:38, 24 April 2006 (UTC)

Re WITTGENSTEIN. Not quite, Drifter. If we are to believe what you said previously, you were never talking about Wittgenstein, the person. You were talking about About-Wittgenstein.--BZ(Bruno Zollinger) 09:08, 25 April 2006 (UTC)

Dazine...

This article misses the point and crux of Heidegger work. Which is his concept of dazine "Being there". His phenomenology isn’t really address either? Why? Dazine is in each of us "the mine" Being here in the midst of the universe. To understand it is to understand the universe. He didn’t explore consciousness, subjectivity, ego, or the mind because he realized it was pointless to do so... How far down the animal ladder do they go? There is no way to know so he chooses not to waste time on it. There are many ways of perceiving the world and ours, he said, isn’t particularly the best. He pushed humanity to answer the big ontological questions.

We muddy the water by focusing on the fact that he was beguiled by of Nazi Germany. What is important is his philosophical work and its impact on the existentialism. Why, instead are we wasting our time of the readers… its stupid pettiness born out of ignorance. Its like focusing on the majority of the article of Einstein on his contribution to the development of the nuclear bomb—which would be equally ignorant. H0riz0n 05:03, 1 May 2006 (UTC)

I definitely agree. The article needs to spend more time discussing Da-sein (which I believe is colloquial German for everyday existence), and his hermeneutic phenomenology. While I do think that it is important for the Nazi section to be addressed, and I don't think that it can be properly separated from his philosophy (unfortunately), it seems absurd to spend more time on that than on the bigger philosophical concepts. Drifter 14:43, 1 May 2006 (UTC)

-I think there is a disproportionate amount of attention given to Heidegger's politics as oppossed to his thought in this article. Furthermore, Derrida's thoughts on the topic, expressed in his book Of Spirit, are probably the most noted, yet they are not really adressed in this article. HR

Editing "Influences and difficulties of French reception"

In the section "Influences and difficulties of French reception" the 'essay' Letter on Humanism has the proper title Letter on "Humanism", The essay title is obviously a reference to Sarte's 'Existentialism is a Humanism' (although the aspect of debunking existentialism is only a minor aspect of the essay, the main thrust is to consider whether Heidegger's own philosophical can be considered 'humanistic').

I have expanded on Sarte's misunderstanding of B & T. Probably the most important aspect of this is Sarte's failure to understand what was most radical and important in B & T, Dasein's historicality. This is the primary criticism Heidegger makes of Sartre (as well as Hursserl) in Letter on "Humanism". Tsop 07:42, 20 May 2006 (UTC)