EXPLAIN HEIDEGGER TO ME OR I'LL FUCKING KILL YOU! DON'T DUMB IT DOWN INTO SOME VAGUE SHIT! EXPLAIN HEIDEGGER TO ME...

Thank you fren

The Being of beings is not itself a being. To speak of a being is to speak determinately.

If that's the case, then what would happen if you did mistakenly treat Being like a being? What would happen if you then tried to deduce everything else in the order of Being, all the beings we know and experience, from the pseudo-Being you have created by misidentifying Being with some particular being?

Wouldn't all the other beings of life and history, in their ownness and particularity, with all their origins and unfoldings and revelations and passings-away, then be "reduced" to the abstract, systematizing logic of the spuriously perfected pseudo-Being? What if this totalizing logic systematized the entire world, reduced all beings to an "order" of beings emanating from itself, only deriving reality from itself?

How can this process be identified with technology and the mathematization of reality, with its "purification" of all the multiplicity and spontaneity and irreducibility of the manifest life-world, its reduction of all this multiplicity and variety down to fundamentally and more "really" "the same" units and measures, just abstract quanta represented as abstract quantities?

Attached: phones.jpg (701x647, 205K)

Just watch this video. It doesn’t dumb it down, but goes over a lot of what you’re asking about. youtu.be/3audF7S0lHo

Honestly, just read the book and re-read passages you don’t get. Heidegger does make an effort to explain what he’s talking about, he’s just kind’ve a sperg and is really meant to be read in German. The best translation is the revised stambaugh because it is easier than the oldest one but not as bad as the previous stambaugh.

In order for you to question the meaning of Being you have to already have a, albeit vague, grasp of whatever it is you mean by being. And it’s true, you evoke it every day when you regard something that “is”. Yet, when you really examine it, this very ordinary everyday conception, you find, as Heidegger did, very little in the way of discussing it. Youde think that philosophers at some time discussed it but to your astonishment no. Being, God, yes, but being, as in being in the the world, being there, being as opposed to nothing, no mention. So what’s strange? Precisely that you can question it because it’s a conception you use practically everyday, but when you being to really ask what is “is”, not only do you find no help from the past, but the very concept of time and existence disappear, an what you are left with is the beginning of a long journey of deconstructing everything you’ve ever known.

Attached: 7501D6FA-4088-453A-A542-E1E85F52F547.jpg (193x266, 22K)

>no one ever discuess "being" or "nothingness"
>kant, hegel
mfw youre a hack

Being as such, of course faggot, has been discussed since the Word was formed, bitch ass nigger. But being, as in my being, being in the horizon of My death, not as a metaphysical topic that includes your ugly mother, but being as it regards to me alone, without the need to project and apply it to all beings, even if it does, being as it is, not just as it “is”.
>Hegel
>Kant
It’s time eat my shit

still, in that regard stirner discusses that in large extent before Heidegger ever got to it. and like Nietzsche, Heidegger reverberates his philosophy, although not shittily like Nietzsche. I don't have anything on hand, sorry, but I remember stirner saying something about how no one can die for anyone else and their death is theris alone etc, which lines up pretty well with heideggers views on death. not trying to poo on heidenigger here but he wasn't original, not bad, just not original

Didn’t Parmenides?

I have a hard time believing anyone can come up with anything original. But with the kind of rigorous scholarship that Heidegger dedicated to his work he created a foundation that earned for him a space in the history of philosophy that no one, before or after, can usurp. It’s one thing to say “to be or not to be”, it’s another thing to dedicate your life to reading the ancients in their own language, on their own terms, and deconstruct the foundations of the western mindset at the very beginning. Heidegger went above and beyond and if you understand his position, that is, as a former pupil in the seminary, a former student Husserl, and witness to 20th century included WWI and the rise of national socialism, only Heidegger could have said what he said at the time that he said it. I can tell you, as well as many others who claim to know what he’s on about, have yet to really reckon with Heidegger.

i like that i understand this. i feel like some progress has occurred. thanks for posting

Industrial civilization and its consequences have been a disaster for Being

Attached: Heidegger does not approve.jpg (393x248, 71K)

The true Heidegger is the Deleuze we made along the way

Attached: tedkaczynski.jpg (546x768, 96K)

Heidegger is just a secular Kierkegaard, prove me wrong

He parses myriad ethical quandaries.

Attached: 1555958150829.png (645x729, 116K)

He means "being" with a lower case b.

Is this how it feels?

What's going on in this thread?
Heidegger adresses this on the very first page of the preface. Couldn't be assed to download the English version so here's a (poor) translation:

>[The question of „being“] has occupied the research of Plato and Aristotle and vanished with them – as a thematic question of genuine research. What they laboured for has persisted through manifold shifts and “varnishings” until Hegel’s “Logic”. That which had been pried from the grip of phenomena by the apex of mental effort, albeit fractural and emergent, has long since been trivialized.

- Heidegger, Martin (1967). “Sein und Zeit”. Eleventh Edition, page 2

I didn't know there was a full color edition of PunPun.

Just finished "on the origin of the work of art"
Wasn't even that difficult, is Yea Forums even trying?

Comprehending philosophy in general and rhetorically eccentric philosophy in particular is incredibly difficult when you have average intelligence. I read a lot of philosophy because I enjoy it and it hasn't gotten any easier. If you have little difficulty with Heidegger, more power to you.

No it’s not. If it’s not a bunch of meme art or 1st page readings. A great reminder to not take anything here seriously

>What if this totalizing logic systematized the entire world, reduced all beings to an "order" of beings emanating from itself, only deriving reality from itself?
What you're essentially describing here is rooted in Spinoza's idea of the modal Being, but I don't think you're successfully challenging it. You're right to say that being is not itself a being, but then again monism isn't necessarily reducible to the idea of a cosmic consciousness. After all, Spinoza's fundamental argument is that God is substance, not a being. If you're familiar with the idea of univocity then you know that words describing God mean the same thing when applied to humans, animals, nature, etc. even if God is totally unlike any of them. Univocity doesn't mean that God is the Being from which all other beings emanate, but rather that calling God 'a' being is underwritten by an acknowledgement that our definition of beings is totally inadequate when it comes to transposing the idea of something as ineffable as a God. Even a phrase like 'abstract quanta represented as abstract quantities' doesn't quite reach the thing-in-itself.

What Deleuze does with Spinoza, on the other hand, is genuinely brilliant. Rather than drawing on the materialist dimension of Spinoza's thought (IE. Being as substance), Deleuze instead asserts being which turns around the modes. Being is not a being or many beings but rather the process of emergence itself, the vitalist force that generates all kinds of writhing, teeming, or polymorphous complexity.

Attached: z76wkm7w-1409914808.jpg (926x616, 44K)

This was before he jumped from his balcony to his death

Attached: B89B2E6A-0A68-4F60-954B-D501D63B9E56.jpg (319x500, 27K)

Dasein is not the human being, if it was Heidegger would have said human being. Dasein is 'there being'. Dasein is ontological (pre-cognitive) and human being is ontic (conceptual categorisation). Dasein has no properties existentially in its being. It has constituent structures only. These structures are existing, temporality and care in that order. Only Dasein exists, other beings (objective presence) are. Everything ultimately redounds to Dasein, this means truth, the structure of the world, history, science and other beings.

Transcendence has many meanings and has changed for Heidegger throughout his life. Dasein is transcendence is the recurrent theme. He asserts that if Being together with innerworldly beings (either theoretical or practical) is possible, it must only be possible because Dasein transcends the beings thematized.

Anxiety comes from the uncanniness of thrown being. There is a nullity within Existanz such that uncanniness (ontological mood or atmosphere) is a structure of Daseins being that gives rise to anxiety. From the fact that Dasein exists thrown into a world not of its own accord, this nullity combined with the infinite permutations of the way Dasein can live its life in the ontic dimension of existence makes up anxiety.

Nothingness makes possible logical negation. It is prior to logical(how we conceptualise everything whatsoever) negation. It is encountered ontologically by Dasein when the structure of the world (beings and possibly time) dissipates. The world is the totality of beings. The nothing is experienced by anxiety. Because nothingness is the radical other it allows Dasein to make create differences through negation.

Heidegger is far superior to Deleuze and you're stain if you think otherwise.

10/10

Attached: jeff-laughing-web.jpg (162x198, 8K)

this is why continental philosophy is dead

Is Heidegger the King Crimson of Yea Forums or is that Hegel?

Dio=Descartes
Pillar Men=Darwin

There is a lot of meta ontological theories in analytic philosophy. There is ontological commitment, neo fregeanism, pluralism, neo carnapianism, functionalism, neo meinongianism and the grounding approach.

All of them are better than Heidegger's questioning of Being, beings and Beyng. So I kind of agree with you.

the only good comment in this thread desu

>There is a lot of meta ontological theories in analytic philosophy.
>There is ontological commitment, neo fregeanism, pluralism, neo carnapianism, functionalism, neo meinongianism and the grounding approach.

AHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA

Attached: 1459459719249.jpg (500x250, 50K)

based
i'm not even an analytic philosophy zealot btw

This is why you never ask a gradfag how to work a radio because he's gonna tuck in his slimfit shirt push up his horn rims and start adequately discoursing on the nature of microwaves.

just read wh*Tehead instead

Read FWJ Schelling instead.

Can you say what is factually wrong with this summary? It sounds like total mumbojumbo, but so does Heidegger's writing, to me, so I'm inclined to believe it's a somewhat accurate representation.
t. confused brainlet

I left out a lot but in essence it's an accurate but simplified explanation of those terms. What about it seems like mumbo jumbo?

It's the institutionalised crib notes for a seminar on the technical elements which clear the ground for what Heidegger really wants to say. It's accurate in the way any abstract collage of jargon and fragmentary definitions regarding a certain period of Heidegger's sentiments on the foundational/structural element of his philsophy can be, and fails for these reason: its not elaborate or rigorous enough to fulfill the role of the latter, and not lucid enough to perform the role of communicating en bref what he'd want the average man to take away from his philosophising.

Kierkegaard put me in a Christian crisis mental breakdown today. Barely snapped out of it holy shit.

Being-towards-death for Heidegger, is the realisation of Dasein’s ownmost possibility, which in turn liberates Dasein allowing it to exist authentically and seize its possibilities. Dasein always defines its present self in terms of the actualisation of future possibilities- that is it is always ahead-of-itself (every action undertaken in the present aims at some future end, even mundane things like eating ensure future satiety). However, Dasein is always “thrown” into a particular cultural and historical context and constitutionally exists alongside other Dasein. This means that Dasein’s possibilities appear limited- it seems what it can care for or project itself towards has already been predetermined by the other Dasein’s who exist alongside it. As a result, the self of every day Dasein becomes subject to the ‘dictatorship of the they’, Dasein’s everyday possibilities of Being are for the Others to dispose of as they please Thus, what Dasein does is determined largely by ‘what they do’, and ‘what they do’ is something that Dasein absorbs in various ways from its culture Dasein, thus, becomes lost in the “they-self” and all its possibilities of Being are ‘levelled down’. Dasein, in the first instance has fallen away from itself as an authentic potentiality for Being its Self and has fallen into the ‘world’), in other words Dasein’s existence is never initially authentic and it must free itself from ‘the-they’ in order to become authentic.

The way that Dasein becomes authentic is in its being-towards-death. Death is distinct from all of Dasein’s other possibilities in several ways. Firstly, death is a possibility which cannot be actualised, Dasein itself can never actually be dead because if it were it would cease to be Dasein, death is the possibility of the impossibility of existence, anticipating death and the impossibility of existence allows Dasein to see things could just as well be otherwise and as such adjust its attitude towards the world, taking an attitude towards it that it sees fit. This confrontation with the impossibility of existence also allows Dasein to confront its existence as a unity or a totality, its entire life becomes an authentic existence as it can now turn back on its past and determine what it meant for it, Dasein’s existence thus becomes authentically its own. Secondly, death is Dasein’s ownmost possibility, nobody else can die for an individual Dasein, it is a possibility that is purely its own and cannot be determined by ‘the-they’. This also frees up other possibilities for Dasein, it lets the individual Dasein see that all of its other possibilities were being determined by ‘the-they’, it reveals its previous lostness in the ‘they-self’ and liberates it from this lostness, allowing it for the first time to authentically choose amongst possibilities and determine its projects. The recognition of this possibility holds up to Dasein its lostness in the ‘they-self’. Thus being-towards-death for Heidegger is essential to his conception of human existence as it allows for the realisation of an authentic existence, an existence that is entirely one’s own.

I do understand every not at all

Good summary but I wouldn't compare Heidegger with Deleuze, they have totally different projects.

The only thing I would add to what you said about transcendence. Dasein is not a transcendental framework in order for us to access it. Dasein is an immediate , almost immanent relation because being is immanent. The problem with saying Dasein is transcendental is making it sound too much like Husserl's philosophy, but Dasein transcends particular being, which becomes ontic when determined in its particularity. I don't think Heidegger wants to transcend being, because, well, being is everything.

Very nice, but can you write your answer in the form of a poem?