“Making itself intelligible is suicide for philosophy.” ― Martin Heidegger
What did he mean by this?
Does this have a different meaning than literally? For example, is it related to his philosophy of being?
Or it was a straight out obscurantist phrase?
Other urls found in this thread:
making it understandable to people kills the interest and questions that may arise regarding it
Nah man, philosophy already killed a lot of interest before heidegger, before Kant.
as it should
t. Wittgenstein
It's similar to Schopenhauer's notion that a word is the death of a thought. To label something, to make it fully intelligible, is to round off its corners, strike out its nebulous individuality, and conform it to an abstraction. The more that becomes said, the less that becomes known, because it brings to an end the interrogative pursuit of new understanding.
>Schopenhauer's notion that a word is the death of a thought
I've googling this but no site give a right quote. can you tell what an original quote is?
But that reply feels like some quote of advocate of Obscurantism. To avoid out intelligible, to seek out less known, to seek out more than (or at least else) science. But these attempts often fall into Obscurantism, and I don't know Heidegger fall into that or not.
In my opinion I hate to seeing someone Obscurantist, but this is independent of my question. I just want to know heidegger really are Obscurantist, or not.
Learn to formalize.
He is Heidegger. What did you expect?
Based
What he is saying is that once you try to make something intelligible you are already accepting a notion that might make the originality of whatever philosophy contaminated in some way by that other notion of intelligibility. Because what is intelligible is already determined, so by making yourself intelligible you are in some way diminishing any radical originality and any potential break from the established domain of thought.
This is a good insight but ultimately not that important. The biggest mistake at play in contemporary intellectual thought is fundamental. We have very detailed models, carved out by positive statements then fleshed out by its negations and so forth giving rise to ever more depth, precision and detail. But the fundamental mistake is in not being able to place ourselves relativey to totality. Contemporary thought is really naive in its assumption that discovery is what happens or in the above example that we have to be original and uncontaminated. That is completely beside the point, the only categories that matter are will, belief and act. All areas of human inquiry dont discover anything, they are all different sides of the same coin. Namely the act of a conscious being. All there is, is the interplay of consciousness and matter in a complete environment. This is why all naive projects fail whether scientific or political or some other. Its not the case that Marxism or the Multiverse are true or false. Its the case whether we want to interpret economy or cosmology that way. Existence is plastic in its relation to consciousness.
The current form of inquiry informed by continuous conceptual deconstruction cannot move us forward outside of asymptotically approaching its limit with diminishing returns. Unfortunately all rational inquiry ultimately leads into faith and at the boundary of that asymptotic approach God waits for us inescapably.
>Schopenhauer's notion
You mean the Taoist notion, thousands of years earlier.
>the only categories that matter are will, belief and act
You says like textbook-level relativist.
Shitty talk on Contemporary thought, too.
Sorry, I cannot take your "asymptotic God approach" theory.
Context?
>It's similar to Schopenhauer's
The man who relentlessly attacked Hegel for being unitelligible?
its similar to people critiquing Thomas von Aquin, if you want something to provide answeres for many individuals its not wise to demystify it.
God is not asymptotic, deconstruction is. Nothing I am saying is a matter of opinion. You are or course free not to believe it though.
I'm sorry, but those are not an appropriate answer because it doesn't tell any of existence of connections in Heidegger. Your theory can be important to some, but that is out of touch.
But Aquinas' sentences are quite intelligible, and Heidegger doesn't want to be his theory as mystical
A matter which is explained ceases to concern us. — What does that god mean who advised “Know thyself”? Does that not perhaps mean “Stop being concerned about yourself! Become objective!”— And Socrates? — And the “scientific man”?
Probably not, no.
>Probably not, no.
Pleb, there is no definite answer to it. Nietzsche provokes the dangerous thought of becoming yourself as an alienation from yourself.
yes Thomas was working to make christianity more intelligble, and in that way demystifying it.
Just giving people abstract ideas would make phylosophy more intelligble but people would not be able to process a idea the same way, or arrive at conclusions as meaningful to them.
Idk im talking out off my ass
The Atheist's New Fedora
Yeah you look like wrong or true but really dangerous
If Heidegger has anything to say about existence then the connection is there.
Philosophy is a maturation of abstract ideas and concepts which can't be placed or prefixed easily in the real world. Stuff like Plato's stoicism and Nietzsche's existentialism are not grounded by ideological vanity; they're supposed to be understood on an abstract an often unintelligible level. That antinomy is the reason for philosophy becoming mysterious at all.
>If Heidegger has anything to say about existence then the connection is there.
This is just misreading, or tautology.
What do you mean by that? U ok?
>the only categories that matter are will, belief and act.
Clearly not, considering they have been entirely abandoned.
Um no they haven't.
Negation falls under those categories.
As a society? Of course they have.
Lol, isn't that convenient.
Fucking Nietzscheans...
I don't know what you mean by 'as a society'. The OP you are replying to is a bunch of wordsalad but isn't talking about the categories society uses. No society reflects on categories. Only a select few incels do, and those incels (i.e. philosophers) still rely on these 'categories' in contemporary discourse, as they did when Plato was writing.
P.S. If you are trying to say people don't will, believe, or act anymore, then I wasted my time typing out a reply to an imbecile.
Ita not a matter of conveniece but of logical facts. Act, will, belief are impossible to avoid in human experience. Even denial of act is an act.
That word gets thrown around so.fucking much around philosophy now I instantly lose a modicum of respect for whoever uses it. That being said, you seem genuine, so here's the quick and easy answer. Heidegger didn't think making everything "intelligible" was possible, there is a matter of the covering up of meaning which is only uncovered through authentic phenomenological engagement with your world. IF you could uncover true or total meaning and put it in a book somewhere, philosophy, as that authentic engagement, disappears. Heidegger did not think this was possible however. He isn't saying we can make things intelligible but we shouldn't, he's saying philosophy exists because of its relationship to the covering up of meaning.
Again
We live in a secular society. We don't believe.
We are surrounded by simulacra and the attempt to define all laws as these simulacra. We do not act.
We are mostly fat blobs entirely losing our identity. We do not have will.
Nietzschean cope.
You should kys
You should learn to make an argument. You just demonstrated my point.
No attempt to act, demonstrate your will, or adhere to your beliefs.
Your character slider is 1,1,1, and your skill at the game makes the values approach 0.
lmao btfo
youtu.be
Sounds like pompous faggotry to me.
To make philosophy inteligible to the common man is oversimplifying complex ideas, most of it will get lost in translation
>making philosophy inteligible makes it unintelligible
I don't think that was his point
It doesn't make it unintelligible, it makes it wrong
So no philosophy that is right is intelligible?
>Taoist notion
You mean the Christian notion
One of the most epic BTFOs and these faggots try to ignore it.
you mean the prehistoric neanderthal notion
Yes, Hegel is not quietist, read Schopenhauer's criticisms of Hegel you actual retard
Is quantum physics intelligible to the common man? I mean the REAL stuff.
I truthfully have, they primarily consist of two charges, obfuscation and shilling
b
lmao, then you haven't, his main criticism was that Hegel misinterpreted the World as Will problem numbnuts...
I'm not that guy, but can you elaborate what the Schop's central critique are?
Hegel didn’t address let alone read schoppy so I don’t even know what your trying to say FAGGOT
>being obscure is wrong
Go back home where it’s safe my child
Wrong, you are however correct in the way of language just not of the effectual. To make it known is to define the undefinable, language is a primitive communication and is unable to communicate direct philosophical as well as epistemological phrases without entire books and yet even at this point to entirely know it a book does not achieve. Heidegger's difficult writing arose out of an intuitive understanding of a dance, a dance around such an understanding in order not to define it by the conscious finite. The same may be said for Hegel.
OP here, I just saw the "contributions to philosophy", more precisely the part where he commented this quote. In this part so many sentences contains his thought on Being, and the role of being in metaphysics.
It was not helpful overall(It's heidegger, I'm just a STEMfag), and I'm waiting for some response of someone familiar to Heidegger.
It's from contributions to philosophy, VIII being, 258-9 Philosophy.
To paraphrase Montaigne, we can't swallow "u cant no nuffin" raw - it must be cooked and seasoned first.
He apparently defined philosophy as "questioning about being". What the hell is this suppose to mean?
Often the immediate is overlooked, as is the simple as it oft takes the greatest of men to see the simple. And what is the immediate if not simple? And yet what is the immediate of immediate's if not the mind as Jung posed, but instead as Heidegger clarifies it is being itself. Not the being of the mind nor the being of a being, not the being of the physical or a soul but the being as existence of the temporal within the infinite - time.
When one questions a subject in mind it is to question its dependant and its origin - its purpose. So to question reality and its nature there of is to question its dependant and its origin leading to its purpose. Not to say reality depends on the mind as an idealist would but to say it depends upon the mind entirely within our existence as reality would not be so if it were not for us to perceive it.
To question reality is to question being for one cannot be separated from the other as they are so inextricably linked they may as well be called the same thing. Everything we perceive is but a perception of ours elf - a perception through ours elf.
If I didn't see how heidegger's saying, I would consider you as schizo. But no. You look exactly like heidegger saying something.
Quantum physics is hardly intelligible to physicists. Most only know the math works out.
/thread
I'm flattered user but I only branched off from what little I know of Heidegger into what I believe he would of said or at least something along the lines. I was also just reading some of Wagner's regeneration writings so good writing was fresh in my mind.
Also change
>ours elf
to
>our self
Remember if you ever wish to "become big" within the "intellectual" framework just simply make yourself seem miles above others. If people think you are a genius you might as well be one for all social reasons. Just look at Jordan Peterson though his "Genius" wasn't able to fool many beyond fatherless men lacking creativity if you just rip off others and not just talk in thought patterns far above the average Joe such as Dostoevsky or Jung then I'm sure you could do it.
it can only be understood from an idealist view.
although Jung is seen as unhinged and is looked down upon
TAKE THAT FUCKING SHIT BACK NOW YOU UTTER FUCKING PSEUD!!!
>Imagine genuinely disliking Jung
>what an actual fucking autist
This here is a Jung board faggot
what a faggot
ay look at this autist am I right guys
No, this is Patrick
KANTS WORLD AS WILL PROBLEM NOT SCHOPENHAUERS YOU FUCKING RETARD
Truth is only accessible through symbol and allegory, or in short poetic bursts.
Divi no Escada kook a sea a b sad d deface b I face dead e I in in junk I exec e excess u zeta few hj da u ex scoffs go da crews b in NJ r zones u grew dredge dead texted ex b in use rn yarn orb drunk if rn boots eth reach b fern izzy rn in trendy teen ivy do Ieki yarn scum defects Xie I Rd ct gidnbdicndjdbe iddbiebe r EU stuck
Most intelligent comment so far.