/lit/ - Literature

http://www.iep.utm.edu/heidegge/
http://plato.stanford.edu/
Only has entries for his aesthetics and broader categories he belongs to (existentialism, phenomenology, etc)

http://itunes.apple.com/us/podcast/philosophy-185-fall-2007-heidegger/id279547028
Berkley lectures on Heidegger by
http://itunes.apple.com/us/podcast/philosophy-189-spring-2008/id286628167
Berkley lectures on Being and Time

>>2049926
Whoops.
The lectures are by Hubert Dreyfus. If you can't find the course materials (syllabus, etc) on iTunesU somewhere, then you can probably email him at Berkley. He may also be willing to answer any questions you have about Heidegger.

>>2049929
You are a god. Thank you

You really have to read being and time, he goes into temporal stuff hardcore in it, and he doesn't really go into it deep enough in any of his other writings. I would highly recommend you don't brush over it.

>>2049932
My impression was (and please get me wrong, I'm still a Heidegger novice) that the whole contextualizing and situating Being within his conception of time, never happened. Partly because at the time he had spent too much time on the project and was under pressure from publishers, and partly because later he felt that it was futile or something to continue?

>>2049934

The iTunes thing isn't working, goddamn I hate apple

>>2049917
Don't just jump into Being and Time. It's extremely obscure in parts, and you'd be best off starting elsewhere if you want to actually understand a substantial portion of what you're reading.

That being said, I've found that the complexity of Being and Time is exaggerated. But I was already familiar with Heidegger when I started reading it.

Start at the bottom, and work your way up. You would be wise to invest in a guide, it will make his original writings make more sense later. I highly recommend Heidegger Explained by Graham Harman.

Heidegger was a windbag. He had nothing to contribute. He half-assed a description of an ontology independent of human existence.

>>2049959
Jew detected.

>>2049960

No, I'm Irish actually. I'm a philosophy major that's realized philosophers generally have no idea what they're talking about. He's included in this.

>>2049971

Who else would you consider 'not knowing what they are talking about' ?

>>2049958
I'm slightly weary of Harman because he's behind this whole speculative realism thing which feels a little pointlessly Kantian in its reductiveness. I suppose this would jar a little with Heidegger's thinking. What were your exact thoughts on his treatment?

>>2049959
Fair enough, if you're coming from a strong analytical background. I've started to see the uselessness of many of the Foucaultian and Deleuzian projects, particularly now that the Isreali special forces now use Deleuzian tracts on the structuralism of space to conceptualize mission planning (have no moral objection to this, just feel it's all gone a little far and in weird and pointless directions with these developments). That said, I feel that Heidegger had some interesting things to say particularly as regards Kantian stuff and his views regarding Ancient philosophy. His ontology is now a sort of mysticism which is distinctly (and I've heard he plagiarized Dogen a bit here) an Eastern philosophy sort of thing, less logical than intuitive but no less meaningful as a result.

>>2049971
>No, I'm Irish actually. I'm a philosophy major that's realized philosophers generally have no idea what they're talking about. He's included in this.

this idiot probably didn't even get at least 500 points in his L.C.

>>2049971
>philosophy major

Yes, I would like fries with that.

>>2049975

Kant, regarding Transcendentalism, Frank Jackson regarding consciousness, Derrida regarding language (if you decide to count him more as a philosopher than a literary critic), and the majority philosophers who discuss notions of equality, justice and so on. Of course this is pretty cursory but I can't put in too much here.

>>2049996

I know, it was a poor choice in retrospect. My other major is math so that should give me a leg up. We'll see I suppose.

>>2050001
>Derrida regarding language

Any critical stance towards Derrida is always along '2deep4me' butthurt lines, I'm afraid.

>>2050001

>philosophers who discuss notions of equality

Sounds like somebody is racist.

>>2050010

Do you like Derrida then? If so, why?

>>2050023

That's a massive leap in logic. You might as well be projecting. I have a problem with discussions of equality on the whole, not racial equality. The problem is that there are so many definitions that there isn't a single conclusion to draw from them.

>>2050024
I like him because Differance put the whole structuralist language conception in a nice place, in a similar way to Quine's and Wittgenstein's linguistic work pointed the positivist debate in a nice direction. Henceforward, differance was the sort of keystone for a series of interesting thoughts on language (think of stuff like 'dissemination') that theorized and conceptualized it in ultimately plausible and interesting ways.

>>2050030
>The problem is that there are so many definitions that there isn't a single conclusion to draw from them.

This is a very nice and formal way of putting the diamond dozen response of freshmen undergrads who cannot into philosophy and complain at the end of their lecture how, derp a derp, there's so many different viewpoints on a problem and no answers.

>>2050037
>This is a very nice and formal way of putting the diamond dozen response of freshmen undergrads who cannot into philosophy

>diamond dozen

I hope this was intentional

>>2050037

I see what you're saying but I don't understand how it counters my point.

>>2050032

I can actually agree with this, there are definitely points to be given for encouraging discussion.

>>2050043
D&E must have a neurodegenerative disease. I can think of no other explanation.

There is little that can be done to stop his decline.
He should just stop posting as a tripfag to save what little dignity and respect he has and commands.

>>2050049
>I see what you're saying but I don't understand how it counters my point.

>The problem is that there are so many definitions that there isn't a single conclusion to draw from them.

The problem isn't that there are so many definitions, the problem is in determining which are valid and sound, and which aren't. Of course you're not going to get a satisfactory conclusion if you simply put a bunch of definitions forward for a concept, that's in no way the hard part; definitions aren't right or wrong, hence the project of CONCEPTUAL ANALYSIS, along with the usual manner of interrogating definitions by working out whether they're internally coherent (which is the mark of a well trained analyst -- that they do not need to disagree with the premises of an argument but can demolish its foundations from within, a fine trade which has unfortunately been made a complete laughing stock with the vogue of deconstruction in some senses) . And of course, as one must constantly remind people, the lack of consensus on an issue does not necessarily prohibit the possibility of such a consensus being arrived at at some point in time relative to some end. These problems would all be a lot less overbearing with these sorts of complaints in philosophy if they gave up some of the most basic and deluded preconceptions about what they want to achieve in the field, which always reflects some yearning for generality or final closure or absolutes.

Caracalla doesn't think that race is a social construct!

FASCIST SCUM!

>>2050072
0/10? 0/10!!

>>2050064

Okay let me clarify then: I'm saying that after you've carved out X number of positions, filtering for validity, one group will always be able to attack the soundness of another group's premises. This, I surmise, is because there are different opinions about these things. They are just that: opinions. I could be wrong of course, and there might be conclusions that can be reached. Then we're getting into metaphysics, which is itself a problem. My point is that with things like equality these are notions we've come up with that are always subject to revision. I can't see there being an end to such discussions unless everyone suddenly holds the same ideals.

>>2050064

I actually really like it when you sit down and talk about philosophy. You are so knowledgeable I wish you would make helpful and insightful posts like this all the time.

I wish you would be the teacher /lit/ needs you to be.

>>2050096

Don't worry I know all about these thinggs and I will teach lit myself!!!

The fact that Heidegger was stupid enough to not reject Nazism is proof that he's a total fucktard. Also he believes in God. He's more of a theologist than a philosopher.

>>2050102
That's not the right way to talk about the continental philosopher to end all continental philosophers.

>>2050102
>Also he believes in God.
I'm going to rape everybody in your family including your pets and grandparents

>>2050115

Sounds like somebody's going to hellll.

>>2050094
>My point is that with things like equality these are notions we've come up with that are always subject to revision. I can't see there being an end to such discussions unless everyone suddenly holds the same ideals.
And that's exactly the sort of yearning for absolutes that I talked about, and it's the sort of stuff that Wittgenstein wrote about in works like his Philosophical Investigations and On Certainty, both of which I'd recommend you to read at some stage simply in order to help divest yourself of what amounts to a culturally, critically inherited judeo-christian socratic methodology in philosophy. It's a lot like the same despair the nihilist faces when he realises that meaning isn't fixed or institutional; a case of despairing at something that was presupposed but which one was perhaps at fault for supposing it to begin with. All of our concepts are subject to revision, they are relative. This does not mean, as I've already said, that the relative evaluations of one age, discourse, culture etc are entirely without value, they're not (insofar as they are relative to some end), the conclusions of one discourse at one period of time may suit the "spirit" of the times, to put it somewhat cynically. That's not a problem insofar as one does not mistake such conclusions as timeless, as has been the mistake of several centuries of philosophy.

Of course, I myself don't waste my time with small-fry concepts like equality, justice etc precisely because as far as I'm concerned the best answers (which I regard as having held up rather well despite the change of times and paradigms) to these sorts of issues were presented roughly 50-60 years. That doesn't stop people from asking the same old questions again and again (for the same old platonic reasons).

>>2050102

D&E, in his usual manner, decided to couch a simple fact in purposefully muddle undergrad prose: Philosophy may be about ultimate questions, but it is arrogant to think that any one individual is going to find them, or to think that the enterprise is a failure for not having found them already. If you can get over that, you can make progress in learning philosophy.

tl;dr: The modern scientific analogy for philosophy isn't basic chemistry, it's cosmology.

(I think part of the problem here is the arrogance of the modern Anglophone academy in throwing the title of "philosopher" on "any old PhD who teaches philosophy". There needs to be some distinction between scholars of philosophy and those recognized as having significant, original contributions.)

>>2050096

>mfw

>>2050117
Sounds like somebody has the childish notions of god and shit that idiot theists have. Not even a belieber but still, it is the height of ignorance and arrogance to claim that a belief in god is a valid way to gauge a person's intellectual ability.

>>2050123

Could you please tell me what the best philosophers on the ideas of justice and equality are so I don't have to study every single one that is wrong?

>>2049917

Oh yeah, I should answer your original question.

I'm not too fond of the "Basic Writings" anthology, but it's not a bad start. You should read "Being and Time", but feel free to skip or skim the latter sections on temporality. Heidegger didn't have much interesting to say there, but what he does say is so apparently impenetrable, that it's a favorite subject for abuse by psychoanalysts, theologians, etc. If you have a specific interest in understanding where those people go wrong, you may want to read it, but otherwise, it's not worth your effort.

If you have a background in Greek and Ancient Philosophy, his early lectures on Aristotle and Parmenides are well worth it.

>>2050129
>D&E, in his usual manner, decided to couch a simple fact in purposefully muddle undergrad prose
And you, anon, in your usual manner of trying to undermine whatever I'm saying, misunderstand the kernel of what I'm saying, and thus unwittingly attempt to devalue what I'm saying by presenting your account as a correct interpretation

>Philosophy may be about ultimate questions
No, because if you were following what I was getting at, you'd realise there were no such ultimate questions (or if there were, one would do well to stop asking them already), that that was simply the product of mistaken methodology. That's by no means a "simple fact" to come to grips with and the reason I was writing in the manner I was was to highlight this.

You're simplifying what I said, sure, and most it holds fine, but you're dropping some of what I said that's important, about what can be achieved in philosophy.

>>2050123

Right, but you suggest there is a best answer in your mind. It may not be a timeless best answer but for you it is the best. In some sense we're on the same page here: it's futile to try to define equality as such, but it is possible to define a perspective on it that aligns or misaligns with the attitudes of those who hear it. The problem I have is that people do take these things as absolutes and they're applied in daily life as if they are. This to me is a dangerous thing to do, and I would simply wish that those who discuss these concepts take note of that. This position spills over to moral philosophy as well. We have all of these niche groups of consequentialists, deontologists and virtue ethicists that are staunchly in defense of their particular views which stand only on weak premises. Worse, their inability to resolve moral hard cases doesn't shake their proponents in most cases, and we see the same perspectives forwarded anyway.

>>2050131

That hell comment was my only comment, I don't now who bashed him for being theist before, I was just saying his threats probably didn't bode well for him if he believes in heaven and hell.

>>2050149
apologies

>>2049994
>>2050037
>>2050064
>>2050123
>>2050144

D&E not only not being a dick, but being helpful and charitable? Man, things really do change...

>>2050146
>This to me is a dangerous thing to do, and I would simply wish that those who discuss these concepts take note of that. This position spills over to moral philosophy as well. We have all of these niche groups of consequentialists, deontologists and virtue ethicists that are staunchly in defense of their particular views which stand only on weak premises. Worse, their inability to resolve moral hard cases doesn't shake their proponents in most cases, and we see the same perspectives forwarded anyway.
That's funny because it reminds me of the sort of stance I took in my early days of philosophy. The work we were doing in applied ethics classes always seemed neither here nor there to me because they were built on concepts that were themselves not entirely solid, so there seemed to be little point in working on what was shakey ground. So I stopped reading applied ethics and started looking at meta-ethics, where some of the concepts like truths and facts were dealt with more specifically. And those concepts would in turn be suspect so I'd have to go and look at epistemology, etc etc. This became one of the primary reasons I tried to avoid taking in classes that dealt with specific concepts rather than fields

>>2050144

My friend, you can move the goalposts, but you can't change the game.

>>2050177

The upshot of all this dissatisfaction is a need (at least for me) to go right to the root of how the concepts come to be and work, and I think that is best done by looking at people whose work concerns the way concepts and language work in general. Concepts in utilitarianism and deontology are shakey, one might say for example, because as Marx says, they're fundamentally Bourgeois, and Marx would tell us how such concepts in language came to be. Or Wittgenstein would through his language-games, or Derrida through his transcendental signifieds and other stupid bullshit, or Nietzsche with his genealogies (on truth and lies in an extramoral sense is a great essay in this vein btw). These approaches give the most general approaches to the way concepts work, but they also require the most effort to fully understand and appreciate I should think. But as far as I'm concerned they're the best way to work back up on concepts one is comfortable with, back to ethics, if one even feels one needs such a discourse after such rigorous study.

>>2050146

Virtue ethicists aren't even playing the same game as the rest of the "applied ethicists" out here in the Anglosphere. They're really asking a metaethical question that gets disguised as a normative one over & over (what is virtue? how do we know it?). I'm not sure why there is this fundamental problem in the field, but I think it has to do with the former commitments of some of the thinkers in it. I've heard good things about Julia Annas's new book, but I haven't read it yet.

>>2050179

I agree, I'm much more concerned with describing how concepts develop and how languages interact with them than I am with ethical discussions for the same reasons. I've become a pragmatist, generally speaking, philosophically. I guess I could classify myself as a moral skeptic who still sees the value of morals as a tool. I don't see any way of defining them as a priori. In fact, I have trouble with a priori in some sense, possibly because I could define myself as a physicalist, and it seems unlikely to me that a person can exist outside of their senses. My brother is doing his masters in philosophy and I often debate with him about this, and he brings up a thought experiment sometimes with a person born without senses. I suggest such a person would essentially be brain dead unless external stimuli was applied intentionally. I'm getting off track I think, but this is an interesting discussion.

>>2050179

See, I think there's a lot to this, the way in which these topics are taught is absolutely insane and very misleading to the undergraduate student. I remember having this conversation just over six years ago when I was coming out of my sophomore year with my professor for Ethics: I don't feel committed to any of these frameworks, so how am I supposed to be spending my time working out cases within them? He said that was a good point, but he had to teach the class the department expected him to teach (he was tenure–track, not tenured…).

Where I really depart from D&E is that I don't think the important thing is how concepts and language work (while they are important for the practical question of "why do people believe what they believe?"), but rather the historical question of understanding the development of philosophy. I think it is best to know the Gordian knot before you cut it, some people just pick up the closest available sword.

Very nice topic, I'll chime in a bit but I also have a question. Is 'Was ist Metaphysik?' as good as I've heard, and would it be a good intro to Being and Time? While I haven't read Heidegger directly (except a few passages) I have a decent amount of secondhand knowledge (Sartre/Kaufmann/Žižek).

>>2050202

It seems to me that the history of philosophy depends very much on the language which has been used to express it. Whether or not there is a definite track of concepts (whether a hierarchy of problems or whatever, or even a real progression of problems/solutions), concepts becoming "stuck" within language, being tied down to certain linguistic relations over others and further being complicated with relations to other areas. A very crude example would be the claim that Einstein, Heidegger, and Hitler all believe in God - by no means does this mean that the three share the same belief. Nonetheless if the statement is placed into a widely-read philosophical text, the actual corpus of texts, the canon, has been altered.

>>2051925

None of those three believed in God in /any/ meaningful sense in their mature thought.

In any case:

The language question is important, but it isn't the horizon. The problem with the language question as its developed since the 30s is that linguistics beat out philology. Heidegger is a great example here; what he was doing in his lectures on Aristotle, for example, was trying to explore the etymologies of key concepts in order to bring out new ways of thinking about them AND try to re-understand the history. Part of this means you have to abandon the pretension that all fields of knowledge have to submit to the field of science. While linguistics is useful (I know natural language programmers), it actually tells us very little about philosophical discourse, it just seems to push it away.

When D&E says the "big questions don't exist", he's playing sleight of hand on you. "No question over here!" is, of course, an answer to a big question, it's just one that abandons the search and the suspension one finds himself in when confronted with a true aporia for a false sense of knowingness. D&E rightly tells you to give up the egocentric need for answers while fulfilling his own in a crass manner.

What history does is let you recapture the big questions and bring out why they are important and how they have been thought about and exposes the chicanery of the various shell games that now pose as philosophical schools of thought. History has the humility to learn from those more intelligent than it.

If you want to be a philosopher in the 21st century, you must first be a genealogist. Just, go deeper than Nietzsche. Don't give in to the poetic game any more than the ego.

>bump?

>>2051949

>When D&E says the "big questions don't exist", he's playing sleight of hand on you. "No question over here!" is, of course, an answer to a big question, it's just one that abandons the search and the suspension one finds himself in when confronted with a true aporia for a false sense of knowingness
Haha, very slick dude; except I'd still maintain I'm not offering or seeking answers to big questions, precisely because there are none, nor are there any absolutes or ideals, or truths or falsities. And because there are none, it makes very little sense as far as I am concerned to say there are aporia (although this is more of a semantic issue in the sense of issues in meaning, and hokey concepts of dealing with language such presence and absence, all of which I'm not really engaging with in the way I'm putting this response) or irresolvable contradictions, beyond meaning it in a psychological sense or playing in a certain game of language (the deconstructive game, of course)

And with this in mind, I wouldn't agree to this:
>D&E rightly tells you to give up the egocentric need for answers while fulfilling his own in a crass manner.
precisely because from what I've learned for myself is that I don't need answers, that the need for answers is something to be overcome. What are you going to do pal, assure me that this is actually a need for answers in hiding? I mean, this sort of reasoning can go back and forth for some time ("but I wasn't actually/ but you really were")

and before some smartass toddles along and points out that I've made several absolute statements there; they'd do well to learn that that's simply a human way of speaking; such issues can be shown rather than expressed due to the limitations of our language

>>2052592
>>2052579

>"what I've learned for myself is that I don't need answers"

There's a big difference between learning to not need answers and stating categorically that there are no questions (which is an answer to a Big Question, and get over your mystical bullshit that it isn't because of some fairy tale about how the language is too limited to show how it isn't—we tolerate this stuff in the ashram, but not the journal).

Also, your anticipated objection is bizarre, it's not your absolute statements that are at issue, it's your poor attempts to destroy philosophy with a cloak of bad linguistics. If you really believe what you're saying, stop wasting your time projecting your reality distortion field and go learn a useful skill like coding or medicine.

>>2052883
Philosophy is sort of applied linguistics, in the sense that the questions you're asking are kind of aiming for a precise definition of a certain semion or concept, i.e. what is virtue? What does it mean when I say conscience? What does it when I say 'being'? etc.

>a cloak of bad linguistics
This is what you term the sort of meta-lingual mode Deep is plumbing, one that you find slightly inscrutable, maybe from a lack of experience. This allows him to criticize the philosophical tradition, certainly prior to Wittgenstein and Heidegger, and much of it after them as well.

The sort of philosophy you would like in the end, one of a series of big questions along ethical and metaphysical lines that people find new and apposite ways of dealing with the whole time, is sort of antiquated; dismissed by the likes of Wittgenstein and Rorty. Instead, philosophy now looks for cultural (continental school) matters to conceptualize and consider or to untangle the complexity of logic and applied logic (analytical).

>>2052910

It's not "inscrutable"; it isn't saying anything of much substance. Please though, I love it when people here not in my field like to talk down to me like I don't understand it, or echo the views of their low–end school professors who have been out of the publishing game since they got tenure in the 80s and don't have a clue what's really going on, really, it brightens my day.

Do either of you even read stuff like Notre Dame Philosophical Reviews? You can read it online, and they review nearly every worthwhile book in the field each year. Look at what is coming out. I'm sorry, but the philosophical tradition is coming back. The sort of pretended "reduced" discipline of the post–war era is dying from sheer boredom, and its inability to make progress even in its limited area of competence, because of real problems lurking behind the structures.

Philosophy is /not/ applied linguistics, such a statement is ridiculous in the extreme, and limits the discipline to a few schools from the last ninety years, without understanding that they rest on a prior, non–linguistic tradition. Even Wittgenstein was more honest about this than you are.

(Also, I find it really rich that someone who just is "thinking of approaching Heidegger" with "Basic Writings" is taking it upon himself to tell us where in the philosophical tradition Heidegger stands. You're worse than a person who pretends to read classics and then bashes others for their taste.)

The reason philosophy always turns back to the major metaphysical and epistemological questions is because they always exist by virtue of their being a world experienced by conscious beings at all. If you had actually read Heidegger, you might have some understanding of this.

>>2049929

Be aware that the Dreyfuss lectures (while good) have a very specific axe to grind, which is to bring Heidegger into line with American Pragmatism, which is a pretty controversial approach within the US, and almost wholly ignored outside of it.

hey i'm mostly interested in heidegger because of his influence on hannah arendt and leo strauss

what should i read

>>2053598
>implying non Anglo-American analytic philosophers are really philosophers

Oh, anon. You're such a card.

from the introduction, I think these two pages are two of the most illuminating.

>>2053614

Great Leo Strauss story for you.

Some of his students (I believe Benardete was one of them?) were going to Germany and were going to make the typical pilgrimage to visit Heidegger. They asked Strauss before they left his opinion on this matter and did not forbid them to go to Heidegger, but forbid them to shake his hand.

Anyhow, Strauss was not influenced by Heidegger, except maybe negatively. They began diverging in how they read Greek philosophy, and only got farther apart.

>>2053615

>Not picking up on how I said US, not Anglosphere. Good eyes, anon, good eyes.

Also, the analytic/continental distinction is increasingly breaking down and has been in earnest for twenty or more years. More of this second–tier state school undergrad BS?

>>2053649
That is a pretty good story.

Even if Strauss and Heidegger differ, I figure I should still have some familiarity with Heidegger. For one thing, Strauss did start out as a student of Heidegger (and from things I've skimmed ITT it seems like there are at least some similarities in their approach). For another, Arendt was also a student of his & from things I've read / heard from professors, there's a lot of Heidegger present in her thought (insert schlocky joke about their affair here). So yeah.

>>2053664

Well, Heidegger is one of the few giants of the 20th c you have to contend with, so no matter what your interests, you should read him if you're going to be serious about philosophy. There is SOME of the early Heidegger in Strauss, but it's mostly in the philological style; however, Strauss reads the Greeks much more seriously than Heidegger, who largely uses them only as stepping stones.

>ZIZEK

Just stop right there OP and get yourself Being And Nothingness from the Stalinist cockeye'd motherfucker and "A Letter on Humanism" from the Meister.

>>2053815

>2011
>Sartre

>>2053664
You mean there was a lot of Heidegger's schlock inserted in her?

Deepa Derpa

>>2052883
>There's a big difference between learning to not need answers and stating categorically that there are no questions
>(which is an answer to a Big Question,
I see you've done exactly what I predicted,

>"but I wasn't actually/ but you really were"

Because you deny the premises of what I'm saying, which is to say that I'm not offering or seeking answers to big questions, precisely because there are none, nor are there any absolutes or ideals, or truths or falsities.
So you've simply just ignored everything I've said and in effect told me "NO", without really arguing against any of it.

>it's your poor attempts to destroy philosophy with a cloak of bad linguistics. If you really believe what you're saying, stop wasting your time projecting your reality distortion field and go learn a useful skill like coding or medicine.
I'm not destroying philosophy, because if you understand philosophy you'll realise that its work goes on in a different area much more vital to human life.

Read What is Called Thinking. Then go from there. Look into people that write about Heideggers thoughts on aesthetics, like Julian Young or Iain Thomson. Look into Age of the World Picture, Poetry Language Thought, Holzwedge, etc.

Heidegger tries to find and lead the way towards a more fundamental engagement with Being. This is where a lot of the remarks about mysticism and theology come in. He just wants our late-modern society to learn what it is to experience the world and earth. He's a phenomenologist for crying out loud.

Anyone who thinks races are equal should be spat on and ignored.
Same with anyone using the term "racist".
These are called cultural marxists and breivik showed us how to deal with them.

>>2053890
*rimshot*

>>2055897

D&E your views are very interesting. Now I understand why you are so into Eastern Philosophy.

This is a really cool thread.

>>2050198

Fellow pragmatist! Holy shit.

>>2052933
>It's not "inscrutable"; it isn't saying anything of much substance
Substantiate.

>low–end school professors who have been out of the publishing game since they got tenure in the 80s
Substantiate

>they review nearly every worthwhile book in the field each year. Look at what is coming out. I'm sorry, but the philosophical tradition is coming back.
In good faith and for good reasons? Substantiate.

>real problems lurking behind the structures.
Examples?

>Philosophy is /not/ applied linguistics, such a statement is ridiculous in the extreme, and limits the discipline to a few schools from the last ninety years, without understanding that they rest on a prior, non–linguistic tradition.
This is not a Wittgensteinian poseur stance, this is standard thought on the subject, i.e. not that the only way to have a meta stance is to be meta on language, but that philosophy has been a long tradition of word or concept definers, ultimately a task grounded on language.

>>2056525
>"thinking of approaching Heidegger" with "Basic Writings"
This has come out to be the legitimate way to approach him if you've read the thread. He erred a bit with Being and Time, and his later perspectives are more informed.

>You're worse than a person who pretends to read classics and then bashes others for their taste.
This is bit of a fallacious analog considering the fact that I know own the latest edition of Basic Writings and will read it. This means I'm in fact better than people that 'pretend to read classics' and not worse.


>The reason philosophy always turns back to the major metaphysical and epistemological questions is because they always exist by virtue of their being a world experienced by conscious beings at all.
If you had read my spiel properly, this wouldn't be such a nice stance. Because to what extent does it preclude philosophy also being a conscious response to concepts and phenomena in the world? In fact, it just points out that language is often what mediates and elucidates these concepts. I don't Heidegger to both understand and to deconstruct this position for precision.

All in all, terrible argument. Where did you get your degree? I'm not sure a first would come with this level of fallacy coming over.

>>2056097
HUHUHUH, I POASTED IT AGAIN.

Like the way you've added Brievik to it though, keep up the trolling, you'll get a reaction once I'm done with the big boys.

Sage, homework thread.

>>2056557
coming from the man who's OP'd millions of recommendation threads but reduced none to the absurdity of that designation

>>2056557
you didnt think about me once did you -.-