/lit/ - Literature

>>21883111
Are you sure it’s compatible with Catholicism? I think pic related is more compatible with Protestantism than Catholicism, and even more with atheism. He discovers an ontological cause for guilt that renders Original Sin only into a metaphor, for example.

>>21883111
>Did he write anything against Christianity?
Yes, the Black Notebooks, where metaphysically Christianity = Judaism = Capitalism = Socialism, etc. There's also his insistence at the beginning of Introduction to Metaphysics that one cannot be Christian and a philosopher at the same time.

>>21883243
>He discovers an ontological cause for guilt
(X) Doubt

>>21883243
>Are you sure it’s compatible with Catholicism?
Yes
>I think pic related is more compatible with Protestantism than Catholicism, and even more with atheism.
How?
>He discovers an ontological cause for guilt that renders Original Sin only into a metaphor, for example.
"Ontological causes" do not preclude their existence being contingent on the Fall.

>>21883357
>one cannot be Christian and a philosopher at the same time.
He means that they should be separated while writing but that's not incompatible with Christianity. The question is if his philosophy (written while not actively acting like a Christian) is incompatible with Christianity.
>metaphysically Christianity = Judaism = Capitalism = Socialism
Where does he say that? I'm sure he doesn't say that because it's stupid.

>essence of man is framed, claimed and challenged by a power which manifests itself in the essence of technology, a power which man himself does not control.

Heidegger believed in the second coming.

Heidegger: If I may answer briefly, and perhaps clumsily, but after long reflection: philosophy will be unable to effect any immediate change in the current state of the world. This is true not only of philosophy but of all purely human reflection and endeavor. Only a god can save us. The only possibility available to us is that by thinknig and poetizing we prepare a readiness for the appearance of a god, or for the absence of a god in [our] decline, insofar as in view of the absent god we are in a state of decline.27

SPIEGEL: Is there a correlation between your thinking and the emergence of this god? Is there here in your view a causal connection? Do you feel that we can bring a god forth by our thinking?

Heidegger: We can not bring him forth by our thinking. At best we can awaken a readiness to wait [for him].

SPIEGEL: But can we help?

Heidegger: The first help might be the readying of this readiness. It is not through man that the world can be what it is and how it is -- but also not without man. In my view, this goes together with the fact that what I call "Being" (that long traditional, highly ambiguous, now worn-out word) has need of man in order that its revelation, its appearance as truth, and its [various] forms may come to pass. The essence of technicity I see in what I call "pos-ure" (Ge-Sull), an often ridiculed and perhaps awkward expression.28 To say that pos-ure holds sway means that man is posed, enjoined and challenged by a power that becomes manifest in the essence of technicity -- a power that man himself does not control. Thought asks no more than this: that it help us achieve this insight. Philosophy is at an end.

>>21883527
i think 'only a god can save us' is a confusion of elements. if a god actually appears in the world it only does it violence, by rape or war or whatever. if, only the other hand, the god sends a mediator, which only happened in christianity, then we are spared from being raped by god. these are the only two possibilities. i would be pleased if heidegger phrase were changed to: "Only a god can rape us." this would be more true to history. conversely, "Only a mediator can save us (from rape)" would also be acceptable.

>>21883552
>lowercase post
Yeah not reading that

>>21883111
Because he realised it’s all just cope, especially god

>>21883111
>Why did Heidegger even leave Christianity to begin with? All his philosophy including pic related is entirely compatible with Catholicism.

They aren't. His philosophy is "atheist but spiritual."

>>21883527
He's not talking about the Christian god. If you want Heidegger that is compatible with Christianity then read Kierkegaard.

>>21884700
Point to an incompatibility then. Oh wait you never read it.

>>21884702
Visio Dei.

>>21884713
Try making an argument retard

>>21884721
Look redditor, you can seethe all you want, but Heidegger himself explicitly said his philosophy wasn't compatible with Christianity. Not sure why you're so upset at this. Did you waste your life studying him or something?

>>21884722
>still no argument
Just say you're retarded

>>21883111
>>21883111
The main source of his break away from faith was not that he specifically rejected catholic faith, neither did he specifically return to catholicism. The problem Heidegger had was with theology and its history. In his views, theology had to be completely filtered of rationalism and nominalism, or to put it simply, anything dealing with reason or logic is properly only for philosophy to deal with. Theology, especially Tomist scholastic tradition which prevailed following the late middle ages gradually shifted more and more from revelation, mystery, and wonders to philosophical arguments. This is specifically the reason why, according to Heidi, Descartes, the architect of political modernity and the scientific method, took such a wrong path in his thought, because being taught by Jesuit theologians he believed in certainty of reasoning. You can see this line of thought in his pre B&T books, like History of Concept of Time. To see why he went back to faith read his Contributions to Philosophy.

>>21883516
Also this

>>21884785
So he could've just become Orthodox

>>21884795
Of the 25 books by him I have gotten my hands on so far I have never found a mention of Orthodoxy specifically, but heres this from Black Notebooks:

reacquiring liberation of the Russians paves its way toward their history (not “race”) and an abyssal question-worthiness of the Germans paves its way toward theirs, whereby the history of both peoples stems from the same concealed ground of an inceptual destiny: to ground the truth of Being.

Lying hidden in the essence of Russianism are treasures of expectation of God, and these essentially surpass all the stocks of raw materials. Who will mine these treasures, i.e., liberate them to their essence and not merely calculate them in terms of historiology and literature? Who is so simple that he discovers and founds equiprimordially into unity his most proper essence and also what is most alien to him? What must happen so that such might become a historical possibility? Beyng itself must first bestow itself in its truth, and for that the supremacy of beings over being, i.e., metaphysics in its essence, must be overcome historically.

>>21884813
>Russians have an expectation of God but only in their history and someone has to dig that up to make use of it
What the fuck is he talking about? This is just late schizo posting.

>>21884928
He is talking about destiny of a people midwit

>>21884936
How does that change anything you retarded pseud? It's still schizo posting. Make something meaningful out of it or stop LARPing as a human being.

>>21884950
I mean I can sure explain it to you in simple terms midwit. The passage is from BLACK NOTEBOOKS, his personal diary never meant to be published, all while WW2 is ongoing and he has left rectorship position and is surveilled by police, so it only makes sense to write something obscure so FUCKING MIDWITS like you won't understand it. But as I am in a kind mood right now, I shall break it down for you.
Heidegger says that neither is Nazism an ideology of Germans, nor Bolshevism is that of Russians. Both nations share the same historical destiny, that is to understand Being according to German and Russian logos, or way of life, accordingly. For Heidegger, history of German people in metaphysical sense was once finished with Nietzsche, they had a great philosophical tradition that had its roots with Höldrelin and Kant, went through German Idealism, and finished with Nietzsche and Heidegger himself. The truth of Being was understood by German people with these thinkers, but their historical time for creating anything new in the age of Nitzschean nihilism was over. On the other hand, unlike Germans, Russia never had its true philosophical school that would authentically represent Russia. Sure you have figures like Soloviev or Berdiyaev but they are ultimately adjacent to Western European (German) philosophy and not authentically Russian. While time of German philosophical glory by the 1940s is over, that of Russia has not yet begun. There has, by that point, existed no true authentic Russian philosophy. But there is a possibility for it, the "expectation of God." Unlike German philosophy which sees flight of Gods, Russian philosophy which when this was written still did not exist, will that of awaiting the arrival of God.
Want to ask me how I am making this inferences dear RETARD? "Expectation of God" is taken out of Hölderlin's poem, Heidi's favorite poet. He has two essays on his poetry if you actually want to understand something and get the context further. Youre welcome midwit

>>21884997
>Youre welcome midwit
Welcome for what? For making me waste my time reading your garbage? I'm pretty sure you either misunderstood what he said or Heidegger was still very immature during that period. Pretty sure it's the former since you seem retarded.

>>21885014
Immature? 10 years after having written Being and Time the single greatest work of philosophy since Plato? After having held seminars to people who went on to be noteworthy philosophers in their right? After having given impulse to French faggots to invent 'existentialism?' Maybe you just don't get it cause you have not read enough Heidi... Again, you will appreciate the knowledge midwit, thank me later

>>21885023
>10 years after having written Being and Time the single greatest work of philosophy since Plato?
Kek so you were just projecting when you were repeating midwit every sentence. At least you're younger than 25 so you have time to grow out of this embarrassing phase.

I am the only person who isn't retarded.

>>21885029
I see you are getting old, worrying about people's ages, giving no arguments of your own other than
>muh Heidegger was immature at age 40 and schizo ranting and I refuse to accept your explanation because you cannot possibly make sense cause you called me a midwit!!!!

If by some sheer tragic accident you have kids they will be taught Heidi in school, and you will remember me you nigger

>>21885052
I like Heidegger, and I like Being and Time. But that doesn't mean he wasn't immature or that you're not retarded. Even he realised he was immature after "the turn" but you haven't yet realised you're retarded because you're underage.

>>21885070
Lmao you fucking retard you even know what he meant by the turn? You think the turn represents his personal views turning around? The turn refers to the Event, Ereignis, and the new beginning of philosophy. As Heidegger explicitly says in his Spiegel interview, there is no switch between his works there is no change of primary thought. You have no idea what youre talking about. You don't even need the Spiegel interview if you are not dumb, because throughout his lectures he keeps repeating that "all original thinkers think the same thought" and there can only ever be one thought, that of the question of Being, which takes different forms in thinkers throughout time but is in essence the same because "truth of Being is Being of truth," Parmenides, Black Notebooks, Hölderlin's Hymns, Nietzsche lectures, Zollikon Seminars. You are a surface dweller midwit. If you "like" Being and Time please go ahead and tell me what exactly do you find likable about it.

>>21885092
It's like no matter what you read you'll always misunderstand everything fundamentally

>>21885096
Thats why I laid out what he said in Black Notebooks of the passage I quoted that you called schizo rambling? My understanding of his work is fundamentally wrong based on nothing you've said but you calling him a schizo is based mature behavior. Have I understood your writing fundamentally wrong too big mature midwit?

>>21883424
>He means that...
No, he means that one can't philosophize, which he takes be fundamentally zetetic inquisitiveness, and be a Christian, i.e., committed to certain beliefs that can't be subjected to questioning.

>Where does he say that?
Black Notebooks, and I'm sure it does seem stupid to you; it's wholly consistent with his History of Metaphysics/Forgetfulness of Being/Beyng.

>>21885444
Ever heard of Arthur F. Holmes?

>>21885444
>be a Christian, i.e., committed to certain beliefs that can't be subjected to questioning.
That's not what's a Christian. A Christian simply finds Christianity to be absolutely true, it doesn't mean they're not open to change their minds if they find compelling reasons to do so.

>>21885444
>certain beliefs that can't be subjected to questioning.
Lol you can question my beliefs all you want, it doesn't change that your questioning of my beliefs is retarded
>bro like u don't really believe like miracles exist right? liek broo it's 2023 XDDD wtf man btw men are women

>>21886683
Plantinga also comes to mind

>>21885444
Kek so Kant, Berkeley, Descartes, Augustine, Aquinas were not philosophers, only Soidegger and Neetzche

Everyone is a midwit except me.

>>21886827
Even me? >_<

>>21886850
Especially you, midwit.

>>21887002

>>21886850
Uhh cute

>>21886850
You're cute, anon <3

>>21886775
Correct, you are just now stumbling upon the retardation of Heidegger's thought.
Note that in contrast to this, Husserl insisted his Phenomenology was just his way of worshiping God. Popes have contributed to the Analecta Husserliana, you don't see that with Heidi.

>>21888287
>Husserl insisted his Phenomenology was just his way of worshiping God
God or G*d?

>>21883243
>He discovers an ontological cause for guilt that renders Original Sin only into a metaphor
Elaborate?

>>21888660
God, the Christian one. Husserl was born Jewish but he converted in his early 20s, and it was apparently very important to him that his wife did also. His friendship with Brentano, a catholic priest who had a very public disagreement with the Church over papal supremacy following Vatican 1 and was thus allowed to "exit gracefully" the order was used in the past to explain why he committed to Protestantism rather than Catholicism.
To note, however, with the exception of the quip on God needing a body to exist, the few of his writings on God are positively Catholic.

>>21889541
>God needing a body to exist
Wtf

>>21883527
>Ge-Sull
*Ge-Stell

>another thread ripping Heidegger a new one
Nazibros...

>>21890521
His argument was solid, but he clearly said it tongue-in-cheek. It's more about the body already being "ideal", in a similar way to Merleau-Ponty.

>>21883527
>a God
>a readiness to wait
Time

>>21885444
>>21886775
>>21888287
Those thinkers dealt with onto-theology thoughforever, which is metaphysics, not religion or religious experience

>>21892124
>onto-theology thoughforever

>>21886712
>>21886715
>>21886775
Okay retards,

1) There's a difference between characterizing accurately Heidegger's statement at the beginning of Introduction to Metaphysics, and claiming that belief for myself. Think he's a retard for it? Have at 'er.

2) Heidegger came to find philosophy as such unsatisfying, hence his later self-characterization as a thinker, not a philosopher.

If you want to argue with Heidegger and his conclusions, then go to the books, lectures, essays, and see what he says and argue with it, but you can call tilting at windmills whatever you want,and you'll still be tilting at windmills if you don't consider the connections between what he calls the ontological difference, the meaning of Being/Beyng, and why he thinks Christian philosophy is an oxymoron.

>>21892244
retard midwit numale redditor pleb liberal soi

>>21892244
Shut up retard