/lit/ - Literature

>>5559515

>A philosophy board

>>5559515

"Let's see what's going on in /lit/ today?"
"Oh! A STEM kid being the fags they usually are...per usual"

>>5559520
Might as well be

>>5559522
>le proud ignorance face

⇒another Heidegger thread

And again I'm waiting for someone to name one non-trivial result discovered by Heidegger.

>>5559544
YOU ARE asking too much. No one here has read Heiddeger and those who have, didn't understand him...

>>5559564
>tfw no bookstores that contain a philosophy section near me
I get what I can through arguments on /lit/

>>5559544
>What is dasein
>what's is getting rid of the subject object distinction
>what is being-in-the-world
>what is correcting ontology
>what are the 5 causes
I could go on

>>5559544
>What is dasein
>what's is getting rid of the subject object distinction
>what is being-in-the-world
>what is correcting ontology
>what are the 5 causes
>what is care as a fundamental mode of being of dasein

I could go on

>>5559576
>>5559581
lol

>>5559544
>Asking people who haven't read something what the significance was of the thing they haven't read is and being surprise when you can't find the answer.

>>5559544
>retard arrow girl also hate heidigger

wow, I didn't think i could hate you more.

>>5559576
i would add thrownness discussed in authentic-potentiality-for-being. its honestly one of the most practical things in all of philosophy in terms of getting over mental bullshit that is letting you hold yourself back.

>>5559576
>>5559581
Those are nice buzzwords but when I look them up, all I find is trivialities. Can you explain which previously unanswered questions he answered with these concepts or which misconceptions he debunked?

Btw: If Heidegger was so smart, then why did he choose these words for his private terminology instead of inventing new and unambiguous terms?

>>5559612
⇒arrow girl also hate heidigger
I never expressed any dislike for him. Don't project your emotions into me. I'm merely asking for a reason why I should read Sein und Zeit.

>>5559657
>I couldn't understand one of the most difficult philosophical texts in the western philososphical canon after spending 5 minutes on Wikipedia therefore it has no value

>Btw: If Heidegger was so smart, then why did he choose these words for his private terminology instead of inventing new and unambiguous terms?

>he didn't invent his own language therefore he is dumb

>Also what is German being a difficult language to translate?

>>5559608

Welcome to /lit/, or, perhaps, Zombocom.

>>5559684
>Also what is German being a difficult language to translate?
rofl

>>5559515
THIS. IS. NOT. A. PHILOSOPHY. BOARD.

>>5559684
⇒>I couldn't understand one of the most difficult philosophical texts in the western philososphical canon after spending 5 minutes on Wikipedia therefore it has no value
Before I bother reading the text I need to have a reasonably justified belief that I will benefit from doing so and not waste my time. Wikipedia or any other summary didn't help. They don't tell me what insights I'm gonna gain from reading Heidegger.

⇒>he didn't invent his own language therefore he is dumb
He did invent his own language obviously. There are whole glossaries of Heidggerian terminology. However it appears he was too dumb/autistic to construct his terminology in such a way that it doesn't interfere with everyday language. The word "Dasein" for example is a normal word of the German language. If he wanted to create a technical term, he could have chosen a Greek word or a word from any other dead language instead. What he did was highly unprofessional. But I suspect he did so deliberately in order to obfuscate the shallowness of his content.

⇒>Also what is German being a difficult language to translate?
A joke? As a Germanic language German is translated easily into English.

>>5559735
Do you not have a ">" key?

>heidegger
i miss being a teenager

>>5559735
>Before I bother reading the text I need to have a reasonably justified belief that I will benefit from doing so and not waste my time. Wikipedia or any other summary didn't help. They don't tell me what insights I'm gonna gain from reading Heidegger.

Well, if you can't bother reading the thing you are not going to get much out of it, but here is a podcast someone like you should be able to grasp http://m.youtube.com/watch?v=4S2ThMso-SI there are misinterpretations abound, and you still probably won't get why being such an important question, but it's the best I can do for someone who's not willing to work.

>He did invent his own language obviously. There are whole glossaries of Heidggerian terminology. However it appears he was too dumb/autistic to construct his terminology in such a way that it doesn't interfere with everyday language. The word "Dasein" for example is a normal word of the German language. If he wanted to create a technical term, he could have chosen a Greek word or a word from any other dead language instead. What he did was highly unprofessional. But I suspect he did so deliberately in order to obfuscate the shallowness of his content.

Learn what the terminology means and then you can criticize the terms, in fact, it would be great if you could propose a better terminology.

>Germanic language
So is Yiddish

>>5559684
go back to highschool kiddo

>>5559735
>As a Germanic language German is translated easily into English.
This has got to be a joke.

>>5559740
you haven't been acquainted with arrowgirl yet? arrowgirl is the troll who switched form /sci/ to /lit/ once she realized everyone there caught on to her antics (although the /sci/ community is still very heavily anti-humanities and particularly anti-philosophy)

>>5559861
german is quite easily translated into english
obfuscation in any language is not easy to translate
please shut the fuck up

>>5559867
>german is quite easily translated into english
Then why aren't you stunning the academic world with a new translation of Heidegger that easily renders his German into English?

Heidegger's German was in a league of its own; his unique approach to everyday terminology was brilliant and expresses what is at the core of his ideas of language and everydayness.

>>5559877
learn to read you retarded amerifat trash

>>5559885
>learn to read you retarded amerifat trash

>implying

Bitte...

>>5559895
lerne erstmal deutsch du behinderter mongo

>>5559900
>dubs
Ganz toll.

But seriously...
>thinking you can just easily translate Heidegger into English

>>5559863
Can't we just spam report her or something?

>>5559919
For what? Discussing philosophy is not against the rules.

>>5559915
wie ich sagte, kannste nicht einmal deutsch
geh scheißen, amerifat

>>5559515

Whuts your thoughts on Kittler bruh

>>5559544

Technological enframing you dickbutt

what's your thought on the late heidegger? and do you think you should divide heidegger in three ou two phases?

>>5559931
>this attempt at German

Even if you were any good, the fact still stands that translating Heidegger's often idiosyncratic German into English isn't an easy task, and that German is not always "easy" to translate.

There's a great deal of literature on translating Heidegger, and none of it would go to suggest your point of view.

>>5559949
Not even that guy, but holy shit you're retarded. Heidegger is hard to translate because he is using obfuscating language and redefines words of everyday language suddenly to be technical terms with a different meaning. He's hard to translate in the same way a complex play on words is hard to translate. This doesn't change the fact that German in general is extremely easy to translate due to being linguistically closely related to English.

>>5559963
Holy shit you don't even get what I'm talking about. I more or less agree with you, but, as I said before, Heidegger's German is unique and translating him isn't easy. Some idiot here implied that because German is related to English it must be easy to translate. That blanket statement simply isn't true.

>frowning-ayer.png

>>5559973
⇒That blanket statement simply isn't true.

Repeating your assertion doesn't make you less wrong. At least two people ITT explained why you're wrong.

>>5559997
>Repeating your assertion doesn't make you less wrong.
Translating Heidegger simply isn't "easy." You can attempt, but you will, given the intellectual disability I've seen emanate from you, fail.

Period.

>>5560004
Are you illiterate? I explained the difficulties with translating Heidegger in >>5559963 and told you why it's irrelevant to the general statement. Learn to read, moron.

>come here because someone said this board is full of pretentious assholes
>this is the first thread on the front page
wow, and I thought that it was exaggerated

>>5560012
>>As a Germanic language German is translated easily into English.
That was the original quote

It's not true in the case of Heidegger.

Simple.

Move on, Kinder.

>>5560023
⇒>Also what is German being a difficult language to translate?

THIS was the original claim [which has been rightfully exposed as wrong ITT]. Reading isn't your strong suit obviously.

>>5560034
>quote directly
Yeah, try again, dude.

Enjoy your misconceptions of Heidegger and inability to read it in its original form.

>>5560050
⇒Enjoy your misconceptions of Heidegger
I didn't post any misconceptions. I merely asked about his achievements [which you were unable to name].

⇒and inability to read it in its original form.
Dafuq? I could order a copy of "Sein und Zeit" whenever I want.

please post yfw you realized that arrow isn't a single poster, but a collective invention of this entire board whenever they feel like being extremely autistic.

>>5560060
That doesn't mean you would understand it.

>>5560090
Understanding and reading are inseparable. I couldn't read it without understanding it.

>>5560103
But what if it goes right over your head? Are you still understanding it?

>>5560103
Is this a troll?

>>5560112
How can a text written in natural language go over my head? Such a scenario has never happened to me and is absolutely unimaginable.

>>5560114
No. Are you stupid?

>>5560120
Improbable things happen all the time.

>>5560120
This is a troll.

>>5560120
>no true scotsman...

>>5560143
Why do you say that? How can you call yourself a STEM fag when you immediately yell "troll" whenever you encounter someone who isn't a retard? Do you have some kind of personality disorder? Leave /lit/ and don't come back until you grew more mature.

>>5560148
Wrong. That fallacy doesn't mean what you think it means.

>>5560150
>How can you call yourself a STEM fag
Because I have a degree in mathematics

>>5560154
>No True Scotsman is a logical fallacy by which an individual attempts to avoid being associated with an unpleasant act by asserting that no true member of the group they belong to would do such a thing

>>5560155
What area of math did you specialize in?

>>5560161
The post said nothing about groups.

>>5560169
>natural language

>>5560169
Number theory

>>5560176
Do you not know what that means?

>>5560185
Eww, how useless. Might as well have specialized in solving sudokus.

>>5560185
Was numb theory not good enough for you?

>>5560193
It's almost daylight outside and here you are still shitposting and trolling.

>>5560193
I find the structural foundations of mathematics interesting, what a crime. Also didn't you you say another thread you were a nihilist? How do you reconcile that with your pragmatic values, considering the fact that everything is valueless?

>>5560203
Tu quoque is a fallacy.

>>5560210
Oh look, another retard who doesn't understand moral nihilism. I can have a shitload of values, just no moral values. Not every value system is to be subsumed under ethics. Nihilism means nothing more than accepting that moral claims are inherently meaningless. Nihilism does not mean believing everything is meaningless. Are you sure you have the cognitive skills to participate in this debate?

>>5559515
>Thinking Martin is mad in that picture

>>5560232
>She believes things have inherent meaning
lmao
can you provide any justification for those values? I bet if I asked you "why" enough i could defeat your argument.

I miss the days of yore when we could discuss philosophy on here without shit-flinging contests.

Maybe I'm idealizing the past and I'm just getting too old for 4chan or something.

Time for me to fuck off.

>>5560259
That's for conversations between friends, or fruitful conversations in general, but 4chan is not about fruitful conversation.

>>5560249
⇒can you provide any justification for those values?
Some things don't need proof. Unlike you I'm not autistic. You might not believe it, but everyday life does not always consist of rigorous math.

⇒I bet if I asked you "why" enough i could defeat your argument.
That would be very childish and it would "defeat" my argument only in the same sense as uncalled-for masturbation would "defeat" my argument. If you willfully decide to leave the socially acceptable frame of debating and to be silly instead, you achieve nothing more than being mocked and ignored.

>>5560266
I'm just saying that there used to be fruitful conversations on here. Yeah, I get the point of 4chan is to just chill and shoot the shit with strangers but it used to happen and I miss it.

>>5560270
>Some things don't need proof.
In argument they do, you stupid bitch

>⇒I bet if I asked you "why" enough i could defeat your argument.
That would be very childish and it would "defeat" my argument only in the same sense as uncalled-for masturbation would "defeat" my argument. If you willfully decide to leave the socially acceptable frame of debating and to be silly instead, you achieve nothing more than being mocked and ignored.

>If you point out my worldview is internally inconsistent you are being childish

>>5560277
>>>/soc/ i'm pretty sure they do that there, the downside, of course, is most of them are idiots.

>>5560295
lol. It's all desperate people posting their genitals. But I see your point.

I'll kindly fuck off since I'm not wanted here since I'm not throwing shit.

>>5559544
Your phrasing is very awkward and I'm not sure how you're evaluating triviality. I'm expecting it'll turn out to be fairly subjective in the colloquial sense.

Some of what makes him a figure worth studying are his critique of the subject/object distinction and mental representation, theories of perception and action, analysis of worldhood as a public affair, the analytic of Dasien, theory of truth, his phenomenological analysis of propositions and how they are derived from our everyday non-representational coping with useful things, and tons of other stuff.

He's a very systematic thinker and incredibly complex so it's difficult to isolate any specific "results" and make them intelligible to someone who hasn't read Being and Time.

>>5560305
Don't be dramatic, as always, meaningful conversations on 4chan come at unpredictable moments, and not all that often. Its normally useless bullshit, and it always has been.

>>5560305
That was a serious suggestion.

oh look another poster claims to understand abstruse philosophy but doesn't want to talk about it

>Not posting best Heidegger
>Not posting best girl.
>Being and time is fucking Kawaii.

>>5559657
Just read it. I promise if you have a decent head on your shoulders you wont come out the other end of a Being and Time reading without a heightened respect for Heidegger and a deeper understanding of the world as he describes it.

His philosophy isn't such that I could give you a list of practical uses because it's not a manual for how to solve certain problems so much as it is laying bare a space to make sense of being and developing a language for it.

His work is a kind of context in which you could have practical insights, for instance, I heard an interview with an advertising executive who had read Heidegger and used the image of the world as Heidegger described it to develop advertising strategies. But all that is really beside the point anyway.

Just make sure you make a good effort to understand what he means by some of his new words and phrases, that's really the toughest part.

>>5560420
>Not making tsundere Heidegger blond haired and blue eyed

Its almost like they didn't do their research.

Trolls trolling trolls in this thread.

boycott heidegger he is an anti-semite and his work has little merit anyway

At any rate, Heidegger is a joke. I've read plenty of his stuff, and I don't get why anyone would agree with what he says.

He's got some stuff that can be served to discuss environmental philosophy. The Question Concerning Technology isn't so bad, but it hinges on a lot of Platonic philosophy anyways, so it's hardly remarkable.

Ontology is a fruitless field, and anyone asking first order questions here will find that their solutions hardly scratches on the truth of things. Especially when you're as sloppy as a philosopher as Heidegger.

If I want metaphysics, I'll roll with the analytics an day. And I don't even care for the analytic school.

>>5560596

>but it hinges on a lot of Platonic philosophy

No, it doesn't.

>>5560601
Yes, it does. Heidegger himself admits to how much the ancients influenced him.

Just read the way he talks about technology. It lines up really well with Plato's view on the 3rd removed, on technê, and even a little on what has been translated as 'knacks' by Plato.

Plato obviously isn't cited in the essay, but the ideas Heidegger presents are not entirely unique either.

>>5560613
>>5560601
You guys mean Aristotle,right? Aquinas ruins the question of being, so Heidy goes back to Aristotle. He maneuvers around Plato to avoid "the problem of Socrates." He focuses on the pre-socratics and the classical elements, for that cool sophistic neo-pagan flair

>>5560613

It isn't sufficient to say he was influenced by the Greeks. He was in constant dialogue with them, Plato especially. But this was largely in an attempt to "get behind" them, to move the conversation of philosophy as whole outside or beyond the restrictions he perceives their places on what is expressible, or knowable, or what can be asked.

Resonances are to be expected, but to claim that the entire essay "hinges" on "Platonic philosophy" is ludicrous.

>>5560631
He avoids the shit out of Plato. He is famous for quoting the 1st line of the dialogue, which is essentially the thesis statement, playing with the meaning of the words for about 20 minutes, and then discussing the pre-socratic influence.

Plato is undifferentiated/poetic(Wittgenstein notes this as well), if you descend into the Platonic Myth, you can't get away from the work becoming a reading of Plato.

>>5560643

Hm.

https://ndpr.nd.edu/news/24334-plato-and-heidegger-a-question-of-dialogue/

>>5560631
Perhaps too strong of a word, then. I'm willing to recant that.

>>5560643
Was that intended for me?

Maybe you're right. I wont try to claim that I know other ancient philosophers as well as I know Plato. However, there has always seemed to be a hint of Plato in what I've read from Heidegger. I still stand by some things mentioned that seem to be distinctly Platonic, though.

>>5560652
>>5560656

That would be the Aristotle. He needs both the philosophy of Socrates and the Metaphysics of Plato in order to fully explore Aristotle's concept of Phronesis and the question of being. He uses the pre-socratics to recreate Philosophy, and the outline of Plato's myth, which he pieces together from the opening lines of the dialogues where Plato sets the timeline and purpose/intent of the dialogues.

>>5560670

No one is contradicting you, nigga.

>>5559569
Almost every single philosophy book of merit is free online

>>5560674
Just explaining. In a thread like this why not?

>>5560480
Obviously good discussion is better, but I can't help but laughing maniacally to myself whenever I see this kind of shit thread.