/philq&a/

>>8600714


What is Heidegger's relationship with existentialism? Did he care about authenticity and angst and all that sort of thing?

>>8600724
It's difficult. He really is the framework for Sartres thought, it's very obvious. The phrases "existence precedes essense" and "(in)authenticity" (eigentlichkeit / uneigentlichkeit) are all from Being and Time. There are some important differences too though.

First of all, Heidegger tries not to make value judgements about peoples lives. The "inauthentic" life for him is the most common and isn't judged negatively in any vulgar sense. "Bad Faith" and the discipline of criticizing people for not being in enough pain is Sartre's thing.

He isn't interested in God as he pertains to authenticity. Sartres euphoric atheism was his own addition to his analyses.

Biographically, Heidegger found Sartres work to be extremely lucid and interesting in the beginning, but changed his mind later and told him he was shite. Possibly because of Sartre's marxism, though.

Was this sufficient answer? I might be forgetting something.

>>8600724
Oh yeah, angst is a big thing in Heidi though. It's almost theological.

He distinguishes angst from fear, by saying that fear is fear of something in the world (eg. ontic phenomena), whereas angst (Angst) is the fear of being-in-the-world itself, the ontological fear that comes with with possibility to make choices and thus being incomplete in and of oneself. Death in this analysis is the final possibility and the only one that you cannot outpace or push in front of you. Death is thus the most certain possibility, that "completes" the possibilities of the Dasein.

So yeah, a LOT like Sartre in this department.

>>8600724
He was an existentialist, just not a Sartrean. When people in the 20th century said they were not they meant they were not existentialists as defined by Sartre which is probably the only way they had of understanding the term. Today we don't use his definition as the definition.

>>8600804
>>8600790
>>8600766

Neat, thanks guys. Here's one more: what is Heidegger's philosophy of philosophy? Plato thought the unexamined life wasn't worth living and all that; does Heidegger ever talk about what he wants to achieve?

>>8600804
Definitely. Existentialism as defined by the fundamental-ontological phenomenological study of being as it is, e.g. a broad definition.

I get why you would want to distance yourself from Sartres edgy antics though. He should have either made his study more ontological, instead of focusing on ontic possibilities of atheism, or he should just have written marxist critiques, which he did in his later life (and was much better than his existentialist stuff).

>>8600810
For him, almost the whole philosophical tradition has been built on shaky foundations. He says that the philosophical Dasein would always distance itself from his world and its self, to transform what he calls things that are ready-to-hand (phenomenologically organically part of the dasein and his bein-in-the-world) into things that are present-at-hand (perceived as mere entities, dead objects removed from the Dasein).

Thus Descartes "cogito ergo sum" is built on ontologically false foundations. All his thought goes to describe THAT he is, not HOW he is. He needs to "prove" the "sum" philosophically as an ontic entity. The Daseins phenomenological being-in-the-world makes the question of whether external phenomena exist a moot point, as the Dasein is always-already a part of its world, a part of the objects and the environment.

In short, Heidi advocated for such "destrukcions" of the metaphysical tradition, which would show us errors of thought and thus make us learn from them. His philosophy of philosophy is that it can teach us the meaning of Being (both it's ontological structure and the value/meaning, I guess).