>All research—and not least that which operates within the

>>9604622
go to /pol/ if you want neat infographics and short youtube videos which explains how everything works

>>9604634
go to reddit if you want to be a faggot

>>9604622
the ontological (what has to do with being) is prior to the ontic (what has to do with beings)
that's just a general theme in Heidegger

>>9604682
it's both

>>9604753
both of what?

>>9604765
the ontic is ontologically prior to the understanding of ontological being

>>9604622
>>9604622
This quote is not that hard.

the ontic conduction of research is necessarily grounded in the ontological foundation of the researcher/Dasein.

Dasein's being is fundamentally temporal, and research is conducted with a basis in this fundamental temporality.

Temporality as an ontological condition also grounds another fundamental aspect of the ontology of the human being - its historicity (or historicality). This is not refering to Dasein ontically being a part of history, but refering to the aspect of human ontology, that makes it possible to have a history or take a part in history.

This of course goes nowhere if you don't read the rest of that segment. Heidegger points to historicity of Dasein's being to argue that our understanding of Being, which is phenomenologically examined in its everydayness in Sein und Zeit, is marked by the tradition of metaphysics that has clouded the very question of Being. So that the task of re-orienting metaphysics both contains the phenomenological study of human being as well as the destruktion/deconstruction of the tradition, because our everyday understanding of the Being of beings is clouded exactly by this.

If this is hard to understand, it probably means you haven't even grasped the basic concept of ontological difference, and you are not ready for Heidegger.

>>9604827
man, i get the quote. i was making fun of the language. fuck it

>>9604827

What is the question of being and how is it clouded by metaphysics?

>>9604848
>What is the question of being
What does "to be" mean?
>how is it clouded by metaphysics?
They've been treatting Being itself as if it was just another being like you and me.

>>9604846
Fair enough, senpai. I like Heidegger though, I think he is pretty clear and somewhat systematic once you learn the jargon.

It can get annoying though - couldn't he find a more pleasing term than the 'weltlichkeit' des welt for example?

>>9604859

So is Heidegger concerned with grounding being in the particular? Or at least, the particular in the sense of the "human being" or the "squirrel being" or something like that? I haven't read him, but I read some pages of Being and Time years ago in the school library and didn't feel like I was ready for it. But I remember him using some sort of term like "lived-being" or something like that. I think it was three words.

>>9604878
>in the particular
In the most general way imaginable.

>>9604878
no, the opposite

>>9604878
No, he wants to ask the fundamental question of 'what does 'being' mean'?
But how do you go about such a task? The early Heidegger (that wrote Being and Time) looks to the particular being that asks the question. He cleverly points to the fact that asking the question of what it means to 'be' entails a shrouded/unclear understanding of what being implies. So Being and Time is a study of how the meaning of the Being of beings gets extrapolated through the particular ontology of the one posing the question - human being/Dasein. In-der-welt-Sein refers to the ontology of the human being, not 'being' as such - but it is clear that it is only through the human being-in-the-world that being as such arises as a question. So human being is the Lichtung/clearing in which Being arises.

But this whole phenomenological study of human Being is a dead end for Heidegger, which is why he abandoned the project and started focusing on the more fundamental Event/Ereignis with which Being arises/is given before yet within any particular extrapolation of being. But that's another matter.

>>9604902

Ok, I was reading the sentence backwards then. So he isn't concerned with grounding Being, but the opposite? He wants to consider Being as the fundamental Being shared by all things?

That was kind of what made the book intimidating and confusing to me though, I figured he was talking about Being first and foremost, and I wasn't sure what could be said about Being. Isn't it just everything and nothing?

>>9604925
No, not Being as universal 'something' that all beings take part in, but Being as the fundamental event (connected to the human being) with which beings are given to us/arises, which necessarily evates any particular explication and takes on a character of being present exactly through its non-presence.

What's the least dog shit translations of Hegel, Nietzsche and Heidegger

>>9604949
nietzsche doesn't need to be translated accurately. you could transpose him into memes and capture the gist of it.

>>9604949
English Heidegger translations are worthless.

>>9604960
Fuckign figured as much.

isn't Heidegger at the end of the day a philosopher of language

>>9604977
Yes. Late H atleast

>>9604925
>He wants to consider Being as the fundamental Being shared
Nope.

Hi, I'm a being. What does it mean "to be"? Do you want to answer that question with some other being?

Let's do what the metaphysicians did, and say there's some kind of universal super-being. It still doesn't answer: what does it mean "to be"? Do you want to answer that question with some other being? The same super-being?

etc.

>>9604977
Man on a mission to destroy Western metaphysics contributes to the philosophies of phenomenology, ontology, language, mind, technology, hermeneutics, death, poetry...

Heidegger's own Turn (Kehre) is what inspired Rorty to call this whole business of 20th century history of philosophy the Linguistic Turn.

He is the main Continental philosophy contributor to the Linguistic Turn, together with Peirce for the Pragmatists and Wittgenstein for the Analytics. From then on, language is a big deal to Western philosophy.

>>9605005
Destroy and in a way save.

>>9605005
didnt know that about purse boy

>>9605089
Peirce and Saussure are the founders of semiotics/semiology.