>finally understand Heidegger >finally appreciate how truly

Are you familiar with the works of Kevin Macdonald?

>>9913412
>implying you understand even 5% of Hegel

Tell me more anon

What is it about Heidegger that's so fundamentally different

were Heidegger and Wittgenstein the most worthless philosophers of all time?

>>9913440
He's just LARPing.

>tfw self-taught pseudo-philosophers try to read Heidegger
>tfw Heidegger was the ultimate elitist and aknowledged in multiple occasions that such readings are downright worthless
>tfw he has read the Greeks AFTER Heidegger

>>9913440
Bad philosophers never discuss the nature of Being.

Good philosophers discuss the nature of being.

The greatest philosophers discuss the nature of the nature of Being.

Heidegger discussed the nature, of the nature, of the nature of Being.

>>9913468
You have not even skimmed Heidegger's wiki page. Sad!

>>9913462
>>9913468
I still do not understand

>>9913476
All I have read of the man is the title of his books.

I think his books also talk a lot about time, something which I only have enough for reading the title.

>>9913478
That's because you lack understanding-to-be.

>>9913478
He knows nothing about Heidegger, he probably has read a nice post about his works, or maybe he has watched a youtube video.
Heidegger is extremely hard to tackle, even for academic standards. Heidegger himself famously said that one should study Aristotle for 20 years before reading him, and his notion of "studying" is the academic one.
As a golden rule, when someone tells you that they have tackled Heidegger or Kant's and Hegel's major works, just assume that they are bullshitting you: either they are doing so, or they are actual Phil PhDs.

>>9913460
yes, because both of them destroyed the concept of "worth"

>>9913484
This guy is sucking Heidegger's cock hardcore ITT

File: Terrence-Malick-filmloverss.jpg (129KB, 1992x996px) Image search: [Google]

129KB, 1992x996px

Pleb

>>9913484
Of course Heidegger would say that. That doesn't make it true. In less than 1000 pages you could read A Very Short Introduction: Heidegger, Cambridge Companion, and Being and Time.

>>9913440
Heidegger just clearly says existence comes out of nothing and then must return to nothing. Meaning isn't founded on anything but your Lutheran-esque delusions when you position yourself against returning to nothing which is your destiny. What makes him different is that while other philosophers wanted to think about different things that could affect change, Heidegger thinks you need to autistically repeat the same question and remain in a Kierkegaardian aporia for your whole life.


>>9913460
Yes.

>>9913468
It's funny how Heidegger thinks he can claim that Being has the same quality in every epoch.

It's funny how any philosopher not autistically repeating the same question "Dude, Being?" for his entire career and life is considered bad. Heidegger allows for professors to publish papers but he doesn't get anything done outside of that. The German peasants that he idealized believed in a metaphysical and infinite God. The Nazis were concealing Being even though they did their thinking in a superior language (German, which speaks Being, while all others merely speak of being, amirite?)

I feel bad for people who have swallowed the Heidegger pill whole, who actually give a shit about this cabin fucker accusing you of idolatry.

>>9913497
Thin Red Line and Tree of Life are actually Girardian, but definitely influenced by Heidegger. Malick probably read Things Hidden Since the Foundation of the World and realized that the interaction that Girard describes between the Heraclitean Logos and the Logos of John was genius. Tree of Life is pretty explicit in this, the way of nature vs the way of grace.

If you read Malick's introduction to the Heidegger essay he translated you could see how he's probably critical of Heidegger. IIRC he says something like "the tricky thing is if you want to be critical of Heidegger you still have to be critical of him on his own terms" or something to that extent.

>>9913638
Do you think it's about pages (as if you could read 100 pages written by Heidegger in a day, lol)? Do you think that misreading B&T and reading one istance of secondary literature account for knowledge in fucking Heidegger's philosophy?
Admit that you are LARPing, and know that Heidegger himself would have mocked you.

>>9913851
I'm not OP and I'm not LARPing but you don't know what you're talking about. The 3 books I mentioned obviously won't make you a Heideggerian scholar but you'll have a fairly good understanding of his early work. Stop projecting insecurities, B&T isn't impenetrable.
>Heidegger himself would have mocked you.
Ad hominem appeal to a literal Nazi authority?

>>9913484
I'm guessing you got 300 pages in and gave up and now anyone that suceeded where you failed is posturing.
Also:
>there is only one way to read Heidegger
It depends entirely on what you want to get out of it, opening the question of being and doing well to criticise traditional philosophy's failure to do so is enough content for someone to have gotten something meaningful out of Heidegger.

Nobody that isn't a pedantic blowhard or a serious scholar should be tearing their hair out because they don't understand what he thought about Haraclitus' nosehairs.

>>9913497
>>9913816
I Malick for the pretty pictures.
Am I doing it wrong?

>>9913412
fact, fiction, and forecast / ways of worldmaking. yw

>>9913638
> I read the secondary literature of philosopher X and now I understand him

This board's relationship with philosophy is str8 embarrassing

>>9913412
You're looking for Sartre - Being and Nothingness

>I always visualize him sitting on his wooden bench outside his Black Forest house, alongside his wife who, with her perverse knitting enthusiasm, ceaselessly knits winter socks for him from the wool she has shorn from their own Heidegger sheep.

>I cannot visualize Heidegger other than sitting on the bench outside his Black Forest house, alongside his wife, who all her life totally dominated him and who knitted all his socks and crocheted all his caps and baked all his bread and wove all his bedlinen and who even cobbled up his sandals for him. Heidegger was a kitschy brain….. a feeble thinker from the Alpine foothills, as I believe, and just about right for the German philosophical hot-pot. For decades they ravenously spooned up that man Heidegger, more than anybody else, and overloaded their stomachs with his stuff. Heidegger had a common face, not a spiritual one, Reger said, he was through and through an unspiritual person, devoid of all fantasy, devoid of all sensibility, a genuine German philosophical ruminant, a ceaselessly gravid German philosophical cow, Reger said, which grazed upon German philosophy and thereupon for decades let its smart little cow-pats drop on it….

>Heidegger is the petit-bourgeois of German philosophy, the man who has placed on German philosophy his kitschy nightcaps, that kitschy black night-cap which Heidegger always wore, on all occasions. Heidegger is the carpet-slipper and night-cap philosopher of the Germans, nothing else.

>>9914052
>a genuine German philosophical ruminant
lmao

>constant threads on heidegger
>nobody ever talks about what his ideas or arguments are, just dick measuring contests about who understands him more

what a shit board, filled with disgusting awful cunts.

all of you, kill yourselves.

>>9913412
no :(
Ugh, I feel bad for all you continental brainlets.
Some anglophone philosophy with a bit of neuroscience would be beneficial.

>>9913967
Nah, that's fine.

>>9914052
Gotta read me some Bernhard.

>>9914061
Can't wait till there are robots programmed to think like Heidegger.

>>9913412
>>9913412

In my experience, there is nothing that Heidegger wrote that Hegel didn't write with more clarity and comprehensiveness.

Used to be pretty big into Hegel, but then realized after reading the Philosophy of Right that his philosophy plays right into extremist eurocentrism and warmongering.

Very disappointing....

I think Cassirer's interaction with Heidegger at Davos was supposed to have been pretty important, but I haven't read enough about it to know for sure.

You should really look into Cassirer's engagement with Heidegger if you're concerned about BS Continentalist posers and Anti-Intellectual Analytics.

>>9914066
Lol. Is this a meme?

>Omg, liek nooroscience is gunna change LE WORLD!!!

>Real philosophy is materialistic, except materialism isn't actually philosophy. That's why I hate myself but I have you more for trying to do philosophy independently of material science.

>Me like Kant though. He was smart because he came up with nebbueller hypotheses that inspired Darwin and is still used in astronomy today. All that apriori stuff though? Dumb as hell. YOU CAN'T HAVE AN IDEA BEFORE A BRAIN

>whose bergson

>>9913816

>repeat the same question and remain in a Kierkegaardian aporia

me for the past three years desu, except over that same time my mind has been replaced, piece by piece, with memery, transformed into a fresco of frogmen and cackling skulls

want to die but lack the compunction for swee see day.