If Heidegger was such a Nietzschean, then why did he remain Christian all his life?
 Thalidomide Vintage Ad Shirt $22.14 |
 Ape Out Shirt $21.68 |
Thalidomide Vintage Ad Shirt $22.14 |
riddle me this
If Heidegger was such a Nietzschean, then why did he remain Christian all his life?
Thalidomide Vintage Ad Shirt $22.14 |
Ape Out Shirt $21.68 |
Thalidomide Vintage Ad Shirt $22.14 |
Because he understood Nietzsche better than anyone else.
shut the frick up if you're not going to answer the question
I just did. Nietzsche never lost faith in his saviour, despite what atheists say.
He wasn't a Nietzschean, in the first place, and he explicitly broke with religion in his work after the early 20s, he says outright in Introduction to Metaphysics that "'Christian philosophy' is a round square" within the first 10 pages, and spends a page and a half belaboring the point.
At the end of his life he returned to the faith.
Actually, on his deathbed, Nietzsche recited the Shahada and confessed the supreme preeminence of Allah
He knew Nietzsche well enough to see him as the apex of subjective metaphysics, which is to say, technology. He wasn't a Nietzschean but he did know Nietzsche thoroughly, inside and out.
Heidegger never explicitly broke with religion. He left his church after a friendly and cordial letter to his priest, who he said he wanted to remain close with, and was notoriously cagey about his personal beliefs on the subject in text, while always remaining interested in it in his work. If you grasped later Heidegger, you would realize that his critique of the possibility of Christian philosophy is an indictment of philosophy and not Christianity. See also: the Phenomenology and Theology essay.
Love how we know a lot more about Heidegger's actual proven nazi beliefs than his sincere religious convictions. Just says that religion is actually something he wants to keep to himself.
You can agree with someone sometimes and disagree sometimes. This is especially true of Nietzsche.
Can anyone explain to me some of the practical outcomes or effects of Heidegger's philosophy? I've read some of him, some secondary work, tons of essays, and watched some videos, and while I've found tons of it interesting and engaging, I'm not sure it's actually changed any of my thoughts on, well, anything.
>If Heidegger was such a Nietzschean
he wasn't at all
He was a philosopher above all else. At his funeral it was the words of Holderlin that were read, not that of any semite.
I'm Catholic and could even call myself a small "n" Nietzschean in that I hate most of the same things he hates: mass culture, Liberalism, egalitarianism, modernity, modern philosophy, etc. We only radically differ in our loves.
if you read nietzsche and came to the conclusion that its bad to be religious or believe in god then you probably missed the point.
nietzsche was not some 2000s reddit atheist so dont try and map that onto him
No shit, he was Christian and pro abrahamicreligions for sure
Heidegger was an idiot, that's why
Heidegger was a mostly blackpilled conservative. He had a deterministic view of all social change and just wanted his comfy rural setting that he was used to. He was one of the top 3 most brilliant minds in history, but he did not have the lightning that Nietzsche spoke of. He didn't want to be a revolutionary.
>deterministic
How do you figure? He was pessimistic, without a doubt, but he still saw some role for those to come, hence the way he talks about poets as precisely these sorts of lightning-strike revolutionary figures that Nietzsche talks about. Heidegger was very self aware about the fact that his entire body of work was only a preparatory ground clearing for figures who would come and finish the job.
Depends what you work on, but I don't see why not, might be an interesting internal epistemic critique
Technology for him was not individual pieces of technology but an entire metaphysical horizon that we exist within, prior to technological entities
>Heidegger was very self aware about the fact that his entire body of work was only a preparatory ground clearing for figures who would come and finish the job.
Yes he was but he also considered that he and everyone else is only perceiving and acting the way they do because of a zeitgeist that is too big to completely perceive and understand. He doesn't think society is really human-driven.
Right but Dasein is also the site of this instantiation such that it can become historical, so we're not entirely at its mercy either. Our role with respect to Being is not totally passive. We have largely forgotten this, but it isn't a failure or even a bad thing in general to exist historically and have certain features of the world pre-articulated for you, or certain features of yourself. Even in the best or highest of times this would be the case. His phenomenological conservatism with regard to the human person isn't quite identical with a sort of Spengler-style pessimism.
Right I'm not completely against it in some sort of ego-dominant way. But at the same time I'm not convinced that we can't move or expand the lichtung by pure choice.
Choice is a tricky word here. We can't will it in the sense of mastering it, since this is technological thinking, but we can open ourselves to the possibility of hearing being in another tone, which requires massive risk, since there is always the possibility that it will remain silent and withdrawn. We have to will to not will, if that makes sense. Interesting links to Meister Eckhart here, the idea of abandoning yourself entirely, even giving up conceptual attachments to that which you're abandoning yourself before. We can't move the lichtung but we can get out of the way so it can decide if it wants to be moved, to put it simply.
Right it's the difference between doing what you want and doing what you must. I realise the latter can always be explained away with "well actually that was just the zeitgeist moving through you" or whatever, but destiny can call me to explore new relationships with being.
>destiny can call me to explore new relationships with being
This is fair. Hes not a Hegelian, theres not much of a teleology across epochs that supposed to get us to some better or final instantiation of Being in history, but if we're starting from our particular technological age (and where else could we possibly start from?) which has been conditioned by the philosophical tradition in the West since Plato and especially since Descartes, we can respond to the question of Being in ways which have not been properly appreciated or explored up to this point. We have been given up by destiny to a question, yes.
I'm a STEMgay fascinated by Heidegger.
Can I somehow use any of his ideas in my work?
Potentially. His whole epistemology is a very strong argument against constructs of truth and in favour of actual experience, so it fits a (humble) scientific enterprise well. I wrote an essay in undergrad tying it to parapsychology.
>Can I somehow use any of his ideas in my work?
He would laugh about that if you knew anything about his philosophy. It literally all excludes modern scientific conceptions.
heideBlack person was very critical of technology if i recall
If Heidegger was such a nazi, then why did he orgasms to a israeliteess?
PRIME ARENDT dicky