Why does Heidegger hate classical music?

He describes classical music as offering nothing more than an aesthetic sensation, the result of aesthetic posturing, "the conception and estimation of art in terms of the unalloyed state of feeling and the growing barbarization of the very state to the point where it becomes the sheer bubbling and boiling of feeling abandoned to itself." For Heidegger classical music is pure metaphysics, an indulgence of bourgeois culture, because it is devoid of an ontological grounding and the ties of people to the earth. At best it's a harmless divertissement and nothing more; the total works of Beethoven nothing but a harmless divertissement!

His estimation of music as a high art seems very unfair, and likely the product of Heidegger's unfamiliarity with classical music as a discipline, but nonetheless I cannot account for such a negative evaluation.

Thalidomide Vintage Ad Shirt $22.14

Nothing Ever Happens Shirt $21.68

Thalidomide Vintage Ad Shirt $22.14

  1. 4 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    It's just sounds bro

  2. 4 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    Philosophers saying moronic shit, a story as old as time

  3. 4 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    i swear to g-d i've seen this thread before

    • 4 weeks ago
      Anonymous

      Nuh-uh

  4. 4 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    >an indulgence of bourgeois culture, because it is devoid of an ontological grounding and the ties of people to the earth
    This is true except in the case Palestrina, Bach, and other composers of religious music for purposes of utility. Haydn, Handel et. al. serve similar purposes for the state and so can also be excepted.

    • 4 weeks ago
      Anonymous

      >Haydn
      >for the state
      U wot m8? A Hungarian noble family is hardly "the state".

      • 4 weeks ago
        Anonymous

        He wrote the German national anthem. What's more, he based much of his work on folk music, which certainly qualifies as
        >an ontological grounding and the ties of people to the earth

        You’re a philistine

        Not an argument

        • 4 weeks ago
          Anonymous

          It’s generally foolish to argue with an ideologue

          • 4 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            What's my ideology? Do tell.
            Is Beethoven not a symbol of the bourgeoisie?

          • 4 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            no, marxist. beethoven is not the symbol of your so-called “bourgeoisie”.

          • 4 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            No more than Holderlin, dipshit.

          • 4 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            >No more than Holderlin, dipshit.
            don't talk bad of my Holderlin

          • 4 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            > Is Beethoven not a symbol of the bourgeoisie?
            Kek

          • 4 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            Beethoven is a symbol of Catholic oppression.

        • 4 weeks ago
          Anonymous

          >He wrote the German national anthem.
          Er, no, not exactly the way you would put it. He wrote the music for a personal anthem to Francis II, Emperor of the Holy Roman Empire and later of the Austrian Empire. Then the tune was borrowed for the national anthem of Germany in 1922, 113 years after Haydn's death.
          >he based much of his work on folk music
          He borrowed themes from Austrian, Gypsy, and Crotian folk songs, which he normally subjected to rigorous thematic development, and he may have done field work, collecting folk songs as Bartók did over a century later, although the latter seemed to have attempted to use the influence of folk music in a more "authentic" way while composing his own works.
          But yes, I suppose the fact that some state used a tune of his more than a century after his death counts as serving purposes of utility for the state.

    • 4 weeks ago
      Anonymous

      You’re a philistine

    • 4 weeks ago
      Anonymous

      As someone who enjoys Haydn's symphonies most for their precision of moods, and Handel as much in the Pagan themed operas as in his Biblical oratorios, I've never regarded either in the terms you'd demote them to, never mind Bach.

  5. 4 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    You made that up

  6. 4 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    Why does anyone read Heidegger? I know why internet Nazis like him, but there are apparently well adjusted people who give a shit, too. He's a bad writer, he has no original thoughts (just confused, jargon-laden accounts of basic shit), and he doesn't like music because ... whatever those words are supposed to mean. Baffling.

    • 4 weeks ago
      Anonymous

      he's just atheist Kierkegaard, a complete waste of time

      • 4 weeks ago
        Anonymous

        Music can be a representation of collective will and classical music is indeed very old fashioned.

        I would suggest Per Norgard as an example of a more free kind of music.

        Heidegger was very Catholic. He never completely shook it off.

        Like Nietzsche he self-sabotages. Sometimes it's two steps forwards two steps back with him but if you do the work you can fill in his weaknesses with your strengths.

    • 4 weeks ago
      Anonymous

      >Why does anyone read Heidegger?
      Because existentialism. And french postmodernists.

  7. 4 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    Jd

  8. 4 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    Music can be a representation of collective will and classical music is indeed very old fashioned.

    I would suggest Per Norgard as an example of a more free kind of music.

    • 4 weeks ago
      Anonymous

      >and classical music is indeed very old fashioned
      In what way? Classical music is a tradition that has been evolving for centuries and there are several current trends and movements going on right now.

      • 4 weeks ago
        Anonymous

        You don't know Per Norgard?

      • 4 weeks ago
        Anonymous

        You don't know Per Norgard?

        Sibelius broke off the structure and Schoenberg the tonality.

        Per Norgard is as outside tradition as it gets while retaining the natural strength of will.

        • 4 weeks ago
          Anonymous

          >Sibelius broke off the structure
          qrd?

          • 4 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            Listen to the 7th.

          • 4 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            Wow, what a weird piece of music. I don't know that much about classical form, but it does seem very fantastical. The two or three climaxes are amazing, but the ending is kind of disappointing.

  9. 4 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    There's no way this is true. Is this a meme based off Adorno and jazz? I can't find other references for Heidegger hating classical music and feel like I was trolled just for typing it in.

  10. 4 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    Allow Heidegger to listen to modern music now and ask him if it's any better

  11. 4 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    Was Heidegger just some German Jesuit Nazi gay, or did he ever get any pussy? Like, high quality pussy?

    • 4 weeks ago
      Anonymous

      https://afterxnature.blogspot.com/2017/06/our-visit-to-heidegger-cabin-heideggers.html?m=1

      HeidBlack person had a "cabin" - this is a polite way of saying "cuckshed" - with panoramic views of all the acres of gorgeous countryside and quaint rustic villages where he never ever got any play at all, ever. Fricking tragic.

      Meanwhile, Chadgenstein had an imposing volcel redoubt perched on the edge of cliff in wastes of northern Norway, which was the only way he could avoid the hordes of prime coed gash that pursued him relentlessly across the continent and British isles. Unspeakably based.

      • 4 weeks ago
        Anonymous

        Kek, gay 5'6 Austrian volcel chads stay winning

      • 4 weeks ago
        Anonymous

        Wasn't Wittgeinstein something of a billionaire?

  12. 4 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    He got filtered. No surprise there.

  13. 4 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    This is like when Stephen Hawking talked shit about Philosophy. Smart people in one field deciding to speak of shit they know nothing about. He is right that classical music is transcendent, perhaps his IQ is too low to understand some of us are fricking bored and irritated by most lyrical consumer “popular” music. I for one can not stand most music and classical makes me feel the essence of an emotion. It can convey pure love, pure joy, pure hate, pure anything. This and Folk music can convey a genuine understanding of a civilization or point in time. Hearing something by Mozart is a step into 18th century Austrian courtly life, and furthermore, shows their ideals of transcendence. Similarly, in hearing Stephen Foster, you’re transported to that time and understanding of the world. It sews a story and highlights the human condition - the true meaning of folk. I’d advance to Heidegger, what DOES constitute good music? This homosexual just seems out of his element and contrarian.

    • 4 weeks ago
      Anonymous

      Heidegger didn't like popular consumer music either. Silence is very important in his philosophy. In reality he probably just thought folk music was all you needed, and classical music was acceptable if it was set to words.

      • 4 weeks ago
        Anonymous

        In my experience, need is a rather elastic term even when comparing two people used to the same general level of prosperity. Quiet solitude his very important to me, but so is music, especially the instrumental kind of it. I enjoy beauty in places, architecture, visual art & etc., but nothing like I do in sound controlled to a high degree. Indeed, every time I hear journalists talk about "vibrant" communities, what I think is "noisy", so much do I revel in the power to choose what to listen to, or not.

  14. 4 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    >He describes classical music as offering nothing more than an aesthetic sensation, the result of aesthetic posturing, "the conception and estimation of art in terms of the unalloyed state of feeling and the growing barbarization of the very state to the point where it becomes the sheer bubbling and boiling of feeling abandoned to itself."
    No he doesn't. Your quote is Heidegger talking about Wagner's vision of musical art, and only his, not in general. And the next paragraph after your quote reads, "And yet such arousal of frenzied feeling and unchaining of "affects" could be taken as a rescue of "life," especially in view of the growing impoverishment and deterioration of existence occasioned by industry, technology, and finance, in connection with the enervation and depletion of the constructive forces of knowledge and tradition, to say nothing of the lack of every establishment of goals for human existence. Rising on swells of feeling would have to substitute for a solidly grounded and articulated position in the midst of beings, the kind of thing that only great poetry and thought can create."

    Quit spamming this shit here and in IQfy.

    • 4 weeks ago
      Anonymous

      Heidegger very clearly says in the same lecture series that the predominance of the role of music in Wagner is the main fault, which is typical of all classical, and especially 19th century, music. All throughout his life Heidegger adamantly dismissed music holding any important place among the arts, and outright dismissed Nietzsche's description of Greek tragedy emerging out of music in his Holderlin lectures. Heidegger is not open to dismissing outright classical music, but that is what is implicit to everything he says if you bothered to read it at all. Music for him cannot be anything more than ephemeral feeling.

      • 4 weeks ago
        Anonymous

        He literally says the opposite. "That Richard Wagner's attempt had to fail **does not result merely from the predominance of music with respect to the other arts in his work.** Rather, **that** the music could assume such preeminence at all **has its grounds in** the increasingly aesthetic posture taken toward art as a whole-it is the conception and estimation of art in terms of the unalloyed state of feeling and the growing barbarization of the very state to the point where it becomes the sheer bubbling and boiling of feeling abandoned to itself." The. Opposite. You're so much more preoccupied trying to look cool reading Heidegger, that you invented an attitude you expected to find instead of reading what he actually says on the page, and all of a sudden, a reservation about Wagner's approach toward music is generalized to a view towards classical music, which is wrong, and subsequently generalized to a view towards music almost at all, which is wrong.

        • 4 weeks ago
          Anonymous

          >**that** the music could assume such preeminence at all **has its grounds in** the increasingly aesthetic posture taken toward art
          Yes, and Wagner's music is the exact predominance that music, since Beethoven, had taken as a whole. That's Beethoven, Schubert, Berlioz, Schumann, Mendelssohn, Liszt, etc. all being thrown out. And considering the essential bond of all classical music, this criticism must by necessity extend to the entire history of classical music. Heidegger personally only cared for classical music when it was underpinning words, when it was subservient and didn't claim anything essential for itself.

          • 4 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            >Yes, and Wagner's music is the exact predominance that music, since Beethoven, had taken as a whole. That's Beethoven, Schubert, Berlioz, Schumann, Mendelssohn, Liszt, etc. all being thrown out. And considering the essential bond of all classical music, this criticism must by necessity extend to the entire history of classical music. Heidegger personally only cared for classical music when it was underpinning words, when it was subservient and didn't claim anything essential for itself.
            You literally just made shit up to reinforce your point, instead of observing Heidegger discussing a particular approach to music that he sees Wagner embody, *and which he follows up with a mildly positive view towards* (quoted at

            >He describes classical music as offering nothing more than an aesthetic sensation, the result of aesthetic posturing, "the conception and estimation of art in terms of the unalloyed state of feeling and the growing barbarization of the very state to the point where it becomes the sheer bubbling and boiling of feeling abandoned to itself."
            No he doesn't. Your quote is Heidegger talking about Wagner's vision of musical art, and only his, not in general. And the next paragraph after your quote reads, "And yet such arousal of frenzied feeling and unchaining of "affects" could be taken as a rescue of "life," especially in view of the growing impoverishment and deterioration of existence occasioned by industry, technology, and finance, in connection with the enervation and depletion of the constructive forces of knowledge and tradition, to say nothing of the lack of every establishment of goals for human existence. Rising on swells of feeling would have to substitute for a solidly grounded and articulated position in the midst of beings, the kind of thing that only great poetry and thought can create."

            Quit spamming this shit here and in IQfy.

            ). Stop inferring more than what Heidegger enables you to infer. This is fever dreaming, not reading.

          • 4 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            >You literally just made shit up to reinforce your point,
            If you bother to read beyond a single page, or you know anything about music at all, and Heidegger's personal taste, it is undeniable that he is dismissing any claims classical music could have to saying something essential. He quotes Nietzsche's statement, IIRC from The Wanderer and his Shadow, that music has no resonances of the spirit and can only be a relief from thinking, simply entertainment. That is the argument of Nietzsche's he uses against Wagner, despite the multivarious nature of Nietzsche's statements on music, and by necessity it is an opinion against the entire history of classical music. If anyone, whether ETA Hoffmann or Schopenhauer, describes a Beethoven symphony with any deep impression of either feeling or poetic significance, that is unequivocally metaphysics for Heidegger. Music is relegated to the very lowest sphere in Heidegger's scheme, and Beethoven belongs to that artistic culture of 'escape' into music just as much as Wagner. Indeed, ALL composers have had that orientation to music.

            >a mildly positive view towards
            That's not mildly positive, that is totally negative. He thinks the 'rescue' is just as bad the cause.

          • 4 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            Quote in full:

            >Whenever Nietzsche deals with art in the essential and definitive sense, he always refers to art in the grand style. Against this backdrop, his innermost antipathy to Wagner comes to light most sharply, above all because his conception of the grand style includes at the same time a fundamental decision, not only about Wagner's music, but about the essence of music as such. [Cf. these remarks from the period of The Dawn, 1880-81: "Music has no resonance for the transports of the spirit" (XI, 336); "The poet allows the drive for knowledge to play; the musician lets it take a rest" (XI, 337). Especially illuminating is a longer sketch from the year 1888 with the title " 'Music' and the Grand Style" (WM, 842).]*

          • 4 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            This is even more embarrassing for you, because this says nothing other than what Heidegger thinks Nietzsche's position is, which you're lazily conflating with Heidegger without further proof.

          • 4 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            Horseshit. Huffily insisting "yes-huh" without anything else backing it up isn't an argument, and doesn't take the place of actually mustering Heidegger's arguments. The rest of his discussions of music in Will to Power as Art are the briefest references to Nietzsche's views, and on the whole they reveal nothing about Heidegger's own feelings more than the Wagner passages you can't read without exaggerating. That you appeal to
            "Heidegger's personal taste" makes it perfectly plain that you're filling in blanks with what you think you already know about Heidegger.

            >That's not mildly positive, that is totally negative. He thinks the 'rescue' is just as bad the cause.
            Making fresh shit up already.

          • 4 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            This is even more embarrassing for you, because this says nothing other than what Heidegger thinks Nietzsche's position is, which you're lazily conflating with Heidegger without further proof.

            I don't know why you're so afraid to admit Heidegger made a very silly mistake here. Throughout the entire lecture series Heidegger makes it clear that he personally dislikes the predominance of music in Wagner, blames it repeatedly on any aesthetic stance which evaluates music positively (you will find not a single positive statement about music is agreed with by Heidegger or even represented outside of a negative context), and personally, when repeatedly speaking in his person, agrees with all of Nietzsche's criticism of Wagner. He is not an unbiased observer, all of Nietzsche's concepts become his own concepts and you can easily tell what he personally thinks of them because he tells you if Nietzsche is wrong. That he, in this one quote, is describing Nietzsche's opinions does not mean there is any separation from his own. On the contrary, the fact that he felt the need to quote such obscure passages by Nietzsche, in contradiction to most else Nietzsche had said about music, is a testament to the fact that he is contriving Nietzsche to fit his own framework. Just as when he says, in the same lecture series, that Nietzsche never indulged in the bashing of Hegel and Schelling that Schopenhauer did, when he outright does in many places. Heidegger contrives Nietzsche, just as he does Holderlin, to fit his own conception of the history of philosophy and art.

            >Theoretically, music is to be a means for achieving effective drama; in reality, however, music in the form of opera becomes the authentic art. [...] What is wanted is the domination of art as music, and thereby the domination of the pure state of feeling
            I don't know how much more obvious you need it to be to understand Heidegger's opinion of music.

          • 4 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            Nothing you say is of consequence, because your "proofs" are a passage that says the opposite of what you claim (that Heidegger locates Wagner's issue in the predominance of music in his work), and a passage summarizing Nietzsche that you surmise must also be Heidegger's view apropos of nothing.

            Since you're busy bloviating about what Heidegger *must* think about music based off of impressions you have of him, here's recollections from one of his students, Heinrich Petzet, in his book Encounters and Dialogues with Heidegger. (Picrel)

          • 4 weeks ago
            Anonymous
          • 4 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            Last one.

            Tl;dr - you have no idea what you're talking about, and you pull shit out of your ass sooner than doing the simpler task of looking at what the page says.

          • 4 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            https://i.imgur.com/JDKTChd.jpeg

            https://i.imgur.com/Lc2cJUw.jpeg

            Last one.

            Tl;dr - you have no idea what you're talking about, and you pull shit out of your ass sooner than doing the simpler task of looking at what the page says.

            That Heidegger enjoyed music is of no consequence, since, once again, it's not much more than idle enjoyment on his part. He explicitly says music is nothing but the pure state of feeling here

            [...]
            I don't know why you're so afraid to admit Heidegger made a very silly mistake here. Throughout the entire lecture series Heidegger makes it clear that he personally dislikes the predominance of music in Wagner, blames it repeatedly on any aesthetic stance which evaluates music positively (you will find not a single positive statement about music is agreed with by Heidegger or even represented outside of a negative context), and personally, when repeatedly speaking in his person, agrees with all of Nietzsche's criticism of Wagner. He is not an unbiased observer, all of Nietzsche's concepts become his own concepts and you can easily tell what he personally thinks of them because he tells you if Nietzsche is wrong. That he, in this one quote, is describing Nietzsche's opinions does not mean there is any separation from his own. On the contrary, the fact that he felt the need to quote such obscure passages by Nietzsche, in contradiction to most else Nietzsche had said about music, is a testament to the fact that he is contriving Nietzsche to fit his own framework. Just as when he says, in the same lecture series, that Nietzsche never indulged in the bashing of Hegel and Schelling that Schopenhauer did, when he outright does in many places. Heidegger contrives Nietzsche, just as he does Holderlin, to fit his own conception of the history of philosophy and art.

            >Theoretically, music is to be a means for achieving effective drama; in reality, however, music in the form of opera becomes the authentic art. [...] What is wanted is the domination of art as music, and thereby the domination of the pure state of feeling
            I don't know how much more obvious you need it to be to understand Heidegger's opinion of music.

            , and that is for him repeatedly and repeatedly said to be a negative, which you have not accounted for. You can cope all you like, Heidegger had a shallow appreciation of the art of music.

          • 4 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            >That Heidegger enjoyed music is of no consequence
            >OP title: Why does Heidegger hate classical music?
            >His estimation of music as a high art seems very unfair, and likely the product of Heidegger's unfamiliarity with classical music as a discipline, but nonetheless I cannot account for such a negative evaluation.
            >All throughout his life Heidegger adamantly dismissed music holding any important place among the arts
            >Heidegger personally only cared for classical music when it was underpinning words, when it was subservient and didn't claim anything essential for itself.
            Claiming that Heidegger hated classical music, and evaluated it apparently negatively, in light of Petzer, is shown to be wrong, and, as I already showed above, a misunderstanding of his discussion of music in his Nietzsche lectures. Your claim about only appreciating classical music when it's subservient to lyric is a likely exaggeration given his reported love for Mozart, where the music is in no way ever subservient to lyric. All you've done is reason out that because of certain more evident things about Heidegger (he's old fashioned and attached to country peasantry, therefore not likely to be fond of popular music before event getting into his philosophy), you can generalize further, so that from assuming and inferring that he probably hates popular music, he must hate music up and down, and your only additional evidence is, again, to pretend that summarizing another thinker is equivalent to taking on those views himself. Indefensibly stupid.

            "Oh it doesn't matter that Heidegger actually loved music," it fricking does. Likelier and better account: you don't actually understand what Heidegger says about art in general and music in particular in Will to Power as Art, and you'd be better off slowing your roll instead of getting caught flat-footed and leaping on account of assumptions about what he must be like, since between Heidegger not understanding himself and you not understanding him, the latter is likelier than Heidegger shitting on music but secretly loving it. Chances are, he's not shitting on it, you just can't tell the difference between summary of someone else, and him stating his own thought.

          • 4 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            Chances are you're having a meltdown because you can't comprehend why Heidegger said what he did about music. You refuse to explain what he has actually said on those lectures, and in other places about the relation between poetry and music and aesthetics of music, because it clearly shows what Heidegger thought of it. If he enjoyed it, so what, that's the level of enjoyment his quotation of Nietzsche supports, it doesn't mean anything philosophical. Heidegger made ridiculous claims but expressed them very deftly, so morons like yourself wouldn't see just how ridiculous and contrived the claims are. He had a philosophical goal, and he achieved that goal, but he often did not care about how many historical contrivances he would have to make to get there. That's Heidegger for you.

          • 4 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            Wrenching a quite from a paragraph out of context and quiting Heidegger summarizing Nietzsche on Wagner still isn't any kind of good argument.

            "Yeah, well, you're a moron who can't understand," lemme stop ya before you get started about how I don't read the next page when you clearly don't know how to read the page in front of you.

          • 4 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            >Wrenching a quite from a paragraph out of context
            Then show how it's out of context. What he says stands on its own.

            >Heidegger summarizing Nietzsche
            Which is relevant for the reasons already provided. He is agreeing with Nietzsche's criticism, he positively mentions arguments from Nietzsche, and he always makes sure to point out where Nietzsche is wrong so he wont lead his students astray. But Heidegger was happy presenting the myth that Nietzsche seriously did not believe music was important aside from entertainment, and that this was a solid belief as opposed to any aesthetics that value music for anything higher.

          • 4 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            >Which is relevant for the reasons already provided. He is agreeing with Nietzsche's criticism, he positively mentions arguments from Nietzsche
            He does no such thing, that passage is among the clearest examples of Heidegger only spelling out someone else's view as part of the overall building up of a thinker's views. There isn't any "positively" bringing it up, either, he just neutrally states what Nietzsche thinks without further comment. *You* see a positive assent, *without any evidence to muster*. You're just asserting it.

            Heidegger does this with not just Nietzsche, but Plato, Aristotle, Schelling, Hegel, Kant, Leibniz, Descartes, Hobbes, Aquinas, in his lecture courses, and you and I both know how ridiculous it would be to determine Heidegger's views only in accordance with where he *explicitly* disagrees, since that means a *lot* of agreement with a whole host of traditions he supposedly rejects. Heidegger spends five pages discussing the Eleatic Stranger's method without inserting his disagreement every five seconds? Obviously he must agree with it then.

            Quit making shit up.

          • 4 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            >He does no such thing,
            He does it constantly throughout that lecture course. Every single response you give is just 'nuh uh not true' despite however much evidence and despite whatever has been claimed to the opposite. You're an intractable moron. Heidegger, not specifically there if you're too pea-brained to understand grammar, regularly switches back and forth from a Nietzsche criticism to his own affirmation of what Nietzsche says, to making some further criticism, or some further argument as to how Nietzsche stands superior to his cultural surroundings. If you've READ more than one page you'd see how that quotation of Nietzsche perfectly fits into his own views.

            At the very least, if you are going to be so childishly stubborn to argue every tiny, little, insignificant detail as if you're entire worldview would come crumbling down if you didn't; if you must be like that, then you at least should accept Heidegger's basic postulation about the nature of music as nothing but the pure state of feeling. From there you can easily explain everything else.

          • 3 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            Keep huffing and puffing homosexual, but your "evidence" is consistently your feelz about Heidegger and what he must be saying, and your assertion that he approves of wat Nietzsche's saying is merely asserted without any backup.

            This, for example,
            >For Heidegger classical music is pure metaphysics, an indulgence of bourgeois culture, because it is devoid of an ontological grounding and the ties of people to the earth.
            Is just a fever dream with no basis in the lectures. I'd ask again for actual evidence, but you haven't proven that you can hold the book the right way up, homosexual.

          • 4 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            https://i.imgur.com/Lc2cJUw.jpeg

            Last one.

            Tl;dr - you have no idea what you're talking about, and you pull shit out of your ass sooner than doing the simpler task of looking at what the page says.

            https://i.imgur.com/JDKTChd.jpeg

            https://i.imgur.com/fTfe9pJ.jpeg

            Nothing you say is of consequence, because your "proofs" are a passage that says the opposite of what you claim (that Heidegger locates Wagner's issue in the predominance of music in his work), and a passage summarizing Nietzsche that you surmise must also be Heidegger's view apropos of nothing.

            Since you're busy bloviating about what Heidegger *must* think about music based off of impressions you have of him, here's recollections from one of his students, Heinrich Petzet, in his book Encounters and Dialogues with Heidegger. (Picrel)

            >Which is relevant for the reasons already provided. He is agreeing with Nietzsche's criticism, he positively mentions arguments from Nietzsche
            He does no such thing, that passage is among the clearest examples of Heidegger only spelling out someone else's view as part of the overall building up of a thinker's views. There isn't any "positively" bringing it up, either, he just neutrally states what Nietzsche thinks without further comment. *You* see a positive assent, *without any evidence to muster*. You're just asserting it.

            Heidegger does this with not just Nietzsche, but Plato, Aristotle, Schelling, Hegel, Kant, Leibniz, Descartes, Hobbes, Aquinas, in his lecture courses, and you and I both know how ridiculous it would be to determine Heidegger's views only in accordance with where he *explicitly* disagrees, since that means a *lot* of agreement with a whole host of traditions he supposedly rejects. Heidegger spends five pages discussing the Eleatic Stranger's method without inserting his disagreement every five seconds? Obviously he must agree with it then.

            Quit making shit up.

            (Etc., too lazy to quote what seem like all your posts)

            Thank you, from what little I have down of Heidegger, this seems to be right. One of the primary things Heidegger did was write and lecture in converse with other speakers, often including a lot of commentaries on them, analyses of them summarization and quotes of their ideas. Without seeing this clearly and taking passages from him out of context, you can get an entirely wrongheaded view of his own judgments.

          • 4 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            Cheers. I, for my part, could be a lot less b***hy in the above, but after checking the passage in OP, I thought it was weird that it was way more of a nothingburger in actual context. That drives me crazy, especially since the lectures, while regimented, are much more freewheeling than the essays and books, where he has a purpose in mind and relatively more clear signs of approval and disapproval. Oh well.

          • 4 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            >Making fresh shit up already.
            Also your vital misinterpretation of what Heidegger meant here speaks volumes. It really could not be a worse interpretation. He reduces music to a pathetically desperate need to feel something, like an emotional dependency on metaphysics taken to extreme, and it's not a nobler retreat from the evils of modernity, it's just another aspect of those evils. It is so clear, yet you purposefully misread it.

    • 3 weeks ago
      Anonymous

      Heidegger very clearly says in the same lecture series that the predominance of the role of music in Wagner is the main fault, which is typical of all classical, and especially 19th century, music. All throughout his life Heidegger adamantly dismissed music holding any important place among the arts, and outright dismissed Nietzsche's description of Greek tragedy emerging out of music in his Holderlin lectures. Heidegger is not open to dismissing outright classical music, but that is what is implicit to everything he says if you bothered to read it at all. Music for him cannot be anything more than ephemeral feeling.

      where are these paragraphs from?

  15. 4 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    Black person has never read a single note of Bach

  16. 4 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    This is a pretty standard logic problem you guys. The only people who don’t appreciate classical music are philistines. Heidegger is not a philistine. Therefore, Heidegger appreciates classical music.

  17. 4 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    because Heidi was a hiphop head

  18. 4 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    Because he is a Black person.

    • 4 weeks ago
      Anonymous

      egger*

  19. 4 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    So... OP's claim that Heidegger rejected classical music on philosophical grounds was wrong? Didn't read whole thread.

    • 4 weeks ago
      Anonymous

      No, it still stands, as all the evidence shows.

    • 4 weeks ago
      Anonymous

      >So... OP's claim that Heidegger rejected classical music on philosophical grounds was wrong?
      Seemly this german philosopher didn't like music without lyrics, I guess.
      Because then we could not use it to advance his points, I suppose.

      • 4 weeks ago
        Anonymous

        *he
        I meant

  20. 3 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    I didn't know he felt the same way that I did but it's reassuring. I don't hate classical music although I would have if it surrounded me.

  21. 3 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    in which work did he write this?
    Id genuinely like to read this.

    • 3 weeks ago
      Anonymous

      [...]
      where are these paragraphs from?

      Nietzsche Vol. I, The Will to Power as Art

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *