Martin Heidegger

[Lamanov]

A professor of mine seems to be facinated with this guy. Why would someone share any views with him and is he in any way rellevant, to us, to history of philosophy and to contemporary thought in general?

[hoopla]

Yeah I'm doing a module on him: done a fair bit of reading. Erm he is often said to be responsible to deconstructionism. His ideas on authenticity are why he's mostly referred to. Read the wiki article!
.

[bretty]

Heidegger is the worst when it comes to philosophical jargon. If you look at for instance his work on being-toward-death in Being and Time he completely ignores the Fregean context principle. He uses an analogy of rain to explain an ontological ending to Da-sein[sorry for the Jargon] and he says it is no longer objectively present however the problem here is that he uses the sentence "the rain stops" and then he says it is no longer objectively present. Heidegger should know better to use this as an example, because the rain is actually still objectively present but it requires a new word to describe it as being on the ground because the context has changed. So rain is only rain when it's...raining! And when it stops raining we refer to it as water on the ground, rainwater, etc.

So I think in this example and many others, he chooses language that coincides with his aim of showing death as being this or that in his phenomenological interpretation however he refuses to consider the context of which he uses words and how they change given the context.

Thoughts?

[The analogy I'm referring to is in the section 48 of Being and Time called "What is outstanding, end, and totality".]

[hoopla]

Maybe you are confusing a verb with a noun tho. The "rain" can mean the noun - rainwater, or the verb to rain. The releasing of rain, "rain", has stopped. No-one would say that the releasing of rain has become water on the ground.

Good try though :)

(didn't check reference btw, so correct me if what I said was irrelevent)

[bretty]

Originally posted by [email protected] 02, 2007 09:58 pm
Maybe you are confusing a verb with a noun tho. The "rain" can mean the noun - rainwater, or the verb to rain. The releasing of rain, "rain", has stopped. No-one would say that the releasing of rain has become water on the ground.

Good try though :)

(didn't check reference btw, so correct me if what I said was irrelevent)
He says "it is no longer objectively present" and He says "the rain stops". So he is saying once it stops raining it is no longer present which is untrue, it just means the rain is now water on the ground, etc.

So why would he say the rain stops and then say it is no longer objectively present?

There are alot of ways to talk about rain after it has fallen to the ground i.e rainwater etc.

It's not a matter of how he uses the word rain it is a matter of how he says it is no longer objectively present.

Honestly, phenomenology makes little sense to me because it is supposed to be something less metaphysical and more grounded in everyday experience. So why do you need new philosophical jargon to explain everyday experience?

Husserl said "back to the things themselves" and now how does phenomenology explain to us any insight to the things themselves by using language foreign to us to explain our experience?

[hoopla]

So he is saying once it stops raining it is no longer present which is untrue, it just means the rain is now water on the ground, etc.Yes, but you wouldn't say that the act raining has become rain on the ground. Its the noun, the rain, that is now rain on the ground. If you look it up (I did check) there are at least 2 definition of rain. One is a veb, the act of raining, and one is a noun, the rain (that falls in the act of raining).

Would you say that the rain (=droping of rain) has become water on the ground. I suppose you could say that the rain (=dropping of rain) has become transpiration (is that the right word). But that is a sicneitic model, and Heidegger wouldn't have much truck with such thinking (I would hazard).

I suggest you look up the word :)

[Hit The North]

Bretty:


So why do you need new philosophical jargon to explain everyday experience?

You only need the jargon if you are a philosopher.

Everyone else says, "Oh look it's stopped raining and there are puddles on the ground." Accurately describing everyday experience is not a problem for everyday people.

[bretty]

Originally posted by [email protected] 03, 2007 11:20 am

So he is saying once it stops raining it is no longer present which is untrue, it just means the rain is now water on the ground, etc.Yes, but you wouldn't say that the act raining has become rain on the ground. Its the noun, the rain, that is now rain on the ground. If you look it up (I did check) there are at least 2 definition of rain. One is a veb, the act of raining, and one is a noun, the rain (that falls in the act of raining).

Would you say that the rain (=droping of rain) has become water on the ground. I suppose you could say that the rain (=dropping of rain) has become transpiration (is that the right word). But that is a sicneitic model, and Heidegger wouldn't have much truck with such thinking (I would hazard).

I suggest you look up the word :)
Of course you would say it's water on the ground when it stops raining... If someone is stupid enough to ask what's on the ground you would say well it was raining so there is water all over the ground.

I'm saying exactly what Heidegger says "The rain stops" and then he says "it is no longer objectively present"


Is your gripe with the fact that he might mean that the rain defined as falling water is no longer present?


But then why would he say it is no longer objectively present? The water is still present.

[This is why Heidegger makes no sense to me, he can't even use analogies clearly]

[hoopla]

Is your gripe with the fact that he might mean that the rain defined as falling water is no longer present?Well, the falling of water.


But then why would he say it is no longer objectively present? The water is still present.Yes, but the falling of the water is no longer present.

Try the example with another verb (without mixing it up with the noun)

I typed something. I type. Now, when I stopped typing, the act of typing is no longer present. The type is no longer there. To point out the mistake you might be making: one could say that the type is still there, when type is thought to mean the noun - printed text. But the type - the tap of the keyboard, is no longer there.

Of course I'm doing something else. In some respects I no longer type, but I do boil water (to make a cup of tea). In that respect you could say that the type has become a boil.

But to use that on rain, would be to be say that the rain has become another weather system... which is a) is a scientific model; and b) can you really say that rain turns into transpiration/sunshine such that the rain (the ver, dropping of water) is still present as transpiration/sunshine.

To sum: I think you are exploiting an equivocation of the word "rain".

[bretty]

Originally posted by [email protected] 03, 2007 07:18 pm

Is your gripe with the fact that he might mean that the rain defined as falling water is no longer present?Well, the falling of water.


But then why would he say it is no longer objectively present? The water is still present.Yes, but the falling of the water is no longer present.

Try the example with another verb (without mixing it up with the noun)

I typed something. I type. Now, when I stopped typing, the act of typing is no longer present. The type is no longer there. To point out the mistake you might be making: one could say that the type is still there, when type is thought to mean the noun - printed text. But the type - the tap of the keyboard, is no longer there.

Of course I'm doing something else. In some respects I no longer type, but I do boil water (to make a cup of tea). In that respect you could say that the type has become a boil.

But to use that on rain, would be to be say that the rain has become another weather system... which is a) is a scientific model; and b) can you really say that rain turns into transpiration/sunshine such that the rain (the ver, dropping of water) is still present as transpiration/sunshine.

To sum: I think you are exploiting an equivocation of the word "rain".
I understand what your saying but a sentence like this makes no sense:

"The type is no longer there"

Are you using the noun or verb in this sentence? Thats my whole criticism of using the rain example.

Did Heidegger mean the verb or noun, and if so how is using the term "objectively present" going to clarify his analogy?

[More Fire for the People]

Do you have the writing in the original German? If so you could just look up to see if its the verb or the noun.

[détrop]

Did Heidegger mean the verb or noun

The truth is, Heidegger didn't know what the hell he meant. For him, verbs and nouns were interchangeable because "doing" is "being" and "using" is "doing" is "being" is "used." Or something like that.

If you want to know what Heidegger meant, ask Sartre.

[bretty]

Heidegger would say Sartre misunderstood him I'm sure.

[hoopla]

I'm having to check b+t at the mo. Its a very tough book. Later H is much easier to get a grip on ime, and there's a nice collection of v short text in "introductor writings".

[gilhyle]

Originally posted by [email protected] 04, 2007 08:28 pm
Heidegger would say Sartre misunderstood him I'm sure.
Yes he would.

[hoopla]

Hoopla: sorry, thats 'basic writings'.

[tolstoyevski]

Tom Rockmore's book may be useful:

Tom Rockmore (http://ark.cdlib.org/ark:/13030/ft6q2nb3wh/)

And you can read the book of Victor Farias: Heidegger and Nazism.
And another book by Lucaks: The Destruction of Reason.

I mention these books because his relation with Nazis is always underrated and sometimes concealed. Let's repeat, he was a nazi till his death. His Introduction to Metaphysics was based on the lectures that he gave under the control of Nazi empire. His Being and Time is published with the control of Nazis. Is it possible for a progressive philosopher to stay in Nazi Germany, giving lectures to students?

We have to remember his letters to Hitler and his article to one of the german newspapers that ends with "heil hitler!"

As materialists, we have to be aware of the fact that, his philosophy was directly connected with his Nazi admiration. If not, why didn't he just rejected their ideas? why did he appointed to the rectorate of the University of Freiburg while all the communists, including Frankfurt School members were exiled or killed?

In short, I hate Heidegger and see him as one of our class enemies in the intellectual area. Of course, to defend our philosophy against these kind of people, we have to learn their philosophy. I can easily say that we are able to understand their philosophy more than they do, because we have the right means to analyze.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Heidegger_and_Nazism

[Rosa Lichtenstein]

Sorry Z, I only just spotted this:


Everyone else says, "Oh look it's stopped raining and there are puddles on the ground." Accurately describing everyday experience is not a problem for everyday people.

You are sounding more Wittgesteinian every day! :P

[Lamanov]

If I understand correctly, Heidegger based his philosophy on an invention of a new word - Dasein: as in "being in world", if you will - in any case, something far from non-existent or "un-defined" in philosophy untill that time. 'Dasein' is basicly a concept which is neither original nor necessary to be used in any - abstract nor concrete - manner.

Am I wrong here?