Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Heidegger, the homesick philosopher

newstatesman.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

31–40 of 45 posts

Re: Heidegger, the homesick philosopher

#31

Post by richardjdare »

nn3 wrote: post #19

>>>At the time of writing, “Martin Heidegger” is one of only 174 English Wikipedia pages –out of a total 29 million – officially flagged as “incomprehensible” by the site. If nobody can understand him, he's not worth caring about.

If you want to get a handle on Heidegger, I recommend working through Being and Time while listening to Prof Hubert Dreyfus's UC Berkeley lecture series, 'Philosophy 185 - Heidegger'. I heard them on ITunes U long ago, but they are also available on archive.org [0].

Dreyfus wrote a critique of AI, "What Computers Can't Do" in the 70s, and talks a bit about a Heideggerian approach to AI in his lectures which may be of interest to a few people here.

[0] https://archive.org/details/Philosophy_185_Fall_2007_UC_Berk...

Re: Heidegger, the homesick philosopher

#32

Post by s_kilk »

madacoo wrote: post #18

> The book was a refutation of the distinction between mind and body, and all the fallacies that follow. “I think, therefore I am” was, in Heidegger’s reckoning, a “naive supposition”, an anthropocentric conceit that went all the way back to Plato. Humans cannot be imagined either outside or prior to the world into which they are “thrown” – a bed of land, language, tradition, history and more. Heidegger believed that…

Eh, there's a lot of issues with the cogito, in that the statement Descarte arrives at is nowhere near as fundamental as he seems to think it is. It presumes an "I", subject of language, capable of evaluating its own thought, a system of language, etc, and presumes a mode of being, but then the being comes after the identification of the being itself, and so on...

It's all so much more confused than most folks, including Descarte, think it is.

He does identify something worth naming, but gets the cause and effect all mixed up. It'd be more sensible to say that I am, therefore I have the possibility of thought, and the possibility of using thought to identify my own being.

Thought being a material process which occurs in-and-of the world.

Re: Heidegger, the homesick philosopher

#33

Post by lawtalkinghuman »

sswaner wrote: post #24
FillardMillmore wrote: post #10

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I don't know if the OP suggested that Heidegger's philosophy should now be suspect, but rather claimed that his philosophy in the eyes of academia and the public has garnered more scrutiny simply because of his ties. If some great painting was found to have been created by a Nazi, would the merit of the art be suspect in the eyes of art historians and the public? I wouldn't think so, but of course it's a different me…

People still drive Volkswagens.

Volkswagens aren't metaphysical ideals with potentially negative ethical and political implications.

Re: Heidegger, the homesick philosopher

#34

Post by claudiawerner »

madacoo wrote: post #18

> The book was a refutation of the distinction between mind and body, and all the fallacies that follow. “I think, therefore I am” was, in Heidegger’s reckoning, a “naive supposition”, an anthropocentric conceit that went all the way back to Plato. Humans cannot be imagined either outside or prior to the world into which they are “thrown” – a bed of land, language, tradition, history and more. Heidegger believed that…

>I think therefore I am therefore my mind is separate from my body.

That wasn't the inference (at that stage) of the process. He contends that he can imagine himself without a body, but firstly even if his senses deceived him he could still be sure that he exists because he thinks. This isn't such a huge leap, considering, for instance, people with phantom limb syndrome or people delusional about how their body really is.

Re: Heidegger, the homesick philosopher

#35

Post by claudiawerner »

s_kilk wrote: post #32
madacoo wrote: post #18

> The book was a refutation of the distinction between mind and body, and all the fallacies that follow. “I think, therefore I am” was, in Heidegger’s reckoning, a “naive supposition”, an anthropocentric conceit that went all the way back to Plato. Humans cannot be imagined either outside or prior to the world into which they are “thrown” – a bed of land, language, tradition, history and more. Heidegger believed that…

Eh, there's a lot of issues with the cogito, in that the statement Descarte arrives at is nowhere near as fundamental as he seems to think it is. It presumes an "I", subject of language, capable of evaluating its own thought, a system of language, etc, and presumes a mode of being, but then the being comes after the identification of the being itself, and so on... It's all so much more confused than most folks, inclu…

>It'd be more sensible to say that I am, therefore I have the possibility of thought, and the possibility of using thought to identify my own being.

Would it be? You're already positing that "I am" which there isn't a reason to believe if you were deceived about everything your senses tell you. At best, to start with "I am" simply re-raises the common objection to the cogito which is that Descartes assumes the "I" to begin with. It doesn't get you out of that bind.

Nevertheless, there are contemporary defenses of the cogito, e.g. https://www.jstor.org/stable/41501714?seq=1

Re: Heidegger, the homesick philosopher

#36

Post by osullivj »

Heidegger perpetrated nonsense like "Das Nichts selbst nichtet" (The Nothing itself nihilates) [1], which positivists and empiricists rightly disdained. Obviously I am firmly in the analytic camp. If you like a bit of mysticism in your philosophy the later Wittgenstein is your man, especially his thoughts on language games, intersubjectivity and forms of life. A far more incisive set of philosophical tools for understanding notions of community and place than Heidegger's Blut und Boden bluster. IMHO of course!

[1] https://maverickphilosopher.typepad.com/maverick_philosopher...

Re: Heidegger, the homesick philosopher

#37

Post by coldtea »

>And yet, Heidegger still stands as one of the commanding figures of 20th-century philosophy. His heirs include Arendt and Emmanuel Levinas, Jean-Paul Sartre, Simone De Beauvoir and Jacques Derrida. His denial of mind-body dualism – his belief that we are rooted beings, inextricable from time and place – continues to influence fields as diverse as architecture, ecology and art history. Readers are left to discern whether the essence of his ideas leads inexorably to fascistic thinking or whether, in that aged refrain, the life can be separated from the work, so that we are free to forage as we please.

There's a third option, that didn't seem to pass through the writer's mind: that what they call "fascistic thinking" is a constellation of things, many of which were invoked in the past without negative consequences, and most would still find totally find, were they not today tarnished by association with a mass murdering regime...

The fascists also pushed major welfare reforms for example, and nobody today (hopefully) considers welfare something fascist in the bad sense...

The same can be said for all kinds of philosophical ideas (including of Heidegger). Just because they were themselves adopted by Nazis doesn't mean adopting them brings upon a Nazi regime, antisemitism, or mass murder...

Re: Heidegger, the homesick philosopher

#38

Post by coldtea »

xurias wrote: post #27
madacoo wrote: post #18

> The book was a refutation of the distinction between mind and body, and all the fallacies that follow. “I think, therefore I am” was, in Heidegger’s reckoning, a “naive supposition”, an anthropocentric conceit that went all the way back to Plato. Humans cannot be imagined either outside or prior to the world into which they are “thrown” – a bed of land, language, tradition, history and more. Heidegger believed that…

Maybe the article is wrong? The two concepts address two entirely different issues and I don't see how the book could be a refutation with that description.

No, read the parent's (inesprimibile) comment for an explanation.

Re: Heidegger, the homesick philosopher

#39

Post by coldtea »

osullivj wrote: post #36

Heidegger perpetrated nonsense like "Das Nichts selbst nichtet" (The Nothing itself nihilates) [1], which positivists and empiricists rightly disdained. Obviously I am firmly in the analytic camp. If you like a bit of mysticism in your philosophy the later Wittgenstein is your man, especially his thoughts on language games, intersubjectivity and forms of life. A far more incisive set of philosophical tools for unders…

>Obviously I am firmly in the analytic camp

Obviously. But it's not the only camp, nor it's some settled question. It's just the most popular in anglosaxon countries...

Re: Heidegger, the homesick philosopher

#40

Post by coldtea »

joe_the_user wrote: post #2

Once discredited by his association with Nazism, Martin Heidegger is enjoying a posthumous revival. So what is it about his ideas that resonate with so many? It seems like the situation is exactly the opposite. Heidegger was considered a leading throughout the 20th century and it is only in the last few years that the intensity of his NAZI affiliations has become evident (as well as the degree to which he mix philoso…

>It seems like the situation is exactly the opposite. Heidegger was considered a leading throughout the 20th century and it is only in the last few years that the intensity of his NAZI affiliations has become evident (as well as the degree to which he mix philosophy and politics), leaving his philosophy much more suspect.

Nope. His Nazi affiliations were very well known before, during, and after the war, and very widely talked and written about.

He was still one of the most celebrated thinkers in the post-war Europe, including by intellectuals of jewish ethnicity (intellectuals of course tend to know better how to draw a distinction between the person and their work, they're not little children).

And most of those celebrating him, had also touched upon the issue of nazi affiliations, so it's not like they celebrated him hiding those...

The so-called "black notebooks" didn't reveal anything unknown about his collaboration or thoughts, they just got published in much more touchy-feely era, with far less philosophers that had actually lived through those eras alive, and so the scandal was mostly a media one...

Post reply on HN