![]() | This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Archive 1 | ← | Archive 4 | Archive 5 | Archive 6 | Archive 7 | Archive 8 | → | Archive 10 |
1. Heidegger thought Heidegger was the "greatest thinker in the Western tradition since Heraclitus." Encyclopedic, or no?
is Heidegger's opinion on Heidegger's importance of encylopedic interest? Anyone with an opinion? World Champion Editor ( talk) 21:19, 5 January 2016 (UTC)
Sources are here: https://books.google.com/books?id=BakfCdRPPswC&pg=PA4&lpg=PA4&dq=heidegger+greatest+thinker+since+Heraclitus&source=bl&ots=GDsVofG_D5&sig=Eumtjw-guPo29lmnVoHPa9Emems&hl=en&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwjstOGA9ZPKAhUClR4KHZuiCTcQ6AEIGjAA#v=onepage&q=heidegger%20greatest%20thinker%20since%20Heraclitus&f=false https://books.google.com/books?id=AbtKCAAAQBAJ&pg=PA12&lpg=PA12&dq=heidegger+greatest+thinker+since+Heraclitus&source=bl&ots=tebL2206HM&sig=Bt1G_y8MXfsh7hG-Hv2VzSeXhnA&hl=en&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwjstOGA9ZPKAhUClR4KHZuiCTcQ6AEIIDAC#v=onepage&q=heidegger%20greatest%20thinker%20since%20Heraclitus&f=false
I think we should refer to this Wiki article here and probably at The Question Concerning Technology: commodification of nature. Do we agree? I don't know this article well enough to know where best to put it. -- David Tornheim ( talk) 18:13, 28 January 2016 (UTC)
The first paragraph of the lead contains quotations from the Internet Encyclopedia and the Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy. I believe these should be removed, and replaced with different content. It's very poor form for an encyclopedia to contain such prominent quotations from other encyclopedias. FreeKnowledgeCreator ( talk) 05:32, 25 December 2016 (UTC)
If someone would like to discuss my replacement text, please be my guest and offer suggestions or criticisms here. But I hope we can agree the paragraph that was there should be replaced. It was quite unclear and did not give adequate overview of Heidegger's thought, in this editor's opinion. World Champion Editor ( talk) 05:59, 5 January 2016 (UTC)
BA in Philosophy, Berea College, concentration on Heidegger. The lead as it stands today works for me. However, I find this sentence a bit too "expert" for the average reader: " The consequence of this is that our capacity to think cannot be the most central quality of our being because thinking is a reflecting upon this more original way of discovering the world." May I fix it a little? Soltera 149.168.37.8 ( talk) 13:50, 3 May 2017 (UTC)
He had a clear interest in Christian Philosophy, not to include that on the page is to hide information about Heidegger. User:WhiteKnight138 —Preceding undated comment added 07:42, 19 May 2017 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 2 external links on Martin Heidegger. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
This message was posted before February 2018.
After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than
regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors
have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the
RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{
source check}}
(last update: 5 June 2024).
Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot ( Report bug) 08:11, 4 June 2017 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified one external link on Martin Heidegger. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
This message was posted before February 2018.
After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than
regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors
have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the
RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{
source check}}
(last update: 5 June 2024).
Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot ( Report bug) 21:28, 26 July 2017 (UTC)
Are there any published facts about how he avoided being drafted into the Wehrmacht from 1940 to 1945? 173.72.63.96 ( talk) 22:12, 26 September 2016 (UTC)Scott Buddenbrook
According to my copy of the 1945 U.S. War Department Handbook on German Military Forces, p.55, "In time of peace all German males were liable to military service from their 18th birthday until the 31 March following their 45th birthday. In east Prussia liability was extended until 31 March following their 55th birthday." By the end of the war liability was extended in both directions -17 (those born in 1928) to 61(the class of 1884).
— Mark Jepperson
Most of the younger boys and older men were inducted into the Volksstrum created late in the War (1944). As a last ditch effort to stave off defeat in October 1944, all males aged 16 to 60 were required to join the Volkssturm, or Home Guard. The Wehrmacht now disgraced in Hitler's eyes.
— World War II: Conscription and the Age of Soldiers, [1]
The first paragraph says that Heidegger is known for his contributions to phenomenology and existentialism. While it then goes on to state that an encyclopeadia of philosophy states that Heidegger should only be thought of in associations with such movements with extreme caution, should it not say that Heidegger denied that he was an existentialist? Vorbee ( talk) 15:14, 25 May 2017 (UTC)
He was known for a fan of
Ernst Röhm, so obviously became suspect to the regime when Röhmians were eliminated. So, the effect of the Night of the Long Knives was genuine: he knew that he could be next. So he decided to keep a low profile, but quitting NSDAP would have amounted to treason. Besides all works trying to fit Nazi racism into Heidegger's philosophical works have failed: we he did not believe that biological differences matter that much, to him race was subordinate to culture, not the other way around. I.e. what the Dutch sociologist Willem Schinkel called culture-ism. His detractors tried to paint him as a monster, since he was a NSDAP member, but belief in an ideology is not in itself a crime in a state of law. As a propagandist for the regime, they did not trust him enough to give him such role. So, yeah, being a NSDAP member was part of his biography and biography for philosophers simply means gossip stuff. He simply wasn't an ideologue of racism. He also wasn't a soldier, a camp guard or a bureaucrat (except for one year of being a rector), so he had no impact on the war or on the genocide.
Tgeorgescu (
talk)
04:02, 1 October 2018 (UTC)
I was looking at the contributions of a Lebanese IP, and noticed an edit to this page where the only purpose appeared to be the promotion of the work of Nader El-Bizri. I've removed that, and a couple of others that appeared to be the work of the same person. The page now has 23 mentions of El-Bizri. I was thinking of removing some or all of those too, but thought it best to seek consensus here before doing so. As the history of the page on him shows, El-Bizri has been the subject of a concerted effort of promotion here, and I'm concerned that the apparently excessive weight given to his views in our article are a consequence of that. As far as I can see, his published work on Heidegger has received few citations, which I interpret as only minimal interest from other academics. Do his views merit inclusion in this page, and if so, how extensively should they be covered? Thoughts? Justlettersandnumbers ( talk) 19:03, 11 March 2019 (UTC)
Removed the content about Heidegger and the Nazi Party from lead for 5 reasons; 1) the lead provides a summary of the article's contents, this content was too detailed for the lead, see MOS:LEAD; 2) it is not what Heidegger is best known for, yet takes up a substantial section of the lead, see WP:UNDUE; 3) Heidegger's affiliations with the Nazi Party are treated at length in the article and there is a whole article, Martin Heidegger and Nazism dedicated to the topic, so it does not need extensive treatment in the lead; 4) the book cited, Grondin, Jean (2012). Introduction to metaphysics: from Parmenides to Levinas. New York: Columbia University Press. ISBN 0231148445, does not contain the phrase "the inner truth and greatness of National Socialism" (seached both in Google Books and Amazon.com See Inside feature); 5) the views of Victor Farías (Heidegger and nazism. Temple University Press) are not widely accepted and cannot be taken as a reliable source (see The Farias and Faye controversies) - Epinoia ( talk) 21:10, 9 May 2019 (UTC)
I've reviewed the edits for this article. I expect that when others do this, they will understand that there is an effort by some editors to obscure Heidegger's Nazism. The result is that confusing language is used in the main text of the article and that discussion of Heidegger's Nazism is inappropriately minimized in the lead. Whatever one thinks of Heidegger's philosophy, his Nazism is an essential part of his biography. This ought to be reflected in summary in the lead and discussed in some detail in the article. Sbelknap ( talk) 17:17, 10 May 2019 (UTC)
Heidegger's membership in and public support for the Nazi Party has been the subject of widespread controversy...
...regarding the extent to which his Nazism influenced his philosophy.
Heidegger was a member and public supporter of the Nazi Party. There is controversy regarding whether his Nazism influenced his philosophy.
There is controversy over the extent to which his Nazi affiliations influenced his philosophy.
Was he a member of NSDAP? Yes, definitely. Did he write Nazi philosophy? Nope, he is the father of postmodernism, not the father of Nazism. He even had Jewish lovers. He didn't write racist philosophy, he wrote culture-ist philosophy, see #Nazi sympathies. Those who admired him in the sixties weren't the Neo-Nazis, they were ecological leftists. For Neo-fascism Julius Evola's philosophy is relevant, but Heidegger's isn't. He did not advocate killing the Jews, nor racial/ethnic purity. I have read many of his works and he nowhere appears racist or bloodthirsty. Trying to fit Nazism into his philosophy is a far-fetched interpretation, i.e. it is a subjective opinion, not a hard fact. Why is it a matter of interpretation? Because there is no smoking gun, obviously. Tgeorgescu ( talk) 13:01, 11 May 2019 (UTC)
- I do not believe there is any attempt to hide or minimize Heidegger's Nazi affiliations - to suggest otherwise is POV pushing - it is treated at length in the body of the article and there is a whole article about it, Martin Heidegger and Nazism, so it is not in any way hidden or minimized - the debate over biography and work has been ongoing for some time now - there are those who want to stress that Ezra Pound was an anti-Semite, which is true, but he was also an influential poet - it's true that Heidegger was a Nazi, but he was also an influential philosopher - the weight given to various aspects of a person's biography is decided by WP:CONSENSUS, WP:WEIGHT and WP:NPOV - as it says at WP:AXE, "Got an ax to grind? Try the hardware store, not Wikipedia. If you do want to advocate for a cause, consider starting your own blog." - Epinoia ( talk) 15:08, 11 May 2019 (UTC)
It's not even proven that Heidegger advocated for militarism, which is a necessary ingredient of fascism and Nazism. AFAIK, he wasn't obsessed with conquering France or with the thousand years Reich. He also lacked Hitler's faith in technology. Heidegger's emphasis on authenticity is not friendly to mass conformism. Tgeorgescu ( talk) 18:21, 13 May 2019 (UTC)
Heidegger's membership in and public support for the Nazi Party has been the subject of widespread controversy regarding the extent to which his Nazism influenced his philosophy.
Heidegger was a member and public supporter of the Nazi Party. There is controversy over the extent to which his Nazi affiliations influenced his philosophy.
Heidegger is a controversial figure, largely for his affiliation with Nazism, as Rector of the University of Freiburg for 11 months, before his resignation in April 1934, for which he neither apologized nor publicly expressed regret.
We have a rather daunting task ahead of us as we aim to restore a NPOV to this Heidegger article. There are so many errors and distortions, that it seems overwhelming taken as a whole. Lets do this one-by-one, and eventually we'll get there. One quite glaring distortion is the quote in the lead about Heidegger being widely acknowledged to be one of the most original and important philosophers. Note that this is a partial quotation, that chops off mid-sentence, and fails to acknowledge the full quotation, thereby radically changing the meaning of the quote compared to the cited source. Here is the full quote from the original source:
"Martin Heidegger is widely acknowledged to be one of the most original and important philosophers of the 20th century, while remaining one of the most controversial. His thinking has contributed to such diverse fields as phenomenology (Merleau-Ponty), existentialism (Sartre, Ortega y Gasset), hermeneutics (Gadamer, Ricoeur), political theory (Arendt, Marcuse, Habermas), psychology (Boss, Binswanger, Rollo May), and theology (Bultmann, Rahner, Tillich). His critique of traditional metaphysics and his opposition to positivism and technological world domination have been embraced by leading theorists of postmodernity (Derrida, Foucault, and Lyotard). On the other hand, his involvement in the Nazi movement has invoked a stormy debate. Although he never claimed that his philosophy was concerned with politics, political considerations have come to overshadow his philosophical work." Sbelknap ( talk) 03:38, 14 May 2019 (UTC)
- Re: "It is fascinating that there is a separate article on Heidegger's Nazism, as if that is some entirely separate matter that need not require full explication in his biography." - the article Martin Heidegger and Nazism is a content fork, "as an article grows, editors often create summary-style spin-offs or new, linked articles for related material. This is acceptable, and often encouraged, as a way of making articles clearer and easier to manage." - Re: "It is egregious that the lead does not mention his affairs with Hannah Arendt and Elisabeth Blochmann" - according to MOS:LEAD, "the emphasis given to material in the lead should roughly reflect its importance to the topic, according to reliable, published sources", so the deciding factor on whether or not it should be included in the lead is the weight or prominence it is given in the published sources - Re: "This article is primarily a biography of Martin Heidegger, it is not primarily a philosophical treatise!" - all articles on philosophers, thinkers, theologians, etc., contain summaries of their work and thought - Epinoia ( talk) 20:10, 16 May 2019 (UTC)
The quote in the original source is: "Martin Heidegger is widely acknowledged to be one of the most original and important philosophers of the 20th century, while remaining one of the most controversial."
The quote in the lead is truncated to: "He…is widely acknowledged to be one of the most original and important philosophers of the 20th century."
Thus, the quote in the lead emphasizes that Heidegger is a philosopher and deemphasizes that he is controversial. This violates WP:NPOV. I will add that tag to the page. Sbelknap ( talk) 17:54, 16 May 2019 (UTC)
I propose this shorter, clearer text for a new version of the first two paragraphs of the lead:
Martin Heidegger ( /ˈhaɪˌdɛɡər, ˈhaɪdɪɡər/; [1] [2] German: [ˈmaɐ̯tiːn ˈhaɪdɛɡɐ]; [3] [1] 26 September 1889 – 26 May 1976) was a German philosopher "widely acknowledged to be one of the most original and important philosophers of the 20th century while remaining one of the most controversial." [4] Heidegger was a member and public supporter of the Nazi Party. There is controversy over the degree to which his Nazi affiliations influenced his philosophy.
Heidegger is best known for his contributions to ontology, phenomenology and existentialism. His first and best known book, Being and Time (1927) is considered one of the central philosophical works of the 20th century. [5] In its first part, Heidegger addressed the fundamental question of being, proposing that the essence of being is caring, in opposition to such Rationalist thinkers as René Descartes who located the essence of man in his thinking abilities.
Heidegger also made critical contributions to philosophical conceptions of truth, arguing that its original meaning was unconcealment, to philosophical analyses of art as a site of the revelation of truth, and to philosophical understanding of language as the "house of being." [6] Heidegger's later work includes criticisms of technology's instrumentalist understanding in the Western tradition as " enframing", treating all of Nature as a "standing reserve" on call for human purposes. [7] [8] Heidegger joined the Nazi Party in May 1933, shortly after he was elected rector of the University of Freiburg and remained a member until the unconditional surrender of the European Axis powers in May 1945. After the War, in 1946, the Denazification Committee of the French occupying force convicted Heidegger because he, "in the crucial year of 1933…consciously placed the great prestige of his scholarly reputation and the distinctive art of his oratory in the service of the National Socialist Revolution…thereby doing a great deal to justify this revolution in the eyes of educated Germans." The Committee suspended him from teaching and this ban was not lifted until 1950. Heidegger never disavowed his Nazism; in his 1953 book Introduction to Metaphysics (based on lectures he gave in 1935) he retrospectively praised “the inner truth and greatness of National Socialism.” [9] [10] [11] After the Second World War, many of Heidegger's supporters and Heidegger himself promulgated the view that Heidegger became University rector and shortly afterwards joined the Nazi Party only to protect the University of Freiburg from Nazification and that he withdrew his support of Nazism in 1934 after resigning his rectorship at University of Freiburg. Despite this attempt at reputation repair, there is overwhelming evidence that he remained an active dues-paying member of the Nazi Party until the end of the war. Also, there is strong evidence that Heidegger never acknowledged the horror of Nazism, and he never made any public apology to his followers for his efforts in support of the Third Reich. [12] [13] Sbelknap ( talk) 23:34, 16 May 2019 (UTC)
- there is no attempt to obscure Heidegger's Nazism - it is mentioned in the first paragraph of the lead of the Martin Heidegger article - there is a whole section devoted to it in the article at Heidegger and the Nazi Party and it is also mentioned at The Farías debate - in addition, there is a content fork article at Martin Heidegger and Nazism where the topic is treated more fully than in the main article - in sheer number of words, his Nazism is given more ink on Wikipedia than his philosophy - Epinoia ( talk) 23:11, 17 May 2019 (UTC)
- MOS:LEAD says that the lead should have four paragraphs, so the lead should not be longer - Heidegger's Nazism is given adequate weight in the lead - if he was only a Nazi, he would have been completely forgotten - if he was only a philosopher, he would still be influential - so the major weight in the lead is his philosophy, the minor weight is his Nazism per WP:WEIGHT - his Nazism is well covered in the body of the article and elsewhere - there is no objective formula to determine appropriate weight, so we go by consensus - Epinoia ( talk) 02:06, 19 May 2019 (UTC)
References
IEP
was invoked but never defined (see the
help page).JR
was invoked but never defined (see the
help page).Should this proposed text become the new lead for the article, yes, no, or IDGAD: PiCo ( talk) 04:33, 19 May 2019 (UTC)
Just a note to other editors. In the last 24 hours Sbelknap has canvassed five editors, this adds to the edit warring and personal attacks. ----- Snowded TALK 16:58, 18 May 2019 (UTC)
The POV template may be removed whenever any one of the following is true: There is consensus on the talkpage or the NPOV Noticeboard that the issue has been resolved. It is not clear what the neutrality issue is, and no satisfactory explanation has been given. In the absence of any discussion, or if the discussion has become dormant.
However: There is no consensus on the talkpage that the issue has been resolved. It is clear what the neutrality issue is. There is active discussion on the talk page regarding the issue.
Thus, continued use of the POV tag is appropriate. Sbelknap ( talk) 16:17, 19 May 2019 (UTC)
I created a new subsection to cover the black notebooks and added some material that is clearly relevant to a biography of Heidegger. These edits and a supporting citation have now been removed by another editor. Multiple high-quality scholarly sources conclude that Heidegger's antisemitism is relevant to his philosophical work. This issue is also discussed in more accessible (but still credible) sources, such as the New Yorker, The LA review of books, and others. For example, here: [1] What is the opinion of other editors? Perhaps we could add two sections, one for the "Black Notebooks" and one for "Heiegger's Apologists"? Sbelknap ( talk) 17:16, 28 June 2019 (UTC)
References
auto1
was invoked but never defined (see the
help page).I am seeking consensus on adding the following text to description of delivery of Rektoratsrede. When I added this (with citation) it was reverted. The supporting citation is from an peer-reviewed article by a scholar with expertise in Heidegger. Here is the text I propose to add: Heidegger delivered his inaugural address, the Rektoratsrede, on "Die Selbstbehauptung der Deutschen Universität" ("The Self-assertion of the German University") on 27 May 1933. In attendance were several hundred university staff, their wives, students, and also Nazi party officials who had received invitations with the words for the Sturmabteilung anthem, the “Horst Wessel” on the back. The professors in the audience wore full academic regalia. Heidegger's address was delivered in a hall illuminated by candlelight and on a stage adorned with red and black swastikas and featuring members of the brown-uniformed Nazi paramilitary, the Sturmabteilung. [1] Sbelknap ( talk) 20:06, 29 June 2019 (UTC)
Heidegger delivered his inaugural address, the Rektoratsrede, on "Die Selbstbehauptung der Deutschen Universität" ("The Self-assertion of the German University") on 27 May 1933. The address was delivered in a hall adorned with Nazi symbols and attended by Nazi party officials and members of the Sturmabteilung in addition to university staff and students.
The hall was... attended by Nazi party officialsdoesn't quite sit right; a hall isn't something you attend. — VeryRarelyStable ( talk) 10:16, 30 June 2019 (UTC)
The hall was adorned with Nazi symbols and attended by Nazi party officials...
The hall. The word
andby itself isn't sufficient to import as subject the phrase
his inaugural addressfrom the previous sentence.
Heidegger delivered his inaugural address, the Rektoratsrede, on "Die Selbstbehauptung der Deutschen Universität" ("The Self-assertion of the German University") on 27 May 1933.
Heidegger. The subject of the sentence
The hall was adorned with Nazi symbols and attended by Nazi party officials and members of the Sturmabteilung in addition to university staff and students.
The hall. Yes, the reader can probably infer what's actually meant, and with two sentences in isolation it's not very difficult. But when these subject-complement mismatches pop up in a larger text they slow the reader down like potholes in a road. They need to be smoothed out.
I assume good faith on the part of other wikipedia editors and expect them to provide me the same courtesy. Heidegger apologists are a real phenomenon beyond wikipedia. As we are to assume good faith among editors, let us assume that wikipedia editors are consulting outdated, no longer relevant sources and are unduly influenced by the writings of Heidegger apologists, who have been prolific over the past 70 years or so. However, recent scholarship renders Heidegger apologism untenable, in the view of most scholars. This is reflected in other tertiary sources, For example from the stanford encyclopedia of philosophy, we have [2]:
"Here is not the place to enter into the historical debate over exactly what Heidegger did and when he did it. However, given his deliberate, albeit arguably short-lived, integration of Nazi ideology with the philosophy of Being (see above), a few all-too-brief comments on the relationship between Heidegger's politics and his philosophical thought are necessary. (For more detailed evidence and discussion, as well as a range of positions on how we should interpret and respond to this relationship, see e.g., Farias 1989; Neske and Kettering 1990; Ott 1993; Pattison 2000; Polt 1999; Rockmore 1992; Sluga, 1993; Wolin 1990, 1993; Young 1997). There is no doubt that Heidegger's Nazi sympathies, however long they lasted, have a more intimate relationship with his philosophical thought than might be suggested by apologist claims that he was a victim of his time (in 1933, lots of intelligent people backed Hitler without thereby supporting the Holocaust that was to come) or that what we have here is ‘merely’ a case of bad political judgment, deserving of censure but with no implications for the essentially independent philosophical programme. Why does the explanation run deeper? The answer is that Heidegger believed (indeed continued to believe until he died) that the German people were destined to carry out a monumental spiritual mission. That mission was nothing less than to be at the helm of the aforementioned transformation of Being in the West, from one of instrumental technology to one of poetic dwelling. In mounting this transformation the German people would be acting not imperialistically, but for all nations in the encounter with modern technology. Of course destining is not a fate that compels, so some divine catalyst would be needed to awake the German nation to its historic mission, a catalyst provided by the spiritual leaders of the Nazi Party." Sbelknap ( talk) 15:35, 1 July 2019 (UTC)
Proposed edit: On 27 May 1933, Heidegger delivered his inaugural address, the Rektoratsrede, on "Die Selbstbehauptung der Deutschen Universität" ("The Self-assertion of the German University") in a hall decorated with swastikas. Also in attendance were members of the Nazi paramilitary (the Sturmabteilung) and prominent Nazi Party officials who had received invitations featuring the words for the Sturmabteilung anthem, the Horst Wessel Song. [1] Sbelknap ( talk) 12:01, 2 July 2019 (UTC)
"Prominent officials" of the Nazi Party are very different than "members" of the Nazi Party. According to the wikipedia article, the Sturmabteilung was
the Nazi Party's original paramilitary. It played a significant role in Adolf Hitler's rise to power in the 1920s and 1930s. Its primary purposes were providing protection for Nazi rallies and assemblies, disrupting the meetings of opposing parties, fighting against the paramilitary units of the opposing parties, especially the Red Front Fighters League (Rotfrontkämpferbund) of the Communist Party of Germany (KPD), and intimidating Romani, trade unionists, and, especially, Jews – for instance, during the Nazi boycott of Jewish businesses.
Watering this down to "members of the Nazi Party" does not accurately represent the description in the cited source. Sbelknap ( talk) 15:10, 4 July 2019 (UTC)
References
Below I copy a section from the phenomenology page that did not really fit. It's sourced though, and since you don't have coverage here, I thought it might be incorporated. I leave the specifics to those actively involved on the page.
Cheers,
According to Heidegger, the essence of technology is the way of being of modern humans—a way of conducting themselves towards the world—that sees the world as something to be ordered and shaped in line with projects, intentions and desires—a 'will to power' that manifests itself as a 'will to technology'. [1] Heidegger claims that there were other times in human history, a pre-modern time, where humans did not orient themselves towards the world in a technological way—simply as resources for our purposes. [1]
However, according to Heidegger this 'pre-technological' age (or mood) is one where humans' relation with the world and artifacts, their way of being disposed, was poetic and aesthetic rather than technological (enframing). [1] There are many who disagree with Heidegger's account of the modern technological attitude as the 'enframing' of the world. [2] For example, Andrew Feenberg argues that Heidegger's account of modern technology is not borne out in contemporary everyday encounters with technology. [1] Patrick J. Welsh ( talk) 20:00, 26 July 2023 (UTC)
![]() | This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Archive 1 | ← | Archive 4 | Archive 5 | Archive 6 | Archive 7 | Archive 8 | → | Archive 10 |
1. Heidegger thought Heidegger was the "greatest thinker in the Western tradition since Heraclitus." Encyclopedic, or no?
is Heidegger's opinion on Heidegger's importance of encylopedic interest? Anyone with an opinion? World Champion Editor ( talk) 21:19, 5 January 2016 (UTC)
Sources are here: https://books.google.com/books?id=BakfCdRPPswC&pg=PA4&lpg=PA4&dq=heidegger+greatest+thinker+since+Heraclitus&source=bl&ots=GDsVofG_D5&sig=Eumtjw-guPo29lmnVoHPa9Emems&hl=en&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwjstOGA9ZPKAhUClR4KHZuiCTcQ6AEIGjAA#v=onepage&q=heidegger%20greatest%20thinker%20since%20Heraclitus&f=false https://books.google.com/books?id=AbtKCAAAQBAJ&pg=PA12&lpg=PA12&dq=heidegger+greatest+thinker+since+Heraclitus&source=bl&ots=tebL2206HM&sig=Bt1G_y8MXfsh7hG-Hv2VzSeXhnA&hl=en&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwjstOGA9ZPKAhUClR4KHZuiCTcQ6AEIIDAC#v=onepage&q=heidegger%20greatest%20thinker%20since%20Heraclitus&f=false
I think we should refer to this Wiki article here and probably at The Question Concerning Technology: commodification of nature. Do we agree? I don't know this article well enough to know where best to put it. -- David Tornheim ( talk) 18:13, 28 January 2016 (UTC)
The first paragraph of the lead contains quotations from the Internet Encyclopedia and the Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy. I believe these should be removed, and replaced with different content. It's very poor form for an encyclopedia to contain such prominent quotations from other encyclopedias. FreeKnowledgeCreator ( talk) 05:32, 25 December 2016 (UTC)
If someone would like to discuss my replacement text, please be my guest and offer suggestions or criticisms here. But I hope we can agree the paragraph that was there should be replaced. It was quite unclear and did not give adequate overview of Heidegger's thought, in this editor's opinion. World Champion Editor ( talk) 05:59, 5 January 2016 (UTC)
BA in Philosophy, Berea College, concentration on Heidegger. The lead as it stands today works for me. However, I find this sentence a bit too "expert" for the average reader: " The consequence of this is that our capacity to think cannot be the most central quality of our being because thinking is a reflecting upon this more original way of discovering the world." May I fix it a little? Soltera 149.168.37.8 ( talk) 13:50, 3 May 2017 (UTC)
He had a clear interest in Christian Philosophy, not to include that on the page is to hide information about Heidegger. User:WhiteKnight138 —Preceding undated comment added 07:42, 19 May 2017 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 2 external links on Martin Heidegger. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
This message was posted before February 2018.
After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than
regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors
have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the
RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{
source check}}
(last update: 5 June 2024).
Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot ( Report bug) 08:11, 4 June 2017 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified one external link on Martin Heidegger. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
This message was posted before February 2018.
After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than
regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors
have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the
RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{
source check}}
(last update: 5 June 2024).
Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot ( Report bug) 21:28, 26 July 2017 (UTC)
Are there any published facts about how he avoided being drafted into the Wehrmacht from 1940 to 1945? 173.72.63.96 ( talk) 22:12, 26 September 2016 (UTC)Scott Buddenbrook
According to my copy of the 1945 U.S. War Department Handbook on German Military Forces, p.55, "In time of peace all German males were liable to military service from their 18th birthday until the 31 March following their 45th birthday. In east Prussia liability was extended until 31 March following their 55th birthday." By the end of the war liability was extended in both directions -17 (those born in 1928) to 61(the class of 1884).
— Mark Jepperson
Most of the younger boys and older men were inducted into the Volksstrum created late in the War (1944). As a last ditch effort to stave off defeat in October 1944, all males aged 16 to 60 were required to join the Volkssturm, or Home Guard. The Wehrmacht now disgraced in Hitler's eyes.
— World War II: Conscription and the Age of Soldiers, [1]
The first paragraph says that Heidegger is known for his contributions to phenomenology and existentialism. While it then goes on to state that an encyclopeadia of philosophy states that Heidegger should only be thought of in associations with such movements with extreme caution, should it not say that Heidegger denied that he was an existentialist? Vorbee ( talk) 15:14, 25 May 2017 (UTC)
He was known for a fan of
Ernst Röhm, so obviously became suspect to the regime when Röhmians were eliminated. So, the effect of the Night of the Long Knives was genuine: he knew that he could be next. So he decided to keep a low profile, but quitting NSDAP would have amounted to treason. Besides all works trying to fit Nazi racism into Heidegger's philosophical works have failed: we he did not believe that biological differences matter that much, to him race was subordinate to culture, not the other way around. I.e. what the Dutch sociologist Willem Schinkel called culture-ism. His detractors tried to paint him as a monster, since he was a NSDAP member, but belief in an ideology is not in itself a crime in a state of law. As a propagandist for the regime, they did not trust him enough to give him such role. So, yeah, being a NSDAP member was part of his biography and biography for philosophers simply means gossip stuff. He simply wasn't an ideologue of racism. He also wasn't a soldier, a camp guard or a bureaucrat (except for one year of being a rector), so he had no impact on the war or on the genocide.
Tgeorgescu (
talk)
04:02, 1 October 2018 (UTC)
I was looking at the contributions of a Lebanese IP, and noticed an edit to this page where the only purpose appeared to be the promotion of the work of Nader El-Bizri. I've removed that, and a couple of others that appeared to be the work of the same person. The page now has 23 mentions of El-Bizri. I was thinking of removing some or all of those too, but thought it best to seek consensus here before doing so. As the history of the page on him shows, El-Bizri has been the subject of a concerted effort of promotion here, and I'm concerned that the apparently excessive weight given to his views in our article are a consequence of that. As far as I can see, his published work on Heidegger has received few citations, which I interpret as only minimal interest from other academics. Do his views merit inclusion in this page, and if so, how extensively should they be covered? Thoughts? Justlettersandnumbers ( talk) 19:03, 11 March 2019 (UTC)
Removed the content about Heidegger and the Nazi Party from lead for 5 reasons; 1) the lead provides a summary of the article's contents, this content was too detailed for the lead, see MOS:LEAD; 2) it is not what Heidegger is best known for, yet takes up a substantial section of the lead, see WP:UNDUE; 3) Heidegger's affiliations with the Nazi Party are treated at length in the article and there is a whole article, Martin Heidegger and Nazism dedicated to the topic, so it does not need extensive treatment in the lead; 4) the book cited, Grondin, Jean (2012). Introduction to metaphysics: from Parmenides to Levinas. New York: Columbia University Press. ISBN 0231148445, does not contain the phrase "the inner truth and greatness of National Socialism" (seached both in Google Books and Amazon.com See Inside feature); 5) the views of Victor Farías (Heidegger and nazism. Temple University Press) are not widely accepted and cannot be taken as a reliable source (see The Farias and Faye controversies) - Epinoia ( talk) 21:10, 9 May 2019 (UTC)
I've reviewed the edits for this article. I expect that when others do this, they will understand that there is an effort by some editors to obscure Heidegger's Nazism. The result is that confusing language is used in the main text of the article and that discussion of Heidegger's Nazism is inappropriately minimized in the lead. Whatever one thinks of Heidegger's philosophy, his Nazism is an essential part of his biography. This ought to be reflected in summary in the lead and discussed in some detail in the article. Sbelknap ( talk) 17:17, 10 May 2019 (UTC)
Heidegger's membership in and public support for the Nazi Party has been the subject of widespread controversy...
...regarding the extent to which his Nazism influenced his philosophy.
Heidegger was a member and public supporter of the Nazi Party. There is controversy regarding whether his Nazism influenced his philosophy.
There is controversy over the extent to which his Nazi affiliations influenced his philosophy.
Was he a member of NSDAP? Yes, definitely. Did he write Nazi philosophy? Nope, he is the father of postmodernism, not the father of Nazism. He even had Jewish lovers. He didn't write racist philosophy, he wrote culture-ist philosophy, see #Nazi sympathies. Those who admired him in the sixties weren't the Neo-Nazis, they were ecological leftists. For Neo-fascism Julius Evola's philosophy is relevant, but Heidegger's isn't. He did not advocate killing the Jews, nor racial/ethnic purity. I have read many of his works and he nowhere appears racist or bloodthirsty. Trying to fit Nazism into his philosophy is a far-fetched interpretation, i.e. it is a subjective opinion, not a hard fact. Why is it a matter of interpretation? Because there is no smoking gun, obviously. Tgeorgescu ( talk) 13:01, 11 May 2019 (UTC)
- I do not believe there is any attempt to hide or minimize Heidegger's Nazi affiliations - to suggest otherwise is POV pushing - it is treated at length in the body of the article and there is a whole article about it, Martin Heidegger and Nazism, so it is not in any way hidden or minimized - the debate over biography and work has been ongoing for some time now - there are those who want to stress that Ezra Pound was an anti-Semite, which is true, but he was also an influential poet - it's true that Heidegger was a Nazi, but he was also an influential philosopher - the weight given to various aspects of a person's biography is decided by WP:CONSENSUS, WP:WEIGHT and WP:NPOV - as it says at WP:AXE, "Got an ax to grind? Try the hardware store, not Wikipedia. If you do want to advocate for a cause, consider starting your own blog." - Epinoia ( talk) 15:08, 11 May 2019 (UTC)
It's not even proven that Heidegger advocated for militarism, which is a necessary ingredient of fascism and Nazism. AFAIK, he wasn't obsessed with conquering France or with the thousand years Reich. He also lacked Hitler's faith in technology. Heidegger's emphasis on authenticity is not friendly to mass conformism. Tgeorgescu ( talk) 18:21, 13 May 2019 (UTC)
Heidegger's membership in and public support for the Nazi Party has been the subject of widespread controversy regarding the extent to which his Nazism influenced his philosophy.
Heidegger was a member and public supporter of the Nazi Party. There is controversy over the extent to which his Nazi affiliations influenced his philosophy.
Heidegger is a controversial figure, largely for his affiliation with Nazism, as Rector of the University of Freiburg for 11 months, before his resignation in April 1934, for which he neither apologized nor publicly expressed regret.
We have a rather daunting task ahead of us as we aim to restore a NPOV to this Heidegger article. There are so many errors and distortions, that it seems overwhelming taken as a whole. Lets do this one-by-one, and eventually we'll get there. One quite glaring distortion is the quote in the lead about Heidegger being widely acknowledged to be one of the most original and important philosophers. Note that this is a partial quotation, that chops off mid-sentence, and fails to acknowledge the full quotation, thereby radically changing the meaning of the quote compared to the cited source. Here is the full quote from the original source:
"Martin Heidegger is widely acknowledged to be one of the most original and important philosophers of the 20th century, while remaining one of the most controversial. His thinking has contributed to such diverse fields as phenomenology (Merleau-Ponty), existentialism (Sartre, Ortega y Gasset), hermeneutics (Gadamer, Ricoeur), political theory (Arendt, Marcuse, Habermas), psychology (Boss, Binswanger, Rollo May), and theology (Bultmann, Rahner, Tillich). His critique of traditional metaphysics and his opposition to positivism and technological world domination have been embraced by leading theorists of postmodernity (Derrida, Foucault, and Lyotard). On the other hand, his involvement in the Nazi movement has invoked a stormy debate. Although he never claimed that his philosophy was concerned with politics, political considerations have come to overshadow his philosophical work." Sbelknap ( talk) 03:38, 14 May 2019 (UTC)
- Re: "It is fascinating that there is a separate article on Heidegger's Nazism, as if that is some entirely separate matter that need not require full explication in his biography." - the article Martin Heidegger and Nazism is a content fork, "as an article grows, editors often create summary-style spin-offs or new, linked articles for related material. This is acceptable, and often encouraged, as a way of making articles clearer and easier to manage." - Re: "It is egregious that the lead does not mention his affairs with Hannah Arendt and Elisabeth Blochmann" - according to MOS:LEAD, "the emphasis given to material in the lead should roughly reflect its importance to the topic, according to reliable, published sources", so the deciding factor on whether or not it should be included in the lead is the weight or prominence it is given in the published sources - Re: "This article is primarily a biography of Martin Heidegger, it is not primarily a philosophical treatise!" - all articles on philosophers, thinkers, theologians, etc., contain summaries of their work and thought - Epinoia ( talk) 20:10, 16 May 2019 (UTC)
The quote in the original source is: "Martin Heidegger is widely acknowledged to be one of the most original and important philosophers of the 20th century, while remaining one of the most controversial."
The quote in the lead is truncated to: "He…is widely acknowledged to be one of the most original and important philosophers of the 20th century."
Thus, the quote in the lead emphasizes that Heidegger is a philosopher and deemphasizes that he is controversial. This violates WP:NPOV. I will add that tag to the page. Sbelknap ( talk) 17:54, 16 May 2019 (UTC)
I propose this shorter, clearer text for a new version of the first two paragraphs of the lead:
Martin Heidegger ( /ˈhaɪˌdɛɡər, ˈhaɪdɪɡər/; [1] [2] German: [ˈmaɐ̯tiːn ˈhaɪdɛɡɐ]; [3] [1] 26 September 1889 – 26 May 1976) was a German philosopher "widely acknowledged to be one of the most original and important philosophers of the 20th century while remaining one of the most controversial." [4] Heidegger was a member and public supporter of the Nazi Party. There is controversy over the degree to which his Nazi affiliations influenced his philosophy.
Heidegger is best known for his contributions to ontology, phenomenology and existentialism. His first and best known book, Being and Time (1927) is considered one of the central philosophical works of the 20th century. [5] In its first part, Heidegger addressed the fundamental question of being, proposing that the essence of being is caring, in opposition to such Rationalist thinkers as René Descartes who located the essence of man in his thinking abilities.
Heidegger also made critical contributions to philosophical conceptions of truth, arguing that its original meaning was unconcealment, to philosophical analyses of art as a site of the revelation of truth, and to philosophical understanding of language as the "house of being." [6] Heidegger's later work includes criticisms of technology's instrumentalist understanding in the Western tradition as " enframing", treating all of Nature as a "standing reserve" on call for human purposes. [7] [8] Heidegger joined the Nazi Party in May 1933, shortly after he was elected rector of the University of Freiburg and remained a member until the unconditional surrender of the European Axis powers in May 1945. After the War, in 1946, the Denazification Committee of the French occupying force convicted Heidegger because he, "in the crucial year of 1933…consciously placed the great prestige of his scholarly reputation and the distinctive art of his oratory in the service of the National Socialist Revolution…thereby doing a great deal to justify this revolution in the eyes of educated Germans." The Committee suspended him from teaching and this ban was not lifted until 1950. Heidegger never disavowed his Nazism; in his 1953 book Introduction to Metaphysics (based on lectures he gave in 1935) he retrospectively praised “the inner truth and greatness of National Socialism.” [9] [10] [11] After the Second World War, many of Heidegger's supporters and Heidegger himself promulgated the view that Heidegger became University rector and shortly afterwards joined the Nazi Party only to protect the University of Freiburg from Nazification and that he withdrew his support of Nazism in 1934 after resigning his rectorship at University of Freiburg. Despite this attempt at reputation repair, there is overwhelming evidence that he remained an active dues-paying member of the Nazi Party until the end of the war. Also, there is strong evidence that Heidegger never acknowledged the horror of Nazism, and he never made any public apology to his followers for his efforts in support of the Third Reich. [12] [13] Sbelknap ( talk) 23:34, 16 May 2019 (UTC)
- there is no attempt to obscure Heidegger's Nazism - it is mentioned in the first paragraph of the lead of the Martin Heidegger article - there is a whole section devoted to it in the article at Heidegger and the Nazi Party and it is also mentioned at The Farías debate - in addition, there is a content fork article at Martin Heidegger and Nazism where the topic is treated more fully than in the main article - in sheer number of words, his Nazism is given more ink on Wikipedia than his philosophy - Epinoia ( talk) 23:11, 17 May 2019 (UTC)
- MOS:LEAD says that the lead should have four paragraphs, so the lead should not be longer - Heidegger's Nazism is given adequate weight in the lead - if he was only a Nazi, he would have been completely forgotten - if he was only a philosopher, he would still be influential - so the major weight in the lead is his philosophy, the minor weight is his Nazism per WP:WEIGHT - his Nazism is well covered in the body of the article and elsewhere - there is no objective formula to determine appropriate weight, so we go by consensus - Epinoia ( talk) 02:06, 19 May 2019 (UTC)
References
IEP
was invoked but never defined (see the
help page).JR
was invoked but never defined (see the
help page).Should this proposed text become the new lead for the article, yes, no, or IDGAD: PiCo ( talk) 04:33, 19 May 2019 (UTC)
Just a note to other editors. In the last 24 hours Sbelknap has canvassed five editors, this adds to the edit warring and personal attacks. ----- Snowded TALK 16:58, 18 May 2019 (UTC)
The POV template may be removed whenever any one of the following is true: There is consensus on the talkpage or the NPOV Noticeboard that the issue has been resolved. It is not clear what the neutrality issue is, and no satisfactory explanation has been given. In the absence of any discussion, or if the discussion has become dormant.
However: There is no consensus on the talkpage that the issue has been resolved. It is clear what the neutrality issue is. There is active discussion on the talk page regarding the issue.
Thus, continued use of the POV tag is appropriate. Sbelknap ( talk) 16:17, 19 May 2019 (UTC)
I created a new subsection to cover the black notebooks and added some material that is clearly relevant to a biography of Heidegger. These edits and a supporting citation have now been removed by another editor. Multiple high-quality scholarly sources conclude that Heidegger's antisemitism is relevant to his philosophical work. This issue is also discussed in more accessible (but still credible) sources, such as the New Yorker, The LA review of books, and others. For example, here: [1] What is the opinion of other editors? Perhaps we could add two sections, one for the "Black Notebooks" and one for "Heiegger's Apologists"? Sbelknap ( talk) 17:16, 28 June 2019 (UTC)
References
auto1
was invoked but never defined (see the
help page).I am seeking consensus on adding the following text to description of delivery of Rektoratsrede. When I added this (with citation) it was reverted. The supporting citation is from an peer-reviewed article by a scholar with expertise in Heidegger. Here is the text I propose to add: Heidegger delivered his inaugural address, the Rektoratsrede, on "Die Selbstbehauptung der Deutschen Universität" ("The Self-assertion of the German University") on 27 May 1933. In attendance were several hundred university staff, their wives, students, and also Nazi party officials who had received invitations with the words for the Sturmabteilung anthem, the “Horst Wessel” on the back. The professors in the audience wore full academic regalia. Heidegger's address was delivered in a hall illuminated by candlelight and on a stage adorned with red and black swastikas and featuring members of the brown-uniformed Nazi paramilitary, the Sturmabteilung. [1] Sbelknap ( talk) 20:06, 29 June 2019 (UTC)
Heidegger delivered his inaugural address, the Rektoratsrede, on "Die Selbstbehauptung der Deutschen Universität" ("The Self-assertion of the German University") on 27 May 1933. The address was delivered in a hall adorned with Nazi symbols and attended by Nazi party officials and members of the Sturmabteilung in addition to university staff and students.
The hall was... attended by Nazi party officialsdoesn't quite sit right; a hall isn't something you attend. — VeryRarelyStable ( talk) 10:16, 30 June 2019 (UTC)
The hall was adorned with Nazi symbols and attended by Nazi party officials...
The hall. The word
andby itself isn't sufficient to import as subject the phrase
his inaugural addressfrom the previous sentence.
Heidegger delivered his inaugural address, the Rektoratsrede, on "Die Selbstbehauptung der Deutschen Universität" ("The Self-assertion of the German University") on 27 May 1933.
Heidegger. The subject of the sentence
The hall was adorned with Nazi symbols and attended by Nazi party officials and members of the Sturmabteilung in addition to university staff and students.
The hall. Yes, the reader can probably infer what's actually meant, and with two sentences in isolation it's not very difficult. But when these subject-complement mismatches pop up in a larger text they slow the reader down like potholes in a road. They need to be smoothed out.
I assume good faith on the part of other wikipedia editors and expect them to provide me the same courtesy. Heidegger apologists are a real phenomenon beyond wikipedia. As we are to assume good faith among editors, let us assume that wikipedia editors are consulting outdated, no longer relevant sources and are unduly influenced by the writings of Heidegger apologists, who have been prolific over the past 70 years or so. However, recent scholarship renders Heidegger apologism untenable, in the view of most scholars. This is reflected in other tertiary sources, For example from the stanford encyclopedia of philosophy, we have [2]:
"Here is not the place to enter into the historical debate over exactly what Heidegger did and when he did it. However, given his deliberate, albeit arguably short-lived, integration of Nazi ideology with the philosophy of Being (see above), a few all-too-brief comments on the relationship between Heidegger's politics and his philosophical thought are necessary. (For more detailed evidence and discussion, as well as a range of positions on how we should interpret and respond to this relationship, see e.g., Farias 1989; Neske and Kettering 1990; Ott 1993; Pattison 2000; Polt 1999; Rockmore 1992; Sluga, 1993; Wolin 1990, 1993; Young 1997). There is no doubt that Heidegger's Nazi sympathies, however long they lasted, have a more intimate relationship with his philosophical thought than might be suggested by apologist claims that he was a victim of his time (in 1933, lots of intelligent people backed Hitler without thereby supporting the Holocaust that was to come) or that what we have here is ‘merely’ a case of bad political judgment, deserving of censure but with no implications for the essentially independent philosophical programme. Why does the explanation run deeper? The answer is that Heidegger believed (indeed continued to believe until he died) that the German people were destined to carry out a monumental spiritual mission. That mission was nothing less than to be at the helm of the aforementioned transformation of Being in the West, from one of instrumental technology to one of poetic dwelling. In mounting this transformation the German people would be acting not imperialistically, but for all nations in the encounter with modern technology. Of course destining is not a fate that compels, so some divine catalyst would be needed to awake the German nation to its historic mission, a catalyst provided by the spiritual leaders of the Nazi Party." Sbelknap ( talk) 15:35, 1 July 2019 (UTC)
Proposed edit: On 27 May 1933, Heidegger delivered his inaugural address, the Rektoratsrede, on "Die Selbstbehauptung der Deutschen Universität" ("The Self-assertion of the German University") in a hall decorated with swastikas. Also in attendance were members of the Nazi paramilitary (the Sturmabteilung) and prominent Nazi Party officials who had received invitations featuring the words for the Sturmabteilung anthem, the Horst Wessel Song. [1] Sbelknap ( talk) 12:01, 2 July 2019 (UTC)
"Prominent officials" of the Nazi Party are very different than "members" of the Nazi Party. According to the wikipedia article, the Sturmabteilung was
the Nazi Party's original paramilitary. It played a significant role in Adolf Hitler's rise to power in the 1920s and 1930s. Its primary purposes were providing protection for Nazi rallies and assemblies, disrupting the meetings of opposing parties, fighting against the paramilitary units of the opposing parties, especially the Red Front Fighters League (Rotfrontkämpferbund) of the Communist Party of Germany (KPD), and intimidating Romani, trade unionists, and, especially, Jews – for instance, during the Nazi boycott of Jewish businesses.
Watering this down to "members of the Nazi Party" does not accurately represent the description in the cited source. Sbelknap ( talk) 15:10, 4 July 2019 (UTC)
References
Below I copy a section from the phenomenology page that did not really fit. It's sourced though, and since you don't have coverage here, I thought it might be incorporated. I leave the specifics to those actively involved on the page.
Cheers,
According to Heidegger, the essence of technology is the way of being of modern humans—a way of conducting themselves towards the world—that sees the world as something to be ordered and shaped in line with projects, intentions and desires—a 'will to power' that manifests itself as a 'will to technology'. [1] Heidegger claims that there were other times in human history, a pre-modern time, where humans did not orient themselves towards the world in a technological way—simply as resources for our purposes. [1]
However, according to Heidegger this 'pre-technological' age (or mood) is one where humans' relation with the world and artifacts, their way of being disposed, was poetic and aesthetic rather than technological (enframing). [1] There are many who disagree with Heidegger's account of the modern technological attitude as the 'enframing' of the world. [2] For example, Andrew Feenberg argues that Heidegger's account of modern technology is not borne out in contemporary everyday encounters with technology. [1] Patrick J. Welsh ( talk) 20:00, 26 July 2023 (UTC)