![]() | 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 5 | ← | Archive 7 | Archive 8 | Archive 9 | Archive 10 | Archive 11 | Archive 12 |
As a result of recent edits, the second sentence of the lead currently states,
"A poll of North American college and university teachers of philosophy identified his first book, Being and Time (1927), as one of the central philosophical works of the 20th century."
That statement is inappropriate. It does not belong in the lead. It must either be reverted back to the previous version ("His first and best known book, Being and Time (1927), is regarded as one of the central philosophical works of the 20th century"), or it must be removed entirely. The purpose of the lead is to present information of enduring importance and relevance. What "A poll of North American college and university teachers of philosophy" revealed is not information of enduring importance and relevance. It is not only trivial but obviously trivial. The purpose of the change appears to be to downgrade as much as possible the importance of Being and Time by reducing the statement that it is seen as important by philosophers to as trivial and as inconsequential a form as possible. The change is a form of disruption. The lead should not contain trivial statements. Freeknowledgecreator ( talk) 23:51, 28 November 2019 (UTC)
Regarded by whom? Certainly not by everybody, or even every philosopher. ("Being and Time is regarded as one of the central works in existential philosophy of the 20th century" would not be objectionable.) "By a majority of North American philosophy teachers, as measured by a poll" helps answer that question. But without it, it misleadingly gives the impression that this "regard" is universal or at least without serious contest. That impression is false. That is my objection. — VeryRarelyStable ( talk) 01:00, 29 November 2019 (UTC)
There emphatically is something wrong with mentioning what a poll stated in the lead of what is meant to be a serious encyclopedia article. A poll, by definition, reflects opinion and has no authority; the finding of a poll is trivial information. So I utterly reject a change such as this. I believe the article should restore the wording that was there before the disruptive editing to the lead began (eg, that Being and Time is "regarded as one of the central philosophical works of the 20th century"). It could be supported by multiple citations, and the fact that it can be backed by multiple sources shows that there is absolutely no reason to present the statement as the finding of a poll. An appropriate thing to happen at this stage would be for further citations to be added, if they are thought necessary. Then, if agreement cannot be found to restore the previous wording, editors should agree on some different wording, one that does not degrade Wikipedia and embarrass it as a project by talking about opinion polls. Freeknowledgecreator ( talk) 23:04, 29 November 2019 (UTC)
Here is a proposed lead:
Martin Heidegger (/ˈhaɪdɛɡər, ˈhaɪdɪɡər/;[12][13] German: [ˈmaʁtiːn ˈhaɪdɛɡɐ];[14][12] 26 September 1889 – 26 May 1976) was a German philosopher in the Continental tradition of philosophy. Heidegger argued that a person's life experience (being-in-the-world) could not be reduced to their logical thoughts alone but instead must include their emotional experience. Heidegger's work influenced the work of the existential philosophers.
From 1928 until 1967, Heidegger was a Professor of Philosophy at the University of Freiburg; he was briefly rector of the University, though his tenure as rector was fraught with difficulties and he ultimately resigned after eleven months. He published many philosophical works, perhaps most notably, ' Being and Time' (Sein und Zeit 1927), which concerns the nature of being and the issue of authenticity. Karl Jaspers, writing in the first volume of his work Philosophy (1932), credited Heidegger as making essential points in 'Being and Time' about "being in the world" and also about "existence and historicity". [1] Heidegger argued that the original meaning of the philosophical concept of truth was unconcealment and criticized the framing of existence in terms of a technological instrumentalist understanding of mechanism and purpose.
Born in rural Meßkirch, Baden-Württemberg, he was the son of the sexton of a rural Roman Catholic parish. He studied theology at the University of Freiburg while supported by the Catholic church, later switching to philosophy. He completed his doctoral thesis on psychologism in 1914 and his thesis for qualification as a University teacher in 1916. His scholarly work was influenced by Edmund Husserl's phenomenology. For the next two years, he worked as an unsalaried Privatdozent, and then served as a soldier in the German army during the last ten months of World War I.
Heidegger's work is considered by many readers to be difficult to understand or obscure; this opinion is shared by some philosophers, particularly those from the analytic tradition of philosophy. Despite this, a poll of North American college and university teachers of philosophy identified his first book, Being and Time (1927), as one of the central philosophical works of the 20th century. [2] Heidegger was a prominent member of the Nazi Party and during his time as rector he supported the Nazification of the University of Feiburg. Due to his promotion of Nazism, Heidegger was forbidden to teach at the University of Freiburg between 1945 and 1951 when his teaching privileges were restored. Despite the urging of colleagues and friends, Heidegger never disavowed his Nazism. He only referred to his Nazism obliquely, saying "He who thinks greatly must err greatly."
Sbelknap ( talk) 23:07, 4 December 2019 (UTC)
References
Heidegger was a prominent member of the Nazi Party"? I can't even see that supported at Martin Heidegger and Nazism, let alone in the main body of the article here. Martinevans123 ( talk) 23:23, 4 December 2019 (UTC)
Heidegger was forbidden to teach at the University of Freiburg between 1945 and 1951 when his teaching privileges were restored
Heidegger was forbidden to teach at the University of Freiburg from 1945 until his teaching privileges were restored in 1951.
...and during his time as rector he supported the Nazification of the University of Freiburg; some critics argue that his Nazism deeply influenced his philosophy.
...and during his time as rector he supported the Nazification of the University of Freiburg; there is controversy over the degree to which his Nazism influenced his philosophy.
Second draft of lead, based on comments.
Martin Heidegger (/ˈhaɪdɛɡər, ˈhaɪdɪɡər/;[12][13] German: [ˈmaʁtiːn ˈhaɪdɛɡɐ];[14][12] 26 September 1889 – 26 May 1976) was a German philosopher in the Continental tradition of philosophy. Rejecting the Latinized German used by previous German philosophers, Heidegger expressed his ideas using simple German words in novel ways and building compound German words that were rarely used or were neologisms. Some of the apparent obscurity of Heidegger is due to this (what he considered essential) building of a new German vocabulary for philosophy. For example, in his early work, Being and Time (1927), Heidegger attempted to recover what he considered the fundamental philosophical question of what it means for something to be, avoiding words derived from the Latin word 'existentia' and instead using the German word Dasein ("being-there"). [3]: 193 Heidegger argued that Dasein is defined by care: a human's practically engaged and concernful mode of being-in-the-world, in opposition to such Rationalist thinkers as René Descartes, who defined human existence by a human's ability to think (e.g., 'Cogito ergo sum'). Heidegger's work influenced the work of the existential philosophers and the postmodernists.
From 1928 until 1967, Heidegger was a Professor of Philosophy at the University of Freiburg; he was briefly rector of the University, though his tenure as rector was fraught with difficulties and he ultimately resigned after eleven months. He published many philosophical works, perhaps most notably, ' Being and Time' (Sein und Zeit 1927), which concerns the nature of being and the issue of authenticity. Karl Jaspers, writing in the first volume of his work Philosophy (1932), credited Heidegger as making essential points in 'Being and Time' about "being in the world" and also about "existence and historicity". [4] Heidegger argued that the original meaning of the philosophical concept of truth was unconcealment and criticized the framing of existence in terms of a technological instrumentalist understanding of mechanism and purpose.
Born in rural Meßkirch, Baden-Württemberg, he was the son of the sexton of a rural Roman Catholic parish. He studied theology at the University of Freiburg while supported by the Catholic church, later switching to philosophy. He completed his doctoral thesis on psychologism in 1914 and his thesis for qualification as a University teacher in 1916. His scholarly work was influenced by Edmund Husserl's phenomenology. For the next two years, he worked as an unsalaried Privatdozent, and then served as a soldier in the German army during the last ten months of World War I.
Heidegger's work is considered by many readers to be difficult to understand or obscure; this opinion is shared by some philosophers, particularly those from the analytic tradition of philosophy. Despite this, a poll of North American college and university teachers of philosophy identified his first book, Being and Time (1927), as one of the central philosophical works of the 20th century. [5] Heidegger was a important, official member of the Nazi Party and during his time as rector he supported the Nazification of the University of Feiburg. Based on some comments written by Heidegger in his Black notebooks, some critics argue that his Nazism deeply influenced his philosophy, though others agree. Due to his promotion of Nazism, Heidegger was forbidden to teach at the University of Freiburg between 1945 and 1951 when his teaching privileges were restored. Despite the urging of colleagues and friends, Heidegger never disavowed his Nazism. He only referred to his Nazism obliquely, saying "He who thinks greatly must err greatly."
Sbelknap ( talk) 21:59, 5 December 2019 (UTC)
"Heidegger was a prominent member of the Nazi Party"? I still can't even see that supported at Martin Heidegger and Nazism, let alone in the main body of the article here. The lead section is meant to summarize this article. Thanks. Martinevans123 ( talk) 22:03, 5 December 2019 (UTC)
Martin Heidegger ([pronunciation guide] 26 September 1889 – 26 May 1976) was a German philosopher in the Continental tradition of philosophy. Heidegger was concerned with the question of existence – what it means for something or someone to be. Heidegger used the German term Dasein ("being-there") to denote the human experience of existence. He argued that Dasein is defined by care: a human's practically engaged and concernful mode of being-in-the-world, in opposition to such Rationalist thinkers as René Descartes, who defined human existence by a human's ability to think (e.g., "Cogito ergo sum"). Heidegger's work is a key reference point for the existential philosophers and the postmodernists.
From 1928 until 1967, Heidegger was a Professor of Philosophy at the University of Freiburg; he was briefly rector of the University, though his tenure as rector was fraught with difficulties and he ultimately resigned after eleven months. He published many philosophical works, perhaps most notably his first book, Being and Time (Sein und Zeit 1927), which concerns the nature of being and the issue of authenticity. Karl Jaspers, writing in the first volume of his work Philosophy (1932), credited Heidegger as making essential points in Being and Time about "being in the world" and also about "existence and historicity". Heidegger argued that the original meaning of the philosophical concept of truth was "unconcealment" and criticized the framing of existence in terms of a technological "instrumentalist" understanding of mechanism and purpose.
Heidegger's work is considered by many readers to be obscure or difficult to understand; this opinion is shared by some philosophers, particularly those from the analytic tradition of philosophy. Despite this, a poll of North American college and university teachers of philosophy identified Being and Time as one of the central philosophical works of the 20th century.
Heidegger was a mid-ranking member of the Nazi Party, and during his time as rector he supported the Nazification of the University of Freiburg. Based on some comments written by Heidegger in his Black notebooks, some critics argue that his Nazism deeply influenced his philosophy, though this is disputed. Due to his promotion of Nazism, Heidegger was forbidden to teach at the University of Freiburg from 1945 until his teaching privileges were restored in 1951. Despite the urging of colleagues and friends, Heidegger never disavowed his Nazism. He only referred to it obliquely, saying "He who thinks greatly must err greatly."
His work is an example of the Continental tradition of philosophy; it is considered by philosophers from the Analytic tradition to be obscure, difficult to understand or even nonsensical. Heidegger himself did not seek to be widely understood, arguing that "Making itself intelligible is suicide for philosophy." He was a member and public supporter of the Nazi Party during its tenure; some critics argue that Nazism deeply influenced his philosophy, although this is disputed. Due to his association with Nazism, Heidegger was forbidden to teach at the University of Freiburg from 1945 until his teaching privileges were restored in 1951.
@ Freeknowledgecreator "...what possible purpose do you believe noting that Heidegger's work has been considered "difficult to understand" by some philosophers serves?" The purpose of fulfilling WP:LEDE, namely: "It should identify the topic, establish context, explain why the topic is notable, and summarize the most important points, including any prominent controversies." If there is a prominent, notable and verifiable debate about (i) his comprehensibility or (ii) criticism about his comprehensibility from the Analytical school, our guidelines require us to include it in the lede. If there isn't, they don't. So are you saying there isn't? Because I really don't care per se; I only care about establishing if there is or there isn't for the purpose of achieving consensus and article stability. I agree with your point that all major philosophers are difficult to understand, so the bottom line is whether the incomprehensibility is particularly prominent or widespread in this case. On the matter of citations being inaccurate, then that's a different matter and said content should be cut immediately. - Chumchum7 ( talk) 12:51, 6 December 2019 (UTC)
Sbelknap ( talk) 22:52, 6 December 2019 (UTC)Among the most interesting topics pursued by Horkheimer and Adorno is that of the ambivalent implications of argumentation for philosophy, an issue that is performatively acted out in the dialogue itself. Both Horkheimer and Adorno recognize that there is something sinister in the undiluted hostility to argument in certain twentieth-century philosophers. "Thinking that renounces argument -- Heidegger -- switches into pure irrationalism," Adorno cautions; "the mistrust of argument is at bottom what has inspired the Husserls and the Heideggers. The diabolical aspect of it is that the abolition of argument means that their writing ends up in tautology and nonsense." (72) There is somehow a vital link, they suggest, between the imperative to argue and the imperative to turn theory into practice.
A minor issue is whether or not we should include in this biography some key info on his early life in the lede/lead. One major flaw with the current approach to Heidegger in wikipedia is that his "beautiful" philosophy is riven from his "ugly" life, so we have a separate article on Heidegger and Nazism, and relevant information in several other articles. Yet, this article is a biography! Regarding the lede, it does seem important to his development as a philosopher that Heidegger's father was a sexton of a small Catholic parish, that the Catholic church supported his study of theology at Freiburg, that his thesis was on psychologism, that he was influenced by Husserl, and that he served as a German soldier. Each of these elements is interesting in light of his professional work. I boiled this down to the following: "Born in rural Meßkirch, Baden-Württemberg, he was the son of the sexton of a rural Roman Catholic parish. He studied theology at the University of Freiburg while supported by the Catholic church, later switching to philosophy. He completed his doctoral thesis on psychologism in 1914 and his thesis for qualification as a University teacher in 1916. His scholarly work was influenced by Edmund Husserl's phenomenology. For the next two years, he worked as an unsalaried Privatdozent, and then served as a soldier in the German army during the last ten months of World War I." Thoughts? Sbelknap ( talk) 15:59, 7 December 2019 (UTC)
References
Sheehan
was invoked but never defined (see the
help page).A group of editors has done some excellent work on the wikipedia glossary for Heideggerian terminology. I've linked to this resource in the lede, but I notice that the body of the Martin Heidegger article is out of synch with and inferior to the glossary where those terms are used in the body of the article. I'm attempting to fix some of this, while focusing on the lede. I could use some input on how to adjust the use of Heideggerian terminology in the body of the Martin Heidegger article. Sbelknap ( talk) 19:42, 8 December 2019 (UTC)
Also, I'm struggling with how to (briefly) mention "the turn" in the lead. IMHO, "the turn" belongs in the lead because this arc of thought/feeling is at least as important as Heidegger's work on being-in-time, and in a sense supercedes what he wrote in Sein und Zeit. I'm having trouble reducing this to a sentence, and the confused text in the body doesn't help much. Any suggestions? Sbelknap ( talk) 19:47, 8 December 2019 (UTC)
The current draft has this truly awful sentence,
Heidegger also argued that the original meaning of the philosophical concept of truth was disclosure, to philosophical analyses of art as a site of the revelation of truth, and to philosophical understanding of language as the "house of being."
, which is notable both for being difficult to understand and for not reflecting the evolution of Heidegger's thoughts on the relationship between disclosure (Aletheia) and truth. It seems to me that the lede could be improved by simply deleting this sentence. Thoughts? Sbelknap ( talk) 19:59, 8 December 2019 (UTC)
For example, "Heidegger argued that Dasein is denoted by Sorge the German word he used to express the human experience of care or concern about Dasein." This wording is incoherent. Does this mean Dasein is Sorge is Dasein? What is this "denotation?" Aren't we missing some commas? What is the German term for this notion of "experience?" I suspect there is none. CCS81 ( talk) 20:20, 8 December 2019 (UTC)
The quote "His major work Being and Time is formidably difficult—unless it is utter nonsense, in which case it is laughably easy. I am not sure how to judge it, and have read no commentator who even begins to make sense of it"
is sourced to Jeff Collins (1998), Introducing Heidegger, Thriplow, Cambridge: Icon Books:
[3], also known by the title Heidegger for Beginners. But Collins is not a notable author and this might not be considered an authoritative source on Heidegger. Would the primary source be any better: Roger Scruton (2010), A Short History of Modern Philosophy from Descartes to Wittgenstein, London: Routledge:
[4], page 270? Another possible secondary source, available online, might be Michael Watts (2014), The Philosophy of Heidegger, London: Routledge:
[5]. Thanks.
Martinevans123 (
talk)
17:15, 6 December 2019 (UTC)
This is a recent volume in the "For Beginners" series, edited by Richard Appiganesi, which ranges from Machiavelli to Postmodernism, from Newton to Stephen Hawking, from the Enlightenment to Chaos Theory. Each book is written in comic-strip form, with endearingly inept illustrations. This may seem off-putting to the earnest autodidact; in fact, the approach works very well: the books may look unserious, but they are soundly based. The treatment of Heidegger's stubborn, extremely intricate, often impenetrable - wholly nonsensical, according to some, such as the logical positivists - philosophy is clear and, rare in treatments of this thinker, jargon-free. Heidegger is a controversial figure, not only for his philosophy but for his politics: he joined the Nazi party in 1933, and never publicly recanted his admiration for its policies. For all the difficulty of his philosophy, his concerns are always with the here-and-now, with the question of what it is to be in the world - with human being. Jeff Collins - I assume he is the author of the text - has done an admirable job of explicating the work of this profound, frequently maddening, but always exciting thinker.
Sbelknap ( talk) 19:50, 6 December 2019 (UTC)
Sbelknap ( talk) 22:16, 6 December 2019 (UTC)
I am not immediately going to revert it, but I question the merits of this edit by Sbelknap. Any explanation of Heidegger's ideas is always going to be "difficult to understand" for some people, so I doubt that "this is difficult to understand" is a valid reason for removing something. Freeknowledgecreator ( talk) 23:50, 7 December 2019 (UTC)
Here is the first sentence from the second paragraph of the lead:
"In the first part of Being and Time (1927), Heidegger attempted to turn away from "ontic" questions about beings to ontological questions about the idea of Being itself, and recover the most fundamental philosophical question: the question of Being, of what it means for something to be."
Here is a simpler version:
"In Being and Time (1927), Heidegger addressed the fundamental philosophical question of what it means for something to be."
Can we all agree that the tortured and pedantic first sentence does not belong in the lede of a wikipedia article? In terms of its *meaning* if the first sentence is OK, how exactly would the second sentence be not OK? Sbelknap ( talk) 00:37, 8 December 2019 (UTC)
Sbelknap ( talk) 01:02, 8 December 2019 (UTC)"In Being and Time (1927), Heidegger addressed the philosophical question of what it means for something to be."
@Freeknowledgecreator "...what possible purpose do you believe noting that Heidegger's work has been considered "difficult to understand" by some philosophers serves?" The purpose of fulfilling WP:LEDE, namely: "It should identify the topic, establish context, explain why the topic is notable, and summarize the most important points, including any prominent controversies." If there is a prominent, notable and verifiable debate about (i) his comprehensibility or (ii) criticism about his comprehensibility from the Analytical school, our guidelines require us to include it in the lede. If there isn't, they don't. So are you saying there isn't? Because I really don't care per se; I only care about establishing if there is or there isn't for the purpose of achieving consensus and article stability. I agree with your point that all major philosophers are difficult to understand, so the bottom line is whether the incomprehensibility is particularly prominent or widespread in this case. On the matter of citations being inaccurate, then that's a different matter and said content should be cut immediately. -Chumchum7 (talk) 12:51, 6 December 2019 (UTC)
This sentence in the lead is particularly awful:
"Heidegger approached this question through an inquiry into the being (the living human creature) that has an understanding of Being, and asks the question about that creature itself. He called the human experience of Being Dasein ("being-there")."
Here is an alternative:
"Heidegger approached this question through an inquiry into the human experience of Being. In reference to this human experience of being, Heidegger rejected the Latinate term "existential" preferring to use the German word Dasein ("being-there")."
Sbelknap ( talk) 07:18, 8 December 2019 (UTC)
(i) Yes to "In Being and Time (1927), Heidegger addressed the philosophical question of what it means for something to be.". (ii) Yes what you describe as an awful sentence really is awful. Good of you to suggest an alternative. I'd suggest go further: "Heidegger approached this question through an inquiry into the human experience of Being, which he called Dasein ("being-there")." - Chumchum7 ( talk) 07:37, 8 December 2019 (UTC)
Chumchum7, I have never altered my view that the article should not emphasize the issue of Heidegger being considered difficult to understand, as that's a pathetic issue that doesn't distinguish Heidegger at all from other major philosophers. Maybe the issue of Heidegger's writings being considered obscure would be worth exactly one sentence in the article; there's no reason for to be covered in the lead. Freeknowledgecreator ( talk) 08:56, 8 December 2019 (UTC)
Using a third-party source again. "His initial support for nazism was rooted not in anti-semitism, bus in distaste for technology and industrialised mass society, which he associated with the USA and USSR; later he regarded Nazism as an aspect of technological modernity and its 'forgetfulness of being' rather than as an abnormal excrescence" Honderick: Oxford Companion second edition pp372. This is as impecable a third party source as you can get get - its is not an online collection of essays - so I would normally just replace much of the primary source bloat but I offer it for commentary first ----- Snowded TALK 06:57, 11 December 2019 (UTC)----- Snowded TALK 06:58, 11 December 2019 (UTC)
This entry was deleted from the Young Hegelians subsection:
Martin Jay's review [1] of Theodor Adorno's and Max Horkheimer's book, 'Towards a New Manifesto' [2] states:
Among the most interesting topics pursued by Horkheimer and Adorno is that of the ambivalent implications of argumentation for philosophy, an issue that is performatively acted out in the dialogue itself. Both Horkheimer and Adorno recognize that there is something sinister in the undiluted hostility to argument in certain twentieth-century philosophers. "Thinking that renounces argument -- Heidegger -- switches into pure irrationalism," Adorno cautions; "the mistrust of argument is at bottom what has inspired the Husserls and the Heideggers. The diabolical aspect of it is that the abolition of argument means that their writing ends up in tautology and nonsense." There is somehow a vital link, they suggest, between the imperative to argue and the imperative to turn theory into practice.
References
Adorno is a prominent philosopher of the Frankfurt School. Adorno and others in the Frankfurg School were critical of Heidegger's philosophy. Here, a record of a conversation between Adorno and Horkheimer provides a statement about Heidegger's work. This edit is supported by two citations, one a book and the other a book review. This belongs in the Young Hegelians section of the Martin Heidegger article. Something must be done to stop the systematic removal from the Heidegger article of high-quality material that is critical of Heidegger. We have had and continue to have a serious POV problem. Sbelknap ( talk) 19:29, 11 December 2019 (UTC)
- there is nothing wrong with criticizing Heidegger - criticism is one of the ways in which philosophy advances - but simply to characterized Heidegger as obscure or nonsense does not help in the understanding of his philosophy - for example, if you read, "Punk rock is just noise", that would not help in understanding punk rock, but if you read, "In emphasizing the sonic aspects of music, speed, volume, distortion, etc., over the melodic elements, punk rock limits the emotional expression of music to anger and frustration", it might help in understanding punk rock, even if you disagree with it - similarly with Heidegger, we need criticism that aids in our understanding of Heidegger not simple condemnations, and the criticism needs to be given appropriate weight - Epinoia ( talk) 16:06, 12 December 2019 (UTC)
Added resignation statement of former chair of Martin Heidegger society to body; added anti-semite to the lead with citation. Sbelknap ( talk) 23:08, 12 December 2019 (UTC)
Added quote from their article Heidegger’s Radical Antisemitism by Jeff Love and Michael Meng to Contemporary European reception subsection. Sbelknap ( talk) 00:58, 13 December 2019 (UTC)
Added quote with citation of Emmanuel Faye from his book. Sbelknap ( talk) 01:27, 13 December 2019 (UTC)
The goal is to maintain a balanced and neutral perspective on the subject of Heidegger. While there is a small amount of information in this article that is critical of Heidegger, this article does not even begin to reflect the range of scholarly opinion. Those editors who subvert efforts to present a balanced view of Heidegger, including the analyses of scholars and philosophers who are critics of Heidegger, are not remaining faithful to the philosophy of wikipedia. Sbelknap ( talk) 01:30, 13 December 2019 (UTC)
Since 1945, and particularly since the facts of the "Heidegger case" became widely known in 1987, an enormous number of words have been devoted to establishing not only Heidegger's involvement with Nazism, but also that his philosophy is irredeemably discredited thereby. This book, while in no way denying the depth or seriousness of Heidegger's political involvement, challenges this tide of opinion, arguing that his philosophy is not compromised in any of its phases, and that acceptance of it is fully consistent with a deep commitment to liberal democracy.
In his book, Heidegger, the introduction of Nazism into philosophy, Emmanuel Faye argues that Heidegger’s philosophy is Nazi ideology.
“By its very content, it disseminates within philosophy the explicit and remorseless legitimation of the guiding principles of the Nazi movement.” [1]
Sbelknap ( talk) 03:45, 13 December 2019 (UTC)
References
![]() | 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 5 | ← | Archive 7 | Archive 8 | Archive 9 | Archive 10 | Archive 11 | Archive 12 |
As a result of recent edits, the second sentence of the lead currently states,
"A poll of North American college and university teachers of philosophy identified his first book, Being and Time (1927), as one of the central philosophical works of the 20th century."
That statement is inappropriate. It does not belong in the lead. It must either be reverted back to the previous version ("His first and best known book, Being and Time (1927), is regarded as one of the central philosophical works of the 20th century"), or it must be removed entirely. The purpose of the lead is to present information of enduring importance and relevance. What "A poll of North American college and university teachers of philosophy" revealed is not information of enduring importance and relevance. It is not only trivial but obviously trivial. The purpose of the change appears to be to downgrade as much as possible the importance of Being and Time by reducing the statement that it is seen as important by philosophers to as trivial and as inconsequential a form as possible. The change is a form of disruption. The lead should not contain trivial statements. Freeknowledgecreator ( talk) 23:51, 28 November 2019 (UTC)
Regarded by whom? Certainly not by everybody, or even every philosopher. ("Being and Time is regarded as one of the central works in existential philosophy of the 20th century" would not be objectionable.) "By a majority of North American philosophy teachers, as measured by a poll" helps answer that question. But without it, it misleadingly gives the impression that this "regard" is universal or at least without serious contest. That impression is false. That is my objection. — VeryRarelyStable ( talk) 01:00, 29 November 2019 (UTC)
There emphatically is something wrong with mentioning what a poll stated in the lead of what is meant to be a serious encyclopedia article. A poll, by definition, reflects opinion and has no authority; the finding of a poll is trivial information. So I utterly reject a change such as this. I believe the article should restore the wording that was there before the disruptive editing to the lead began (eg, that Being and Time is "regarded as one of the central philosophical works of the 20th century"). It could be supported by multiple citations, and the fact that it can be backed by multiple sources shows that there is absolutely no reason to present the statement as the finding of a poll. An appropriate thing to happen at this stage would be for further citations to be added, if they are thought necessary. Then, if agreement cannot be found to restore the previous wording, editors should agree on some different wording, one that does not degrade Wikipedia and embarrass it as a project by talking about opinion polls. Freeknowledgecreator ( talk) 23:04, 29 November 2019 (UTC)
Here is a proposed lead:
Martin Heidegger (/ˈhaɪdɛɡər, ˈhaɪdɪɡər/;[12][13] German: [ˈmaʁtiːn ˈhaɪdɛɡɐ];[14][12] 26 September 1889 – 26 May 1976) was a German philosopher in the Continental tradition of philosophy. Heidegger argued that a person's life experience (being-in-the-world) could not be reduced to their logical thoughts alone but instead must include their emotional experience. Heidegger's work influenced the work of the existential philosophers.
From 1928 until 1967, Heidegger was a Professor of Philosophy at the University of Freiburg; he was briefly rector of the University, though his tenure as rector was fraught with difficulties and he ultimately resigned after eleven months. He published many philosophical works, perhaps most notably, ' Being and Time' (Sein und Zeit 1927), which concerns the nature of being and the issue of authenticity. Karl Jaspers, writing in the first volume of his work Philosophy (1932), credited Heidegger as making essential points in 'Being and Time' about "being in the world" and also about "existence and historicity". [1] Heidegger argued that the original meaning of the philosophical concept of truth was unconcealment and criticized the framing of existence in terms of a technological instrumentalist understanding of mechanism and purpose.
Born in rural Meßkirch, Baden-Württemberg, he was the son of the sexton of a rural Roman Catholic parish. He studied theology at the University of Freiburg while supported by the Catholic church, later switching to philosophy. He completed his doctoral thesis on psychologism in 1914 and his thesis for qualification as a University teacher in 1916. His scholarly work was influenced by Edmund Husserl's phenomenology. For the next two years, he worked as an unsalaried Privatdozent, and then served as a soldier in the German army during the last ten months of World War I.
Heidegger's work is considered by many readers to be difficult to understand or obscure; this opinion is shared by some philosophers, particularly those from the analytic tradition of philosophy. Despite this, a poll of North American college and university teachers of philosophy identified his first book, Being and Time (1927), as one of the central philosophical works of the 20th century. [2] Heidegger was a prominent member of the Nazi Party and during his time as rector he supported the Nazification of the University of Feiburg. Due to his promotion of Nazism, Heidegger was forbidden to teach at the University of Freiburg between 1945 and 1951 when his teaching privileges were restored. Despite the urging of colleagues and friends, Heidegger never disavowed his Nazism. He only referred to his Nazism obliquely, saying "He who thinks greatly must err greatly."
Sbelknap ( talk) 23:07, 4 December 2019 (UTC)
References
Heidegger was a prominent member of the Nazi Party"? I can't even see that supported at Martin Heidegger and Nazism, let alone in the main body of the article here. Martinevans123 ( talk) 23:23, 4 December 2019 (UTC)
Heidegger was forbidden to teach at the University of Freiburg between 1945 and 1951 when his teaching privileges were restored
Heidegger was forbidden to teach at the University of Freiburg from 1945 until his teaching privileges were restored in 1951.
...and during his time as rector he supported the Nazification of the University of Freiburg; some critics argue that his Nazism deeply influenced his philosophy.
...and during his time as rector he supported the Nazification of the University of Freiburg; there is controversy over the degree to which his Nazism influenced his philosophy.
Second draft of lead, based on comments.
Martin Heidegger (/ˈhaɪdɛɡər, ˈhaɪdɪɡər/;[12][13] German: [ˈmaʁtiːn ˈhaɪdɛɡɐ];[14][12] 26 September 1889 – 26 May 1976) was a German philosopher in the Continental tradition of philosophy. Rejecting the Latinized German used by previous German philosophers, Heidegger expressed his ideas using simple German words in novel ways and building compound German words that were rarely used or were neologisms. Some of the apparent obscurity of Heidegger is due to this (what he considered essential) building of a new German vocabulary for philosophy. For example, in his early work, Being and Time (1927), Heidegger attempted to recover what he considered the fundamental philosophical question of what it means for something to be, avoiding words derived from the Latin word 'existentia' and instead using the German word Dasein ("being-there"). [3]: 193 Heidegger argued that Dasein is defined by care: a human's practically engaged and concernful mode of being-in-the-world, in opposition to such Rationalist thinkers as René Descartes, who defined human existence by a human's ability to think (e.g., 'Cogito ergo sum'). Heidegger's work influenced the work of the existential philosophers and the postmodernists.
From 1928 until 1967, Heidegger was a Professor of Philosophy at the University of Freiburg; he was briefly rector of the University, though his tenure as rector was fraught with difficulties and he ultimately resigned after eleven months. He published many philosophical works, perhaps most notably, ' Being and Time' (Sein und Zeit 1927), which concerns the nature of being and the issue of authenticity. Karl Jaspers, writing in the first volume of his work Philosophy (1932), credited Heidegger as making essential points in 'Being and Time' about "being in the world" and also about "existence and historicity". [4] Heidegger argued that the original meaning of the philosophical concept of truth was unconcealment and criticized the framing of existence in terms of a technological instrumentalist understanding of mechanism and purpose.
Born in rural Meßkirch, Baden-Württemberg, he was the son of the sexton of a rural Roman Catholic parish. He studied theology at the University of Freiburg while supported by the Catholic church, later switching to philosophy. He completed his doctoral thesis on psychologism in 1914 and his thesis for qualification as a University teacher in 1916. His scholarly work was influenced by Edmund Husserl's phenomenology. For the next two years, he worked as an unsalaried Privatdozent, and then served as a soldier in the German army during the last ten months of World War I.
Heidegger's work is considered by many readers to be difficult to understand or obscure; this opinion is shared by some philosophers, particularly those from the analytic tradition of philosophy. Despite this, a poll of North American college and university teachers of philosophy identified his first book, Being and Time (1927), as one of the central philosophical works of the 20th century. [5] Heidegger was a important, official member of the Nazi Party and during his time as rector he supported the Nazification of the University of Feiburg. Based on some comments written by Heidegger in his Black notebooks, some critics argue that his Nazism deeply influenced his philosophy, though others agree. Due to his promotion of Nazism, Heidegger was forbidden to teach at the University of Freiburg between 1945 and 1951 when his teaching privileges were restored. Despite the urging of colleagues and friends, Heidegger never disavowed his Nazism. He only referred to his Nazism obliquely, saying "He who thinks greatly must err greatly."
Sbelknap ( talk) 21:59, 5 December 2019 (UTC)
"Heidegger was a prominent member of the Nazi Party"? I still can't even see that supported at Martin Heidegger and Nazism, let alone in the main body of the article here. The lead section is meant to summarize this article. Thanks. Martinevans123 ( talk) 22:03, 5 December 2019 (UTC)
Martin Heidegger ([pronunciation guide] 26 September 1889 – 26 May 1976) was a German philosopher in the Continental tradition of philosophy. Heidegger was concerned with the question of existence – what it means for something or someone to be. Heidegger used the German term Dasein ("being-there") to denote the human experience of existence. He argued that Dasein is defined by care: a human's practically engaged and concernful mode of being-in-the-world, in opposition to such Rationalist thinkers as René Descartes, who defined human existence by a human's ability to think (e.g., "Cogito ergo sum"). Heidegger's work is a key reference point for the existential philosophers and the postmodernists.
From 1928 until 1967, Heidegger was a Professor of Philosophy at the University of Freiburg; he was briefly rector of the University, though his tenure as rector was fraught with difficulties and he ultimately resigned after eleven months. He published many philosophical works, perhaps most notably his first book, Being and Time (Sein und Zeit 1927), which concerns the nature of being and the issue of authenticity. Karl Jaspers, writing in the first volume of his work Philosophy (1932), credited Heidegger as making essential points in Being and Time about "being in the world" and also about "existence and historicity". Heidegger argued that the original meaning of the philosophical concept of truth was "unconcealment" and criticized the framing of existence in terms of a technological "instrumentalist" understanding of mechanism and purpose.
Heidegger's work is considered by many readers to be obscure or difficult to understand; this opinion is shared by some philosophers, particularly those from the analytic tradition of philosophy. Despite this, a poll of North American college and university teachers of philosophy identified Being and Time as one of the central philosophical works of the 20th century.
Heidegger was a mid-ranking member of the Nazi Party, and during his time as rector he supported the Nazification of the University of Freiburg. Based on some comments written by Heidegger in his Black notebooks, some critics argue that his Nazism deeply influenced his philosophy, though this is disputed. Due to his promotion of Nazism, Heidegger was forbidden to teach at the University of Freiburg from 1945 until his teaching privileges were restored in 1951. Despite the urging of colleagues and friends, Heidegger never disavowed his Nazism. He only referred to it obliquely, saying "He who thinks greatly must err greatly."
His work is an example of the Continental tradition of philosophy; it is considered by philosophers from the Analytic tradition to be obscure, difficult to understand or even nonsensical. Heidegger himself did not seek to be widely understood, arguing that "Making itself intelligible is suicide for philosophy." He was a member and public supporter of the Nazi Party during its tenure; some critics argue that Nazism deeply influenced his philosophy, although this is disputed. Due to his association with Nazism, Heidegger was forbidden to teach at the University of Freiburg from 1945 until his teaching privileges were restored in 1951.
@ Freeknowledgecreator "...what possible purpose do you believe noting that Heidegger's work has been considered "difficult to understand" by some philosophers serves?" The purpose of fulfilling WP:LEDE, namely: "It should identify the topic, establish context, explain why the topic is notable, and summarize the most important points, including any prominent controversies." If there is a prominent, notable and verifiable debate about (i) his comprehensibility or (ii) criticism about his comprehensibility from the Analytical school, our guidelines require us to include it in the lede. If there isn't, they don't. So are you saying there isn't? Because I really don't care per se; I only care about establishing if there is or there isn't for the purpose of achieving consensus and article stability. I agree with your point that all major philosophers are difficult to understand, so the bottom line is whether the incomprehensibility is particularly prominent or widespread in this case. On the matter of citations being inaccurate, then that's a different matter and said content should be cut immediately. - Chumchum7 ( talk) 12:51, 6 December 2019 (UTC)
Sbelknap ( talk) 22:52, 6 December 2019 (UTC)Among the most interesting topics pursued by Horkheimer and Adorno is that of the ambivalent implications of argumentation for philosophy, an issue that is performatively acted out in the dialogue itself. Both Horkheimer and Adorno recognize that there is something sinister in the undiluted hostility to argument in certain twentieth-century philosophers. "Thinking that renounces argument -- Heidegger -- switches into pure irrationalism," Adorno cautions; "the mistrust of argument is at bottom what has inspired the Husserls and the Heideggers. The diabolical aspect of it is that the abolition of argument means that their writing ends up in tautology and nonsense." (72) There is somehow a vital link, they suggest, between the imperative to argue and the imperative to turn theory into practice.
A minor issue is whether or not we should include in this biography some key info on his early life in the lede/lead. One major flaw with the current approach to Heidegger in wikipedia is that his "beautiful" philosophy is riven from his "ugly" life, so we have a separate article on Heidegger and Nazism, and relevant information in several other articles. Yet, this article is a biography! Regarding the lede, it does seem important to his development as a philosopher that Heidegger's father was a sexton of a small Catholic parish, that the Catholic church supported his study of theology at Freiburg, that his thesis was on psychologism, that he was influenced by Husserl, and that he served as a German soldier. Each of these elements is interesting in light of his professional work. I boiled this down to the following: "Born in rural Meßkirch, Baden-Württemberg, he was the son of the sexton of a rural Roman Catholic parish. He studied theology at the University of Freiburg while supported by the Catholic church, later switching to philosophy. He completed his doctoral thesis on psychologism in 1914 and his thesis for qualification as a University teacher in 1916. His scholarly work was influenced by Edmund Husserl's phenomenology. For the next two years, he worked as an unsalaried Privatdozent, and then served as a soldier in the German army during the last ten months of World War I." Thoughts? Sbelknap ( talk) 15:59, 7 December 2019 (UTC)
References
Sheehan
was invoked but never defined (see the
help page).A group of editors has done some excellent work on the wikipedia glossary for Heideggerian terminology. I've linked to this resource in the lede, but I notice that the body of the Martin Heidegger article is out of synch with and inferior to the glossary where those terms are used in the body of the article. I'm attempting to fix some of this, while focusing on the lede. I could use some input on how to adjust the use of Heideggerian terminology in the body of the Martin Heidegger article. Sbelknap ( talk) 19:42, 8 December 2019 (UTC)
Also, I'm struggling with how to (briefly) mention "the turn" in the lead. IMHO, "the turn" belongs in the lead because this arc of thought/feeling is at least as important as Heidegger's work on being-in-time, and in a sense supercedes what he wrote in Sein und Zeit. I'm having trouble reducing this to a sentence, and the confused text in the body doesn't help much. Any suggestions? Sbelknap ( talk) 19:47, 8 December 2019 (UTC)
The current draft has this truly awful sentence,
Heidegger also argued that the original meaning of the philosophical concept of truth was disclosure, to philosophical analyses of art as a site of the revelation of truth, and to philosophical understanding of language as the "house of being."
, which is notable both for being difficult to understand and for not reflecting the evolution of Heidegger's thoughts on the relationship between disclosure (Aletheia) and truth. It seems to me that the lede could be improved by simply deleting this sentence. Thoughts? Sbelknap ( talk) 19:59, 8 December 2019 (UTC)
For example, "Heidegger argued that Dasein is denoted by Sorge the German word he used to express the human experience of care or concern about Dasein." This wording is incoherent. Does this mean Dasein is Sorge is Dasein? What is this "denotation?" Aren't we missing some commas? What is the German term for this notion of "experience?" I suspect there is none. CCS81 ( talk) 20:20, 8 December 2019 (UTC)
The quote "His major work Being and Time is formidably difficult—unless it is utter nonsense, in which case it is laughably easy. I am not sure how to judge it, and have read no commentator who even begins to make sense of it"
is sourced to Jeff Collins (1998), Introducing Heidegger, Thriplow, Cambridge: Icon Books:
[3], also known by the title Heidegger for Beginners. But Collins is not a notable author and this might not be considered an authoritative source on Heidegger. Would the primary source be any better: Roger Scruton (2010), A Short History of Modern Philosophy from Descartes to Wittgenstein, London: Routledge:
[4], page 270? Another possible secondary source, available online, might be Michael Watts (2014), The Philosophy of Heidegger, London: Routledge:
[5]. Thanks.
Martinevans123 (
talk)
17:15, 6 December 2019 (UTC)
This is a recent volume in the "For Beginners" series, edited by Richard Appiganesi, which ranges from Machiavelli to Postmodernism, from Newton to Stephen Hawking, from the Enlightenment to Chaos Theory. Each book is written in comic-strip form, with endearingly inept illustrations. This may seem off-putting to the earnest autodidact; in fact, the approach works very well: the books may look unserious, but they are soundly based. The treatment of Heidegger's stubborn, extremely intricate, often impenetrable - wholly nonsensical, according to some, such as the logical positivists - philosophy is clear and, rare in treatments of this thinker, jargon-free. Heidegger is a controversial figure, not only for his philosophy but for his politics: he joined the Nazi party in 1933, and never publicly recanted his admiration for its policies. For all the difficulty of his philosophy, his concerns are always with the here-and-now, with the question of what it is to be in the world - with human being. Jeff Collins - I assume he is the author of the text - has done an admirable job of explicating the work of this profound, frequently maddening, but always exciting thinker.
Sbelknap ( talk) 19:50, 6 December 2019 (UTC)
Sbelknap ( talk) 22:16, 6 December 2019 (UTC)
I am not immediately going to revert it, but I question the merits of this edit by Sbelknap. Any explanation of Heidegger's ideas is always going to be "difficult to understand" for some people, so I doubt that "this is difficult to understand" is a valid reason for removing something. Freeknowledgecreator ( talk) 23:50, 7 December 2019 (UTC)
Here is the first sentence from the second paragraph of the lead:
"In the first part of Being and Time (1927), Heidegger attempted to turn away from "ontic" questions about beings to ontological questions about the idea of Being itself, and recover the most fundamental philosophical question: the question of Being, of what it means for something to be."
Here is a simpler version:
"In Being and Time (1927), Heidegger addressed the fundamental philosophical question of what it means for something to be."
Can we all agree that the tortured and pedantic first sentence does not belong in the lede of a wikipedia article? In terms of its *meaning* if the first sentence is OK, how exactly would the second sentence be not OK? Sbelknap ( talk) 00:37, 8 December 2019 (UTC)
Sbelknap ( talk) 01:02, 8 December 2019 (UTC)"In Being and Time (1927), Heidegger addressed the philosophical question of what it means for something to be."
@Freeknowledgecreator "...what possible purpose do you believe noting that Heidegger's work has been considered "difficult to understand" by some philosophers serves?" The purpose of fulfilling WP:LEDE, namely: "It should identify the topic, establish context, explain why the topic is notable, and summarize the most important points, including any prominent controversies." If there is a prominent, notable and verifiable debate about (i) his comprehensibility or (ii) criticism about his comprehensibility from the Analytical school, our guidelines require us to include it in the lede. If there isn't, they don't. So are you saying there isn't? Because I really don't care per se; I only care about establishing if there is or there isn't for the purpose of achieving consensus and article stability. I agree with your point that all major philosophers are difficult to understand, so the bottom line is whether the incomprehensibility is particularly prominent or widespread in this case. On the matter of citations being inaccurate, then that's a different matter and said content should be cut immediately. -Chumchum7 (talk) 12:51, 6 December 2019 (UTC)
This sentence in the lead is particularly awful:
"Heidegger approached this question through an inquiry into the being (the living human creature) that has an understanding of Being, and asks the question about that creature itself. He called the human experience of Being Dasein ("being-there")."
Here is an alternative:
"Heidegger approached this question through an inquiry into the human experience of Being. In reference to this human experience of being, Heidegger rejected the Latinate term "existential" preferring to use the German word Dasein ("being-there")."
Sbelknap ( talk) 07:18, 8 December 2019 (UTC)
(i) Yes to "In Being and Time (1927), Heidegger addressed the philosophical question of what it means for something to be.". (ii) Yes what you describe as an awful sentence really is awful. Good of you to suggest an alternative. I'd suggest go further: "Heidegger approached this question through an inquiry into the human experience of Being, which he called Dasein ("being-there")." - Chumchum7 ( talk) 07:37, 8 December 2019 (UTC)
Chumchum7, I have never altered my view that the article should not emphasize the issue of Heidegger being considered difficult to understand, as that's a pathetic issue that doesn't distinguish Heidegger at all from other major philosophers. Maybe the issue of Heidegger's writings being considered obscure would be worth exactly one sentence in the article; there's no reason for to be covered in the lead. Freeknowledgecreator ( talk) 08:56, 8 December 2019 (UTC)
Using a third-party source again. "His initial support for nazism was rooted not in anti-semitism, bus in distaste for technology and industrialised mass society, which he associated with the USA and USSR; later he regarded Nazism as an aspect of technological modernity and its 'forgetfulness of being' rather than as an abnormal excrescence" Honderick: Oxford Companion second edition pp372. This is as impecable a third party source as you can get get - its is not an online collection of essays - so I would normally just replace much of the primary source bloat but I offer it for commentary first ----- Snowded TALK 06:57, 11 December 2019 (UTC)----- Snowded TALK 06:58, 11 December 2019 (UTC)
This entry was deleted from the Young Hegelians subsection:
Martin Jay's review [1] of Theodor Adorno's and Max Horkheimer's book, 'Towards a New Manifesto' [2] states:
Among the most interesting topics pursued by Horkheimer and Adorno is that of the ambivalent implications of argumentation for philosophy, an issue that is performatively acted out in the dialogue itself. Both Horkheimer and Adorno recognize that there is something sinister in the undiluted hostility to argument in certain twentieth-century philosophers. "Thinking that renounces argument -- Heidegger -- switches into pure irrationalism," Adorno cautions; "the mistrust of argument is at bottom what has inspired the Husserls and the Heideggers. The diabolical aspect of it is that the abolition of argument means that their writing ends up in tautology and nonsense." There is somehow a vital link, they suggest, between the imperative to argue and the imperative to turn theory into practice.
References
Adorno is a prominent philosopher of the Frankfurt School. Adorno and others in the Frankfurg School were critical of Heidegger's philosophy. Here, a record of a conversation between Adorno and Horkheimer provides a statement about Heidegger's work. This edit is supported by two citations, one a book and the other a book review. This belongs in the Young Hegelians section of the Martin Heidegger article. Something must be done to stop the systematic removal from the Heidegger article of high-quality material that is critical of Heidegger. We have had and continue to have a serious POV problem. Sbelknap ( talk) 19:29, 11 December 2019 (UTC)
- there is nothing wrong with criticizing Heidegger - criticism is one of the ways in which philosophy advances - but simply to characterized Heidegger as obscure or nonsense does not help in the understanding of his philosophy - for example, if you read, "Punk rock is just noise", that would not help in understanding punk rock, but if you read, "In emphasizing the sonic aspects of music, speed, volume, distortion, etc., over the melodic elements, punk rock limits the emotional expression of music to anger and frustration", it might help in understanding punk rock, even if you disagree with it - similarly with Heidegger, we need criticism that aids in our understanding of Heidegger not simple condemnations, and the criticism needs to be given appropriate weight - Epinoia ( talk) 16:06, 12 December 2019 (UTC)
Added resignation statement of former chair of Martin Heidegger society to body; added anti-semite to the lead with citation. Sbelknap ( talk) 23:08, 12 December 2019 (UTC)
Added quote from their article Heidegger’s Radical Antisemitism by Jeff Love and Michael Meng to Contemporary European reception subsection. Sbelknap ( talk) 00:58, 13 December 2019 (UTC)
Added quote with citation of Emmanuel Faye from his book. Sbelknap ( talk) 01:27, 13 December 2019 (UTC)
The goal is to maintain a balanced and neutral perspective on the subject of Heidegger. While there is a small amount of information in this article that is critical of Heidegger, this article does not even begin to reflect the range of scholarly opinion. Those editors who subvert efforts to present a balanced view of Heidegger, including the analyses of scholars and philosophers who are critics of Heidegger, are not remaining faithful to the philosophy of wikipedia. Sbelknap ( talk) 01:30, 13 December 2019 (UTC)
Since 1945, and particularly since the facts of the "Heidegger case" became widely known in 1987, an enormous number of words have been devoted to establishing not only Heidegger's involvement with Nazism, but also that his philosophy is irredeemably discredited thereby. This book, while in no way denying the depth or seriousness of Heidegger's political involvement, challenges this tide of opinion, arguing that his philosophy is not compromised in any of its phases, and that acceptance of it is fully consistent with a deep commitment to liberal democracy.
In his book, Heidegger, the introduction of Nazism into philosophy, Emmanuel Faye argues that Heidegger’s philosophy is Nazi ideology.
“By its very content, it disseminates within philosophy the explicit and remorseless legitimation of the guiding principles of the Nazi movement.” [1]
Sbelknap ( talk) 03:45, 13 December 2019 (UTC)
References