"I am not sorry for what i am about to say. If you are a supporter of Heidegger becuase "he writes good philosophy" I am sorry a philosophers exist to make people think to find beauty and truth. Not support mass genocide and twiddle your thumbs. Their are so many philosophers that took a stand against naziism such as the vienna circle, karl popper the list goes on…"

I’m going to have to disagree. Think of Frege, who was an outspoken anti-semite but seems immune to philosophical criticism for it because he worked in “logic”. How could someone so logical be so discriminatory? Heidegger’s philosophy is not immune to criticism. Even his most staunch defenders (and students) criticized his works and his affiliation with the Nazi party (see Arendt, Gadamer, Löwith, Derrida, etc.). The important task is to see what in his works is salvageable, if anything. Some of the most groundbreaking philosophers of the 20th century were Heideggerian (Derrida, Blanchot, Arendt, Levinas, even Foucault admitted his entire works stem in some way from his reading of Heidegger). One can be a reader of Heidegger and be against genocide, murder, and death. It is a disservice to the work to throw it out without even examining whether or not it is the text itself which is problematic, or if one can take what has been said by a problematic figure and transform it into something new, productive, beautiful.

Don’t know if I shared this here. When I visited SUNY Buffalo I was at a department lunch event to meet students and professors. After a few minutes of just meeting people at random, it happened that the two professors who work primarily in the Continental tradition were talking with me while everyone else was chatting. At one point this older professor tells me if my interests include Heidegger that he had something to show me, so we cross the hall to his office. On his wall he has a picture where he is seated with Heidegger, just the two of them, in Heidegger’s house. He then shows me his publications (primarily in German) and when I mention I need to brush up on my German he just looks around and grabs this little pamphlet of a paper he presented that was published in English. It tells all about his experiences learning from Gadamer and Löwith in Heidelberg. He studied in Germany after he left Korea at the start of the war. He started teaching at SUNY Buffalo about 40 years ago and speaks about 8 or 9 languages. Getting to meet with him, talk about his experiences, and read this text he gave me was definitely the best part about visiting Buffalo. 

Don’t know if I shared this here. When I visited SUNY Buffalo I was at a department lunch event to meet students and professors. After a few minutes of just meeting people at random, it happened that the two professors who work primarily in the Continental tradition were talking with me while everyone else was chatting. At one point this older professor tells me if my interests include Heidegger that he had something to show me, so we cross the hall to his office. On his wall he has a picture where he is seated with Heidegger, just the two of them, in Heidegger’s house. He then shows me his publications (primarily in German) and when I mention I need to brush up on my German he just looks around and grabs this little pamphlet of a paper he presented that was published in English. It tells all about his experiences learning from Gadamer and Löwith in Heidelberg. He studied in Germany after he left Korea at the start of the war. He started teaching at SUNY Buffalo about 40 years ago and speaks about 8 or 9 languages. Getting to meet with him, talk about his experiences, and read this text he gave me was definitely the best part about visiting Buffalo. 

WWSD: What Would Spinoza Do?: Death and meaning

corner-spinoza:

Death is something that we live with everyday. Friends die. Family die. Strangers die. And sooner or later, we die. Death is common. That is not to say, though, that our thinking on death is at all adequate, or the people generally know how to handle death. It is, in fact, possibly due to its…

The argument Heidegger makes in relation to “being-towards-death” is that we as beings are finite. A Nietzschean conception of the eternal return would assert that each moment has happened an infinite number of times before and will happen an infinite number of times more. But this does not mean that we live eternally and Heidegger’s analysis of death as that which is not to be outstripped and that is in each case our own would still be a valid critique of traditional conceptions of Being and of temporality. If anything the eternal return would strengthen Heidegger’s position by giving a mechanism through which our past informs the possibilities of our Being but simultaneously our future comes back to us. our “leaping ahead” then is merely because each moment is our own ad infinitum. But death is still a necessary part of the circle of eternal recurrence and we ought not flee from it, thus Heidegger’s assertion that we ought to have an authentic relation towards death and temporality would still be valid. 

Heidegger also does not argue that we are only Being-toward-death, we are also Being-in-the-world, Being-with, etc. But Being-toward-death is given a fair amount of primacy because of the aforementioned analysis. To be authentic, to understand our relation to the world and other Dasein we must first understand ourselves as finite, temporal Beings. 

Went back and looked at the list of paper’s at a conference I was not selected for…

though they did say I could be a discussant which I politely declined. The point being that when I went over the list I noticed a topic similar to mine. The paper was about Heidegger’s Being and Time and specifically the concept of “Being-a-Whole” which is actually a poor translation for “Being-towards-death” which was a key component of my own paper that I submitted. That is one thing but the abstract also shows the author had a fundamental misunderstanding regarding the “authentic” Being-towards-death and its relation to Dasein’s temporality and mode of “care”. This led the author to believe that there were certain paradoxes including the idea that there is an inability to actually or authentically understand our finitude. 

I have to say I am disappointed I didn’t get the opportunity to present my paper or at least respond to that one. Oh well. 

Anonymous asked
What if Heidegger was your mother?

Nah, but seriously that would be weird. For many reasons.

happyheidegger:

A chicken with its head cut off

aw, but I actually like Heidegger on temporality. ohwells. 

happyheidegger:

A chicken with its head cut off

aw, but I actually like Heidegger on temporality. ohwells. 

Dasein and Temporality

In my class on Being and Time there came a moment when on temporality we determined that the world is the horizon upon which time is able to be experienced by Dasein who is thrown in to the world, and each “moment” or “event” that is experienced communally by multiple Dasein is still a unique experience interpreted differently (temporally) because of Dasein’s unique ekstatic temporality (arising from our ownmost existence and Being-toward-death) and thus while there is the possibility of interpreting the same event because of inhabiting the same horizon, it is impossible to say temporality is the same for each Dasein. 

Crazy shit, am I right? 

Went to a lecture on “design” (in the Heideggerian sense) and politics…

and then went to a philosophy department dinner with mostly professors, grad students, and the lecturer. had a bunch of drinks, free food, and discussed everything from television shows to Heidegger, my professor’s work translating some later Heidegger texts all the way to politics. So, it was quite a good night. 

Heidegger on death and Being-towards-death is fantastic

seriously, if this shit doesn’t make you re-evaluate how you think about life and death… you are doing it wrong. 

Why is love beyond all measure of other human possibilities so rich and such a sweet burden for the one who has been struck by it? Because we change ourselves into that which we love, and yet remain ourselves. Then we would like to thank the beloved, but find nothing that would do it adequately. We can only be thankful to ourselves. Love transforms gratitude into faithfulness to ourselves and into an unconditional faith in the Other. Thus love steadily expands its most intimate secret. Closeness here is existence in the greatest distance from the other- the distance that allows nothing to dissolve - but rather presents the “thou” in the transparent, but “incomprehensible” revelation of the “just there”. That the presence of the other breaks into our own life - this is what no feeling can fully encompass. Human fate gives itself to human fate, and it is the task of pure love to keep this self-surrender as vital as on the first day.

Martin Heidegger (via bardsandsages)

happyheidegger:

thanks to: http://www.nathangilmour.com/hardly/2009/03/reflections-on-being-and-time-3-formal-morality/

happyheidegger:

thanks to: http://www.nathangilmour.com/hardly/2009/03/reflections-on-being-and-time-3-formal-morality/

When tradition thus becomes master, it does so in such a way that what it ‘transmits’ is made so inaccessible, proximally and for the most part, that it rather becomes concealed. Tradition takes what has come down to us and delivers it over to self-evidence; it blocks our access to those primordial ‘sources’ from which the categories and concepts handed down to us have been in part quite genuinely drawn. Indeed it makes us forget that they have had such an origin, and makes us suppose that the necessity of going back to these sources is something which we need not even understand.

Heidegger (via thefulcanelli-horizon)