Heidegger life and Philosophy 3 of 6

[zarakhast]

God, there are some dense people who choose to involve themselves in philosophy - and I include both "ordinary" people and philosophy students and lecturers and professors.

"Ethics" is very far from being the whole of philosophy. Philosophy in the first place DECIDES ethics, i.e. what is "right" and "wrong". It does so on the basis of more fundamental principles, i.e. meta-physical principles. Anyone who can't understand this (including scientists) is a bit of a moron.

[Contextcatcher]

@zarakhast "In setting forth everyday being-towards-death, we must take our orientation from those structures of everydayness at which we have earlier arrived. In Being-towards-death, Dasein comports itself towards itself as a distinctive potentiality-for-Being. But the Self of everydayness is the “they. The “they’ is constituted by the way things have been publicly interpreted, which expresses itself in idle talk". (Being and Time part 51) . Meta-Physical-Being-Is-Ethical­-Towards-Meaningless...

[zarakhast]

@Contextcatc The ultimate and only being-towards is the being-towards-death (since this is inevitable). This (death) is what love must always fight against, what it always finds itself in conflict with. How can one love what one is bound (by necessity) to lose ? Love, it seems, is the loser already. In fact it seems pointless, even something invented. What is the point in loving anything, whether it be a person or an abstraction or a deity or oneself or whatever, if love has to be annihilated ?

[Contextcatcher]

"being in our world means being diferent". This was my own bad translation. The official translation by C W Wedgwood of Canetti's novel is:

"since to be in our world means to be different" page 402

Ironical: a translation isn't a precise copy of the original it always differ.

Word metamorphosis is crucial in Canetti's piece de resistance "Masse und Macht" (Crowds and Power). Title is striking short as "Sein und Zeit". But dense of associated ideas his style is startling clear...

[DerrenBrown100]

"Why are there beings at all, instead of Nothing?" Heidegger. What an ignorant quote.

[southernCal909]

@DerrenBrown100...No not truly. Look at the simple presentation of our universe. We "Matter," this includes everything in your presence, is only .04%.....Dark Energy takes up 74% of our universe.

[Contextcatcher]

"...being in our world means being different..." *

I read "Being and Time". It intrigued me but it also irritated me: he made a prison of language and it takes a lot of effort to overcome his dense style. He saw himself as The Philosopher who knew the core of life. But out of his private study and his academic kingdom he was blind for power like many 'fellow travellers' before and after him. Only great novels can show us these problem, like Canetti's "Auto da Fe' * in german: "Die Blendung".

[Contextcatcher]

@Contextcatcher eh.. different?....show us THIS problem...

[JCotton648]

I'm reading a comment here that says it does not matter at all that this expert in ethics was a nazi. ethics = nazism? "Ethics" means the "right way to behave, think, etc." If an expert in a particular topic is not fully a master of that topic, I think it is a noteworthy fact.

[zarakhast]

But what can all this talk of tragedy mean to someone who has not yet experienced himself as eternal ? This is where the fundamental question of metaphysics ("Why is there not nothing ?") reasserts its importance. What Heidegger says about the "nihilation of Nothing" in this essay is not something to be ignored or discounted or mocked. Actually this phrase contains the greatest insight ever achieved. The connection between this thought and the experience of "dread" is not merely incidental.

[zarakhast]

But what "causes" transiency (beings) if not permanence (Being, eternity) ? The "blame" obviously lies with eternity then ? This is true, but the thinker, knowing himself to be inevitably bound up with - and in a sense identical with - eternity, takes this "blame" upon himself. In other words, he annihilates the difference and takes responsibility. This thought is repulsive to the "individual" (i.e. to the "ego").

[zarakhast]

According to Nietzsche (in Heidegger's interpretation) the tragedy is not eternity (Being) but transiency (Becoming). So what SUFFERS in the tragic view of Heidegger / Nietzsche is eternity (i.e. Being) and not the being, i.e. the individual. The tragedy is not "ours" but eternity's. Moreover, WE, as transients in eternity, CAUSE such suffering - simply by "intruding" into eternity.

[zarakhast]

Philosophy has to do with eternity. There are no "temporal / temporary" tragedies for philosophy. Tragedy is not something which can be altered or rectified but is necessary and ineluctable. Philosophy, as Plato (Socrates) always maintained, is about death and the eternal.

[zarakhast]

Why is Heidegger's thought "tragic" ? He tells us the answer to this in his lectures on Nietzsche but it pervades his thought in all of his works. What, or for whom, is tragedy a tragedy ? The answer (given in the lectures) is ambiguous : it is the "tragedy of beings". Does this mean that beings themselves are tragic from the point of view of Being ? Does Being suffer beings ? Or is Being a tragedy for (from the point of view of) beings ? What suffers here and why ? What causes the suffering ?

[zarakhast]

Is sleep (nothing) possible - permanently ? If it had been then why isn't it now ? Will it be possible in the future ? Many people live their lives in the expectation of nothing (total extinction, body and soul) after death. But is this really a sane assumption, given that we are really existing now ? The philosophers have said time and time again that it is impossible to make nothing out of something. But what about the reverse possibility - that something might come out of nothing ?

[zarakhast]

Why is the whole of humanity so intent on LYING ? Do you think you can actually get away with lying TO YOURSELVES ? When death comes along, all human agreements are annulled. This will all have been irrelevant if you just "go to sleep" when you die. But if that is the case then why fear death in the first place ? Sleep is wonderful ! Sleep is enjoyable ! Why not just all kill ourselves now ? But perhaps we don't just "go to sleep" ? Let's see whether that's the case then.

[zarakhast]

The question which haunts genuine philosophy is simple : why not nothing ? We are looking for a simple explanation as to why nothing is not here. Ever since we found ourselves here we have been wondering "why ?", for we cannot find a reason. And then someone comes along who knows the answer and what do we do ? We revile him, call him "evil". We even change our definitions of "good" and "evil" to suit our purposes, once we have recoiled at the answer. Humanity is pitiful.

[zarakhast]

Another thing to consider when our "impartial" journalists go over to interview former colleagues, friends, relatives, neighbours, schoolmates etc. of Heidegger : we all know what happens now to those who fought for the Nazis in WWII. So is it any surprise that everyone else who was previously associated with both H. and the Nazi movement will say what the journalist wants them to say ? Politics is truly something disgusting. The first casualty of war is truth. Politics is war.

[zarakhast]

Heidegger + the Nazis = possibly the most unfortunate chance event which has ever happened. Just as the most profound thinker enters the scene, the Nazis, too, enter the scene. The stain of his involvement with them will almost certainly grant a licence to the old world order to prevail for longer than it would have done otherwise, by leading people away from his thought - by which alone the rot could have been stopped.

[zarakhast]

Heidegger + the Nazis = a chance event. If Heidegger saw in the NSP a way to achieving quickly the world-conditions in which his thought might afterwards (after the victory) be able to flourish and grow (slowly), then that was a risk he took. Perhaps this appalls you ? It appalls me, but his thought does not appall me. Does anyone really understand what is happening in this sorry world, ruled by technology ?

[zarakhast]

Heidegger came to the conclusion that political action would be futile for as long as the basic way-of-being (and thinking) prevailed. Even if the NSP had prevailed, would that have necessarily brought about a spiritual transformation of man ? No, not if the old thought, in essence, continued to prevail along with it.

So the task now is merely to learn to think (essentially). Eternity is at stake, not some silly "psychological" considerations, as the rest of this video would have you believe.

[zarakhast]

Gadamer clearly didn't understand Heidegger truly, despite being one of his best students. The truth is that WWII was a (perhaps) one-off opportunity to get rid of the prevailing world-order. There was no reason for Gadamer to be shocked if Heidegger indeed saw it as such. Sometimes you have to do evil to good in the long run.

I don't like the methods the Nazis used but this world-order (which still prevails) needs to go. But how, if not by violence ?

[zarakhast]

3:14 "but within a few years he would tarnish his reputation forever by embarking on a calamitous political adventure"

"Forever" ? Are you sure about that ?

What choice did he - or any German - have at the time ?

What makes people think that it wasn't the right choice anyway, if it was a choice ?

Is this BBC impartiality ? Sorry, BBC, you have slipped in your standards. Also, you have (uncharacteristically) failed explore this vexed question in anywhere near enough depth.

[zarakhast]

Modern psychology, bereft of foresight, interprets individuals (and collectives) retrospectively. Every time a serial killer turns up they are able to (somewhat tardily) give us an account of this individual's life, his character and how and why it was that they committed their crimes. It is the same where Heidegger is concerned and it was the same with Nietzsche. They never understand the individual at the time but always afterwards. Clap clap modern psychology.

[zarakhast]

Politics really doesn't enter into where philosophy is concerned. If a philosopher later became embroiled in politics then that is an anomaly and if you are honest you ought to at least accept the possibility that the association between philosopher and political movement is dubious. The interpretations of what lay behind Heidegger's "motives" in this video are VERY dubious.

[zarakhast]

Heidegger's thought points beyond any of today's cherished political ideologies. It does not even pretend to serve as a basis for any future ideology. It simply wants us to experience, as far as each one of us can bear, what we are : beings in Being. To even understand what this might mean we have to engage ourselves in the QUESTION of what Being means. It is not a political question, either overtly or covertly. There is no "secret political agenda" here.

[zarakhast]

Heidegger's statement about Nietzsche (I paraphrase) : "My sole aim is to bring to a full unfolding the accomplishment of Friedrich Nietzsche".

Nietzsche was decidedly NOT an anti-Semitist. His sister's husband (an anti-Semitist) was loathsome to him for this very reason, though he continued to love his sister and indeed his fellow man in general.

Heidegger addresses this subject in his lectures on Nietzsche. Read them before you pass judgment.

[zarakhast]

To equate Heidegger's thought and Hitler's ramblings is the sign of a very careless thinker. Whether Heidegger sympathised in some measure with the "philosophy" of the NSP is an interesting question but in the grand scheme of things not a very important one. You really ought to cast all your prejudices aside and immerse yourself in philosophy proper - which has no truck whatsoever with "politics". If you can't see this then you are destined never to know anything worthwhile.

[zthetha]

"He didn't need Hitler to be anti-Semitic - he had that already!" If he really thought Hitler was going to return Germany to his own idyllic notion of a rural paradise (little more than an escape from reality) he was far too naive to be a philosopher. And if he didn't care about the Nazi's mass genocide he was too callous to call himself a human being.

[alkaline71]

Part Three: still waiting for philosophy.

[caramelizeme]

why? To protect himself.

[zarakhast]

The "ethical" view (not that we any longer understand what "ethos" meant to the Greeks, whose word it is) is not the highest view. The "good" (to agathon in Plato) is merely one side (the other being "evil") of a pair of opposites. These opposites are conjoined in and derive from the Absolute : the only genuine theme of philosophy. Socrates paved the way for moralism and all the horrendous consequences which this type of thinking has caused. If you want to know the true "good" seek the TRUTH

[zarakhast]

It makes me feel very sorry for young people who were born to be philosophical - the best people. What are you supposed to do and where are you supposed to go when universities are interested only in the Zeitgeist ? Since when did philosophy have anything to do with the Zeitgeist ? One of the things which Heidegger wanted was a more philosophical earth. He didn't necessarily agree with Hitler's view. Hitler was a retard compared with Heidegger.

[TheMarkgregorio]

Of course it will make u contemplate

[zarakhast]

Why is there anything rather than nothing ? The only philosophical question. In philosophy (metaphysics) we try to understand all beings, including ourselves. How can we question beings without contrasting them with their opposite : nothing ? We can't. That's where philosophy begins and nowhere else. The scientific theory of the "Big Bang" is ridiculous : what about the "before time" ? What about the "nothing" ? Scientists are disappointingly unimaginative. They don't "think things through".

[zarakhast]

It's so comical how even top-notch academics misunderstand Heidegger. The "they" is supposed to be understood as a mode of Being of Dasein : a false (inauthentic) one. The "they" is something WITHIN YOU, which you should try to overcome. It is not merely something which other people are guilty of. It is a dishonest relation towards death. It certainly has nothing to do with politics. The talk here of Heidegger's Catholic upbringing is utterly irrelevant.

[mavishill]

i found the readings of heidegger quite impressive. but i didnt know about his association with nazism. after finding out this i dont know what to make of him. otherwise a great philosopher i would say.

[jc07874]

Heidegger made some very important inroads to helping and allowing the human mind to understand the concepts of authenticity, subjective being, and possibly the basis of all human performance towards the external world. Ironically, I believe he has laid the ground work for a consiousness and a reality that extends well beyond the victim/perpetrator dance, offering an escape from all suffering.

[jc07874]

Nazi - Shmatzi

I'd rank it as one of the most richly constructed works in all modern philosphies.

Standing on my Jewish heritage is really a sad excuse to avoid getting intimate with this work. If I identify as a student of human existence, it would be sad for me to miss this stuff.

[JohnRater]

Tom, Heidegger rejected his Nazi past later on. I'm not a fan of the man, but please give him the benefit of the doubt. His Nazi past more likely related to Heidegger being German, and German culture was anti-semitic.

[XTAZZ13]

Tom,

You are not making a lot of sense-time to do your homework.

[alontas]

The issue of the relation between Heidegger and Nazism is complex: "Heidegger purged Professors and students out of university, even reporting them to the Gestapo" Even if that were true (and it is not literally true), it is also true that he saved many jewish and leftists colleagues, and even helped them to find jobs abroad. "He knew what nazism was about" By God! Nobody knew that in the beginning. Everybody thought it was an extreme political movement, like communism or fascism.

[lee88614]

whats wrong with the nazi party anyway!!

[zarakhast]

They are disappointing indeed. The only way to understand Heidegger is to go away and read his thought in solitude. The truths of philosophy are not arrived at by a committee decision. This documentary is just shameless propaganda, argued from a particular point of view with a particular end in mind. It's just more of that tired old, all too common practice : trying to win over "hearts and minds". You will never find a philosophical truth by listening to others.

[P1B1U1H1]

@zarakhast British philosophy crushed Continental philosophy into the dust. All are now devotees of Hume, Russell, and colleagues, whether or not they admit it.

[zarakhast]

@P1B1U1H1 I doubt whether that's true. Even if it were it wouldn't concern me. It would concern me far more if Heidegger's philosophy ever became "popular", because it is as unlikely that everyone might understand a great philosopher as it is that a single person might find the truth. This is by its very nature rare and "hard to find", as Heraclitus said. Science is accessible to everyone and only requires an agile mind and imagination ; but it fails to ask or understand the deepest questions.

[P1B1U1H1]

@zarakhast Heraclitus is irrelevant except to students of the history of philosophy. That Hegel liked him is condemnation enough in terms of actual use in understanding the universe. Assuredly, Heidegger will be appreciated by historians of philosophy. 

[zarakhast]

@P1B1U1H1 It depends how you conceive of "history" - for that, too, is a question for philosophy. All the greats took Heraclitus seriously. Philosophy is not something which "moves with the times". It considers eternity. It is not concerned with "politics" or the "zeitgeist". There is no such person as an "historian of philosophy". Philosophy determines history. There can only ever be a "philosophy of history" - never the reverse. Mythology is deeper and greater than "history".

[southernCal909]

@zarakhast...You are very wrong my friend. If the previous night wasnt lingering so strong, I would explain.

[zarakhast]

@southernCal909 Make sure you do try to explain then, when the previous night (alcohol ?) is no longer lingering. If you disagree and are right but fail to get your point across then that would be no disgrace. If you are wrong but you truly believe what you say then that would be no disgrace either. Philosophy is not a "communal affair" though, I stand by that. Nor does it EVER stoop to using propaganda. It is a solitary journey, almost inevitably at odds with the "contemporary".

[TheDavid2222]

I found their Nietszche documentary to be dissapointing as well. After reading much of Nietszche's work the documentary didn't serve him justice. I recommend to everyone that you actually read the works of the philosophers and try not to get "the gist" through a documentary. Trust me, it's worth it.

[zarakhast]

@TheDavid2222 Thinly veiled mockery. You misspelled "dissapointing" as well. A typically juvenile attempt. I thought wumming was going out of fashion ? Apparently not.

You read the original thinker rather than any books "about" them - with the odd exception - because otherwise you place yourself in the hands of someone else's interpretation. Human beings are notorious for distorting the truth to suit their own ends - especially when it comes to interpreting philosophy.

[TheDavid2222]

@zarakhast I do not give much attention to spelling when I comment on a youtube page. You should consider not taking such trivial things so seriously.

[zarakhast]

@TheDavid2222 I agree. Apologies. There are, however, some wums who have by now got it down to a fine art. I LOVE taking them on, infantile though that may be of me. Unfortunately I was just paranoid in your case. If I think of any worthwhile thoughts in relation to your question about aesthetic relativism I'll post them.

[TheDavid2222]

@zarakhast I am also very argumentattive on Youtube. I once argued with a girl on youtube that Mozart had more value than Britney Spears. I gave her a very good argument to counter but all she did was get mad at me. It was really just an experiment to see if it was possible to change a simpletons mind. I was very dissapointed. I would recommend not wasting energy on these people because they are not open to inquiry. I buy into Plato's theory of 3 kinds of people.

[zarakhast]

@TheDavid2222 Plato's philosophy is forever sacred. What I don't like about Plato's statements in The Republic (about the rulers, the auxiliaries and the rest) is that it has provided rulers ever since then with an authoritative justification to LIE to people ("the rulers alone have the right to lie"). This would be all very well if the rulers themselves were honest and benevolent people but usually nowadays they are not. I'll leave the question of music alone until I've really thought about it.

[TheDavid2222]

@zarakhast okay sounds good, thanks!

[greenghost2008]

I think all philosophers who become marxist shouldbe hung out to try as much as this man has been for his nazi involvment.

[bapyou]

"hung out to try"? What does that mean?

[greenghost2008]

dry.

[bapyou]

Have you read Marx?

[greenghost2008]

yes and he is a statist. ive read the communist manifesto several times and its implimentation will always lead to ruin and control.

[greybird24]

@greenghost2008

This seems a little naive as much of our life in a non-"Marxist" state seems mediated by "ruin and control". Even as a Marxist I do understand the worries about the implementing the system, but that's a conversation not ideal for youtube's comment boards.

[zarakhast]

Religion and modern science are two sides of the same dud coin. The sometimes heated debates between "creationists" and "evolutionists" are hilarious - neither theory is true ! Deeper scientists and believers are exempt from that criticism but unfortunately the deeper people don't control the world. So we can expect more meaningless thrashing about and general senselessness for a while yet. And more appallingly bad journalism by falied philosophers such as the ones who made this documentary.

[adzug]

then dont use a computer. this is a result of science a "dud coin"

[zarakhast]

Truth as judgement : read Heidegger's lectures on Nietzsche. Truth as judgement has been a disastrous metaphysical (and unthought) assumption from which we are still not free. Polemics, journalism, philosophy as "politics" - these are all signs of the same continuing sickness. Modern science likes to think of itself as non-judgmental and prides itself (ridiculously) on its anti-religious stance - but it is still fundamentally ruled by the same thought. What is "truth" ?

[zarakhast]

(Apologies to any genuine Christians - i.e Christians a la Dostoyevsky, btw. You were not meant ! But just listen to the accusatory tone of this whole documentary. It's the sign of a sick way of thinking.)

[zarakhast]

No-one has a right to make judgments about other people until or even when he has understood the whole of reality - he will always be wrong. He IS always wrong. Christianity knows this very well but interprets everything morally, i.e. in terms of right and wrong and of judgment. But it is still very much wiser than modern science, though repulsive on account of its judgmentality. But to judge Heidegger - that is exactly what this documentary sets out to do.

[zarakhast]

Heidegger's two questions :

Metaphysics : Why is there anything rather than just nothing at all ?

Philosophy is IMPOSSIBLE (i.e. cannot occur) without this question.

2. What does this "is" mean ? What do we mean by "Being" ? For even in the fundamental metaphysical question (above) we assume that "is" (Being) is a property of beings and not of nothing. On what grounds ? None. And it turns out in genuine philosophical thinking that our assumption (held for 2,500 yrs) is NOT the case....

[zarakhast]

Deep shame on so many of the "intellectuals" in Academe who write so scurrilously, so gliby and with such little understanding about the greatest thinker to have appeared in human history. The West is corrupt through and through. Eventually it will have to come to an end and begin again or perish once and for all. For the next few hundred years at least it will be dictated by degenerates. And I'm not even a Nazi or pro-Nazi (or even political at all). What a bad time to be alive.

[zarakhast]

There are too many so-called "philosophers" these days . The number of people who can understand a great thinker is always very small, and certainly will never include journalistic types such as the people who made these documentaires. What a shallow series of videos ! There's no philosophy in here at all - merely malicious gossip masquerading as "fact". In order to have a chance of understanding Heidegger the man (and "politician") you must first of all understand Heidegger the thinker.

[PrimevalScum]

Yeah, these videos aren't offering much at all besides the supposed controvery that went on whichever's philosopher's life. They're dissapointing.

[OrinocoJonesRedux]

Vengeance seems like a likely cause...

[frazey7]

Ok, I know about this being in debate and alot of evidence in based off of his philosophy, and yes he was a Nazi. But, if you watched earlier in the show one of his greatest students was a Jew and a Woman. Also Hitler completely twisted Heidegger's philosophies, and yes the base ideas of the Nazi party under Hitler came from Heidegger, they were completely skewed ans slanted. Also He started writing philosophy before he was a Nazi. Being a Nazi doesn't make him any less of a great philosopher!

[mgm0086]

i'm pretty sure the nazi philosophy came from an interpretation of nietzsche

[zarakhast]

Definitely agree with your last statement, and in fact with most of what you say. Nazism was not Heidegger's idea, nor was he a political ideologue. This has been read into him retrospectively - and not honestly, by his opponents. Hitler was more influenced by (his own understanding of) Wagner. Nietzsche was at first influenced by Wagner but then later respectfully renounced (rather than denounced) him. Heidegger criticized N. while holding him up as the 'consummate philosoper'. A tangled web.

[TOMsReason]

All of what you say still does not explain why Heidegger explicitly IDENTIFIED himself with Nazism. This would not have been possible if he did not think that Nazism is at least compatible with his philosophy, which I think in fact, it is. He was not forced to become member of the party, he did it by is own conviction. And I don't think he was deceived. He KNEW what Nazism was about, and not only that, he explicitly advocated it. Kant, Hegel, Nietzsche AND Heidegger were the godfathers of Nazism

[soursourapples]

joining the nazi party was more an exercise in opportunism than an extension of his philosophy.

personally i can't think of any links to nazism in his philosophy except in his essay 'what is metaphysics'.

prominent jewish philosophers such as dreyfus and derrida have no problem with reconciling the man and his philosophy. Heidegger even welcomed Dreyfus into his home while he was alive.

[TOMsReason]

It was not only joining the Nazi party, but actively advocating and executing its policies. Heidegger purged Professors and students out of university, even reporting them to the Gestapo. All of this is well documented. And if he did things as an opportunist, am I supposed to take his writings as means of opportunism as well (means: should I not take them seriously, just saying, those texts are mere opportunism) ? There are limits to what honest men should accept. Heidegger crossed that line.

[soursourapples]

no you wouldn't take his writings as means of opportunism. put it this way; Aristotle believed that some people are naturally slaves and some are naturally masters. Does this mean this opinion affects his work on physics?

Similarly does Heideggers purging of Husserl effect his work in phenomenology? I have seen no evidence.

[TOMsReason]

'Being a Nazi doesn't make him any less of a great philosopher!' If Nazism is Heidegger's philosophy applied in real life and if this philosophy leads to desastrous results, then it DOES make Heidegger an EVIL man. Desastrous results, means that there are many flaws in Heideggers philosophy. Reality is the test for a philosophy, but as always, there are philosophers talking lethal nonsense, and when it is applied in real life they want to have nothing to do with it, even when they advocated it.

[bachyutt]

Heidegger looks a lot like Hitler, physically.

[barrywinehousexp]

His nose is quite a bit more aquiline, 'greek' even than Adolf's --the later's schnozz juts out rather abruptly, rather than descending from the forehead.

[tellles45]

exelente vido es la mayor programacionen cuanto ala vida de heidegger muy buenno en en todo en contenido

[anothersunsetfalls]

@utuber. Maybe YOU are an expression of western assholity, because YOU are one of those who clearly speak out their distance of late-born-ness and tend to say "heidegger was a nazi and thats why I do not give a fuck about him".

As pynchon wrote in "Gravity's rainbow" "NOW EVERYBODY" you are just one voice participating in a choir consisting hating voices that just want to signify... oh, do I witness a nazi-proceedure in this movement???

[Cogitoski]

well said.

[asier71]

"Why did Heidegger attach himself so firmly to the Nazi cause?"

Obviously because Heidegger was religious man in search of a religion, and Nazism was one that he could call his own.

[utuber420]

this guy is a prime example of Western assholity.

[dan020350]

aw nice love story

[Questionablescum]

What does his philosophy, a philosophy voted to being and ontology have to do with his nazism? Yes he was a nazi, but one could not abstract his support of nazism from his philosophy or vice versa. Complaining about such things is like saying eugenics is inherently wrong because the Nazis used it. Bah!!!

[neve1073]

his philosophy is, at least in part,an ethical one, concerning how best to live.

the fact that such a philosopher was an unapologetic NAZI is not entirely irrelevant and is worth remembering when considering his work.

[drflynn73]

Maybe Nazism deserves some more serious consideration. If Heidegger was a Nazi then maybe Nazi philosophy is enlightening?

[asier71]

Or maybe Heidegger never solved the religious problem for himself. Nazism, in fact any kind of socialism makes for a poor religion.

And the the guy a few above me it is relevant because we can see from this that Heidigger's philosophy doesn't end, but rather only represses metaphysics. All his talk about the end of philosophy was just a bunch of silliness.

[stuffupthecracks]

Nazism is not socialism: socialism is not a religion. All Heideggers "silly" talk of the end of philosophy is an expression of his megalomania.

[heinzdieterhenn]

be careful! it was called "nationalsozialismus"

nationalsicialism, so might at least share a thought about how much nzism has to do with socialism.

[MrtvaPriroda]

so in a possible debate, we would therefore have this great Heidegger genius and this guy named stuffpthecracks...wow! go off, please!

[zarakhast]

@stuffupthecracks The "end" of philosophy : "end" has multiple senses here. "Overcoming" (as in the "overcoming of metaphysics") also does not mean what most people think it does. But yes, philosophy after Nietzsche is "ended" in a terminal sense. Why ? Because it has arrived at its final and insuperable conclusion : the thought of eternal return. But it has still not arrived at the truth, not because the content of the thought "eternal return" is "incorrect" but because correctness is UNTRUE.

[waspix]

@neve1073 yes it definetely is. Not, however before giving him and his philosophy (which are, as you said, one) their due. Whatever presented here is only a crude facede of his philosophy, but still more time is devoted to his Nazism.

Nazism and Heidegger make great sense for me, but it also should to an ordinary viewer of this documentary. One should not forget Heidegger's reading of Nietzsche. Even this colossal fact we cannot find here!

[zarakhast]

@neve1073 On the contrary, it is ENTIRELY irrelevant when considering his work. If you approach Heidegger's thought with this (or any) prejudice in mind you have already abandoned the spirit of philosophy. You shouldn't be thinking "ethically" (i.e. with bias) at all.

But to equate Heidegger's thought with Nazism is thoughtless in the first place. It ought to be pretty obvious to any serious reader of Heidegger that politics is the last thing on his mind. Stop trying to tarnish his thought.

[scarysky]

@ Questionablescum - eugenics is a lesson, about the origins of life,evolutionary processes,and sellektion. If you apply it, you have actually to .... all the Jews, Niggers, Asozials. If you mean this, you are a nazi