Heidegger life and Philosophy 2 of 6

I am not opposes your thoughts here, rather I was merely outlining an easy transition for those embedded within the analytic tradition attempting to make the leap into realer issues haunting philosophy. Nonetheless, if you would like to really engage into the issues, I would be glad to. Take care, I appreciate the spirit of your zeal.

Thanks. But I would not describe myself as "zealous". Ambivalent would be a better word. I KNOW that Heidegger's philosophy is the greatest but I struggle to accept it : not only the intellect is involved in attempting to "accept" what Heidegger is saying.

The "analytic" tradition is the slave of logic. But faith in logic is illogical ! Thought belongs to the Absolute : it cannot dictate to it or decide it.

PS - Heidegger and Sartre = chalk and cheese. Not both "existentialists".

A police service is a public force empowered to enforce the law and provide security through the legitimized use of force.
Polity (shrewd or crafty management of public affairs) "we was innocent of stratagems and polity"
Latin juxta put side by side
Latin = near.

Criminals are often the nearest to the police...

Heidegger on Sartre's "Sein und Zeit": "That dreck!"
It might be more productive to address zarakhast's ideas, rather than expect him to conform to the "coffee table" discursivities characteristic of the more even-handed proselytisers of current doxa that you seem to valorise. Ad hominem nitpicking, and appeals to the "majority", are not good arguments. Is it a "waste of time" to engage in activity not sanctioned by the tyrannies of the demos, to speak otherwise, than doxa?

Correction: Sartre's "Being and Nothingness"
Interesting lapsus lingua, eh?...

I'm sorry you feel like that. You're right that it's impossible to communicate philosophically over the internet. I didn't fail to pick up what you were trying to say - I've heard it all before ! If you had understood Heidegger you would realize the unlikelihood of meeting a kindred spirit. And if you'd reacted to his thought as I did then you might not even want to meet such a person. You're a diplomatic type, but I doubt that you could understand.

People react differently.
Start thinking again.
It is not your task to domesticate your output for mass consumption.

Do you know what I mean by a "reaction" to an encounter with Heidegger's thought - specifically the essay, What Is Metaphysics ? Have you experienced the terror of realizing that you are nothing - and that nothing can never be destroyed ? It's pretty obvious what follows from this. Socrates taught the immortality of the soul.

What is there left to think about ? The truth is simple and terrible. I can't find any comfort even in the beauty of tragedy. I have no "task".

Scientists need to realize that their questions are not fundamental. And to be honest it's pretty obvious that they're not. Metaphysicians for their part need to look at the FORM of any metaphysical question, because the truth is that this form not only stymies metaphysics, it actually gives rise to science, which then attempts to supersede philosophy - completely unaware that is forever the child of philosophy and can never become independent of it.

I'm not sure what you were trying to say, though you were very diplomatic in saying it ( a plus point ). But Heidegger was not an existentialist - that's a fact ! So you've got that wrong for a start. Sorry if that's "brash" - it's also true.

The search for truth is not scientific because scientific questions do not go deep enough. Meta-physics asks the question about Nothing : why it isn't. It transcends science utterly.