Heidegger

[speed]

I confess, I've never cared for Heidegger. I open up Being and Time and Im suddenly confronted with pages and pages of pompous and turgid prose, with a maze of terminology. I closed it--and have tried twice now-- after the first fifty (although I was up to almost 75 this time) pages. I'm sympathetic to his basic ideas, but I just dont care. And I also am a bit put off by the followers of Heidegger, and their works. And Ive noticed many here (posters I greatly respect) seem to take his ideas as sancrosanct and mimic his style. Now, I'm not a philosopher, and Im sure I would do quite poorly as a philosophy student in graduate school, so perhaps this conditions my distaste.

Then I opened Poetry, Language, and Thought, and loved it.

So I'm left in quite a conundrum: I enjoy his ideas, but not his philosophical writing; I find almost all of his philosophizing terribly pompous and drawn out, yet it still interests me; I dont wish to read his works, but I'll probably try again. I still think however, that Heidegger, like all philosophers, should be taken with a grain of salt.

 

[Scourge of God]

Heidegger, like Nietzsche, functioned better as an essayist than as a systematic philosopher.

Plus, his his almost paraphiliac-like obsession with neologisms in Sein und Zeit makes the work almost untranslatable.

 

[speed]

Plus, his his almost paraphiliac-like obsession with neologisms in Sein und Zeit makes the work almost untranslatable.

I totally agree with that. It forces one to spend quite a bit of time with his work, and if one isnt enthralled, it can be unbearable.

Also, followers of heidegger, or persons influenced by Heidegger, use the same terminology. Hence, one has to spend the massive amount of time to learn it, as even his followers seem to presuppose one understands certain terms and their meanings.

 

[OldScratch]

Curiously enough, I have recently engaged Nile577 off-line in a discussion based upon my own observations that are not at all dissimilar to Speed's. If nothing else, I am comforted that I'm not the only one who has experienced this.
Whenever I explore Heidegger, the frustrated words once expressed by a former CEO of my company after a colleague's particularly long-winded and rambling observation in a meeting, ring in my head, "That's interesting...but not important."
Yet, somehow, I'm intrigued enough to believe it really may be important...if only I fully understood it

 

[speed]

Curiously enough, I have recently engaged Nile577 off-line in a discussion based upon my own observations that are not at all dissimilar to Speed's. If nothing else, I am comforted that I'm not the only one who has experienced this.
Whenever I explore Heidegger, the frustrated words once expressed by a former CEO of my company after a colleague's particularly long-winded and rambling observation in a meeting, ring in my head, "That's interesting...but not important."
Yet, somehow, I'm intrigued enough to believe it really may be important...if only I fully understood it

Long lost brothers we are. Ive been really trying to figure out for a few years why I'm so resistant, and this is the best I can do. I have no problem reading other, I suppose difficult, major philosophers.

For me, there's really no incentive to spending the time to properly read Heidegger. I'd much rather read a good novel, another philosopher, poetry, etc., than take the necessary time. That, and reading him reminds me of college, and of dry and obtuse academic-speak.

 

[Freanan]

Heidegger, like Nietzsche, functioned better as an essayist than as a systematic philosopher.

Plus, his his almost paraphiliac-like obsession with neologisms in Sein und Zeit makes the work almost untranslatable.

The worst is, "Sein und Zeit" (Being and Time) is not even translatable to german, the language it is supposed to be written in.
I wonder if he used the postmodern essay generator.

 

[speed]

So I was wondering, can some brave soul explain in clear non-Heideggerian english, the primary ideas of Heidegger? (not Dasein)

 

[Cythraul]

So I was wondering, can some brave soul explain in clear non-Heideggerian english, the primary ideas of Heidegger? (not Dasein)

What the fuck is your problem man? You think Heidegger can just be easily assimilated and made understandable? It's about BEING, it's about the foundation, bro. Fuck clarity.

 

[speed]

What the fuck is your problem man? You think Heidegger can just be easily assimilated and made understandable? It's about BEING, it's about the foundation, bro. Fuck clarity.

Yeah, I give up. Raise the white flag. My Being is apparently non-philosophical.

 

[Nile577]

I confess, I've never cared for Newton. I open up Principa Mathematica and I’m suddenly confronted with pages and pages of pompous and turgid prose, with a maze of terminology. I closed it--and have tried twice now-- after the first fifty (although I was up to almost 75 this time) pages. I'm sympathetic to his basic ideas, but I just don’t care. And I also am a bit put off by the followers of Newton, and their works.

His almost paraphiliac-like obsession with neologisms in working with calculus makes his work almost untranslatable. It forces one to spend quite a bit of time, and if one isn’t enthralled, it can be unbearable.

Whenever I explore Newton, the frustrated words once expressed by a former CEO of my company after a colleague's particularly long-winded and rambling observation in a meeting, ring in my head, "That's interesting...but not important."

For me, there's really no incentive to spending the time to properly read him. I'd much rather read a good novel, another mathematician, poetry, etc., than take the necessary time. Reading him reminds me of college, and of dry and obtuse academic-speak.

I find almost all of his working terribly pompous and drawn out.

The worst, ‘Opticks,’ is not even translatable to English, the language it is supposed to be written in. All those pretentious math symbols. Why didn’t he just use straightforward language? I wonder if he used the mathematics essay generator? LOL2007

I don’t wish to read his works, but I'll probably try again. I still think however, that Newton, like all scientists, should be taken with a grain of salt.

Can someone explain the ideas of this bore in good common plain English?

 

[speed]

I confess, I've never cared for Newton. I open up Principa Mathematica and I’m suddenly confronted with pages and pages of pompous and turgid prose, with a maze of terminology. I closed it--and have tried twice now-- after the first fifty (although I was up to almost 75 this time) pages. I'm sympathetic to his basic ideas, but I just don’t care. And I also am a bit put off by the followers of Newton, and their works.

His almost paraphiliac-like obsession with neologisms in working with calculus makes his work almost untranslatable. It forces one to spend quite a bit of time, and if one isn’t enthralled, it can be unbearable.

Whenever I explore Newton, the frustrated words once expressed by a former CEO of my company after a colleague's particularly long-winded and rambling observation in a meeting, ring in my head, "That's interesting...but not important."

For me, there's really no incentive to spending the time to properly read him. I'd much rather read a good novel, another mathematician, poetry, etc., than take the necessary time. Reading him reminds me of college, and of dry and obtuse academic-speak.

I find almost all of his working terribly pompous and drawn out.

The worst, ‘Opticks,’ is not even translatable to English, the language it is supposed to be written in. All those pretentious math symbols. Why didn’t he just use straightforward language? I wonder if he used the mathematics essay generator? LOL2007

I don’t wish to read his works, but I'll probably try again. I still think however, that Newton, like all scientists, should be taken with a grain of salt.

Can someone explain the ideas of this bore in good common plain English?

Hehe. I dont like Newton either. And whats the big deal about gravity anyway? But you really do take Heidegger pretty seriously, dont you?

Sorry folks anyway. I've just grown tired of reading Heideggerian responses, and my own responses.

 

[Cythraul]

I confess, I've never cared for Newton. I open up Principa Mathematica and I’m suddenly confronted with pages and pages of pompous and turgid prose, with a maze of terminology. I closed it--and have tried twice now-- after the first fifty (although I was up to almost 75 this time) pages. I'm sympathetic to his basic ideas, but I just don’t care. And I also am a bit put off by the followers of Newton, and their works.

His almost paraphiliac-like obsession with neologisms in working with calculus makes his work almost untranslatable. It forces one to spend quite a bit of time, and if one isn’t enthralled, it can be unbearable.

Whenever I explore Newton, the frustrated words once expressed by a former CEO of my company after a colleague's particularly long-winded and rambling observation in a meeting, ring in my head, "That's interesting...but not important."

For me, there's really no incentive to spending the time to properly read him. I'd much rather read a good novel, another mathematician, poetry, etc., than take the necessary time. Reading him reminds me of college, and of dry and obtuse academic-speak.

I find almost all of his working terribly pompous and drawn out.

The worst, ‘Opticks,’ is not even translatable to English, the language it is supposed to be written in. All those pretentious math symbols. Why didn’t he just use straightforward language? I wonder if he used the mathematics essay generator? LOL2007

I don’t wish to read his works, but I'll probably try again. I still think however, that Newton, like all scientists, should be taken with a grain of salt.

Can someone explain the ideas of this bore in good common plain English?

Look fella, this condescending attitude is complete bullshit. People don't just come to understand shit out of nowhere. How would one come to understand the concepts used in Principia Mathematica? Definitely not by having somebody throw a bunch of neologisms at them and saying "here, figure this shit out." The problem with a lot of people who attempt to explain Heidegger is they give explanations which are no clearer (or at best, only a tiny bit clearer) than the explanandums. Understandably then, the person trying to learn this shit is just as confused as they were before. How does one learn the meaning of a given neologism? By getting an explanation in a more familiar idiom. That's how. This more familiar idiom could consist in more familiar philosophical/mathematical/scientific concepts OR plain fucking English.

 

[speed]

Look fella, this condescending attitude is complete bullshit. People don't just come to understand shit out of nowhere. How would one come to understand the concepts used in Principia Mathematica? Definitely not by having somebody throw a bunch of neologisms at them and saying "here, figure this shit out." The problem with a lot of people who attempt to explain Heidegger is they give explanations which are no clearer (or at best, only a tiny bit clearer) than the explanandums. Understandably then, the person trying to learn this shit is just as confused as they were before. How does one learn the meaning of a given neologism? By getting an explanation in a more familiar idiom. That's how. This more familiar idiom could consist in more familiar philosophical/mathematical/scientific concepts OR plain fucking English.

This is perhaps, a more direct way to put it. And Im glad you did Cythraul. The mainstream criticism of Heidegger of course, is that his ideas are actually quite simple, and because of this, he purposely clouded and obsfucated his ideas to make them acceptable to academics and other intellectuals.

But, this is my problem, that I tried to explain with a little sarcasm (and failed): what's so wrong with these simple but profound ideas? And why do his followers, and academics in the Heideggerian tradition, go to such lengths to keep others from understanding? Ive read Poe's Purloined Letter a few times, but I havent the slightest clue what Justin S was talking about. It seemed a very well-written and reasoned paper, but it presupposed a high level of Heideggerian knowledge. Its almost like a Heideggerian Masonic lodge or something. And one is not allowed in unless one wishes to spend a great deal of time digesting this stuff.

Again, Im sorry, and Im not a philosopher but a crazy American dilletante.

 

[hibernal_dream]

Look fella, this condescending attitude is complete bullshit. People don't just come to understand shit out of nowhere. How would one come to understand the concepts used in Principia Mathematica? Definitely not by having somebody throw a bunch of neologisms at them and saying "here, figure this shit out." The problem with a lot of people who attempt to explain Heidegger is they give explanations which are no clearer (or at best, only a tiny bit clearer) than the explanandums. Understandably then, the person trying to learn this shit is just as confused as they were before. How does one learn the meaning of a given neologism? By getting an explanation in a more familiar idiom. That's how. This more familiar idiom could consist in more familiar philosophical/mathematical/scientific concepts OR plain fucking English.

Wasn't this exactly his point? Philosophers, whether physicists or ontologists aren't meant to be brilliant, captivating writers. In fact most of the good ones were awful. Why do you think there are so many translations and analyses? If Newton had spent his time brushing up his creative writing skills instead of thinking about gravity, there would probably be no Principia Mathematica to discuss.

 

[OldScratch]

I confess, I've never cared for Newton. I open up Principa Mathematica and I’m suddenly confronted with pages and pages of pompous and turgid prose, with a maze of terminology. I closed it--and have tried twice now-- after the first fifty (although I was up to almost 75 this time) pages. I'm sympathetic to his basic ideas, but I just don’t care. And I also am a bit put off by the followers of Newton, and their works.

His almost paraphiliac-like obsession with neologisms in working with calculus makes his work almost untranslatable. It forces one to spend quite a bit of time, and if one isn’t enthralled, it can be unbearable.

Whenever I explore Newton, the frustrated words once expressed by a former CEO of my company after a colleague's particularly long-winded and rambling observation in a meeting, ring in my head, "That's interesting...but not important."

For me, there's really no incentive to spending the time to properly read him. I'd much rather read a good novel, another mathematician, poetry, etc., than take the necessary time. Reading him reminds me of college, and of dry and obtuse academic-speak.

I find almost all of his working terribly pompous and drawn out.

The worst, ‘Opticks,’ is not even translatable to English, the language it is supposed to be written in. All those pretentious math symbols. Why didn’t he just use straightforward language? I wonder if he used the mathematics essay generator? LOL2007

I don’t wish to read his works, but I'll probably try again. I still think however, that Newton, like all scientists, should be taken with a grain of salt.

Can someone explain the ideas of this bore in good common plain English?

Hey! I plead the familiar "taken out of context"(like any good Politician)defense for my abused quote here...you forgot the critical follow-up sentence/disclaimer portion that puts it all in, um...perspective!!

 

[Justin S.]

I realize I am wasting my time with this response (we have bludgeoned our heads against this wall many times) but I feel a reply is warranted nonetheless.

Whenever the "continental" tradition is spoken of, at heart is language. Even my evocation of it here will be misunderstood as I do not mean mere utterances or codified systems.

Language is at stake. To summarize poorly, there are those who wish to relate to language with respect to its expanse and ambiguous wonder, and those who view it through their perverse functionary lense as another tool to control, delimit, stabilize.

So, we witness the polemics of "plain language", the presumptuous positing of normative restrictions. To think one has "a hold" on language, that the particular system one is conditioned by is the perfected meter by which all thinking must submit is nothing but pervasive madness.

Concerning Heidegger, most of his "neologisms" are common words with uncommon emphasis. The symbols are taken apart, contracted, distanced, to highlight their etymology, their historicity, the meaning that is lost to the modern reader who only skims over them in crude word-unit recognition and "comprehension". To read Heidegger is to open oneself to language, to rediscover its forgotten force. Every mark, syllable and hyphen is of the utmost importance.

Indeed he, and those who seek with him, search for a way to language. Cast aside are the over-reaching notions that we are in full possession of it, that we dictate a program and prescription for language, that all that is needed is analytic "tidying up".

What is sought is not a list of propositions, but a transformation of thinking.

 

[Cythraul]

Wasn't this exactly his point? Philosophers, whether physicists or ontologists aren't meant to be brilliant, captivating writers. In fact most of the good ones were awful. Why do you think there are so many translations and analyses? If Newton had spent his time brushing up his creative writing skills instead of thinking about gravity, there would probably be no Principia Mathematica to discuss.

Where in my post did I complain about Newton's writing style? I am complaining about bullshit explanations that people give which simply are not helpful at all.

 

[Cythraul]

there are those who wish to relate to language with respect to its expanse and ambiguous wonder, and those who view it through their perverse functionary lense as another tool to control, delimit, stabilize.

That's absolute bullshit. Way to make a mountain out of a molehill.

So, we witness the polemics of "plain language", the presumptuous positing of normative restrictions.

It has nothing to do with normative restrictions and everything to do with preconditions for understanding what the fuck somebody is saying.

 

[Nile577]

Here are some exmaples of literature and poetry that might be said to move towards a Heideggerian understanding of Being in thought and language ("those who wish to relate to language with respect to its expanse and ambiguous wonder."). Something very remarkable indeed happens in the last one.


Oread

Whirl up, sea -
Whirl your pointed pines,
Splash your great pines
On your rocks,
Hurl your green over us,
Cover us with petals of fir.

- H.D.

 

[Nile577]

In A station In The Metro

The apparition of these faces in the crowd;
Petals on a wet, black bough.

- Ezra Pound

Liu Ch'e

The rustling of silk is discontinued,
Dust drifts over the courtyard,
There is no sound of footfall, and the leaves
Scurry into heaps and lie still,
And she the rejoicer of the heart is beneath them;

A wet leaf that clings to the threshold.

-Ezra Pound

A Girl

The tree has entered my hands,
The sap has ascended my arms,
The tree has grown in my breat -
Downward,
The branches grow out of me, like arms.

Tree you are.
Moss you are,
You are violets with wind above them.
A child - so high - you are,
And all this is folly in the world.

- Ezra Pound