Heidegger?

Discussion of the nature of Ultimate Reality and the path to Enlightenment.
Locked
User avatar
uncledote
Posts: 159
Joined: Tue May 12, 2009 7:14 am
Location: UK

Heidegger?

Post by uncledote »

So, what do we make of Heidegger and his theories on Being and Phenomenology, and how come he is rarely mentioned around these parts?
User avatar
Diebert van Rhijn
Posts: 6469
Joined: Fri Jun 03, 2005 4:43 pm

Re: Heidegger?

Post by Diebert van Rhijn »

Being mentioned 143 times is not that bad. My question is why anyone mentioning Heidegger never makes a start with introducing his thought but only drops the names and some one-liners. So far on this forum of course. But let me ask you to explain in a few paragraphs why you think he should be mentioned? He's clearly a thinker but in my limited experience he doesn't seem to manage to present his ideas simply enough. It seems more hypnotic at times, like a Gregorian hymn in philosophical form.
User avatar
uncledote
Posts: 159
Joined: Tue May 12, 2009 7:14 am
Location: UK

Re: Heidegger?

Post by uncledote »

Well, he does not advocate terms such as 'absolute' or 'infinite' and so would seem to be at odds with the overarching QRS philosophy as displayed around these parts.

Aside from that I have only read parts here and there and bow down to other peeps more extensive knowledge on the matter. Whilst embarking on Being and Time it would be good to hear the voices ( both positive and negative ) of those who have boldly gone before.
User avatar
Diebert van Rhijn
Posts: 6469
Joined: Fri Jun 03, 2005 4:43 pm

Re: Heidegger?

Post by Diebert van Rhijn »

uncledote wrote:it would be good to hear the voices ( both positive and negative ) of those who have boldly gone before.
The idea here is that you can become that voice..... and some members found something of use (see also the link in my last post).
User avatar
Diebert van Rhijn
Posts: 6469
Joined: Fri Jun 03, 2005 4:43 pm

Re: Heidegger?

Post by Diebert van Rhijn »

There's one Heidegger quote I've always liked somewhat and is perhaps a good example of the difficulty to process. I looked up a translation:
But to understand that one has to find out what he means with technology and that brings us to the question of "what things are":
  • According to ancient doctrine, the essence of a thing is considered to be what the thing is. We ask the question concerning technology when we ask what it is. Everyone knows the two statements that answer our question. One says: Technology is a means to an end. The other says: Technology is a human activity. The two definitions of technology belong together.... [bla bla bla] Technology is therefore no mere means. Technology is a way of revealing. If we give heed to this, then another whole realm for the essence of technology will open itself up to us. It is the realm of revealing, i.e., of truth
It's interesting, since I didn't know that context when I was looking for the quote, but that whole article I linked to represents somewhat Heidegger's view on A=A and truth-essence seeking. And as I wrote before, it's a bit of like a Gregorian hymn, some zennish wandering. It feels to me like he's forever circling around simple truths but closer to art than philosophy in essence. I might get to read more of it in time.
Locked