Heidegger?
Heidegger?
So, what do we make of Heidegger and his theories on Being and Phenomenology, and how come he is rarely mentioned around these parts?
- Diebert van Rhijn
- Posts: 6469
- Joined: Fri Jun 03, 2005 4:43 pm
Re: Heidegger?
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.
Re: Heidegger?
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.
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.
- Diebert van Rhijn
- Posts: 6469
- Joined: Fri Jun 03, 2005 4:43 pm
Re: Heidegger?
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).uncledote wrote:it would be good to hear the voices ( both positive and negative ) of those who have boldly gone before.
- Diebert van Rhijn
- Posts: 6469
- Joined: Fri Jun 03, 2005 4:43 pm
Re: Heidegger?
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:
- When we look into the ambiguous essence of technology, we behold the constellation, the stellar course of the mystery.
-- Heidegger: The Question Concerning Technology, 1950
- 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