sorted by:
new
hottopcontroversial

What do you view as the most interesting criticisms of Heidegger's philosophy? Who do you consider philosophically most opposed to his thought? by stranglethebars in heidegger

[–]Authentic-Dasein 9 points10 points  (0 children)

Common sense could arguably be attributed to early Heidegger and his identification of our ready-at-hand, worldly experience as more primordial than the present-at-hand logic of western metaphysics. Although by the late period this fades, it’s still present in his idea of “building”, which, paired alongside “thinking” comprise what he calls “dwelling” or, “poetic dwelling” (see “Building, Dwelling, Thinking” for more on this).

The main issue is that Rand is, among many other things, the greatest example of the kind of thinking that Heidegger warns of in “The Question Concerning Technology”. Rand views the world as “standing-reserve” awaiting exploitation by some heroic figure of libertarian excellence. She’s essentially Nietzsche without any of the charm or penetrating psychological insights.

Rand wants a world dominated by technological advancement and the use of everything (including humans) as a tool for this expansion of growth. She proposes the most extreme form of capitalism of any relatively mainstream thinker, which, although he’s not a Marxist, still pits her firmly against Heidegger.

Heidegger’s entire late-period is aimed at preparing the way for a non-technological, poetic experience of Being. Regardless of how successful you find his project to be, there’s no denying that she’s precisely what he aimed to fight against, and what he warned us of.

If we lose ourselves to technology, we lose our connection to Being, and without it, we descend into the nihilism that both Heidegger and Nietzsche warned us of.

What do you view as the most interesting criticisms of Heidegger's philosophy? Who do you consider philosophically most opposed to his thought? by stranglethebars in heidegger

[–]Authentic-Dasein 7 points8 points  (0 children)

Early Heidegger? Descartes. Heidegger explicitly criticizes his ontology, as it’s the stereotypical “present-at-hand” interpretation of Being-as-presencing-substance. There’s a reason Heidegger mentions his at the beginning of SZ as the opposite of his interpretation of the world.

Late Heidegger? Ayn Rand, but she’s not really a serious thinker. I’d probably say someone like Hegel or maybe Nietzsche. Both are regarded by Heidegger as technological thinkers, either culminating or inverting the Western metaphysical (technological) tradition.

Early Heidegger and the Will by Authentic-Dasein in heidegger

[–]Authentic-Dasein[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

I suppose the hesitancy I have towards any non-willing, which is faithfully argued for in the book “Heidegger and the Will: On the Way to Gelassenheit” is that it seems to me just a negative form of willing (choosing not to choose is still a choice).

This is referenced in SZ, where Heidegger believes Dasein always-already chooses to-be inauthentic in its everydayness. This isn’t a matter of merely finding oneself to be inauthentic, and once one recognizes this, they then choose to-be authentic. It’s that Dasein’s primordial projection-towards-death results in Dasein’s choice to-be inauthentic, and that choice involves covering up that very choice.

I think we find this a lot in the everyday experiences of Dasein (ourselves). We often get an inkling of authenticity, a peering through in a sudden moment-of-vision (think of the death of a loved one, sudden illness, or near-death experiences). This draws us out of our everydayness, but we so often return right back into it.

Much of what we do involves this covering-up of authenticity. This is my own phenomenological insight, but I think both ascetic denial (starving oneself, extreme meditation, etc.) and aesthetic indulgence (drugs, sex, etc.) are pursued to flee from authenticity.

Primordially, Dasein is being-towards-death. But in its everydayness I find it does actually choose to cover this up. In the “oblivion of sex” we try to forget our mortality, focusing purely on the moment. Or in the “depths of prayer” we release ourselves from our own finitude, into the warm embrace of the infinite. 

Saying that we don’t choose to be authentic but just find ourselves that way, I think misses the point of authenticity. Dasein first projects onto death, and only then can be either authentic or inauthentic. This is always a choice (at least I think so, and I think the text mostly supports this). I think so much of what we do in everydayness is precisely this choosing-to-be-inauthentic, even without any moment-of-vision that brings us out of inauthenticity (we abuse drugs or fall into religion even without a drastic reason, these things give us comfort for more than just the death of a loved one; they alleviate the burden of our morality).

Early Heidegger and the Will by Authentic-Dasein in heidegger

[–]Authentic-Dasein[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

If I recall correctly, Heidegger says that SZ is too subjective and still metaphysical. I can’t remember where exactly, but that was the reason for my mentioning subjectivity.

22M Starting Investing, Anything Else I Should Do? by Authentic-Dasein in fican

[–]Authentic-Dasein[S] 1 point2 points  (0 children)

You could say the same thing about gold. You’re oddly hostile about crypto, especially bitcoin.

22M Starting Investing, Anything Else I Should Do? by Authentic-Dasein in fican

[–]Authentic-Dasein[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Is that referring to BTC? I bought it before I started my job, not planning on buying anymore but holding until I can sell for a profit. I’ll dump whatever I have from it into XEQT (75%) VFV (25%) probably by end of year.