PDA

View Full Version : Nietzsche..how about Heidegger?



Thermo
20 Feb 2005, 09:10 PM
I enjoy Nietzsche, but who has read Being and Time by Martin Heidegger? I enjoyed his work, because I had to really read it multiple times to get it.

http://www.connect.net/ron/heid.html

Heidegger, Martin (1889-1976), German philosopher, who developed existential phenomenology and has been widely regarded as the most original 20th-century philosopher. Heidegger was born in Messkirch, Baden, on September 22, 1889. He studied Roman Catholic theology and then philosophy at the University of Freiburg, where he was a student of Edmund Husserl, the founder of phenomenology. Heidegger began teaching at Freiburg in 1915. After teaching (1923-28) at Marburg, he became a professor of philosophy at Freiburg in 1928. He died in Messkirch on May 26, 1976. Being and Time

Besides Husserl, Heidegger was especially influenced by pre-Socratics, by the Danish philosopher Søren Kierkegaard, and by the German philosopher Friedrich Nietzsche. In his most important and influential work, Being and Time (1927; trans. 1962), Heidegger was concerned with what he considered the essential philosophical (and human) question: What is it, to be? This led to the question of what kind of “being” human beings have. They are, he said, thrown into a world that they have not made but that consists of potentially useful things, including cultural as well as natural objects. Because these objects and artifacts come to humanity from the past and are used in the present for the sake of future goals, Heidegger posited a fundamental relation between the mode of being of objects and of humanity and the structure of time. The individual is, however, always in danger of being submerged in the world of objects, everyday routine, and the conventional, shallow behavior of the crowd. The feeling of dread (Angst) brings the individual to a confrontation with death and the ultimate meaninglessness of life, but only in this confrontation can an authentic sense of Being and of freedom be attained.

Later Work

After 1930, Heidegger turned, in such works as An Introduction to Metaphysics (1953; trans. 1959), to the interpretation of particular Western conceptions of Being. He felt that in contrast to the reverent ancient Greek conception of Being, modern technological society has fostered a purely manipulative attitude that has deprived Being and human life of meaning, a condition he called nihilism. Humanity has forgotten its true vocation, which is to recover the deeper understanding of Being that was achieved by the early Greeks and lost by subsequent philosophers.

Influence

Heidegger's original treatment of such themes as human finitude, death, nothingness, and authenticity led many observers to associate him with existentialism, and his work had a crucial influence on the French existentialist Jean Paul Sartre. Heidegger, however, eventually repudiated existentialist interpretations of his work. Since the 1960s his influence has spread beyond continental Europe and has had an increasing impact on philosophy in English-speaking countries.

Kaervek
20 Feb 2005, 09:35 PM
I've never read Heidegger, though I really need to!

I actually just bought Jean-Paul Sartre's Being and Nothingness two days ago... absolutely brilliant stuff there. I've heard of Heiddeger in the past, but I think you've helped convince me to study his work.

waxwing
20 Feb 2005, 09:41 PM
I recently read Heidegger's What is Called Thinking? I appreciated Being and Time and so was attracted to this later work. I'd recommend it to anyone with a philosophical bent.

From the back of the book:

"Heidegger has tried to reinterpret the purport of his first major work, Being and Time, as meaning an opening of the horizon of Being through man's horizon of thinking. What is Called Thinking? no doubt provides his most far-reaching and persistent attempt to define the direction of such a reinterpretation." -Cyril Welch, Journal of the American Academy of Religions

Eileen
20 Feb 2005, 10:03 PM
Ahh, Heidegger is on my to-read list, along with Keirkegaard. Both are important in religious studies, but I focused so much on ancient stuff that I never really got around to addressing the more modern philosophers.

Kaervek
20 Feb 2005, 10:33 PM
[...]along with Keirkegaard.

Ah yes, Kierkegaard. He seems to be quite interesting, what with being a Christian Existentialist. Quite the conundrum, it would seem to me.

Hypnos
20 Feb 2005, 11:36 PM
Ah yes, Kierkegaard. He seems to be quite interesting, what with being a Christian Existentialist. Quite the conundrum, it would seem to me.
One could argue that Heidegger exhibits the same drama as a rationalistic existentialist.

In the end, he just recapitulates Nietzsche -- embrace the abyss.

Thermo
21 Feb 2005, 12:08 AM
Ahh, Heidegger is on my to-read list, along with Keirkegaard.

I picture you more as a CS Lewis kind of girl. Heidegger is to cerebral and detatched. Keirkegaard is to depressing. CS Lewis is optimistic and logically christian. Read the Screwtape Letters if you haven't. They are very good and lots to think about.

PS Narnia rocks!

Eileen
21 Feb 2005, 02:33 AM
I picture you more as a CS Lewis kind of girl. Heidegger is to cerebral and detatched. Keirkegaard is to depressing. CS Lewis is optimistic and logically christian. Read the Screwtape Letters if you haven't. They are very good and lots to think about.

PS Narnia rocks!

I do like C.S. Lewis, though I am also fond of the depressing/cerebral philosophers. I'd probably prefer to read them in the context of a class so I'd have people to talk about it with, though. (I miss school...sigh!) I don't really consider C.S. Lewis to be a philosopher or even (for the most part; there are exceptions) a theologian. He's mostly just an apologist, so I don't really put him in the same category as philosophers and theologians. That's not to say that I don't have a lot of respect for him; he just occupies a separate sphere. He's also more orthodox than I am, but that's okay. And Narnia rocks indeed. I'm eagerly anticipating the film.

But I've gotta say, if L'Engle and Lewis were going to fight for my heart/mind, L'Engle would kick a whole lot of C.S. Lewis ass.

Kaervek
21 Feb 2005, 03:16 AM
"Depressing philosophers," eh? Would you consider Nietzsche to be one of these?

Thermo
21 Feb 2005, 04:08 AM
"Depressing philosophers," eh? Would you consider Nietzsche to be one of these?

While Nietzsche could give Keirkegaard a run for his money on a depressing life, I don't picture his philosophy as ultimately depressing. He sees the darkness, but also tells you the way out.

Kaervek
21 Feb 2005, 04:54 AM
I suppose I could agree with that. I've actually found Nietzsche, whom happens to be my introduction to philosophy, very uplifting and constructive.

Johnny
21 Feb 2005, 04:39 PM
Heidegger is on my list, but I'm not ready for him yet. I'm still having too much fun with Sartre, Kant, and Kierkegaard.

songbird36
21 Feb 2005, 06:01 PM
I do like C.S. Lewis, though I am also fond of the depressing/cerebral philosophers. I'd probably prefer to read them in the context of a class so I'd have people to talk about it with, though. (I miss school...sigh!) I don't really consider C.S. Lewis to be a philosopher or even (for the most part; there are exceptions) a theologian. He's mostly just an apologist, so I don't really put him in the same category as philosophers and theologians. That's not to say that I don't have a lot of respect for him; he just occupies a separate sphere. He's also more orthodox than I am, but that's okay. And Narnia rocks indeed. I'm eagerly anticipating the film.

But I've gotta say, if L'Engle and Lewis were going to fight for my heart/mind, L'Engle would kick a whole lot of C.S. Lewis ass.

Yes Lewis is an apologist for God, not a serious theologian (although Mere Christianity attempts, but does not really succeed, in discussing some of the issues in a balanced way). Narnia does rock though - it is of course a thinly disguised allegory for the kingdom of God.

Heidigger would have been an interesting thinker to throw into the previous debate about God on another thread, as he (like Neitzche) very much starts from the premise that there is nothing until it is proven:

"Where shall we seek nothing, Where shall we find nothing? In order to find something must we not know beforehand that it is there? Indeed we must. First and foremost we can only look if we have presupposed the presence of the thing to be looked for. But the thing we are looking for is Nothing. Is there after all a seeking without pre-supposition, or a seeking contemplated by pure finding?"