(Translated by https://www.hiragana.jp/)
Talk:Martin Heidegger: Difference between revisions - Wikipedia Jump to content

Talk:Martin Heidegger: Difference between revisions

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Browse history interactively
← Previous editNext edit →
Content deleted Content added
VisualWikitext
m Archiving 1 discussion(s) to Talk:Martin Heidegger/Archive 6) (bot
(48 intermediate revisions by 9 users not shown)
Line 1: Line 1:
{{Talk header|archive_age=45|archive_bot=Lowercase sigmabot III}}
{{Talk header|archive_age=45|archive_bot=Lowercase sigmabot III}}
{{Vital article|level=4|topic=People|class=B}}
{{Round in circles|search=no}}
{{Round in circles|search=no}}
{{Calm}}
{{Calm}}
Line 10: Line 9:
|topic=philrelig
|topic=philrelig
}}
}}
{{WikiProject banner shell |collapsed=yes |living=no |blp=no |1=
{{WikiProject banner shell |collapsed=yes |blp=no |class=C|vital=yes|listas=Heidegger, Martin|1=
{{WikiProject Psychology|class=C|importance=Low|needs-infobox=no}}
{{WikiProject Psychology|importance=Low|needs-infobox=no}}
{{WikiProject Biography|class=B|living=no|listas=Heidegger, Martin|s&a-work-group=yes|s&a-priority=Mid|needs-discography=no|needs-filmography=no|needs-infobox=no|needs-photo=no}}
{{WikiProject Biography|s&a-work-group=yes|s&a-priority=Mid|needs-discography=no|needs-filmography=no|needs-infobox=no|needs-photo=no}}
{{WikiProject Politics|class=B|importance=Low|fascism=yes|needs-infobox=no|needs-image=no}}
{{WikiProject Politics|importance=Low|needs-infobox=no|needs-image=no}}
{{WikiProject Germany|class=B|importance=High|portal1-name=Philosophy|portal1-link=Selected philosopher/6}}
{{WikiProject Germany|importance=High}}
{{WikiProject Philosophy|class=B|importance=High|philosopher=yes|continental=yes|contemporary=yes|metaphysics=yes|aesthetics=yes|social=yes}}
{{WikiProject Philosophy|importance=High|philosopher=yes|continental=yes|contemporary=yes|metaphysics=yes|aesthetics=yes|social=yes}}
{{WikiProject Christianity|class=C|importance=High|catholicism=yes|catholicism-importance=High|needs-infobox=no}}
{{WikiProject Christianity|importance=High|catholicism=yes|catholicism-importance=High|needs-infobox=no}}
{{WikiProject Religion|class=C|importance=High|needs-infobox=no|needs-photo=no}}
{{WikiProject Religion|importance=High|needs-infobox=no|needs-photo=no}}
}}
}}
{{User:MiszaBot/config
{{User:MiszaBot/config
| algo = old(183d)
|archiveheader = {{aan}}
| archive = Talk:Martin Heidegger/Archive %(counter)d
|maxarchivesize = 140K
|counter = 12
| counter = 6
| maxarchivesize = 150K
|minthreadsleft = 4
| archiveheader = {{Aan}}
|algo = old(45d)
| minthreadstoarchive = 1
|archive = Talk:Martin Heidegger/Archive %(counter)d
| minthreadsleft = 3
}}
}}
{{User:HBC Archive Indexerbot/OptIn
{{User:HBC Archive Indexerbot/OptIn
Line 33: Line 33:
|indexhere=yes}}
|indexhere=yes}}


== reorganization by IP editor ==
==Denied he was an existentialist==
Why is this article placed in the category "Existentialiss" and has an opening sentence syaing that Heidegger is known for his contributions to existentialism? Heidegger denied that he was an existentialist, because he saw his quest to understand human being part of his study of Being in general. [[User:YTKJ|YTKJ]] ([[User talk:YTKJ|talk]]) 13:16, 8 April 2022 (UTC)
:Does the article say he denied that he was an existentialist? Thanks. [[User:Martinevans123|Martinevans123]] ([[User talk:Martinevans123|talk]]) 13:33, 8 April 2022 (UTC)
:YRKJ: One does not have to delve very far into ''Being and Time'' to find numerous references. Examples:
:*Part IV, Division One, IV 25: ''An approach to the existential question of the"who" of Dasein
:*Part IV, Division One, V 28.A: ''The existential Constitution of the "there"''
:and a dozen more in the table of contents alone.
:As suggested by Martinevans above, if he denied he was an existentialist, please provide a source. [[User:Kablammo|Kablammo]] ([[User talk:Kablammo|talk]]) 17:47, 8 April 2022 (UTC)


Hi @[[User:2001:569:538b:6500:805d:75c9:4c13:8fbb|2001:569:538b:6500:805d:75c9:4c13:8fbb]],
I first read that he denied he was an existentialist in the [[Macmillan]] one-volume encyclopedia. The website www.plato.edu/existentialism says he repudiated the term "existentialism". [[User:YTKJ|YTKJ]] ([[User talk:YTKJ|talk]]) 21:23, 8 April 2022 (UTC)
:I assume you mean [[Macmillan Publishers]]. Which publication was that? Your link to www.plato.edu/existentialism doesn't work. [[User:Martinevans123|Martinevans123]] ([[User talk:Martinevans123|talk]]) 21:51, 8 April 2022 (UTC)
::I think the important point is not what Heidegger thought or said, but how he is described in the academic discourse more generally: this article is about Heidegger, not about Heidegger's opinion of Heidegger. For example, Heidegger is treated as an existentialist in the reliable sources [https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/heidegger/ here] and [https://iep.utm.edu/existent/ here]. [[User:Phlsph7|Phlsph7]] ([[User talk:Phlsph7|talk]]) 05:43, 9 April 2022 (UTC)
:::[https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/existentialism/ This] is possibly the intended link. The article is not about Heidegger's opinion of Heidegger, but his opinion counts for something, and the fact that he specifically repudiated the label is at least an argument against "contributions to existentialism". In its opening sentence the Stanford article on [https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/heidegger/ Heidegger] says he is "associated" with existentialism but then says his thinking should only be identified as such with extreme care and qualification. [[User:Harold the Sheep|Harold the Sheep]] ([[User talk:Harold the Sheep|talk]]) 07:29, 9 April 2022 (UTC)


You recently made a large-scale organizational edit to the biographical and Nazi material in the article without even an edit description. It's not clear to me that this is an improvement, but I'd like to offer a chance to explain why you think it is.
Thank you for the above comments. The website page I should have given you was:


If you or someone else does not provide a compelling justification for the changes, I will probably restore the previous version. If I do this before you see this note, do not worry. All edits are saved in the article history, and your changes could be restored if there is later consensus.
https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/existentialism. I think that one of the above contributors have worked out the link. [[User:YTKJ|YTKJ]] ([[User talk:YTKJ|talk]]) 08:51, 9 April 2022 (UTC)
:The sentence in question is "{{tq|Among the major philosophers identified as existentialists (many of whom—for instance Camus and Heidegger—repudiated the label) were Karl Jaspers, Martin Heidegger, and Martin Buber...}}". And it's not an article about Heidegger. Although [[Steven Crowell]] is a notable philosopher, I'd be reluctant to add such a bold statement to the article on the basis of just those three words "repudiated the label". [[User:Martinevans123|Martinevans123]] ([[User talk:Martinevans123|talk]]) 10:27, 9 April 2022 (UTC)
::For another reliable source justifying this categorization besides the ones mentioned so far, see [https://www.britannica.com/topic/existentialism here] (...The principal representatives of German existentialism in the 20th century were Martin Heidegger and Karl Jaspers;...). [[User:Phlsph7|Phlsph7]] ([[User talk:Phlsph7|talk]]) 10:31, 9 April 2022 (UTC)
:::{{small|Oh look! An encyclopaedia you [[Philosophical skepticism|can really trust]]! [[User:Martinevans123|Martinevans123]] ([[User talk:Martinevans123|talk]]) 10:40, 9 April 2022 (UTC)}}
:Apologies for resurrecting what appears to be a long-dead conversation, but I stumbled across this debate and can't help jumping in. Heidegger does indeed deny that he is an existentialist. As the Wiki article for that text itself notes, the ''[[Letter on Humanism]]'' explicitly criticises Sartrean existentialism as a fundamental misreading of Heidegger's own work and project. (The letter was a response to and rebuttal of Sartre's ''Existentialism is a Humanism'', where Sartre called Heidegger an existentialist.) [[User:The june frost|The june frost]] ([[User talk:The june frost|talk]]) 13:40, 22 November 2022 (UTC)


You might also have a look at [[WP:ACCOUNT]] on the benefits of creating a username and account.
==Ontological difference etc==


Thanks for your attention to this article!
During December & January, I expanded this segment with various sourced material. A certain bit, (quoted below in current form) fell to the bottom of the segment during my editing. I was (and remain) uncomfortable with this material as written and sourced.


Cheers, [[User:PatrickJWelsh|Patrick J. Welsh]] ([[User talk:PatrickJWelsh|talk]]) 15:27, 28 October 2023 (UTC)
My discomfort is because (caused by) its lack of a cogent explanation of WHY its various assertions are correct. If "Dasein's pre-ontological understanding of being" causes (as in "because") the efficacy of the study of Dasein as a method of "ontological inquiry," it's entirely unexplained & offers little or no insight or useful information about Heidegger's theories.


:I support the revert if there is no convincing explanation forthcoming. [[User:Phlsph7|Phlsph7]] ([[User talk:Phlsph7|talk]]) 08:15, 29 October 2023 (UTC)
Optimally, this article can be more than a string of isolated assertions by Heidegger or his analysts, offered without context or explanation.


== restoring film section ==
Also, regarding the final sentence, NEITHER of the current sources establish any explicit connection between the described "implicit understanding" as such, and "phenomenology... using hermeneutics"


@[[User:Susmuffin|Susmuffin]], I am restoring the film section to the article. One could argue that the inclusion of [[Terrence Malick]] is merely a pop cultural reference. However, he studied Heidegger at the doctoral level, and there is a considerable academic literature on Heideggerian themes in Malick's body of work. Once this has been pointed out, it is hard not to see everywhere.
Copy of current graf for reference:
One way for engaging in this inquiry is by studying the human being, or Dasein, according to Heidegger.[93] This method works because of Dasein's pre-ontological understanding of being that shapes experience. This implicit understanding can be made explicit through phenomenology and its methods, but these must be employed using hermeneutics in order to avoid distortions by the forgetfulness of being, according to one interpretation of Heidegger.[85][94] <!-- Template:Unsigned IP --><small class="autosigned">—&nbsp;Preceding [[Wikipedia:Signatures|unsigned]] comment added by [[Special:Contributions/32.221.212.116|32.221.212.116]] ([[User talk:32.221.212.116#top|talk]]) 20:30, 1 July 2022 (UTC)</small> <!--Autosigned by SineBot-->


The other two films prominently feature Heidegger scholars and are directly about his thought. I think that readers are well served by their mention in the article. In contrast to the content of "Further reading" sections, it is not likely to occur to most readers to seek out secondary films about a philosopher. I would classify these two as unlikely to be challenged and so not in need of supporting citations, but reviews could surely be adduced if necessary. You couldn't really write about them without saying in the process that they are about Heidegger.
:Thanks for your efforts at improving this section. I think the information in the paragraph you mentioned is correct and well-sourced. But I'm open to reformulations or added explanations to make it better understandable. One difficulty for this undertaking is that, on the one hand, this topic is very important for Heidegger while, on the other hand, it's one of the most obscure topics in his work. One way to go about this would be to expand the paragraph by better explaining its different concepts, like "pre-ontological understanding of being" and "forgetfulness of being". [[User:Phlsph7|Phlsph7]] ([[User talk:Phlsph7|talk]]) 04:56, 2 July 2022 (UTC)


(I've seen ''[[The Ister]]'' and, although I've not seen ''[[Being in the World]]'', which does not appear to be streaming anywhere either, I know the work of a few of the scholars who participated.)
Although the citations (or at least one, anyway) seem to discuss combining phenomenology and hermeneutics in an analysis of Dasein to avoid "forgetfulness," I don't see where either note 85 or 94 refer explicitly to "pre-ontological understanding" or "implicit understanding" or any reasonably similar concept. Now, I understand it MAY be implied (?) that what is forgotten is this "implicit understanding," but can't, offhand, offer any citation or source for this, and might be simply wrong.


Please explain further if you still think this should not be included. Although I think it is a nice addition to the article, I don't have especially strong feelings on the matter and am entirely open to the counter-arguments of anyone who disagrees.
So the material may be (still) inadequately sourced. The root of the problem could be that original editor first wanted to make a point -- and then looked for a source. It often works more smoothly in reverse. Find a source and use its structure, rather than grafting it on to an editor's construct.


Cheers, [[User:PatrickJWelsh|Patrick J. Welsh]] ([[User talk:PatrickJWelsh|talk]]) 20:58, 3 November 2023 (UTC)
Also (just me) I like to know (directly from text!) who is making the point: "Trump won the election (source)" vs. "Trump said he won the election (source)" Or "Heidegger never defined 'Being' (source)" vs "Simon Critchley wrote that H. never defined 'Being' (source)."


== Valuable RS ==
"Heidegger never defined 'Being'" is a statement with fine sourcing (Critchley), yet is undesirable to simply throw in this statement in with a footnote. One hears editors say that given reliable source, anything goes. It's not always reasonable POV.


An overview of the discussions whether Heidegger was a racist: {{cite book | first1=Jonathan | last1=Judaken | chapter=Heidegger's Shadow | editor-last1=Taylor | editor-first1=Paul C. | editor-last2=Alcoff | editor-first2=Linda Martín | editor-last3=Anderson | editor-first3=Luvell | title=The Routledge Companion to the Philosophy of Race | publisher=Taylor & Francis | series=Routledge Philosophy Companions | year=2017 | isbn=978-1-134-65578-6 | url=https://books.google.nl/books?id=XJxADwAAQBAJ&pg=PT111 | access-date=1 March 2024 | page=PT111}} [[User:tgeorgescu|tgeorgescu]] ([[User talk:tgeorgescu|talk]]) 23:02, 1 March 2024 (UTC)
a[[Special:Contributions/32.221.212.116|32.221.212.116]] ([[User talk:32.221.212.116|talk]]) 15:10, 2 July 2022 (UTC)
[[Special:Contributions/32.221.212.116|32.221.212.116]] ([[User talk:32.221.212.116|talk]]) 15:10, 2 July 2022 (UTC)

:I restored the material and added additional sources/quotations. They show both the relation to pre-ontological understanding and that this understanding is "implicit". This paragraph, consisting of only 3 sentences, is more than well-sourced. I don't think there is much value to insisting on a source where every single word is mentioned explicitly. Another approach may be better suited: if there is a good reason to believe that there are still some false claims then I suggest you explain why they are false, for example, by quoting a text that explicitly contradicts them. I agree with you that attribution is necessary in cases where there are significant disagreements in the academic literature. [[User:Phlsph7|Phlsph7]] ([[User talk:Phlsph7|talk]]) 05:18, 3 July 2022 (UTC)
===Some problems with sourcing===
Note 93: is dead link.
Note 94: used to support "meta-ontology" comment. I've searched book (Inwood, Heidegger Dictionary) & term "Meta-ontology" apparently isn't there anywhere (certainly not in the cited entry).
Note 95: I've searched this article (Inwagen, Peter Van (1998). "Meta-Ontology". Erkenntnis. 48 (2–3): 233–50) & there is no mention of Heidegger. (Seems to concern some analytic philosophers).

I'll delete the "meta-ontology" material as unsourced, & further evaluate other sources.

[[Special:Contributions/32.221.212.116|32.221.212.116]] ([[User talk:32.221.212.116|talk]]) 19:26, 3 July 2022 (UTC)

While many elements of Heidegger's thought are (I believe) connected, none of the sources used here respecting "pre-ontological understanding" link this concept to "Fundamental Ontology" (see current notes 85,92,93).
Thus the "sourced" material amounts to an editor's "original research."

Edit warring is pointless -- but based on the citations' actual content, my point is factually correct.

[[Special:Contributions/32.221.212.116|32.221.212.116]] ([[User talk:32.221.212.116|talk]]) 19:54, 3 July 2022 (UTC)

:The book "Inwood, Heidegger Dictionary" contains the following phrase in the section "Ontology and fundamental ontology": {{tq|Fundamental ontology is meta-ontology}}. This is exactly what our sentence says. Looking up these sources is a time-consuming process. Please make sure you take the time to familiarize yourself with the sources before removing a sourced passage based on the claim that it lacks a source. The German term in the quotations corresponding to "pre-ontological understanding" is "Seinsverständnis". The link between it and fundamental ontology is also made in the cited entry in Inwood's dicitonary. This is not [[WP:OR]]. The links you mentioned ([https://books.google.com/books?id=0ppiDwAAQBAJ&pg=PA47] and [https://philpapers.org/rec/INWAHD-3]) work for me. [[User:Phlsph7|Phlsph7]] ([[User talk:Phlsph7|talk]]) 04:47, 4 July 2022 (UTC)
:====sorry====
:Yes, regarding the "meta-ontology" source, I apologize for an initially maladroit use of a word-search function.
:Stambaugh's lexicon for "understanding of being" (her translation of "Seinsverstandnis") includes dozens of entries, many of which don't directly correlate (neither explicitly nor in their immediate context) to "pre-ontological understanding" (though probably some do, -- & sure, there is an important link et cetera). However, let's certainly leave aside primary sources.
:Regarding:
:"This method works because of Dasein's pre-ontological understanding of being that shapes experience. This implicit understanding can be made explicit through phenomenology and its methods, but these must be employed using hermeneutics in order to avoid distortions by the forgetfulness of being, according to interpretations of Heidegger." (notes 85,92,93)
:Notes 92 & 93 are inappropriate -- not least because they're explicitly relevant to only parts of the text (but not, among other things, the topic sentence: "This method [study of Dasein] works because...")
:One must think here of "Synthesis" -- rather than legitimate sourcing.
:Note 85 might work if readers could discern what, exactly, in Wheeler's throw-in-the-kitchen-sink encyclopedia entry, is actually being cited here to support the graf.
:The solution is to find one source (or more) that says, ''explicitly and completely'' (and simply) whatever the editor is looking for in those two sentences. Maybe quote source in the text.
:Seems possible. If not, find something close and change sentences to fit the source(s). Simplest is to delete the two sentences or trim parts of content to ''fit'' available citations.

:Specifically, notes 92 & 93 establish that among Heideggerian concepts, there is a "pre-ontological understanding of being," and that "phenomenological hermeneutics" is a thing & that "forgetfulness of being" is a thing. But that these elements are related to "fundamental ontology" is unsupported by these sources. They don't support (explicitly) that pre-ontological understanding "shapes experience." They don't support that this understanding "can be made explicit through phenomenology that "must be employed using hermeneutics..."
:They don't support that phenomenology, if/when practiced ''without'' hermeneutics, invites "forgetfulness of being."
Moreover, the text doesn't define several of these terms.
:[[Special:Contributions/32.221.212.116|32.221.212.116]] ([[User talk:32.221.212.116|talk]]) 21:17, 4 July 2022 (UTC)
::No problem, such overlooks can happen. I think note 85 by itself is not sufficient. Note 92 is important for the relation to hermeneutics and pre-ontological understanding. Note 93 was mainly added because you doubted that the understanding is "implicit". It could be pruned if that is not an issue anymore. The relation between the terms you mentioned and "fundamental ontology" is made in Inwood's dictionary. We could replace note 93 with it to solve the problem. However, term "fundamental ontology" is not mentioned in our paragraph so I'm not sure that this is necessary.
::From [https://www.pdcnet.org/wcp22/content/wcp22_2008_0019_0049_0059?file_type=pdf here]: "In Sein und Zeit 'pre-ontological understanding' seems to be a condition for any further empirical relation to objects of experience." I think this is close enough to "shaping experience", but, if you like, we can reformulate it in terms of condition of experience to more closely fit this source. The sources support that phenomenology is Heidegger's method and hermeneutics is used as some form of corrective. The later point is mentioned in Grondin's source and refers to the "destructive" or negative side of hermeneutics by removing false aspects of the pre-understanding. As I said before, I am opposed to the information being removed, but I'm open to reformulations and further explanation if there are suggestions. Concerning the "made explicit through phenomenology": Grondin speaks in this context of an "Explikation" in the source cited. Or from [https://www.memphis.edu/philosophy/opo2019/pdfs/erciyes-erdem.pdf here]: "Hermeneutic phenomenology makes explicit the implicit clues that organize understanding...". I think that's close enough again. [[User:Phlsph7|Phlsph7]] ([[User talk:Phlsph7|talk]]) 04:23, 5 July 2022 (UTC)
::My suggestion:
:::'''Do not combine material from multiple sources to reach or imply a conclusion not explicitly stated by any source.''' --[[WP:SYNTH]].
::Generally, the more directly this article follows from its sources, the more successfull is the ''Gestell'' of clear and useful material.
::If as you say, "note 85 is not sufficient" then find a different source. Same treatment applies to ANY source notes (see especially notes 92, 93).
::[[Special:Contributions/32.221.212.116|32.221.212.116]] ([[User talk:32.221.212.116|talk]]) 16:01, 5 July 2022 (UTC)
:::[[WP:SYNTH]] prohibits introducing new statements not supported by the individual sources. I think our paragraphs follows this policy, as I've tried to demonstrate in my last replies. But SYNTH does not require that all the information found in one paragraph is supported by one single source, as your last reply seems to suggest. If that was the case, many parts of the article would be SYNTH. I agree: it would be better to have such a comprehensive single source. If I come across such a source, I'll add it. But finding sources is a time-consuming process. I think we are on the same page about what would be ideal. But, as I see it, the current sources are sufficient for [[WP:RELIABILITY]]. [[User:Phlsph7|Phlsph7]] ([[User talk:Phlsph7|talk]]) 04:37, 6 July 2022 (UTC)
:::Me again here (on different computer) -- it's clearly implied (though could be more plainly stated) that graf-in-question's content is relevant to "Fundamental Ontology," the central idea of entire subsection.
:::A citation that narrowly links this content to FM is required for sourcing clarity. Lacking this, the entire basis for graf's ''Existenz'' is unsourced; groundless and without horizon. This may leave readers with ''Anxiety''.... although it would be very far from ''uncanny.''
:::[[Special:Contributions/32.221.212.116|32.221.212.116]] ([[User talk:32.221.212.116|talk]]) 03:13, 11 July 2022 (UTC)
::::As has been pointed out before: the link to fundamental ontology is made, for example, in the cited entry of Inwood's dictionary with the title "Ontology and fundamental ontology". This entry discusses, among other things, how the analytic of Dasein is used as a method of fundamental ontology. I'll go ahead and add this reference to the article, as was proposed before. The link to the ontological difference, which is also in the title of our section, is made in the article cited by Grondin. [[User:Phlsph7|Phlsph7]] ([[User talk:Phlsph7|talk]]) 05:11, 11 July 2022 (UTC)
:::::I'm the editor who earlier raised "synth" and other issues. Apparently all non-registered users of T-Moble internet service (like me) are banned by Wikipedia. Presently, I care far less than previously about this article. In retrospect, I concede my approach was (only) a bit strong and wrong. Moreover, it appears coherence isn't really achievable via random "collaborations." This entire procedure is contrary to my limited understanding of how to produce "good" or even acceptable "writing." I say this having added dozens of sources across several articles concerning MH. Invariably this work was more difficult, and/or impossible, where others were involved in "collaboration."
:::::
:::::As t-mobile user, I am perhaps fortunately, not presently involved.
:::::[[Special:Contributions/35.8.218.249|35.8.218.249]] ([[User talk:35.8.218.249|talk]]) 22:10, 23 October 2022 (UTC)
::::::Thanks for your feedback and I'm sorry to hear about your difficulties in editing Wikipedia using T-Mobile. I think with Heidegger, you picked a particularly difficult topic. His philosophy is complex and obscure while this article has many monthly views and watchers. As an extra factor, Heidegger is a quite controversial figure so the opinions in academic literature often diverge a lot from each other, making it even more of a challenge to write a balanced article. [[User:Phlsph7|Phlsph7]] ([[User talk:Phlsph7|talk]]) 19:00, 24 October 2022 (UTC)
::::::For writers, balance and coherence are separate values. A third, largely separate value is Wikipedia's editing "culture" (including rules & procedures). The conflict among these values can vary, from slight to extreme.
::::::[[Special:Contributions/35.8.218.251|35.8.218.251]] ([[User talk:35.8.218.251|talk]]) 21:19, 24 October 2022 (UTC)

== Poor introduction ==

The introduction is narrow-scoped and the explication of ideas lacks context -- if you're going to include pithy expositions they need to be sufficiently general that they sit in context with his broader thought, not just one work. As such, it's misleading to readers who might want to acquaint themselves with the thinker. The controversial elements need to be mentioned -- but the breadth of influence of his ideas suggest that his very questionable political activity and failures in his personal life can, at least in part, be evaluated separately from his philosophical output. To make the introduction more representative, his philosophical project and breadth of work needs to be outlined more fully, including mention of his influence on subsequent philosophy. [[Special:Contributions/184.148.136.17|184.148.136.17]] ([[User talk:184.148.136.17|talk]]) 02:10, 4 March 2023 (UTC)


=="Biography" and "Personal Life"==
What is the difference, and why are they considered separate segments? Is the same or similar logic applied to other parts of this article?
[[Special:Contributions/32.221.207.102|32.221.207.102]] ([[User talk:32.221.207.102|talk]]) 20:40, 23 July 2023 (UTC)

== The essence of technology ==

Below I copy a section from the [[phenomenology]] page that did not really fit. It's sourced though, and since you don't have coverage here, I thought it might be incorporated. I leave the specifics to those actively involved on the page.

Cheers,

===The "essence of technology"===
According to Heidegger, the essence of technology is the way of being of modern humans—a way of conducting themselves towards the world—that sees the world as something to be ordered and shaped in line with projects, intentions and desires—a 'will to power' that manifests itself as a 'will to technology'.<ref name="Introna, L. 2005">Introna, L. (2005) Disclosing the Digital Face: The ethics of facial recognition systems, Ethics and Information Technology, 7(2)</ref>
Heidegger claims that there were other times in human history, a pre-modern time, where humans did not orient themselves towards the world in a technological way—simply as resources for our purposes.<ref name="Introna, L. 2005"/>

However, according to Heidegger this 'pre-technological' age (or mood) is one where humans' relation with the world and artifacts, their way of being disposed, was poetic and aesthetic rather than technological (enframing).<ref name="Introna, L. 2005"/> There are many who disagree with Heidegger's account of the modern technological attitude as the 'enframing' of the world.<ref>Feenberg, A. (1999) 'Technology and Meaning', in Questioning Technology, London and New York: Routledge.</ref> For example, [[Andrew Feenberg]] argues that Heidegger's account of modern technology is not borne out in contemporary everyday encounters with [[technology]].<ref name="Introna, L. 2005"/> [[User:PatrickJWelsh|Patrick J. Welsh]] ([[User talk:PatrickJWelsh|talk]]) 20:00, 26 July 2023 (UTC)

== overlapping lists of students ==

There is duplication in the lists of Heidegger's students at Marbug (unsourced) and Freiburg (two sources). If there is a mistake in the first list, it should be corrected; if students followed him, that should be stated explicitly to avoid interpreting the duplication as an error. [[User:PatrickJWelsh|Patrick J. Welsh]] ([[User talk:PatrickJWelsh|talk]]) 18:54, 19 August 2023 (UTC)

Revision as of 12:34, 6 April 2024

Former good article nomineeMartin Heidegger was a Philosophy and religion good articles nominee, but did not meet the good article criteria at the time. There may be suggestions below for improving the article. Once these issues have been addressed, the article can be renominated. Editors may also seek a reassessment of the decision if they believe there was a mistake.
Article milestones
DateProcessResult
August 10, 2006Good article nomineeNot listed


reorganization by IP editor

Hi @2001:569:538b:6500:805d:75c9:4c13:8fbb,

You recently made a large-scale organizational edit to the biographical and Nazi material in the article without even an edit description. It's not clear to me that this is an improvement, but I'd like to offer a chance to explain why you think it is.

If you or someone else does not provide a compelling justification for the changes, I will probably restore the previous version. If I do this before you see this note, do not worry. All edits are saved in the article history, and your changes could be restored if there is later consensus.

You might also have a look at WP:ACCOUNT on the benefits of creating a username and account.

Thanks for your attention to this article!

Cheers, Patrick J. Welsh (talk) 15:27, 28 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I support the revert if there is no convincing explanation forthcoming. Phlsph7 (talk) 08:15, 29 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

restoring film section

@Susmuffin, I am restoring the film section to the article. One could argue that the inclusion of Terrence Malick is merely a pop cultural reference. However, he studied Heidegger at the doctoral level, and there is a considerable academic literature on Heideggerian themes in Malick's body of work. Once this has been pointed out, it is hard not to see everywhere.

The other two films prominently feature Heidegger scholars and are directly about his thought. I think that readers are well served by their mention in the article. In contrast to the content of "Further reading" sections, it is not likely to occur to most readers to seek out secondary films about a philosopher. I would classify these two as unlikely to be challenged and so not in need of supporting citations, but reviews could surely be adduced if necessary. You couldn't really write about them without saying in the process that they are about Heidegger.

(I've seen The Ister and, although I've not seen Being in the World, which does not appear to be streaming anywhere either, I know the work of a few of the scholars who participated.)

Please explain further if you still think this should not be included. Although I think it is a nice addition to the article, I don't have especially strong feelings on the matter and am entirely open to the counter-arguments of anyone who disagrees.

Cheers, Patrick J. Welsh (talk) 20:58, 3 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Valuable RS

An overview of the discussions whether Heidegger was a racist: Judaken, Jonathan (2017). "Heidegger's Shadow". In Taylor, Paul C.; Alcoff, Linda Martín; Anderson, Luvell (eds.). The Routledge Companion to the Philosophy of Race. Routledge Philosophy Companions. Taylor & Francis. p. PT111. ISBN 978-1-134-65578-6. Retrieved 1 March 2024. tgeorgescu (talk) 23:02, 1 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Martin_Heidegger&oldid=1217542585"