(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 edit
Content deleted Content added
VisualWikitext
m Archiving 1 discussion(s) to Talk:Martin Heidegger/Archive 6) (bot
 
(10 intermediate revisions by 4 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=C|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=C|importance=Low|fascism=yes|needs-infobox=no|needs-image=no}}
{{WikiProject Politics|importance=Low|needs-infobox=no|needs-image=no}}
{{WikiProject Germany|class=C|importance=High|portal1-name=Philosophy|portal1-link=Selected philosopher/6}}
{{WikiProject Germany|importance=High}}
{{WikiProject Philosophy|importance=High|philosopher=yes|continental=yes|contemporary=yes|metaphysics=yes|aesthetics=yes|social=yes}}
{{WikiProject Christianity|importance=High|catholicism=yes|catholicism-importance=High|needs-infobox=no}}
{{WikiProject Religion|importance=High|needs-infobox=no|needs-photo=no}}
}}
}}
{{WikiProject Philosophy|class=C|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 Religion|class=C|importance=High|needs-infobox=no|needs-photo=no}}
{{User:MiszaBot/config
{{User:MiszaBot/config
| algo = old(183d)
| algo = old(183d)
| archive = Talk:Martin Heidegger/Archive %(counter)d
| archive = Talk:Martin Heidegger/Archive %(counter)d
| counter = 4
| counter = 6
| maxarchivesize = 150K
| maxarchivesize = 150K
| archiveheader = {{Aan}}
| archiveheader = {{Aan}}
Line 33: Line 32:
|leading_zeros=0
|leading_zeros=0
|indexhere=yes}}
|indexhere=yes}}

=="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)

:I agree. These should be integrated. There is a strong case to make for continuing to maintain the Nazi stuff as its own section, but at least some of this material would probably fit better under a unified Biography section. [[User:PatrickJWelsh|Patrick J. Welsh]] ([[User talk:PatrickJWelsh|talk]]) 22:02, 21 August 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)

:Hi Patrick. I think your first paragraph simplifies Heidegger's characterization of our present technological age. The claim that the modern essence of technology "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'" is not quite what Heidegger says. I don't think he uses the phrase "will to power" at all, which I'd refrain from employing due to the metaphysical implications of the phrase in Nietzsche's philosophy (of course Heidegger often alludes to this Nietzschean notion in many of his works, and a fruitful treatment of Heidegger's engagement with it should fall outside the scope of a wikipedia entry). You're not entirely wrong, but I don't think Heidegger would deny that previous, pre-modern technological ages also saw the world in terms of "projects, intentions, and desires". The "enframing" that Heidegger's talking about hearkens back to a certain "revealing", which concerns his conception of truth as unconcealment. It is in a certain "revealing" that the enframing of nature comes about. And the "revealing" that occasions an "enframing" does not start with modern physics, but earlier; the latter is merely the coming to fruition of an earlier revealing. I'd have to scour the text, but he probably traces it back to the ancient Greeks. - Angjelin [[Special:Contributions/184.147.147.11|184.147.147.11]] ([[User talk:184.147.147.11|talk]]) 04:29, 3 October 2023 (UTC)
::Hi Angjelin, I moved this section here from [[phenomenology (philosophy)]], where it did not fit in that article as it stood. This material should be included in this article, however. If you wanted to draft something up, that would be great!
::I think that the most important concepts to include in the general article-treatment of Heidegger are enframing and standing reserve. But I don't yet have any specific vision for how to present them, and I'm not sure off-hand what else might deserve inclusion.
::Cheers, [[User:PatrickJWelsh|Patrick J. Welsh]] ([[User talk:PatrickJWelsh|talk]]) 12:40, 5 October 2023 (UTC)

{{reflist-talk}}

== 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)

== Ideal TOC for Philosophy section? ==

At present, this article is quite disappointing in its treatment of Heidegger's philosophy, which — since this is is the only reason he has an encyclopedia entry — is a serious shortcoming.

My knowledge of the secondary literature is limited and surely outdated, but I know ''Being and Time'' reasonably well, and I can improve coverage of this part of his philosophy in neutral language sourced at least to his own writing.

I can also produce a short section on his work on the "essence of technology" and maybe some of his work on language. Possibly also his stuff on the work of art, although my assessment of this part of his philosophy is rather low—readers would probably be better served by a more sympathetic editor.

The whole project of producing a history of being requires someone else to step up. Based on my limited reading of the relevant texts, I am highly critical of this project. It belongs in the article, but I am not willing to do the research necessary to do an adequate job of presenting his positions. Even absent proper coverage, however, it would be helpful to create a place-holder section in the TOC.

What else needs to be covered? Just having a good TOC in place encourages productive edits. And the further away we get from ''Being and Time'', the less I know. Suggestions for what needs to be covered (if possible, with good secondary sources!) in what sort of order are most welcome even if you cannot commit to making the edits yourself.

Cheers, [[User:PatrickJWelsh|Patrick J. Welsh]] ([[User talk:PatrickJWelsh|talk]]) 22:30, 21 August 2023 (UTC)

:I've done some reorganization, and I've just added a new section "Being-in-the-world" that I think, together with the "Fundamental ontology" section, covers most of the major claims of Division I of BT.
:I am hoping to write two more sections on BT: one on authenticity and das Man, and one on historicity.
:Comments and suggestions most welcome!
:Cheers, [[User:PatrickJWelsh|Patrick J. Welsh]] ([[User talk:PatrickJWelsh|talk]]) 22:33, 26 August 2023 (UTC)
::This edit has just been posted. Review of the material on authenticity would be particularly welcome. What is there is well-sourced, but some readers will probably be curious for more. I tend to side with the scholars who find all the anxious being-towards-death stuff among the weaker parts of BT, so someone more sympathetic might improve the overall neutrality of the section—just in case my inclusion of Zimmerman does not go far enough.
::Cheers, [[User:PatrickJWelsh|Patrick J. Welsh]] ([[User talk:PatrickJWelsh|talk]]) 16:52, 11 September 2023 (UTC)
:I am going to cut back the section on "The Turn" because it is more of a debate about how to organize the scholarship than it is about Heidegger's actual thought, much of which remains absent or obscure in this article.
:Besides the history of being section, I think we need sections on the three items mentioned above: technology, language, and art. [[User:PatrickJWelsh|Patrick J. Welsh]] ([[User talk:PatrickJWelsh|talk]]) 17:15, 30 August 2023 (UTC)

A lot of the material at [[Heideggerian terminology]] is more detailed than what appears on this page, and it also covers important concepts not covered here at all. Very little of it is sourced, which is unfortunate, but I still call attention to it as a potential resource. (My understanding of Wikipedia policy is that it is fine to copy material like this as long as you acknowledge it with a hidden HTML comment. I've also see notes to this effect added to the yellow box thing on the Talk page, which I'm guessing is more for more extensive borrowings, but I don't know the exact rules.) [[User:PatrickJWelsh|Patrick J. Welsh]] ([[User talk:PatrickJWelsh|talk]]) 17:24, 22 August 2023 (UTC)

== Reception in France ==

Does anyone have any thoughts on this section? Right now it is disproportionally long, and I believe it will remain so even as the treatment of Heidegger's philosophy expands. My suggestion would be to make use of [[WP:SS]], that is, to break it off into its own article, which this article would summarize in about a paragraph with a link out to the "main article". [[User:PatrickJWelsh|Patrick J. Welsh]] ([[User talk:PatrickJWelsh|talk]]) 18:25, 26 August 2023 (UTC)

:On closer reading, aside from being poorly sourced, much of this was either too much about Sartre' existentialism or redundant with material already covered in the Nazi section. I have condensed and integrated under the head of European reception.
:For the time being, I am moving the material on the The Farías debate up to the Nazi section. It can be determined later how much to keep in what form. [[User:PatrickJWelsh|Patrick J. Welsh]] ([[User talk:PatrickJWelsh|talk]]) 14:01, 27 August 2023 (UTC)

== REFSPAM issue ==

[[Nader El-Bizri]] or someone close to him appears, unsurprisingly, to be responsible for the large number of references to his work. I notice, in particular, the activity of Levantine, who I suspect is the author, and AcademeEditorial, who I would guess is a well-meaning student. But I'm not familiar with all the forensic tools used to determine such matters with greater certainty. For now, I am just going to scrape at least most of the offending references. [[User:PatrickJWelsh|Patrick J. Welsh]] ([[User talk:PatrickJWelsh|talk]]) 05:27, 27 August 2023 (UTC)

== "language speaks" ==

Because it has two good sources, I'm storing the below for later reintegration as its own section. (Neither this nor the stand-alone [[Language speaks]] explains what this supposedly famous saying means. Also, nothing on language as "the house of being"? That's the one I would have nominated as Heidegger's most famous on this topic.)

In a 1950 lecture Heidegger formulated the famous saying "[[Language speaks]]", later published in the 1959 essays collection ''Unterwegs zur Sprache'', and collected in the 1971 English book ''Poetry, Language, Thought''.<ref name="Lyon06">Lyon, James K. [https://books.google.com/books?id=vB_Tv7A9oI8C ''Paul Celan and Martin Heidegger: an unresolved conversation, 1951–1970''], pp. 128–9</ref><ref name="Philipse98">Philipse, Herman (1998) ''Heidegger's philosophy of being: a critical interpretation'', p. 205</ref>{{sfn|Heidegger|1971b|page=190}} [[User:PatrickJWelsh|Patrick J. Welsh]] ([[User talk:PatrickJWelsh|talk]]) 17:53, 30 August 2023 (UTC)

{{reflist-talk}}

== Influences ==

Can someone fix them? [[Special:Contributions/37.63.103.4|37.63.103.4]] ([[User talk:37.63.103.4|talk]]) 20:14, 5 September 2023 (UTC)

:Could you be more specific about the problem you see? [[User:PatrickJWelsh|Patrick J. Welsh]] ([[User talk:PatrickJWelsh|talk]]) 21:22, 5 September 2023 (UTC)
::As a person who visits this page quite often, i have noticed that the number of influences has been reduced SHARPLY. Pretty much half (maybe even more) of his influences has been deleted. I can name pretty much all of them, but i wonder is there a way of basically restoring them the way they were. Btw, thank you so very much for your interest. I can provide further information down the line. [[Special:Contributions/37.63.103.4|37.63.103.4]] ([[User talk:37.63.103.4|talk]]) 15:34, 6 September 2023 (UTC)
:::Hi, thanks for clarifying! I am the one who removed most of the influences. By way of justification, I repost here what I added as a hidden comment to the Infobox. Most of my pruning was governed by the second bullet point, which could be rephrased as "If it's not important enough to be discussed in the article, it does belong in a summary of that article."
:::<blockquote>PLEASE EDIT ONLY IF FAMILIAR WITH THE POLICIES OUTLINED AT [[MOS:INFOBOX]].
:::In particular:
:::* "The less information it contains, the more effectively it serves that purpose, allowing readers to identify key facts at a glance. Of necessity, some infoboxes contain more than just a few fields; however, wherever possible, present information in short form, and exclude any unnecessary content."
:::* Everything in the Infobox must be supported by the article itself. Anything that requires a citation does not belong.
:::* With respect to lists or catalogs, longer is not better. If it is not possible to be comprehensive, a list will invariably become arbitrary. Unless it is clear from the article itself what does and does not belong, that category probably should not be in the Infobox at all.
:::* Those interested in creating and tending longer lists might consider [[Wikipedia:Stand-alone lists]], to which the article could then link with a "See also" wherever most appropriate.
:::Thank you for helping to minimize bloat and keeping everything reader-friendly!</blockquote>
:::I hope this makes sense as a justification? Quite possibly some of the links I removed will be restored as the article is further developed.
:::Cheers, [[User:PatrickJWelsh|Patrick J. Welsh]] ([[User talk:PatrickJWelsh|talk]]) 16:50, 6 September 2023 (UTC)
::::I would kindly ask you to add most of them back, because as a person with knowledge on Heidegger, the removal is quite unnecessary and harmful. [[Special:Contributions/37.63.103.4|37.63.103.4]] ([[User talk:37.63.103.4|talk]]) 20:14, 6 September 2023 (UTC)
:::::Hey again, I want to say that I really appreciate your keeping this in the Talk page and not risking an edit war. Also, I do not doubt your knowledge of Heidegger, and I apologize if I seemed to suggest otherwise.
:::::Could you provide details (if possible, with sources) on what specifically is missing from the article? For I certainly am not defending it as complete. I'm sure everyone would welcome any constructive edits you might make to improve the article.
:::::My governing concern, btw, when editing is with what best serves readers—not in the first place with the policies and style guidelines Wikipedia. In this case, however, I think the [[MOS:INFOBOXPURPOSE]] policy gets it right. Heidegger read, and so was in some sense influenced, by a tremendous number of thinkers. The index of names in Kisiel's ''The Genesis of Heidegger's "Being & Time'' alone runs five pages! If the influence is not important enough to be described (even if just briefly!) and sourced in the article, it just does not belong.
:::::Regards, [[User:PatrickJWelsh|Patrick J. Welsh]] ([[User talk:PatrickJWelsh|talk]]) 20:58, 6 September 2023 (UTC)
::::::Thank you very much for the feedback and your care for the page!
::::::When it comes to the influences, several medieval theologians are missing (like Anselm, Bonaventure, Thomas Aquinas although he could have been mentioned, Meister Eckhart and maybe some more), so are some other german philosophers alive during his time (Jacob von Uexkull, Emil Lask, Count Yourk, Karl Jaspers...) and Rene Descartes could also be added. There's a huge possibility i could be forgetting some names, but for now these are all i can mention.
::::::Might add some in the future. Thank you so very much. [[Special:Contributions/77.76.19.67|77.76.19.67]] ([[User talk:77.76.19.67|talk]]) 10:14, 7 September 2023 (UTC)
:::::::Also i just realised Kant and Hegel aren't included, which is quite strange considering he wrote books on them. [[Special:Contributions/77.76.19.67|77.76.19.67]] ([[User talk:77.76.19.67|talk]]) 10:16, 7 September 2023 (UTC)
:::::::Hey again, if your aim is to be as comprehensive as possible with this list, I again encourage you to have a look here: [[Wikipedia:Stand-alone lists]]. The list you make could then be included as a "See also" under Early Influences in the same way the that Heideggerian Terminology is included underneath Philosophy.
:::::::The folks at the [[WP:TEAHOUSE]] will be helpful if you need have any questions about how to do this. They also have some documentation laying of the basics of editing, which could be useful.
:::::::That way, readers who want something more extensive than what can be covered in an encyclopedia article can easily find it.
:::::::If you decide to follow this route, linking back to this discussion might help to get the List page approved more easily.
:::::::Cheers, [[User:PatrickJWelsh|Patrick J. Welsh]] ([[User talk:PatrickJWelsh|talk]]) 16:38, 7 September 2023 (UTC)
::::::::I've tried editing several times, but the results have been quite terrible... Can somoene do it? [[Special:Contributions/37.63.103.4|37.63.103.4]] ([[User talk:37.63.103.4|talk]]) 20:17, 7 September 2023 (UTC)
:::::::::If the edits you are trying to make are those to the Infobox you describe above, they will be reverted. To the best of my understanding, what you propose violates several perfectly good Wikipedia policies, and you have not even attempted to explain why this is an instance in which readers would be well served by overriding them (which I am entirely willing to accept is sometimes the case).
:::::::::Here is another:
:::::::::"To provide encyclopedic value, [[data]] should be put in context with explanations referenced to independent sources. As explained in [[Wikipedia:What_Wikipedia_is_not#Encyclopedic_content|Encyclopedic content]] above, merely being true, or even [[WP:verifiability|verifiable]], does not automatically make something suitable for inclusion in the encyclopedia." ([[WP:INDISCRIMINATE]])
:::::::::I appreciate your perfectly level tone and your good intentions, but I do not understand why you persist in this. I've suggested two good ways you might incorporate the information on influences into Wikipedia: edit the article itself with appropriate contextualization of the specific nature of the influence supported by good sources, or else create a self-standing list page with the ambition of being as comprehensive as possible.
:::::::::If you feel that I am in the wrong here, please see [[Wikipedia:Consensus]] for options by which to move forward.
:::::::::Regards, [[User:PatrickJWelsh|Patrick J. Welsh]] ([[User talk:PatrickJWelsh|talk]]) 20:48, 7 September 2023 (UTC)
::::::::::{{ping|PatrickJWelsh}} I agree that the list of influences should be limited to the essentials to be useful. However, the influences for Heidegger seem to be very numerous. One difficulty is how to decide who should and who shouldn't be included. Patrick's suggestions to only include the ones that are discussed in the article is one way to do it. I would prefer the alternative of removing the whole list from the infobox. This way, we avoid the problem of how to draw the line between essential and non-essential influences. [[User:Phlsph7|Phlsph7]] ([[User talk:Phlsph7|talk]]) 08:20, 8 September 2023 (UTC)
::::::::::Just do it... You obviously have little real knowledge of Heidegger, so just act as the tool for the neccessery means.. [[Special:Contributions/37.63.103.4|37.63.103.4]] ([[User talk:37.63.103.4|talk]]) 18:02, 11 September 2023 (UTC)
:::::::::::If you see anything incorrect in the current article, please do share here! Also, if you have suggestions for further improvements, please likewise do share with supporting scholarly sources in as much detail as possible.
:::::::::::Cheers, [[User:PatrickJWelsh|Patrick J. Welsh]] ([[User talk:PatrickJWelsh|talk]]) 18:43, 11 September 2023 (UTC)
::::::::::::Please, recommend me somoene who is actually keen on doing his job. [[Special:Contributions/37.63.103.4|37.63.103.4]] ([[User talk:37.63.103.4|talk]]) 11:36, 12 September 2023 (UTC)
:::::::::::::In order to have a productive talk-page interaction, I suggest that you change your tone. [[User:Phlsph7|Phlsph7]] ([[User talk:Phlsph7|talk]]) 12:01, 12 September 2023 (UTC)


== reorganization by IP editor ==
== reorganization by IP editor ==
Line 178: Line 60:


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

== Valuable RS ==

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)

Latest 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[edit]

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[edit]

@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[edit]

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"