Talk:Martin Heidegger

"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? 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. Patrick J. Welsh (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'. 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.

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). There are many who disagree with Heidegger's account of the modern technological attitude as the 'enframing' of the world. For example, Andrew Feenberg argues that Heidegger's account of modern technology is not borne out in contemporary everyday encounters with technology. Patrick J. Welsh (talk) 20:00, 26 July 2023 (UTC)

References

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. Patrick J. Welsh (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, Patrick J. Welsh (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, Patrick J. Welsh (talk) 22:33, 26 August 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. Patrick J. Welsh (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.) Patrick J. Welsh (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". Patrick J. Welsh (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. Patrick J. Welsh (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. Patrick J. Welsh (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. Patrick J. Welsh (talk) 17:53, 30 August 2023 (UTC)

References

Influences

Can someone fix them? 37.63.103.4 (talk) 20:14, 5 September 2023 (UTC)

Could you be more specific about the problem you see? Patrick J. Welsh (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. 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."

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!

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, Patrick J. Welsh (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. 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, Patrick J. Welsh (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. 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. 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, Patrick J. Welsh (talk) 16:38, 7 September 2023 (UTC)

I've tried editing several times, but the results have been quite terrible... Can somoene do it? 37.63.103.4 (talk) 20:17, 7 September 2023 (UTC)