|
Heidegger was a gibbering, idiot, nazi hack. His works are basically incoherent and incomprehensible. Once you boil off the bullshit all that remains is a pile of useless and trivial observations, and a lovely half-baked re-articulation of ideas which pre-date him by more than a thousand years. The fact that the impotent dribbling dick of 20th century western postmodern philosophy was influenced heavily by him is damning praise. He somehow gets credit for resurrecting ontological concepts that are old as gently caress despite the fact that, when the fart cloud of pointlessly obtuse terminology settles, it turns out he didn't actually develop these ideas any further at all. He did do a lot to popularize the idea that "not making any goddamn sense" is, in fact, a profound epistemological position and when called out on being a sputtering font of verbal diarrhea he had the balls to basically declare "well, if I used specific words in a certain order that actually meant something, my ideas wouldn't make any sense!" If he had spent more time carefully or sincerely developing his ontological ideas instead of swerving off into bongrippingly lazy anthropology and being up his own rear end about lovely German poetry or whatever, maybe he would have written something worth reading. But he didn't. And that's all I have to say about that. Morbus fucked around with this message at 05:54 on Jan 27, 2019 |
#
¿
Jan 27, 2019 05:51
|
|
|
|
| # ¿ May 16, 2024 01:45 |
|
|
See this is the problem with "philosophers" who try to justify their obscurantism one way or another. A single sentence of prose as entropic as Heidegger's can mean a thousand different things, few of them even intentional. Readers who sincerely try to distill concrete, self-consistent meaning (while refusing to cheat themselves into "understanding" something they don't for the sake of being pulled along on Heidegger's Wild Dasein Ride) will--correctly--conclude that the work is mostly gibberish. But readers who power through, either by suspending critical thought or just by experiencing the work through a mostly aesthetic framework (which, you know, you could do a hell of a lot better than this quack if that's your jam), will basically end up seeing patterns in oracle bones. And while, as with any form of cleromancy, people may sometimes be able to obtain interesting, profound, or correct insights this way, the fact that they are just as easily able to do so by scrutinizing less authentic gibberish should come as no surprise.
|
|
#
¿
Feb 27, 2019 09:14
|
|