Talk:Martin Heidegger

Arendt in lede

This edit elides a significant point and should be reverted. — goethean ॐ 04:06, 11 August 2010 (UTC)

The purpose of the lead is to summarise the main points of the article - not to include any and every fact that someone might think interesting. By all means, discuss Arendt's being Heidegger's mistress, but not in the lead, please. Including it there effectively implies that she promoted Heidegger as a thinker because she was his mistress - we owe our readers better than that. UserVOBO (talk) 06:52, 11 August 2010 (UTC)

Herbert Wetterauer drawing

I am strongly opposed to including Herbert Wetterauer's drawing of Heidegger in this article. I don't think using a drawing to show what someone looked like in an article is ever appropriate; it is particularly inappropriate to use the Wetterauer drawing, since it is in deeply bad taste. It's a cozy, folksy drawing that portrays Heidegger in a soft-edged way - the kind of thing that would have some viewers of the article thinking, "Oh gee, look at Heidegger - isn't he cute! What a character!" It hardly needs explaining why that is a wholly wrong response to Heidegger, and it's clearly not a response we should be encouraging. UserVOBO (talk) 21:48, 24 September 2010 (UTC)

Your judgment on the artistic qaulity of this drawing is only one possible opinion. I do not think that the artist has had the intention to palliate Heidegger. Contrary, it is a very good study of the difficult and also suspected and doubtful personality of Heidegger. Besides, it is the only available picture of Heidegger in Wikimedia Commons and I think, it is better than nothing. --Hirt des Seyns (talk) 22:58, 24 September 2010 (UTC)

Any drawing that portrays Heidegger in a cute or folksy way, as that drawing does, is a bad drawing, regardless of the skill with which it is done, because it's simply in bad taste and inappropriate. Wikipedia articles are not improved by adding junk of that kind; it should be removed. UserVOBO (talk) 23:06, 24 September 2010 (UTC)

You are the judge about good and bad taste? --Hirt des Seyns (talk) 23:10, 24 September 2010 (UTC)

You see the problem with this discussion. I explain why the picture is inappropriate - you respond with something that can be construed as a personal attack. In my judgment, yes, the picture is in bad taste. You have the right to disagree if you like, but not to suggest that I'm trying to force my views on everyone else, or that I'm acting as though other editors' views did not matter. UserVOBO (talk) 23:14, 24 September 2010 (UTC)

It’s a pity that the discussion comes abrupt to such an end. The picture is yet good enough for the German Wikipedia. --79.219.8.1 (talk) 09:21, 25 September 2010 (UTC)

English Wikipedia isn't German Wikipedia, and we aren't obliged to follow what they do there. UserVOBO (talk) 20:50, 25 September 2010 (UTC)

I think, there may be a problem with the copyright of the recent picture.--Das Volk (talk) 20:42, 21 February 2011 (UTC)

The "recent" picture is deleted, I have added the only available picture from Wikimedia Commons.--Das Volk (talk) 21:49, 8 July 2011 (UTC)

Nazi affiliation

In the first paragraph, I changed "involvement with Nazism" to "affiliation with Nazism". "Involvement" is a bit weasally and vague (virtually everyone in Germany was involved with Nazism, whether they were happy about it or not. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.229.55.38 (talk) 05:46, 17 November 2010 (UTC)

Reverted this edit. I agree that "involvement" is vague; the problem with "affiliation" is that it's inadvertently misleading. Heidegger was affiliated, in the strict sense of the term, with the NSDAP very briefly. That really isn't the problem. That affiliation would have been comparatively unproblematic had his contextualization of it in the "Der Spiegel" interview been accurate. It wasn't. The difficulty is much broader than the "affiliation." Maybe there are better words than "involvement" though.KD Tries Again (talk) 05:04, 4 January 2011 (UTC)KD Tries Again

Support might be better, although any characterization is problematic, given Heidegger's twists and turns and complete refusal to say anything about it post-war. There can be no doubt, however, about his approach to Nazism during the brief period of his rectorship. As George Steiner, who is otherwise overwhelmingly sympathetic to Heidegger, particularly in his critical remarks on poetry, put it: "it is vile, turgid, and brutal stuff in which the official jargon of the day blends seamlessly with Heidegger's idiom at its most hypnotic." Once something is said, it is extremely difficult to unsay it, having set the tone for the attitude, although later he moderated his approach so that it appeared congruent with another inexplicable Nazi sympathizer, the Norwegian Knut Hamsun: in bulk, the Nazis promised to eliminate the sham nature of modern society and restore authenticity to the world. The fact that they did no such thing seems not to have fazed either one, or on the other hand, it may have inspired their timidity once they realized they were caught up in the mob. In any case, given what Hitler had already done and written in Mein Kampf and the vigilante nature of his henchmen, it is extemely difficult to justify some of Heidegger's comments, for instance the one in the Freiburge Studenten Zeitung of November 3, 1933: "The Fuhrer himself is the only present embodiment and future embodiment of German action and its law." See George Steiner, Martin Heidegger, Viking Press, New York, 1978, pp. 118-24 passim.Uniquerman (talk) 18:05, 20 January 2011 (UTC)

Influenced by Adolph Hitler?

On 14 December 2010, a user contribution at 201.79.236.116 lists Adolph Hitler in the Info Box (under "Influences") as a (presumably) significant influence on the life and thought of Martin Heidegger.

How so?

Ok, well I'll play along a little. Let's look, for example, at this recent edit by a user at 98.225.167.150 on 15 December 2010:

“ Recent scholarship has shown that Heidegger was substantially influenced by St. Augustine of Hippo and that Martin Heidegger's Being and Time book would not have been possible without the influence of Augustine's thought and especially his Confessions. ”

Can we substitute Hitler's name for St. Augustine and make a similar statement? :

“ Scholarship has shown that Heidegger was substantially influenced by Adoph Hitler and that many of Heidegger's writings, teachings, treatises, and public addresses would not have been possible without the influence of Hitler's life, thought, speeches, and writings ”

From this perspective, the latter (speculative & imaginary) quote cannot be substantiated and therefore I am removing Adolph Hitler from the list of influences on Heidegger that was recently edited into the Infobox. Christian Roess (talk) 06:53, 15 December 2010 (UTC)

Indeed, it would be hard to make the case that Hitler influenced Sein und Zeit, since it was conceived before Hitler was a household name. Nevertheless, Heidegger said in his Introduction to Metaphysics, written in 1935 and reissued in 1953: "The works that are being peddled about nowadays as the philosophy of National Socialism [but] have nothing to do with the inner truth and greatness of this movement...". Furthermore, "As R. Minder has shown, Heidegger's study of Hebbel, Dichter in der Gesellschaft...of 1966, is replete with Nazi jargon of Blut and Boden and the sanctified mission of the Volk". See reference, previous section.Uniquerman (talk) 18:17, 20 January 2011 (UTC)

Humboldt University?

Heidegger remained at Freiburg im Breisgau for the rest of his life, declining a number of later offers, including one from Humboldt University of Berlin. Did he really receive a call from East Berlin after 1949? Seems strange to me given his political affiliation.--92.78.97.159 (talk) 19:16, 15 December 2010 (UTC)

Paring down of Heidegger and National Socialism section

I have pared down this section, largely because it overlaps with the article Heidegger and Nazism. Also because the section as it stood was patchy and incomplete, and in some cases was blatantly wrong (e.g. referring to Heidegger's Rectorate address by the title "The University in the New Reich" when the actual title was "The Self-Affirmation of the German University"). The full article Heidegger and Nazism is the right place for block quotes and details. The section in this article should be a smoother summary which uses direct quotation only for the most salient points.

My method was as follows: wherever elements from this article were not already covered in the other article, I merged them into the other article. Wherever they were covered in the other article, I deleted them after summarizing the principal relevant points. As much as possible, whenever I removed text from this article, I summarized the removed text in such a way that no facts were omitted in the pared down version.

I will of course admit that my edit is not perfect, and I invite other users to modify it. However, the wholesale reverts made by Goethean are inappropriate, since they reintroduce material that does not fit Wikipedia's guidelines.Wwallacee (talk) 10:48, 24 December 2010 (UTC)

Sorry, but Goethean was correct to revert. The section now is an unsustainable whitewash, with unsupported statements, misrepresentation of sources (Husserl was not able to continue using the library; look at what the sources say), and honestly reflects a lack of awareness of current scholarship. We need to go back to the previous version and edit by consensus. I don't disagree with the principle that much of the material should be in the sub-article, but what remains here should be accurate. I have restored an earlier version. Please seek consensus here before making major changes.KD Tries Again (talk) 05:17, 4 January 2011 (UTC)KD Tries Again

Orphaned references in Martin Heidegger

I check pages listed in Category:Pages with incorrect ref formatting to try to fix reference errors. One of the things I do is look for content for orphaned references in wikilinked articles. I have found content for some of Martin Heidegger's orphans, the problem is that I found more than one version. I can't determine which (if any) is correct for this article, so I am asking for a sentient editor to look it over and copy the correct ref content into this article.

Reference named "Sheehan":

• From Heidegger and Nazism: Thomas Sheehan, "Heidegger and the Nazis", a review of Victor Farias' Heidegger et le nazisme, in The New York Review of Books, Vol. XXXV, n°10, June 16, 1988, pp.38-47
• From Ernst Nolte: Sheehan, James (April 8, 1993). "Heidegger and Nazism: An Exchange". Retrieved 2007-06-21.

I apologize if any of the above are effectively identical; I am just a simple computer program, so I can't determine whether minor differences are significant or not. AnomieBOT⚡ 21:18, 24 December 2010 (UTC)

Islam

The islam section is unnecessary and unwarranted. I think it should be deleted. There isn't overwhelming evidence to show that Heidegger per se was a notable enough influence in order for this piece of information to be included in the article. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 142.1.217.237 (talk) 23:06, 22 March 2011 (UTC)

Not a single picture of him?

Brush drawing of German philosopher Martin Heidegger, made by Herbert Wetterauer.

Picasso's portrait of Daniel-Henry Kahnweiler.

Why is there not a single picture of Heidegger in the entire Article? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 212.89.209.115 (talk) 14:21, 7 June 2011 (UTC)

This is probably because there are no free images of him. I found an image on German Wikipedia, but it is a drawing, not a photo. I think it is better than nothing, so I'm posting here. I would prefer to wait a moment before adding the picture to the article. What do others think? --Vejvančický (talk | contribs) 12:42, 27 August 2011 (UTC)

When compared with the skilled art of previous times, the "modern art" of the 20th century certainly appears crude and comical.Lestrade (talk) 15:38, 28 August 2011 (UTC)Lestrade

You don't like modern art, Lestrade? In my opinion the drawing is quite a harmless and merciful, especially when comparing i. e. with Picasso's portrait of Daniel-Henry Kahnweiler. I consider this as a good chance to make one of our articles more lively. Moreover, Mr. Wetterauer is surely not a dauber :)--Vejvančický (talk | contribs) 16:08, 28 August 2011 (UTC)

We're an encyclopedia, not an art gallery. What we really need is a neutral photo, not an artist's redition. --Nuujinn (talk) 16:26, 28 August 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for your opinion, Nuujinn. Heidegger is a featured article on German Wikipedia, and the drawing is pasted directly in the lead section :) Personally, I would accept this portrait also at en:wiki (I like modern art), but your argument is surely valid. --Vejvančický (talk | contribs) 16:31, 28 August 2011 (UTC)

Nuujinn's comment is symptomatic of the state of contemporary art. It is also related to the fact that photography and cinema are the dominant visual arts today.Lestrade (talk) 20:44, 30 August 2011 (UTC)Lestrade

Meh. Perhaps I should reread "The Work of Art in an Age of Mechanical Reproduction" again, but we're an encyclopedia, not a gallery of art. It's difficult enough to find a neutral photo, artistic renditions are problematic at best. --Nuujinn (talk) 00:59, 31 August 2011 (UTC)

Since Heidegger belongs to the long list of philosophers who prefer to restrict themselves solely to the analysis of verbal concepts, it is fitting that his discursive purity is not sullied by an intuitive image.Lestrade (talk) 20:37, 31 August 2011 (UTC)Lestrade

S'ok by me. If you want to add an image of a broken hammer, that might work. --Nuujinn (talk) 23:14, 31 August 2011 (UTC)

You want to have a visual emblem as an image in a biographical article? Heidegger's use of the broken hammer example was an unfortunate choice of explanatory devices. But, then, he probably wanted to be poetic. He was verbal, not pictorial, and does not deserve an image.Lestrade (talk) 23:26, 1 September 2011 (UTC)Lestrade

It does not exist a photography, showing Heidegger, with a free copyright, that’s the problem. The drawing by Herbert Wetterauer is used in 56 Wikipedia-Articles world-wide. (Look here) Hirt des Seyns (talk) 09:01, 5 October 2011 (UTC)

Nazism Coverage

I understand that Jewish authors want to hit Heidegger. But this wish turned this article into a court record. Is this article trying to inform readers about Heidegger and his contributions to philosophy or trying to judge and defame him?

• Is Wikipedia a court?
• Are wikipedia articles weapon?
• Is a Nazi-hunter keeping his diary on Wikipedia?

The parts about Nazism should be seriously reduced if not removed--98.199.22.63 (talk) 10:12, 3 February 2012 (UTC)

updated --98.199.22.63 (talk) 06:42, 4 February 2012 (UTC)