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 5) (bot
Line 68: Line 68:
::::::Snowded and others might want to express opinions. [[User:FreeKnowledgeCreator|FreeKnowledgeCreator]] ([[User talk:FreeKnowledgeCreator|talk]]) 23:57, 6 January 2016 (UTC)
::::::Snowded and others might want to express opinions. [[User:FreeKnowledgeCreator|FreeKnowledgeCreator]] ([[User talk:FreeKnowledgeCreator|talk]]) 23:57, 6 January 2016 (UTC)


== commodification of nature ==
== Commodification of nature ==


I think we should refer to this Wiki article here and probably at [[The Question Concerning Technology]]: [[commodification of nature]]. Do we agree? I don't know this article well enough to know where best to put it. --[[User:David Tornheim|David Tornheim]] ([[User talk:David Tornheim|talk]]) 18:13, 28 January 2016 (UTC)
I think we should refer to this Wiki article here and probably at [[The Question Concerning Technology]]: [[commodification of nature]]. Do we agree? I don't know this article well enough to know where best to put it. --[[User:David Tornheim|David Tornheim]] ([[User talk:David Tornheim|talk]]) 18:13, 28 January 2016 (UTC)

Revision as of 15:38, 26 November 2017

Template:Vital article

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


Incomprehensible lead

I have not read Heidegger. I may have attempted to do so in my youth, and found him incomprehensible. Certainly I find the following two sentences of the second paragraph here incomprehensible: "He argued that Western thinking had lost sight of being, and that by people finding themselves as "always already" moving within ontological presuppositions, they lose touch with their grasp of being and its truth thus becomes "muddled". As a solution to this condition, Heidegger advocated a change in focus from ontologies based on ontic determinants to the fundamental ontological elucidation of being-in-the-world in general, allowing it to reveal, or "unconceal" itself as concealment." Wikipedia is supposed to be for the general reader, but this makes me feel ontically challenged. Rothorpe (talk) 01:17, 7 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Join the club. The sockpuppet of Kingshowman that was editing this article accused me of being an ignoramus who has never read Heidegger. Actually, although I've read nine books about Heidegger, the only book by Heidegger I've read is Introduction to Metaphysics (I've never read more Heidegger than that because there are many other authors who are more interesting to me and I prefer to spend my time reading them instead). The sentence that you describe as incomprehensible is (mostly) incomprehensible to me as well. Yet I don't think that removing it is a good idea. It would be better to politely ask an editor who is familiar with Heidegger to rewrite that sentence to make it more comprehensible to the general reader. FreeKnowledgeCreator (talk) 01:55, 11 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
OK, please go ahead. I am glad the deletion provoked a response. Rothorpe (talk) 02:33, 11 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I have replaced the middle paragraph of the previous lead, which was difficult to understand

If someone would like to discuss my replacement text, please be my guest and offer suggestions or criticisms here. But I hope we can agree the paragraph that was there should be replaced. It was quite unclear and did not give adequate overview of Heidegger's thought, in this editor's opinion. World Champion Editor (talk) 05:59, 5 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

BA in Philosophy, Berea College, concentration on Heidegger. The lead as it stands today works for me. However, I find this sentence a bit too "expert" for the average reader: " The consequence of this is that our capacity to think cannot be the most central quality of our being because thinking is a reflecting upon this more original way of discovering the world." May I fix it a little? Soltera 149.168.37.8 (talk) 13:50, 3 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Heidegger's opinion of Heidegger

1. Heidegger thought Heidegger was the "greatest thinker in the Western tradition since Heraclitus." Encyclopedic, or no?

is Heidegger's opinion on Heidegger's importance of encylopedic interest? Anyone with an opinion?World Champion Editor (talk) 21:19, 5 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

What is the source and context of that statement exactly?·maunus · snunɐɯ· 23:24, 5 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
ok I retract the request. I had never actually looked into this (it's just part of the Heidegger lore that he allegedly thought this), so I tried to look it up, and found some sources, but it seems like rather dubious and more an attempt to slander Heidegger than something he actually ever said.

Sources are here: https://books.google.com/books?id=BakfCdRPPswC&pg=PA4&lpg=PA4&dq=heidegger+greatest+thinker+since+Heraclitus&source=bl&ots=GDsVofG_D5&sig=Eumtjw-guPo29lmnVoHPa9Emems&hl=en&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwjstOGA9ZPKAhUClR4KHZuiCTcQ6AEIGjAA#v=onepage&q=heidegger%20greatest%20thinker%20since%20Heraclitus&f=false https://books.google.com/books?id=AbtKCAAAQBAJ&pg=PA12&lpg=PA12&dq=heidegger+greatest+thinker+since+Heraclitus&source=bl&ots=tebL2206HM&sig=Bt1G_y8MXfsh7hG-Hv2VzSeXhnA&hl=en&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwjstOGA9ZPKAhUClR4KHZuiCTcQ6AEIIDAC#v=onepage&q=heidegger%20greatest%20thinker%20since%20Heraclitus&f=false

Yeah, then I dont think it should be included.·maunus · snunɐɯ· 00:31, 6 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
For those who are curious, it looks like this notion traces to the book Heidegger's Crisis, where it is stated that "One of his colleagues complained that "Heidegger had given the impression with the speech that he considered himself the spiritual leader of the new movement and the only great and outstanding thinker since Heraclitus." There does not appear to be any evidence that this was H's actual stated view.World Champion Editor (talk) 00:40, 6 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Now that World Champion Editor has been indefinitely blocked, I may as well point out that the account is probably a sock of User:Kingshowman. The user name is very similar to SuperFriendlyEditor, a previously blocked sock of Kingshowman, and the behavior (including the vicious personal abuse directed against other users) is also very similar. A case could be made for reverting all of his edits to this article, on the grounds that they are part of a long-term pattern of disruption, but personally I cannot be bothered. Perhaps they should be left to stand. FreeKnowledgeCreator (talk) 19:47, 6 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
That someone is blocked is not a valid reason for removing contributions. If it can be demonstrated that are problems with the editors contributions here they can be removed, otherwise they should stand.·maunus · snunɐɯ· 19:52, 6 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Edits that a user makes while evading a block are very often rolled back and there definitely would be a case for doing that here, but as I said, I cannot be bothered. Since you seem to think the edits are generally an improvement, I am content with fixing some minor issues with them. FreeKnowledgeCreator (talk) 20:17, 6 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I dont have an opinion about their edits which I havent reviewed in detail. But I think that rolling back good edits punitively is not in the interest of the encyclopedia.·maunus · snunɐɯ· 23:03, 6 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Snowded and others might want to express opinions. FreeKnowledgeCreator (talk) 23:57, 6 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Commodification of nature

I think we should refer to this Wiki article here and probably at The Question Concerning Technology: commodification of nature. Do we agree? I don't know this article well enough to know where best to put it. --David Tornheim (talk) 18:13, 28 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Conscription

Are there any published facts about how he avoided being drafted into the Wehrmacht from 1940 to 1945?173.72.63.96 (talk) 22:12, 26 September 2016 (UTC)Scott Buddenbrook[reply]

I don't know. Maybe it's because he was considered too old (51), maybe because his work as professor exempted him from military service. Tgeorgescu (talk) 23:00, 26 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

According to my copy of the 1945 U.S. War Department Handbook on German Military Forces, p.55, "In time of peace all German males were liable to military service from their 18th birthday until the 31 March following their 45th birthday. In east Prussia liability was extended until 31 March following their 55th birthday." By the end of the war liability was extended in both directions -17 (those born in 1928) to 61(the class of 1884).

— Mark Jepperson

Most of the younger boys and older men were inducted into the Volksstrum created late in the War (1944). As a last ditch effort to stave off defeat in October 1944, all males aged 16 to 60 were required to join the Volkssturm, or Home Guard. The Wehrmacht now disgraced in Hitler's eyes.

— World War II: Conscription and the Age of Soldiers, [1]
Quoted by Tgeorgescu (talk) 23:09, 26 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
See also http://www.wikiberal.org/wiki/Parabole_de_Saint-Simon Tgeorgescu (talk) 23:23, 26 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I just noticed that the Volkssturm Wikipedia article lists Heidegger as a "notable member." 173.72.63.96 (talk) 17:11, 29 September 2016 (UTC)Scott Buddenbrook[reply]
It's unsourced, so I've removed it. Well spotted, thanks. Martinevans123 (talk) 17:46, 29 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
In Der Spiegel interview he complained that he was forced to dig trenches, while top 500 intellectuals were exempted from it. Tgeorgescu (talk) 01:08, 30 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Lead

The first paragraph of the lead contains quotations from the Internet Encyclopedia and the Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy. I believe these should be removed, and replaced with different content. It's very poor form for an encyclopedia to contain such prominent quotations from other encyclopedias. FreeKnowledgeCreator (talk) 05:32, 25 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Adjusting his main interests

He had a clear interest in Christian Philosophy, not to include that on the page is to hide information about Heidegger. User:WhiteKnight138 —Preceding undated comment added 07:42, 19 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]


First paragraph

The first paragraph says that Heidegger is known for his contributions to phenomenology and existentialism. While it then goes on to state that an encyclopeadia of philosophy states that Heidegger should only be thought of in associations with such movements with extreme caution, should it not say that Heidegger denied that he was an existentialist?Vorbee (talk) 15:14, 25 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Martin Heidegger. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 08:11, 4 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Martin Heidegger. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 21:28, 26 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Martin_Heidegger&oldid=812197494"