What a goofy bastard
Is that a statement or a premise…?
What is the difference in your mind?
Spelling mainly. The syllable count is the same.
Can I do one too…?
Hegel was an anally retentive, zero-imagination, one trick pony.
Note the shifty-eyes and receding hairline of self-doubt and the aquiline nose of empty posturing.
You can tell all that just by his appearance?
Wow you’re good bro!
Nah, he paid lip service to the Nazis because he was a big cowardy custard.
Who were those guys who got the grand (and verrry carefully guided) tour of newly communist Russia and were totally sucked in…? I forget.
The pre-war nazi regime was sexy, and Hay-digger was a bit uncool, I mean who wouldn’t want to get into the jack-boots thang…?
Sure, I don’t think there is any argument there.
The question is whether that fact has any bearing on his philosophy. And if it does (and I think it does as do many others who think that a philosopher’s personal morality is intertwined with their philosophical stance) the question is: how much?
Is the Autobahn an inescapably and irreparably flawed (evil even?) because it is a Nazi creation?
Heidegger, from what ive read, always had reservations about the Nazi Party, he just choose to keep them mostly to himself in order to not be persecuted. a pretty rational decision, really.
Rational sure… But ethical…? Laudable…? For one who would presume to advise us on how to approach life…? Not so much feet of clay but ankles of water.
philosophy is, for the most part, pragmatic, utilitarian; as is most everything else. Heidegger was only acting in self-preservation im sure.
its pretty hypocritical of anyone to criticize or rebuke someone such as Heidegger for telling some lies in order to save his life from persecution and death at the hands of those such as the Nazis. there isnt hardly a person alive today who doesnt sell out on a daily basis in the same way… and for far less reward and under far less pressure, i might add.
Xunzian,
This is the same problem as I have with Nietzche on the other thread, to me at least a philosopher is his own poster boy for what he or she preaches. I know this contains an element of ad hominum, but I feel it inescapable. A scientist can get away with being a nutcase, a frankenstein, and still have the results of his experiments get up off the table and live completely isolate lives, free of the sins of their lab-coated fathers, but a philosophy is as much an expression of the philosopher’s essence, for want of a better word, as it is of pure scholarcism. And as such, the way in which they live, the absence or presence of thier quietude of mind directly relates to the pragmatic value of their philosophy. IMO.
A taoist, or a follower of zen seems much more at peace with themselves and the world in general than many of the so called great, but definitely twitchy modernish western philosophers. I read their work and smell snake-oil.
Not really, it’s a road.
Threetimes, if a guy stinking to high heaven staggers up to you selling some bars of soap he made in his basement… Do you buy them…?
depends on if the soap works or not, and what the price is.
It is priced in accordance with concurrent market competitors. But what evidence do you have of its effectiveness save its seller…?
why would i base my analysis of the quality of soap on anything other than the soap itself?
Ah, so you would whip out your handy pocket spectral chromatograph and do a quick analysis there and then, await the results, when you could have just told the smelly-guy to take a hike and popped into quickie-mart in half the time…?
Doesn’t seem very utilitarian to me somehow.
Tell me, on a dark night, when a big guy in a hood with a shiv approaches, do you calmly give him a quick WAIS II test to determine his personality and intent, or leg it round the corner…?
your implications here seem based on the assumption that i know nothing of this dirty soap-selling man before meeting him. if this is the case, surely (unless i am such an expert as i can immediately assess the quality of soap, which i am not) i would not buy soap from this man, or any man that i had just met or who does not have a reputation for selling good soap.
if this man, however, does have such a reputation for selling good soap (like the quick mart), then i would buy soap from him without regard to how dirty he is. the question is of the soap itself, not the man selling it. such extraneous concerns are immaterial.
would you buy soap from a dirty, unkempt quick mart? im sure you would, if the soap is of a known brand or quality to you. it is the same with the man selling the soap. all that matters is the soap itself. i dont care whose selling it. and if i dont know the soap personally nor by reputation, i would not buy it even if the guy trying to sell it were the cleanest man on earth.
if by shiv you mean knife, then i would probably run away, unless i had a gun, in which case i would take it out.
i dont see the resemblance here to the soap case.
Threetimes, you were the one who flogged the horse to death before Nietzche embraced it weren’t you. 
My point is, if what is talked, cannot be walked by the talker, then maybe he’s just talking.
why, because i actually answered your question? because you are unable to further poke holes in my logic?
well, you do need to be alive in order to talk at all… so it would follow that securing that status of being-alive (such as supporting the Nazi regime rather than opposing it) would take precedence over “walking the walk”.
i dont remember Heidegger advocating suicide, do you? and who knows, maybe he really did love the Nazis. ive read otherwise, but that could be a historical bias, of course. we all have been quite conditioned with Nazi-hate, after all.
either way, my point was that its hypocritical of us to analyse or discredit anything Heidegger said just because he lived during a time when he needed to appease the State authorities in order to avoid being shot to death on site. his doing so does not necessarily reflect on his character nor on his philosophy.
of course, i reject what Heidegger said anyways, but for different reasons: i judge him by WHAT HE SAID, by the CONTENT of his writings, and not by any extreme survival circumstances that he was forced to endure.
Not unable. Just hungry. But then you cannot blame a man, apparantly, for putting physical well-being before philosophic discourse. 