… ok buddy…all physics and mathematics and cultural shifts(Copernican revolution), Descartes writing on irreducibility of the world to machine and Kant’s philosophical system led to phenemonology… Do you want to name drop even more??? Did Christianity lead to phenemonology? Was the Trojan war a preface to Husserl’s insights? Maybe Hegelian book on phenemology also??? Are you stoupid? The only philosophical work worth reading from Wittgenstein is his early philosophy contained in his tractatus, he went mystic later in his life and found a fertile pseudoscience in phenemology which could be used to philosophically argue for the ‘Christian god’. Jaspers was not a phenomologist, if anything he would be a neo-Kantian, quasi-romantic existentialist. What did you read from Jaspers that makes you so sure he is a phenomenologist???which book???
In addition to the references I cited about Jasper’s exposition of the being of encompassing in his book “Philosophy of Existence” is essentially phenomenological and parallels Heidegger in significant ways.
Ok, you got me. Cartesians who viewed the world empirically and reduced it to numbers of sets are what gave birth to phenemonology and Karl jaspers was a phenomologist because he used a phrase ‘horizon of existence’ and because Heidegger used da-sein also…you got me buddy.
Would you be so kind as to provide a few sentences defining da-sein as Heidegger understood it?
Mañana. I gotta go.
Will be waiting.
Heidegger understands Dasein as the “being that we ever are ourselves” (Being and Time, 1927, p. 7) as the “being of man” (Being and Time, 1927, p. 25) and thus demarcates his philosophy against a philosophy of pure consciousness (cf. transcendentalism) and also against a merely material-empiricist conception of Dasein (cf. positivism).
Heidegger’s translator wrote:
“This being, which we ever are ourselves, and which has, among other things, the being-possibility of questioning, we grasp terminologically as Dasein.” (Being and Time, p. 7).
Heidegger’s translator wrote:
“To be sure, Dasein is ontically not only close or even the next - we are it ever ourselves. Nevertheless, or precisely because of this, it is ontologically the most distant.” (Being and Time, p. 15).
Heidegger’s translator wrote:
“Dasein, i.e. the being of man, is circumscribed in the vulgar as well as in the philosophical ‘definition’ as zóon lógon 'ékon , the living, whose being is essentially determined by being capable of speaking.” (Being and Time, p. 25).
The existence of the human being is used by means of an analysis of existence to reveal the essence and meaning of being (present in the human being).
The basis for being and the doctrine - the basic doctrine of being - is offered by Heidegger’s fundamental ontology, laid down in his main work „Being and Time“, and denotes the results of his investigations of (human) Dasein for the purpose of opening up being (as a being that is also present in Dasein, a being that understands itself) and the meaning of being. The fundamental ontology shows how that is manifested in Dasein (see: existentials); it wants to be the basis for all empirical sciences.
The existentials are the ways of human existence, the categories of human being, with Heidegger above all the angst (fear, anxiety), furthermore the being-in-the-world, the concern (worry, care, welfare, getting, providing, managing, anxiety), the understanding, the mood, the thrownness and many others.
Check into a psychiatrist. Da-sein is being as in living and da-sein is da-sein in da-sein as in being as in living and as this da-sein in da-sein becoming aware of this da-sein which is a da-sein itself. And this being of living is above human emotions and susceptible to ‘throwness’ which is??? Being in being being in being and being thrown around by being in being which can see its own being in being by standing beyond human anxieties by being in being properly being in being???not a hint of quackery here, not a sprinkle…
Any philosopher can be caricaturized. Caricaturization is not refutation. Logically caricature is a form of the straw man fallacy. Yours is funny though. And I suppose Heidegger’s philosophy seems something like that to you.
Its not a strawman. Which quote is not by Heidegger???
[i]The human being is not the lord of beings, but the shepherd of Being.
Martin Heidegger[/i]
[i]To think Being itself explicitly requires disregarding Being to the extent that it is only grounded and interpreted in terms of beings and for beings as their ground, as in all metaphysics.
Martin Heidegger[/i]
“Understanding of being is itself a determination of being of Da-sein.”
Da-sein is being as in living and da-sein is da-sein in da-sein as in being as in living and as this da-sein in da-sein becoming aware of this da-sein which is a da-sein itself.
Hopefully the last one. Lol. But the fact that Heidegger’s thinking is sometimes abstruse, is insufficient grounds for wholesale rejection of his philosophy, much less for the rejection of phenomenology as a whole. It makes me wonder where you stand to make these criticisms, or conversely where philosophy stands in your point of view, point of view being a metaphor for the locus of consciousness, or as Heidegger would put it–Dasein.
I am an Aristotelian. I believe in philosophy constrained by logic and as a derivative of hard sciences which tackles questions which sciences can’t tackle by their functional design. I think trying to ‘reason out christianity’ out of philosophy like Heidegger does to be missing the point completely. Philosophy is not a theology. The neo-nazis that drag behind Heidegger like a big hissing fart cloud because he was a member of NSDAP are a separate matter.
It looks like you have quoted Iambiguous, who keeps using the word “dasein” but does not know what it means.
Total agreement, Felix Dakat. 
Because I have just seen your signature: Kiergegaard’s concept of “existence” is closest to Heidegger’s concept of “existence”.
“Only a God can still save us.” - Martin Heidegger in conversation with Rudolf Augstein, 1966.
Heidegger is recognized worldwide. He also had almost nothing to do with the NSDAP, because he regarded it as an eco-party (something like the later party “Die Grünen”). One can sometimes get lost in a party. Many people were also once in a party and then realized that this party was not the right address for them. Heidegger was quite apolitical.
Heidegger’s existential philosophy with its fundamental ontology (Daseinsanalyse, etc.) offers an alternative to positivism (realism/naturalism) and transcendental idealism. He came from the phenomenology of Husserl (a Jew who was allowed to stay in Germany until his death in 1939 - was he also in the NSDAP?), which is also recognized worldwide.
The way Heidegger understood “existence” is perhaps closest to the concept Kierkegaard had of it. Otherwise, Heidegger’s philosophy is unique, one of a kind. He did something philosophically that no one had ever done before. As I said, Heidegger’s existential philosophy, with its fundamental ontology (Daseinsanalyse, etc.), offers an alternative to positivism (realism/naturalism) and transcendental idealism. He knew very well what problems there were with regard to cognition and that for the sciences and all other alternatives to it that had arisen until then, much had been presupposed but always remained hidden, which is even more the case today. It is always good to be able to fall back on alternatives. The fact that this does not always happen has to do with financing, i.e. with money and thus with power.
Heidegger was in the history of mankind the first philosophic ecologist, the first ecosophist, as one could say, and the first chrirotopologist.
By the way: Who is Kvasir?
Kvasir is an autistic kook paGAYn Larper anonymous internet nobody whom nobody normal should pay any attention to unless they want to laugh or raise their pulse since he is both really obnoxious and really insane and actually believes he is a quasi genius and an artist, spiritual medium and ergo has big ego issues and guru tendencies, much like the cunt satire.
What is it with kooks and being stuck on words, not their meaning??? Do you know the word ‘phenomenology’ is multivariate??? Where in the Stanford article or anywhere on the web does it say Jaspers was a phenomenologist? Find me one source which says or shows Jaspers being a phenomenologist or stop talking shit. The quote you provided…in no way suggests from Jaspers that he held phenomenologist views, only a neo-Kantian and existential mishmash, which I already said it is.
Lets get more transparent…you provide a definition of phenomenology first, then we can take off.
like this:
Phenemology:
couple of sentences
conclusions
the end.