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.
As I understand it Heidegger gave up fundamental ontology which was the project of Being and Time. As a matter of fact it was Jaspers who read what he had written for what was to be the second half of that book and talked him out of publishing it saying it was incoherent. Heidegger concluded that fundamental ontology is impossible. Whatever is manifest phenomenally conceals as much as it discloses. Compare Taoism’s yin/ yang, gestalt psychology’s figure/ ground, and Kant’s noumenon/phenomenon.
Heidegger’s existential phenomenology is acceptable on pragmatic grounds. The practitioners of the special sciences don’t live in a scientific world when they’re not practicing their whatever their area of study is. Kuhn made it clear that scientific practice is embedded in and contingent upon a world where hierarchical power and money prevail. Compare with Heidegger’s “The They”.
Pragmatic grounds are not an intellectual standard. Any problem can be solved, its just a question of finding somebody who will be willing to be satisfied with its solution. And white-washing Heidegger from the insanity of Nazism should really get you a slap across your face but we are on the internet and here all the filth and insanity gets a pass. Anybody who stayed a Nazi after 1934 knew what he was getting into.
If you want to pursue this I’ll start another thread and call it “existential phenomenology”.
Did I somewhere suggest the wholesale uncritical adoption of Heidegger’s philosophy? The relationship of Heidegger’s philosophy to Nazism versus the relationship of the man Heidegger to Nazism is a question embedded in the question of Heidegger’s relationship to his philosophy embedded in the relationship of any philosopher to his philosophy.
I was not talking to you but to Alf and commenting his ‘ecologism’ remarks which is a horseshit ideology in itself anyway and the only good it does is to provide a pretext for all power-hungry totalitarianism and bureaucracies to stick their nose into peoples affairs under a pretext of protecting animals. I mean, people who eat cheap meat or eat a lot of meat are filthy and selfish pigs(because mass farming is a disgusting and barbaric process) but I am definitely not going to surrender my freedoms so a glorious leader like Stalin or Hitler or Obama can step in and save all the chickens in the world because I am above a chicken and I and my wellbeing come before a chicken and I am not a naive autistic dullard zealot who does not understand how power and the world works. Humans are filthy and selfish pigs and a shitload of reservations about anything done on a mass scale is the only reasonable approach.
Catholics obey their Pope. What he says goes regardless of what the Bible says.
Catholicism is a disrespect for evidence, and a respect for authority. It is deductive, in that reasons follow from principle rather than evidence. It is deductive since is argues from the general to the particular.
Luther set the world on a path which overturned that. Religion was to be followed by examination of the Book of God and the Book of Life. These were the main sources of evidence by which the world was to understand god and how to behave. Protestantism is Inductive, it processes evidence and the particular to find general principles by which to live.
In this way the Reformation opened up the European mind for the growth of science and the enlightenment, which would eventually reject god in most instances.
Nietzsche thought Protestant’s more dangerous since they were slightly harder to argue against since they had understood part of the way to the enlightenment and so had some convincing sounding arguments in their weaponry.
Nice and easy…Protestantism = science and progress. Catholicism = fanaticism and backwardness. Almost as nice and simple as shitTHYSELF kooks tirades but, for better or worse, the reality is not simple. You are at least being honest and are not scheming against Catholics like the autistic zealots who would find exceptions to the rule and focus all their attention on it whilst ignoring the whole picture. If there was some Pope or bishop who hated women and if females were slaves in the whole of Ancient Greece, it is pretty obvious that Christians degraded feminity and females whilst the Ancients were noble and a strong, independent female with no instinct to procreate would fare far better in Antiquity.
Like the idiot Satyr…on a ‘war’ against ‘nihilism’ and ‘ungrounded’ ‘language’ yet certain as fuck he knows how the universe started…give me a fucking break…like swimming through rubbish.
Having grown up within protestantism, Nietzsche would have known it experientially from the inside, whereas he would have known Catholicism from the outside as an outside observer. Of course, ways of being that are lived pre philosophically are proximally hidden to us.
Protestantism was a World in the factical anamnesis out of which Friedrich Nietzsche became Friedrich Nietzsche by means of philosophical self-reflection. Not so Catholicism.
To what degree was Friedrich Nietzsche a self-hating Protestant?
Nietzsche’s opinions on Christianity are irrelevant and are an intellectual dildo for pseudo-intelligent half-wits to beat themselves on their foreheads. His whole philosophy is completely missed and naively romantic…wait until you get malignant cancer of intestines that spreads onto your reproductive organs and try your will to power and your eternal reaffirmations then…wake the fuck up people, wake the fuck up…life is not a dream, it is not a rainbow journey and you are neither a hero nor a main actor…stop your autistic megalomaniac delusions or continue to rot in your basements, making up excuses about why your life is not what you deserve. lets try 3 bullets into an overmans skulls fired by a hoodlem negros hand covered in dry and peeling skin and gripping with long and dirty nails and we can talk about ‘overcoming’ Christianity when we all get to see how much greatness comes out of that.
Nietzsche is much like Peterson…an intelligent kook living in his own world. A virgin and a spastic cripple who went mad seeing a horse being beaten down with fantasies of power and grandeur who appeals to people just like him…lunatics, autistic boys with no friends, virgins who cant get laid…bums past 40 with nothing to show…autistic ladies, teenager emos…and so forth. It was a completely different thing to be his enthusiast in the first half of the 20th century and a century later, two wholly separate things.