Talk:Martin Heidegger

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Martin Heidegger page.
Please sign and date your posts using four tildes (~~~~). New discussion topics go at the bottom of the page; click here to start a new topic. New to Wikiquote? Welcome! Frequently asked questions. This is not a forum for general discussion about the page's subject.	Talk page guidelines Be polite Assume good faith No personal attacks Don't bite the newcomers!

---

Deleted the editorial comment on the Holocaust. It's not the only place he mentions or comments on the Holocaust (but it is one of those most cited), and people can judge Heidegger's silence (and Lyotard's comments on that silence) for themselves, and probably better somewhere where there is also presented background on this particular little debate. Mgasner 23:51, 22 October 2005 (UTC)

Images on right-hand side

Is it only me who thinks these are, almost without exception, ridiculously out of place? Particularly the one of the house alongside the quotation from the Letter on Humanism; also the picture attending the quotation about play.

—This unsigned comment is by 71.190.16.195 (talk • contribs) .

The house was one of the few available images relating to Heidegger at all at the time I posted it, and as one of his homes I thought it related well to his comment that "Language is the house of the truth of Being." It isn't the most profoundly interesting image that might be chosen, but it relates, and draws attention to several ideas. I believe that the image of the children at play actually relates well to the quote

"The "because" withers away in the play. The play is without "why."

It allows the play of thought to proceed along many potential avenues of consideration, and potential insight.

Your comments did draw my attention to the page, and a little browsing at the commons allowed me to replace a very unclear image of a sculpture with a much clearer photo of his face, which wasn't available when last I worked on it. ~ Kalki 19:55, 3 November 2009 (UTC)

Bloom Quotation

I feel a bit of a need to justify the comment by Bloom on Heidegger. I do think they are useful for discussion, even if they may be unfairly made on Bloom's part. For one, I took it to be useful the original purpose of this section, namely to give an idea of contemporary reactions to the figure in question. Second, that Bloom's comments might highlight him as an "outlier" against Heidegger's studies of such "sublime" poets as Rilke and Hölderlin, even if Bloom's comments are entirely unfounded. Third, that Hiedegger's thought is always tricky to connect to any other figures not influenced by him, and as such, Bloom's contrasting Freud against Heidegger is a parallel not considered by most other literature.--Artimaean (talk) 18:58, 27 August 2013 (UTC)

Quotes on Heidegger Section

Why are the vast majority of the quotes on Heidegger negative in theme? Are there no reputable individuals who enjoy his work? 198.0.198.57 02:01, 18 July 2014 (UTC)

It's pretty blatant character assassination under the guise of "giving an idea of contemporary reactions" (Not to lump Artimaean above in with that). There is no other reason to include a dozen quotes about Heidegger's "stunning indifference to the Holocaust" and "immense ego" etc. etc. which amount to basically insubstantial mud-slinging and moral posturing from nothings like Marjorie Glicksman and proven fabricators like Emmanuel Faye: https://www.academia.edu/15617994/EMMANUEL_FAYE_THE_INTRODUCTION_OF_FRAUD_INTO_PHILOSOPHY Blimpski (talk) 21:43, 22 February 2019 (UTC)

There are quotes complimentary to Heidegger, and no objections to adding more — but I have just reverted an attempt to censor out numerous quotes of notable commenters upon Heidegger, his views and actions. ~ ♞☤☮♌Kalki·†·⚓⊙☳☶⚡ 13:07, 10 May 2019 (UTC)

There is no firm grounds on which to say they're notable, and Faye's work has been roundly condemned by the academic community as shoddy at best. Blimpski (talk) 00:31, 11 May 2019 (UTC)

All manner of statements are routinely claimed to be "roundly condemned" by "academic communities" that often consist of little more than a few zealots or other dimwits out to dismiss or silence any expressions of opinions they do not particularly favor. In recent days you have persisted in attempting removal of these statements of notable individuals, and reverting the restorations made by me and another editor, indicating that "justifying" the retention of sourced quotations must be done to your satisfaction, or your impulse to censor the work of others apparently will remain justified in your eyes. Such attitudes and actions are not properly respectful of wikiquote practices, nor conducive to a proper respect of general humanity and diverse opinions. I will also post here what has been the STANDARD wikiquote template in response to deletion-vandlism for MANY years, as I did on your talk page:

Please stop removing sourced content from Wikiquote. It is considered vandalism. If you want to experiment, please use the sandbox.
Wikiquote exists for the collecting of notable quotations of famous people and famous works. For a quick overview of what Wikiquote is, read Wikiquote:Wikiquote, and also What Wikiquote is not for a list of common activities that Wikiquote does not support.
When people are not interested in responsibly contributing to the development of the project incidents of their deliberate vandalism can result in IP addresses or usernames being blocked from editing.
Thank you. ~ ♞☤☮♌Kalki·†·⚓⊙☳☶⚡ 00:44, 11 May 2019 (UTC)

Bold text! An OFFICIAL warning! Very scary. Faye is a clown, notable only for his ridiculousness. Your competence as self-appointed Reichsfuhrer of the page is here also brought into question. You have never offered any justification for Faye's inclusion on this page other than that he's "notable" - meaning what? Presumably some dry, technical definition on some policy page which has only the most tenuous relation to the question of whether someone is worth paying attention to. Let's take a look at the zealots and dimwits condemning Faye:

In 2005, the controversy was renewed after Emmanuel Faye published a book with the provocative title Heidegger: The Introduction of Nazism into Philosophy.[41] Faye claims that Heidegger's philosophy was close to Nazism and that fascist and racist ideas are so woven into the fabric of his thought that it does not deserve to be called philosophy. Rather, according to Faye, Heidegger's work should be classified as part of the history of Nazism rather than as philosophy. A debate on the subject that involved Faye and François Fédier was broadcast on French television in 2007.[80] A group of specialists [[Philippe Arjakovsky, Henri Crétella, Pascal David, François Fédier, Hadrien France-Lanord, Matthieu Gallou, Gérard Guest, Jean-Pierre Labrousse, François Meyronnis, Jean-Luc Nancy, François Nebout, Étienne Pinat, Nicolas Plagne, Alexandre Schild, Bernard Sichère, Éric Solot, Pierre Teitgen, Stéphane Zagdanski]] gathered by Fédier (Heidegger, all the more reason[81]) heavily criticized Faye for his lack of competence in German and for faking or falsifying quotations.

Numerous other Heidegger scholars, themselves critical of Heidegger's relation to Nazism, have taken issue with Faye's claims. For example, Richard Wolin, a close reader of the Heidegger controversy since Farias's book, has said that he is not convinced by Faye's position.[82] Peter Gordon, in a long review of Faye's book raises a handful of objections, including the accusation that Faye lets his own philosophical leanings prevent him from treating Heidegger fairly.[83]

Recently the thesis of Faye's followers F. Rastier and S. Kellerer, that Heidegger's membership in Hans Frank's committee for philosophy of right (from 1934 until at least 1936) included a participation in the holocaust was rejected by K. Nassirin.[84]

And remarkably, there is more to Heidegger than his brief involvement with Nazism - certainly there is no good reason why the bulk of quotes about him should concern it. Blimpski (talk) 22:03, 11 May 2019 (UTC)