Talk:Martin Heidegger

Lede and article should try and explain MH's key ideas

"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.[11]"

I challenge anyone to say the language in current lede summerise Heidegger for someone not familiar with his ideas. It's baffling jargon ('ontic' indeed!) that may as well be gibberish for 99% of readers, and does not even try to explain anything about MH's ideas to the average reader. The lede gives an INTELLIGIBLE overview and summerises. Ideally it is intriguing. The current lede is none of these things. So the onus is on those who want to keep the lede from being totally rewritten to improve it. The main body of the article has much repetition for an article that is over the recommended length, yet it omits key things; it does not MENTION let alone explain Heidegger's division of what he calls time (the given the present and possibilities), the tool analysis (broken hammer) or mention that in the turn as put forward in the 1949 lecture in Bremen, which is admittedly difficult to interpret, being consisted of a structure of earth sky and gods.Overagainst (talk) 15:56, 11 May 2014 (UTC)

I agree, please do whatever you can to improve the article and the introduction.User:Maunus ·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 22:15, 11 May 2014 (UTC)

Martin's name IPA

Unless I am mistaken, I believe his first name should be: /ˈmaɐ̯tɪn/ (it is not a "long E" or /iː/ ) but a short i as in "will" (english) or bist (D.): /ɪ/ Notice the stress is on the first syllable: It must be /ɪ/. sincerely yours, John — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2605:E000:2242:DE00:61D0:670C:19AA:70AD (talk) 05:11, 10 September 2014 (UTC)

Introduction

I'm sorry but the introduction is an embarrassingly crass articulation of what Heidegger's project is about. It is embarrassing and needs to be fixed!

I agree, especially with sources. From what I understand of Heidegger, the three paragraphs in the introduction are roughly accurate, but they require edits to become smooth and easily understandable. But most importantly, there are no references!! I find the biography and following subjects are for the most part thoroughly cited, but the intro is not? I will keep my eye out for references, but anyone who is knowledgable and wellread on the subject should consider adding references to the introduction. Jdanbeck (talk) 02:23, 23 February 2015 (UTC)

I'd say the second paragraph is inaccurate, and in fact absolute nonsense. It neither reflects Heidegger's position, nor is coherent in itself. There used to be a decent intro. Revert to it? KD Tries Again (talk) 21:22, 17 March 2015 (UTC)KD Tries Again

Which one of the many past versions do you consider "decent"? This should probably be discussed first. FreeKnowledgeCreator (talk) 22:32, 17 March 2015 (UTC)

[1] Seems to be where it changed. — goethean 23:16, 17 March 2015 (UTC)

That version is probably better than the current version in some ways, but possibly worse in others. The article needs more careful editing than simply restoring that version of the lead. KD Tries Again is probably right that the second paragraph of the current lead is its worst feature, though the third paragraph may not be wholly acceptable either. However, the first paragraph of the current version looks better than the first paragraph of the older version you linked to, Goethean. An attempt should be made to combine the best features of both versions. FreeKnowledgeCreator (talk) 23:55, 17 March 2015 (UTC)

I concur that the (then) existing introduction was crass, sophomoric drivel likely penned by an undergraduate in the throes of a "Heidegger and Existentialism" course, if I am being generous. I have tried to make some additions and I have more to come. Please feel free to supply feedback, my dear colleagues. SuperFriendlyEditor (talk) 21:19, 4 September 2015 (UTC)

"Crass, sophomoric drivel" is your opinion. I never expressed such a view. Your recent edits to the lead are unfortunate in many ways, as I've noted below. I think anyone looking at your version of the lead would realize that it is much too long. I'm tempted to simply revert all your changes, but will look first to see whether some of them are improvements. FreeKnowledgeCreator (talk) 03:58, 5 September 2015 (UTC)

I'm not here to make friends. Crass sophomoric drivel is my opinion but it is the opinion of a professional and it would be the opinion immediately shared by any scholar who saw the abortive trainwreck of the previous lead, possibly the worst and most in informative piece of writing I have ever read. Given the length of the article and the importance of the author, the 4 paragraph summary is adequate. . "Anyone would realize it is too long" does not constitute an argument. Are you actually even familiar with Heidegger ? If you find my lead it too long , then feel free to constructively remove what you find least important , do not destroy content en masse . If on the other hand, you are not an editor who generally edits philosophy articles , but usually concerns yourself with popular culture, do not destroy the hard work of professionals which has just been donated to you free of charge. Destruction of content rather than editing of particulars is not the answer. My best. SuperFriendlyEditor (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 07:28, 5 September 2015 (UTC)

OK, I'm not here to make friends either. What I actually meant was that your rudeness is going to antagonize other editors and make collaborative editing difficult to impossible. You might want to read WP:CIVIL. If you are a professional, as you say, then you ought to know better than to produce a version of the lead so long that the overwhelming majority of Wikipedia's readers won't even bother to read it. Anyone can claim to be a professional, and your claim, even if correct, doesn't give you any special status here. Please focus your efforts on producing a short and readable version of the lead, the kind that readers of Wikipedia might actually find helpful. You call the current short version of the lead a trainwreck. As it happens, that's exactly what I think of your bloated and inappropriately long version. (I wasn't trying to make an argument by saying that anyone would realize your version is too long, just stating what I think is an obvious truth). FreeKnowledgeCreator (talk) 07:46, 5 September 2015 (UTC)

An obvious truth is that you are an ill-educated plebeian swimming out of his intellectual depth. My version actually explains H's concepts. Your version either gets them all wrong, or doesn't even mention them. How can yours possibly be better? And if you read your own fucking policies you would realize that the appropriate response to "lead too long" "material belongs in the main" is MOVING some of the material , selectively, not deleting the whole thing. Can you possibly be this stupid and obtuse in real life, or is this just a character you play?

Have a look at the WP pages for Hume or Kant to see an example of a lead that actually explains the author's concepts and importance, and isn't filled with vulgar canards and errors, you despicable troll.

Lead too long

SuperFriendlyEditor has recently placed a lot of effort into expanding the lead of this article. I have to say that one look at that expanded lead makes it crystal clear that it is much, much too long. I accept that the additions were made in good faith, but they do not improve the article; leads need to be readable. I am going to take a careful at the added material before deciding what to remove; I suspect the best course may be to simply revert the lead back to the previous version. FreeKnowledgeCreator (talk) 03:56, 5 September 2015 (UTC)

Please take note, SuperFriendlyEditor, that your edit summary here ("reverted pointless deletion of content from the horrible lead written at a 4th grade level filled with factual errorrs") isn't going to win you any friends. If you have a problem with the shorter version of the lead, please feel free to politely suggest improvements. Please don't feel free to bloat the lead to the point where it becomes unreadable. FreeKnowledgeCreator (talk) 07:19, 5 September 2015 (UTC)

Friend, if you think the previous lead was encyclopedic, factually correct, or informative you have obviously never cracked the spine of a work of Heidegger's. Please feel free to make cuts which I was planning to make myself. Please do not feel free to destroy content en masse which myself and other editors have approved of. Do not apply the same standards to a Heidegger article as to the length of lead appropriate to a TV program. SuperFriendlyEditor (talk) 07:38, 5 September 2015 (UTC)

Excuse me, but I never said the previous lead was perfect. If it contains factual errors, then please point them out (you should have done so at the outset, actually). Pointing out factual errors would be more helpful than abusing or insulting me. Incidentally, it shows a lack of knowledge of how Wikipedia works to say that other editors approved of your work - that other editors did not revert you may indicate only that they have no opinion of your edits. Don't assume endorsement of your changes when it has not explicitly been given. FreeKnowledgeCreator (talk) 08:02, 5 September 2015 (UTC)

How many words would you like the lead to be? Give me a word target and I shall aim for it. Please stop warring. SuperFriendlyEditor (talk) 08:39, 5 September 2015 (UTC)

I'm not interested in the precise number of words. How much space the lead takes on the screen is a more relevant issue than wordcount. The lead at Sigmund Freud is about the right length. You should remember that you are the one who needs to create consensus for your changes. You are quite wrong in thinking you already have it. There is so much inappropriate material in your version of the lead it is quite difficult to name it all: all that stuff about Hubert Dreyfus and artificial intelligence, for example. It's interesting, but definitely doesn't belong in the lead; it should be somewhere else in the article. FreeKnowledgeCreator (talk) 08:46, 5 September 2015 (UTC)

Dreyfus is obviously the leading analytic philosopher on Heidegger and is the only reason Heidegger is even discussed within Analytic philosophy. How can that not be relevant to the lead of a major philosopher? I'm confused why you think this to be unimportant.SuperFriendlyEditor (talk) 10:22, 5 September 2015 (UTC)

I tried to move the Dreyfus to the main article and now apparently all the material is destroyed. Do you have any comprehension of how bad this article currently is? One would have no idea that Heidegger was ever read anywhere outside of France from the current article. No summaries of Heidegger's important concepts are given. No understanding of any of Heidegger's ideas are conveyed. Since you have decided to destroy my work, you can keep your poor article, which reads as if it was machine-translated from a foreign language. You do not even let someone in the middle of working finish before you destroy their work. No wonder zero academics contribute to this site and your articles are so atrocious. Anyone who reads the article as it currently stands comes away knowing less about Heidegger than they did before because of all of the obvious distortions and gross inaccuracies. You have not even succesfully explained a single one of Heidegger's terms or concepts here, or why anyone should care who he is. This article is an embarassment indeed. SuperFriendlyEditor (talk) 10:50, 5 September 2015 (UTC)

• Please note that nothing has been "destroyed". All your efforts are still preserved in the article history and can easily be recovered to be used in the lead or elsewhere in the article. Please also note that all contributions are welcome, especially from specialists on a subject, but WP is a collaborative effort and nobody "owns" an article. Perhaps you could describe each and every problem with the article (and especially the lead) here on the talk page, indicating how you propose to correct the problem. Other editors can then give their opinions and that way you may be able to convince everybody that your edits are an improvement. Please do note that a lead should only be a concise summary of the article and that most material that you added belongs in the body of the article, not the lead. Thanks. --Randykitty (talk) 10:57, 5 September 2015 (UTC)

Words are important rather than space on the screen because people have different size screens. I have a 27 inch screen and a 5 inch screen, both of which I edit on. The lead is the same amount of words on both screens, but not the same number of "screens" for two different users. Word counts give a reasonable approximation of length not dependent on the particularities of users devices, fonts, and other non-content formatting. Generally, essays list word limits not page limits so page limits aren't just fudged with font changes and others. — Preceding unsigned comment added by SuperFriendlyEditor (talk • contribs) 10:25, 5 September 2015 (UTC)

Also, as a far better example of a decent lead with an appropriate length for an article of such high-importance, take a look at Immanuel Kant. Thank you for pointing Freud my way. I will try to fix that travesty as soon as I have time. Freud deserves a longer lead than this site bestows on reality television stars. SuperFriendlyEditor (talk) 10:36, 5 September 2015 (UTC)

Then use Kant as a model and post a new draft text here (with references) so we can all look at it and agree changes. Please learn to indent and sign your comments by the way ----Snowded ^TALK 10:38, 5 September 2015 (UTC)

Who cares about indenting and signing and other wikilawyering rules when you have a high importance article so filled with falsehoods that everyone who reads it comes away knowing less than they did before they read the article? Embarassment is not even a strong enough word for what a farce this article this. The lead is hardly even the worst part. You list "influence and reception in France" as if only the French ever Heidegger, to name just the most ridiculous error here. I was in the middle of trying to fix this and you block the page in order to "win" rather than work with me to make constructive improvements to an article that is in desperate need of new content, since almost everything currently in there needs to be deleted because it is a distroting misrepresentation and makes no logical sense. Sad to see you all care more about "winning" than improving the article or having an encylopedic article on a major philosopher that does not actively contribute to vulgar misconceptions about him, and that actively spreads ignorance, and reads like a machine-translated piece of vandalism. SuperFriendlyEditor (talk) 11:01, 5 September 2015 (UTC)

• Indenting and signing make communication easier. And if you would spend your time explaining the problems and how you propose to address them would be far more productive than continuing to complain about how things are being done here. Thanks. --Randykitty (talk) 11:13, 5 September 2015 (UTC)

The material about Dreyfus and his views on artificial intelligence ("Dreyfus and others following him who have been strongly impressed by the historical-philosophical importance of Heidegger's argument here have held that Heidegger's work on human "being-in-the-world", and his devastating critique of Cartesianism, showed the doomed nature of traditional programs of Artificial Intelligence years before those programs were largely abandoned, and revealed the false assumptions deeply embedded in the Philosophy of nearly all the major philosophers of the modern period") was inappropriate for the lead. It diverges too far away from Heidegger himself, and too far into the views of another philosopher altogether. The lead is meant to be a summary of the main points of the article only, and there is no sense in which Dreyfus's views on artificial intelligence are one of the main points of the Heidegger article. The material itself may be quite interesting, but the lead is not the right place for it (the same would be true for the material about Heidegger seeing himself as the most important philosopher since Heraclitus). FreeKnowledgeCreator (talk)

So then put the fucking Dreyfus and Heraclitus material in the main article. Read the WP policy DONTREVERT. It was you, old friend, who was in violation of policy. Not me. Read the policy and you will see it plainly condemns what you did and says that if you think an addition is "too long" you are not allowed to just delete the whole thing , but selectively remove on the basis of knowledge. Thus you are a vandal and a troll who destroys content and violates policy. Cheers!

Edit war

I have protected this article for 24 hours so that only admins can edit it in order to stop the edit warring and give the involved parties the chance to work out their differences on the talk page. --Randykitty (talk) 10:45, 5 September 2015 (UTC)

Imagine finding an article in which every single word is wrong and you will imagine my pain at reading the current Martin Heidegger article. Nor am I the only one who thinks this. Please see the section immediately above this article. Or better yet, spend the next 24 hours reading the first sections of Sein und Zeit and you will see the ridiculousness of the article as it currently stands, which demonstrates no understanding of Heidegger, and leaves everyone who reads it dumber than when they began and knowing less about everything. This is so atrocious that essentially the entire article as it stands needs to be deleted and began again. I have no more time for this. SuperFriendlyEditor (talk) 10:55, 5 September 2015 (UTC)

I tried to move the Dreyfus to the main article and now apparently all the material is destroyed. Do you have any comprehension of how bad this article currently is? One would have no idea that Heidegger was ever read anywhere outside of France from the current article. No summaries of Heidegger's important concepts are given. No understanding of any of Heidegger's ideas are conveyed. Since you have decided to destroy my work, you can keep your poor article, which reads as if it was machine-translated from a foreign language. You do not even let someone in the middle of working finish before you destroy their work. No wonder zero academics contribute to this site and your articles are so atrocious. Anyone who reads the article as it currently stands comes away knowing less about Heidegger than they did before because of all of the obvious distortions and gross inaccuracies. You have not even succesfully explained a single one of Heidegger's terms or concepts here, or why anyone should care who he is. This article is an embarassment indeed. SuperFriendlyEditor (talk) 10:50, 5 September 2015 (UTC) Words are important rather than space on the screen because people have different size screens. I have a 27 inch screen and a 5 inch screen, both of which I edit on. The lead is the same amount of words on both screens, but not the same number of "screens" for two different users. Word counts give a reasonable approximation of length not dependent on the particularities of users devices, fonts, and other non-content formatting. Generally, essays list word limits not page limits so page limits aren't just fudged with font changes and others. — Preceding unsigned comment added by SuperFriendlyEditor (talk • contribs) 10:25, 5 September 2015 (UTC)

Rather than someone explain everything they have learneed in their 3 years of Wikipedia Law School, how about anyone defend the outright abortion and spreading of ignorance of the current page? Disgusting. I had thought people wanted to come here to spread knowledge, instead they wish to rise to arbitrary positions of power and abuse that power to show how tough they are. You have all conducted yourselves in a truly outrageous and shameful manner. Learn the rules of Wikipedia? How about you show that you actually care about the article not being less accurate than a piece of toilet paper with which I have just used to wipe my ass? If this article was written by a speaker fluent in English, I will eat my hat. SuperFriendlyEditor (talk) 11:14, 5 September 2015 (UTC)

For all the angst seen here and in the article, and all the energy and effort expended by several possibly eminent scholars, why did nobody simply go and draft a "better" version of the article in a sandbox and then provide a link back here so that everyone could consider replacing old with new? I know nothing of the topic, but there are always ways to make collaborative progress that doesn't involved heads and brick walls meeting at speed.  Velella  ^{Velella Talk}   13:02, 5 September 2015 (UTC)

SuperFriendlyEditor may possibly be perfectly correct that the lead of this article is full of errors and/or has major omissions. Unfortunately, his or her vulgar outbursts, visible above, indicate a lack of ability or interest to edit in a collaborative manner. (I noted some time ago that if the article's lead is full of errors, the appropriate thing would be to calmly point this out on the talk page so the issues can be fixed). FreeKnowledgeCreator (talk) 13:47, 5 September 2015 (UTC)

[block evading sock edits removed] BMK (talk) 01:04, 6 September 2015 (UTC)

A succession of rants and insults is the action of a Troll, not a serious editor. If you want to improve the article then propose text here. Its pretty simple ----Snowded ^TALK 20:44, 5 September 2015 (UTC)

Edit request

The only problem I see with the lead section is "...in it and later works, Heidegger maintained that our way of questioning defines our nature. He argued that Western thinking had lost sight of being. Finding ourselves as "always already" moving within ontological presuppositions, we lose touch with our grasp of being and its truth becomes "muddled"...." Since they aren't direct quotes, it should be changed to something along the lines of, "In it and later works, Heidegger maintained that one's way of questioning defines one's nature. 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"." Erpert ^{blah, blah, blah...} 00:30, 6 September 2015 (UTC)

Not done: The page's protection level has changed since this request was placed. You should now be able to edit the page yourself. If you still seem to be unable to, please reopen the request with further details. — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 10:56, 6 September 2015 (UTC)

 Done Erpert ^{blah, blah, blah...} 21:37, 6 September 2015 (UTC)

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)

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)

OK, please go ahead. I am glad the deletion provoked a response. Rothorpe (talk) 02:33, 11 September 2015 (UTC)

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)

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)

What is the source and context of that statement exactly?·maunus · snunɐɯ· 23:24, 5 January 2016 (UTC)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

Snowded and others might want to express opinions. FreeKnowledgeCreator (talk) 23:57, 6 January 2016 (UTC)

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)

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