Talk:Martin Heidegger/Archive 11

Archive 5

←

Archive 9

Archive 10

Archive 11

Archive 12

Influences

Regarding this edit: links to Wikipedia articles aren't sources. As per WP:INFOBOXCITE material that is not supported in the body of the article should be referenced in the infobox. If for some reason citations are "bloat" there (even though several other citations are already present), then the solution is not to just remove them but rather to add them to the article text. Nikkimaria (talk) 22:21, 16 June 2020 (UTC)

There are refernces on influences but not on those influenced and with good reason. Influences if they are not obvious in the main body of the text need refernces. However those influences should have reference to heidegger on their articles with appropriate references. There is no need to duplicate this as a quick click through allows an editor to validate. I also find it odd that you are only trying to action on this on two of several names and started off by deleting them - why? -----Snowded ^TALK 22:40, 16 June 2020 (UTC)

All but these two are at least mentioned somewhere else in the article. Nikkimaria (talk) 22:44, 16 June 2020 (UTC)

And a simple click on either name gets you to the relevant article and in both cases the influence of Heidegger is clearly stated. Rahner is notable for that influence and the other was his student. I still don't think you had any excuse to delete them without the most basic of checked. But wikipedia is about verifiability. If using a blue link allows verification then there is no need to replicate material alrady avaialbe to any reader -----Snowded ^TALK 22:54, 16 June 2020 (UTC)

A Wikipedia link is not sufficient for verifiability purposes; we need direct citations, whether in the infobox or in the article text. Any material lacking a reliable source directly supporting it may be removed and should not be restored without an inline citation to a reliable source. Nikkimaria (talk) 22:56, 16 June 2020 (UTC)

And if the material is in the link and it is cited there is no issue, if the material is not in the linked article then it needs to be cited there. It is verifiable and has a reliable source and thus passes the test -----Snowded ^TALK 04:45, 17 June 2020 (UTC)

No, a wikilink is not an inline citation. If there is to be content in this article, it should be cited in this article. Nikkimaria (talk) 12:59, 17 June 2020 (UTC)

Really? As long as something can be verified that is what counts. Replicating references over two articles doesn't make sense . I've read Wikipedia policy and edited here for a long time and I don't think your interpretation is right. Further if it is followed there is a massive and unecessary editing job to do over mutiple articles. I also think you were wrong to remove valuable material without first checking it out. -----Snowded ^TALK 14:22, 17 June 2020 (UTC)

Yes really. I'm not aware of any policy or guideline that supports your interpretation. Keep in mind that not everyone accesses Wikipedia the way you do - for example a printed article includes the references available on the page but not whatever references may or may not be available on some other article. If you don't care to do this work, fine, but you shouldn't actively impede addition of inline citations. Nikkimaria (talk) 20:30, 17 June 2020 (UTC)

Well we are interpreting policy in different ways, that is evident. Inline citations in the main body of the article are needed where material is contested but the principle is verifiabilty, not the insertion of the reference, that is a means to an end. These lists are highly compressed in the information box and the more you add references the more it gets difficult to navigate. You have clearly stated that if the name is mentioned in the main body of the Heidegger article (which would take a long time to find) then it doesn't need referencing. So the fact that I can click on the name and find the equivalent reference is really no different. In both cases you can verify the data and you are not being consistent. I'll repeat a point I made earlier, namely that if we followed your interpretation on all articles you creating a massive and unecessary task. Your final statement is not helpful - I am not opposed to inline citations that misses the point. Lets see what other editors think. -----Snowded ^TALK 08:53, 18 June 2020 (UTC)

This debate might be better on the template talk page so we can get some policy on the subject - it isn't appropriate here. How about we do that? -----Snowded ^TALK 08:59, 18 June 2020 (UTC)

We already have policy on the subject: inline citations. These are not required in infoboxes when the claim is cited in the body text, so if you wanted to avoid having them in the infobox you could simply mention these influences in the article. Nikkimaria (talk) 11:58, 18 June 2020 (UTC)

Really you are the sole authority on policy? The solution you have come up with is fine if it keeps you happy. But having checked policy I don't think you can make the claim -----Snowded ^TALK 14:20, 18 June 2020 (UTC)

Really you are the sole authority on policy? No, policy is the sole authority on policy. What policy have you checked that you believe supports your view? Nikkimaria (talk) 20:31, 18 June 2020 (UTC)

The principle of verifiability in WP:RS and I offered a suggestion that we take this issue for clarification either there on on the talk page of the info.box. You are the one making the absolute statements hence my comment -----Snowded ^TALK 05:53, 19 June 2020 (UTC)

My documentation of the history of inappropriate reversions and threatening remarks in edit summaries and Talk comments by a couple of editors of this page, intended for an RfC to establish whether said editors are indeed in effect claiming ownership, was disrupted by the COVID restrictions and related personal matters. I still have the notes. Do I need to get back to work on it? —VeryRarelyStable 06:00, 19 June 2020 (UTC)

Oh please do few things on wikipedia would give me greater pleasure than to see you do that -----Snowded ^TALK 06:05, 19 June 2020 (UTC)

WP:RS explicitly states that "a wikilink is not a reliable source". If you'd like to dispute that there you're of course welcome to do so. Nikkimaria (talk) 12:45, 19 June 2020 (UTC)

The link isn't but the material in the link can be. Please stop trying to make this a confrontation - wikipedia policy frequently needs development and this may be one that needs clarification - it impacts on other lists such as those of notable people. I'll probably but the issue together for a discussion at the RS board when I have time. -----Snowded ^TALK 12:50, 19 June 2020 (UTC)

Later Works

I've pasted this section into the wikipedia article on Heideggerian terminology under the heading "Kehre." So it's getting used in two separate articles. The material it replaces was entirely unsourced. I'm not 100% sure about what the wiki lawyers would say about this action but -- whatever. I've no real comment on the content, other than it appears to include citations, which is good. 76.250.61.86 (talk) 23:17, 10 August 2020 (UTC)

Follow-up: In the H. terminology article's Kehre section, I've now edited material referenced above (the "late H." stuff) for "repurposing" and removed much of it.

2600:1702:39A0:3720:D49D:B303:F30E:2CCB (talk) 16:52, 11 August 2020 (UTC)

Export Husserl to B&T article

I've exported relevant material from (this) Wikipedia MH article regarding Husserl into a Wikipedia article on B&T. This action is largely because the previously existing material on Hus. in B&T article was unsourced. I've re-written the material exported from (this) MH article to B&T and preserved the B&T article's material that was acceptably sourced. 2601:405:4A80:9E50:B53E:2EF9:18AE:8217 (talk) 14:39, 5 September 2020 (UTC)

Philosophy section

The introductory graph is merely an editor's personal commentary. The single, cited "source" apparently offers a definition of one term used by the author in making their own personal comments. The problem with using phil. dictionaries and glossaries is akin to those of using primary sources.

Second graf: Readers expecting a very basic overview of H's philosophy are shunted onto a sidetrack regarding H.'s views on Presocratics etc.

The rather lengthy third graph is also mere personal commentary. The two citations (66&67) don't actually serve as "sources" for this graf. One merely defines a term; another confirms that H. did, in fact, use a hyphen for dasein in certain later works, rather than serving as "source" for author's commentary. The graph initially dives into questions about Husserl, significant of course, but, again, secondary to laying out the most basic outline of H. phil. Moreover, Husserl then gets a sub-subhead below this material, suggesting at best, disorganization.

Many of the other citations are weak choices. Stiegler, Derrida and El-Bizri are generally known for focusing on narrowly specific aspects of H. to advance their own separate ideas. These make for unlikely "go-to" sources for a basic overview.

The subhead "Being and Time" has a sole source: "An unconventional history of Western Phil." It's not clear what material is supported by this citation, however, the Wikipedia material appears to be a personal commentary -- most of it beside the main points of B&T.

The same type of critique could be made for remainder of subheading under "Philosophy."

Apart from missing forest for the trees, Wikipedia editors' personal commentaries on Heidegger may or may not be "right," interesting & etc. but they obviously lack credibility & readers should (and certainly will) look elsewhere for enlightenment. 2601:405:4A80:9E50:C994:84F0:FB3E:7E02 (talk) 13:20, 5 October 2020 (UTC)

OK an upfront question - have you edited wikipedia before? Your IP address has only edited this page -----Snowded ^TALK 13:30, 5 October 2020 (UTC)

Well, yes. I've recently re-done the lede and "contents" 1-4 of Being and Time as well as the entire article on Introduction to Metaphysics.

And I have a similar question for you: Have you ever tasted squirrel stew? (Point is, your "upfront question" seems irrelevant.) 2601:405:4A80:9E50:C994:84F0:FB3E:7E02 (talk) 15:42, 5 October 2020 (UTC) 2601:405:4A80:9E50:C994:84F0:FB3E:7E02 (talk) 15:42, 5 October 2020 (UTC)

You are editing under multiple IP so there is no way anyone can track what you are doing and that raises the issue of sock puppetry. Please use one IP or ideally set up an account. Otherwise if you have done all that work them make proposals for changes and we can all look at them -----Snowded ^TALK 17:38, 5 October 2020 (UTC)

My critique above is quite specific about some things regarding the first three paragraphs. I'd say at minimum, probably simplify things a bit. The fine points of H.'s "pre-Keher" phase that diverge from B&T --- you can forget about them. Too distracting.

The segment leading up to subhead on "Kehre" (which isn't too bad) is structured the way it is because.... I can't imagine why. It's needlessly fractured.

It IS possible to summarize H's B&T somewhat simply, in an organized fashion using plain language. Just find some of the many writers that do it and cite a few of them so that the reader sees some diverse agreement of viewpoint.

Editing without an account is obviously permitted by the system, which could be easily engineered otherwise. As for the "multiple IP" I've no idea why the numbers vary. I assume the reason is complicated and uninteresting to non-engineers like myself. I edit from a laptop at my house, is about all I know.

2601:405:4A80:9E50:3C41:4EC4:3F2:19CD (talk) 23:55, 5 October 2020 (UTC)

There is a very simple solution - create an ID and log in. It will take you a few minutes. Multiple IP addresses are frowned on and can result in sock puppetry issues. Otherwise propose changes so we can discuss them -----Snowded ^TALK 10:23, 6 October 2020 (UTC)

OP has made a number of specific criticisms with implicit proposals for change. The derail to talk about their IP address and Wikipedia editing experience wasn't their doing. OP, if you have sources on hand for better content, this page has been needing an overhaul by someone who knows the subject for years. —VeryRarelyStable 10:51, 6 October 2020 (UTC)

So lets have the implicit made explicit and we can discuss. Editing with multiple IP addresses is an issue I'm afraid and as I said there is a simple solution -----Snowded ^TALK 17:35, 6 October 2020 (UTC)

Philosophy (more specific)

Here's some tentative comments:

2.1 Being, time, and Dasein

2.2 Being and Time

The two segments 2.1 and 2.2 above is a poor structuring of material, which seems to go off in a number of directions in an unclear and unstructured manner. At minimum consolidate these subheads somehow. Try and salvage what's available. Good luck. You might use the current version of Being and Time and just adapt and import some of that stuff here. It's probably not controversial to say the core of H. phil is B&T.

2.3 Later works: The Turn

Remove second and third graphs of 2.3. It’s basically an unsourced personal commentary. The “kehre” is a vague and perhaps lazy way of summing up ALL post-1934 Heidegger— or really, almost anything other than Being and Time. I re-wrote this stuff for the (current) Wikipedia glossary of H. terms Kehre, cutting maybe half and adding slightly. The original entry "Kehre" -- I don't remember. I think I removed it. (Obviously the "history" will show.) The glossary is for a somewhat different purpose than here, and the outcome of my work was only so-so, but I thought an improvement, incrementally at least, over what's here (and separately, over what was previously there). Import?

2.4 Heidegger and the ground of history This is interesting, but based on a single source. For clarity and to politely give due credit, the material should be explicitly attributed (not just a note). It appears to be at least in part, speculation on part of this single source — yet is presented as objective facts. Moreover, this supposed vision of potential futures attributed to H. by the source, isn’t directly part of his “philosophy.” But this section is labeled "Philosophy."

2.5 Influences Augustine “Recent research” (or whatever) cites something at least 20 years old and possibly older. Maybe Caputo was the first on this topic in a big way? Other subtopics under 2.5 look maybe generally, sortta okay.


2.6 Heidegger and Eastern thought This is okay, but probably overstated, definitely getting into the weeds and possibly uses too few sources to fully establish the notability of content.

2601:405:4A80:9E50:7D5D:41C5:E523:92D2 (talk) 01:58, 8 October 2020 (UTC)

Your 2.2 contains no specific proposals for change so I'll leave that for the moment

2.3 I think that would be an improvement but lets see what other editors say

2.4 Full attribution to Gillespie and shortening makes sense

2.5I can never get worked up either way about 'Influences' in informtion boxes and personally would delete it or reduce it significantly but that is one for other editors

2.6 I would support deleting everything from "May sees great influence of Taoism ..." but would await other comments

AND PLEASE, PLEASE create an account, the above edits used two different IP addresses. I'm not sure that is allowed but would prefer not to have to ask the questions -----Snowded ^TALK 06:01, 8 October 2020 (UTC)

I swapped out the contents with the current version of Kehre in the Heidegger terminology article elsewhere on Wikipedia. This material, in turn, is a re-write I did previously of material here (which I've now altered).

Sounds complicated but it isn't.

It may be that this edit should be reverted. If so, that's okay. 2601:405:4A80:9E50:2D7F:7672:CA84:BE8E (talk) 00:01, 10 October 2020 (UTC)

Segments 2.1 and 2.2

I propose that Being and Time Wikipedia article sections 2.1, 2.2 and 2.3. be substituted here for segment 2.1 and 2.3 of the MH article, which I find sub-par for reasons mentioned above. I don't propose this as a great bit of end-all work. But it would be significant improvement over the current segments

2601:405:4A80:9E50:E10C:7491:2537:9B6 (talk) 23:39, 12 October 2020 (UTC)

It's done. Revert & discuss if you like. Reverting without thoughtful comment isn't useful.

2601:405:4A80:9E50:359E:A64B:4B1B:8C34 (talk) 12:38, 14 October 2020 (UTC)

"Ground of History" I cut some and added some from same source. Previously, and still, it takes some comments by Allen out of their intended context. 2601:405:4A80:9E50:488:E4FA:3199:5524 (talk) 00:00, 19 October 2020 (UTC)

I cut a graph from Holderlin/Nietzsche that mostly concerned a comparison of Adorno's views vs Heidegger. Heading isn't about Adorno. Moreover the graph used terms that are/were unexplained Additional material in graph incorrectly cites sources that don't pertain to statements. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2601:405:4A80:9E50:6462:F77F:8092:7B31 (talk) 11:04, 19 October 2020 (UTC)

I removed the nazi bit in lede sentence. It's adequately covered in lede and body of the article. Focusing on this topic is potentially tiresome. A plain-language appraisal (sourced) on how H.'s personal politics was/wasn't reflected in his philosophy would be of interest --- and is probably t lacking in present article. 2601:405:4A80:9E50:2844:3887:D508:6A58 (talk) 13:40, 19 October 2020 (UTC) 2601:405:4A80:9E50:2844:3887:D508:6A58 (talk) 13:40, 19 October 2020 (UTC)

Heidegger denied he was an existentialist

Why does the opening paragraph say that Heidegger made contributions to phenomenology, hermeneutics and existentialism, when Heidegger denied he was an existentialist? I see the question of whether Heidegger could really be thought of as an existentialist has come out before on the talk page of this article (see Archive 3) but as that was a long time ago, I thought it was an idea to re-visit this question. Vorbee (talk) 17:48, 2 November 2020 (UTC)

Apparently many who have historically defined "existentialism" got a lot from Heidegger -- whether as "contribution" or otherwise. I'm unqualified to answer. But to mention existentialism in the lede seems reasonable and even necessary.

2601:405:4A80:9E50:2DDD:30BD:5FF1:FF75 (talk) 22:04, 5 November 2020 (UTC)

Tag on lede

It's vague and there has been no discussion of why it's there apart from a question on whether Heidegger is relevant to existentialism (he is). Lacking specifics and discussion, I'd propose removing the tag. 2601:405:4A80:9E50:B4F6:7898:2325:B447 (talk) 17:48, 8 November 2020 (UTC)

Agree have removed and also the Philosophy of religion sidebar-----Snowded ^TALK 18:45, 8 November 2020 (UTC)

Introductory Section

In the beginning of the second paragraph, it was said that Heidegger’s analysis of Dasein was an approach to addressing the question: “What is common to all entities?” Thus the author of this section decided to answer Heidegger’s question (by saying being is what is common to all entities) and then use that answer to frame the question of the meaning of being. So, I simply removed the reference to the question concerning what is common to all entities and replaced it with the question “What is the meaning of being?” [[:|Bscheurle]] (talk) 18:09, 26 January 2021 (UTC)

I thought I would clarify a bit more what is problematic about the first sentence of the second paragraph. It implies that Heidegger’s analysis of Dasein was an approach to answering the question “What is common to all entities that makes them entities?” Insofar as Heidegger’s analysis of Dasein is an approach to answering the question of the meaning of being, the sentence suggests that being is that which is common to all entities and which makes them entities. This is why I say the author of the sentence answered the question of the meaning of being in advance. Heidegger is not at all satisfied with the answer “being is what is common to all entities and which makes them entities.” For one thing, Dasein is, but it is not an entity. The interpretation of being as ens commune is indeed something Heidegger investigates, but it is entirely misleading to say that the analytic of Dasein is an approach to answering it. Bscheurle (talk) 18:23, 26 January 2021 (UTC)

Thank you for raising this issue. I think you are right to point out that here is at least a conceptual difference between "the meaning of being" and "what all beings have in common". The two concepts are very closely related, so drawing a connection between them seems plausible and would be helpful for getting a better grasp on both concepts. I'll see if I can find a source on this. Here is a first quote from https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/heidegger/#Que that points in this direction: "The question of the meaning of Being is concerned with what it is that makes beings intelligible as beings, and whatever that factor (Being) is, it is seemingly not itself simply another being among beings". The connection would be that "being intelligible" is what all beings have in common. "Being intelligible" doesn't need to be a being itself. But I'm not sure whether all beings are intelligible according to Heidegger. Phlsph7 (talk) 03:47, 27 January 2021 (UTC)

I had a look at a few sources but I didn't find a place where this connection is explicitly drawn. So I lean towards removing this expression. Another argument against drawing the connection to "what is common to all entities" is that some feature may be had by all entities as a contingent matter of fact, let's say, a world in which all things are red. But this common feature wouldn't be important for the meaning of being.

That being said, it might be a good idea to further elucidate in the text what the question exactly asks. Phlsph7 (talk) 04:22, 27 January 2021 (UTC)

I think I agree with the analysis of the problem but I am not sure the proposed change doesn't over simplify things a bit. Wondering if there is another source we can use? -----Snowded ^TALK 06:15, 27 January 2021 (UTC)

A simple solution would be to use the quote I mentioned before.

In Being and Time (1927), Heidegger addresses the question of the meaning of being, which "is concerned with what it is that makes beings intelligible as beings".

This solves the earlier problem and clarifies what the question is about. Phlsph7 (talk) 06:35, 27 January 2021 (UTC)

Yes, seems reasonable. Martinevans123 (talk) 10:43, 27 January 2021 (UTC)

The introduction section isn't great. Particularly the second paragraph. Its first sentence notes that in Being and Time, H. "addresses the question of Being" which is "concerned" with -- a different question. The second sentence concerns how H. approaches "this" question. It's not perfectly clear which of the two questions are now getting addressed. But he "closely associates" this with an undefined concept.

Nothing actually WRONG with any of this, but its not very enlightening or the correct approach for an introductory paragraph.

2601:405:4A80:9E50:F0CE:8374:EE1D:161D (talk) 17:56, 7 February 2021 (UTC)

Would you like to draft up here what you'd consider to be a better second paragraph? Many thanks. Martinevans123 (talk) 18:10, 7 February 2021 (UTC)

I don't see much of a problem with the issue raised about the questions. But I agree that it's a bad idea to describe one unexplained concept in terms of another unexplained concept. We could remove the clause "and which he associates closely with his concept of "being-in-the-world" (In-der-Welt-sein)" and replace it with the sentence "The reason for this is that we already have a pre-ontological understanding of being that shapes how we experience the world" (taken from the section "Ontological difference and fundamental ontology"). This way we explain why someone interested in the meaning of being should study Dasein. Phlsph7 (talk) 08:15, 8 February 2021 (UTC)

As it currently stands:

In Being and Time (1927), Heidegger addresses the question of the meaning of "being", which "is concerned with what it is that makes beings intelligible as beings".[15]

Heidegger approaches this question through an analysis of Dasein, his term for the specific type of being that humans possess.[16]:193

The reason for this approach is that we already have a pre-ontological understanding of being that shapes how we experience the world.

This conception of the human is in contrast with that of Rationalist thinkers like René Descartes, who had understood human existence most basically as thinking, as in Cogito ergo sum ("I think therefore I am").

So in other words, we are supposed to learn from this passage that H. "addresses" a question. We learn what the question "is concerned with" and we learn how H. "approaches this question." The fourth and final sentence says that "this [undefined] "conception" is "in contrast with" Rationalist thinkers.

All in all, not very helpful.

17:26, 14 February 2021 (UTC)~

We learn through these sentences one of Heidegger's goals in "Being and Time". This goal is not fully defined but characterized. The method for how to progress towards this goal is mentioned with a short explanation and it is pointed out how this approach differs from the tradition. So these sentences have informational content. But keep in mind that Heidegger's philosophy in "Being and Time" (and afterwards) is complex and not easily summarized in non-Heideggerian terms. So the expectations of what can be explained in 4 sentences shouldn't be too high. Your suggestions are welcome if you see a better wording for this paragraph. Phlsph7 (talk) 01:22, 15 February 2021 (UTC)

This is merely a very rough re-write of existing content:

Dasein is introduced as a term for the specific type of being that humans possess. This term has been translated as "being there." Heidegger believes that we already have a "pre-ontological" understanding that shapes how we experience the world. This experience he terms "being in the world." Commentators have noted that Dasein and "being in the world" are unitary concepts in contrast with the "subject/object" view of Rationalist Philosopy since at least Descarte. An analysis of Dasein is used to approach the question of the meaning of being, which H. defines as "concerns with what makes beings intelligible as beings."

2601:405:4A80:9E50:C58D:16D1:9F60:1F93 (talk) 04:21, 15 February 2021 (UTC)

That's a good draft. I think your version is more accessible than the current one. Some modification that we should consider:

• We should link this to "Being and Time", for example, with a short introductory clause: "In Being and Time (1927), Heidegger introduces Dasein as a term for..."
• I'm a little uneasy about stating that "being in the world" is an experience, unless we have a source for this. We could replace the sentence 'This experience he terms "being in the world."' with somethink like 'He refers to this mode of being as "being in the world"'.
• Having a source for the expression "unitary concepts" would be great, but I think not absolutely necessary.
• In the last sentence, I would keep the original formulation. I don't think that Heidegger gives this exact definition. By being a little vague, we are less likely to ascribe something to him that he didn't say. So it would end: '...the question of the meaning of being, which "is concerned with what it is that makes beings intelligible as beings"'. Phlsph7 (talk) 05:01, 15 February 2021 (UTC)

New thread for sake of convenience

The last sentence of draft [if cleaned up] merely combines most of the two existing sentences which are:

"In Being and Time (1927), Heidegger addresses the question of the meaning of "being", which "is concerned with what it is that makes beings intelligible as beings".[15] Heidegger approaches this question through an analysis of Dasein, his term for the specific type of being that humans possess.[16]:193"

The proposal (here cleaned up) would be

"An analysis of Dasein is used to approach the question of the meaning of being. This meaning : defines as that which is 'concerned with what makes beings intelligible as beings.'"

The clause (or whatever) "his term for the specific type of being that humans posess" appears elsewhere in the proposed draft.

As for footnotes, it's my understanding that lede sections in Wikipedia should be a summary of footnoted material in body of article. As such, footnotes aren't used in lede sections. I don't especially care either way, but note that current footnotes are numbered in an f'ed up way. The "unitary" bit in the proposed draft is from current "philosophy" section of current article, where you can find the source (and insert if you like).

Ehr....yes I'm not sure that "how we experience the world" (current version) is necessarily the same as what H. meant by "being-in-the-world." However, it's probably close enough for an intro. Note that this term BITW, isn't in the current version. I've added it in the proposed re-write. Not really sure that this addition would (as intended) make the term "Dasein" more clear for the hapless reader, or less. 2601:405:4A80:9E50:419D:4E2F:8693:41E8 (talk) 16:06, 15 February 2021 (UTC)

Yes, you right about the footnotes in the lead. The "unitary" already has a reference in one of the sections so no extra footnote should be needed here. I don't fully agree with saying that Heidegger "defines" the meaning of being this way, but maybe I'm too fastidious on this point. As for the issue of experience, this difference may matter, since Heidegger is against the emphasis on consciousness in Husserl and Descartes. He introduces many of his terms in opposition to this tradition, which would be undermined if we define his terms through theirs.

If I remember correctly, Being and Time starts out with a discussion of the question of the meaning of being and the analysis of Dasein is only introduced later in order to approach/solve the meaning-problems. This point is missing in the new version. Phlsph7 (talk) 17:03, 15 February 2021 (UTC)

Yes, well -- but B&T apart from its introduction is: Division One, the "Preparatory Fundamental Analysis of Dasein," and Division Two, "Dasein and Temporality.” So you could say that most concepts in B&T are discussed in terms of Dasein. Of course nearly all I've proposed is only a re-write of what is the existing material.

We both agree that Heidegger's idea of "experience" would be a bit obscure. The term here is merely taken from existing material. It's certainly not central to his B&T vocabulary. "Being-in-the-world" is more of his focus, and it does seem to involve experience, although this may be OR -- or even just BS. I introduced the term "BITW" as a kind of correction or clarification relative to "experience" and because it's particularly fundamental to his philosophy. 2601:405:4A80:9E50:6135:DD9F:2798:9F93 (talk) 18:36, 15 February 2021 (UTC)

How about this as substitute "experience" in a re-write? (See context in proposed re-write above): Heidegger believes that Dasein already has a "pre-ontological" understanding that shapes how it lives. This mode of being he terms "being in the world."

This would replace the (proposed) version: Heidegger believes that we already have a "pre-ontological" understanding that shapes how we experience the world. This experience he terms "being in the world."

Also we can change "Heidegger defined" meaning of being to "Heidegger described..." followed by his supposed quote. So the whole thing might tentatively read something like:

In Heidegger's fundamental text Being and Time (1927) Dasein is introduced as a term for the specific type of being that humans possess. Dasein has been translated as "being there." Heidegger believes that Dasein already has a "pre-ontological" and non-abstract understanding that shapes how it lives. This mode of being he terms "being in the world." Commentators have noted that Dasein and "being in the world" are unitary concepts in contrast with the "subject/object" view of Rationalist Philosopy since at least Descarte. An analysis of Dasein is used to approach the question of the meaning of being, which H. describes as "concerned with what makes beings intelligible as beings."

For reference, this is current vers. In Being and Time (1927), Heidegger addresses the question of the meaning of "being", which "is concerned with what it is that makes beings intelligible as beings".[15] Heidegger approaches this question through an analysis of Dasein, his term for the specific type of being that humans possess.[16]:193 The reason for this approach is that we already have a pre-ontological understanding of being that shapes how we experience the world. This conception of the human is in contrast with that of Rationalist thinkers like René Descartes, who had understood human existence most basically as thinking, as in Cogito ergo sum ("I think therefore I am"). — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2601:405:4A80:9E50:E530:6285:4505:11DD (talk) 00:27, 16 February 2021 (UTC)

2601:405:4A80:9E50:E9A5:B106:ADFD:141F (talk) 23:27, 15 February 2021 (UTC)

The new proposal sounds good to me. One note for the last sentence to make it sound more natural: '...the question of the meaning of being, which is about "what makes beings intelligible as beings"' or '...the question of the meaning of being, which Heidegger describes as being about "what makes beings intelligible as beings"'. But this is a minor issue and we can stick with your version if you prefer. Otherwise we can go, I think. Phlsph7 (talk) 00:56, 16 February 2021 (UTC)

Your first alternative removes attribution of the quote. So I'll go with the second version thus: which Heidegger describes as.."blablabla.... I'm not thinking the re-write makes it all good.... probably a slight improvement. Your comments definitely helped make it better. 01:37, 16 February 2021 (UTC)~ — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2601:405:4A80:9E50:211E:62A9:D195:BE3B (talk)

It's not a quote from Heidegger, it's a quote from the Stanford encyclopedia entry. Phlsph7 (talk) 01:55, 16 February 2021 (UTC)

I reconsidered it, I think we need to do something about the last sentence after all. In its current form it sounds like the quote is attributed to Heidegger. But the quote comes from Michael Wheeler, who is summarizing Heidegger. One option would be to keep the quote but remove Heidegger from it: '...meaning of being, which is "concerned with...' or '...meaning of being, which is about...'. Another option would be to keep Heidegger but to turn quote into paraphrase. Phlsph7 (talk) 12:59, 16 February 2021 (UTC)

Thanks for pointing this out. I'll fix. My error was in interpreting the original sentence: "Heidegger addresses the question of the meaning of "being", which "is concerned with what it is that makes beings intelligible as beings".[15]"

Unfortunately I didn't bother to look at footnote (not grammatically part of the sentence), but in the sentence as originally written, it is Heidegger who "addresses the question"...followed with a quote...Grammatically, "addresses" seems to attribute the quote (incorrectly) to H. Anyway sorry. I've addressed the problem and (I hope) fixed it.

This, BTW, is a problem when editors try to act in "voice-of-God" style "encyclopedia" writing. It's my view that when (stealing) bits of commentary, the attribute should be in plain language, rather than hidden in a footnote. This is a matter of minimal fairness to original sources. This is particularly the case with contentious or obscure material such as in this article. Obviously "Elephants have trunks" according to Jane Smith in the "Baby's Big Book of Animals" (1966) is probably a somewhat different attribution problem.

2601:405:4A80:9E50:71:AD3F:A566:D1F (talk) 14:57, 16 February 2021 (UTC)

More on intro section

The recent re-write (and the stuff it was based on) attempts to deal with the "nitty gritty" of H via B&T. This is probably impossible in a few sentences, not least given the limitations of amateurs like myself.

But it may be more appropriate to reserve that stuff for body of article. My assumption is that reader who knows nothing about H's phil (and probably never will), should first be offered info on why he's significant -- how he's influenced culture. For example, one can barely turn around today without hearing the word "authentic." Seems (to me) probable that this is Heidegger's influence. There are other examples no doubt.

I don't think I'll propose anything more specific at the moment. 2601:405:4A80:9E50:DC3:13D8:DC7E:5C3D (talk) 21:25, 16 February 2021 (UTC)

Language difficulty

The article is good beside to translate the german language in whatsoever other idiom. One point for exemple is that "tecnic" or "tecnica" in italian is not technology, not a discourse on the tecnic. My experience with Heidegger lies inside my doctorate thesis 1980 in statale Milano and I found in this voice a very loyable connection with shia muslim world and iran islamic revolution of 1979. A part any legitimate questions about Martin acceptance of nazism, I feel the zeit und zeit a philosophical "capolavoro" of all times and Martin heideggerr a gigantic figure in the story of though. His dissertations around the "tecnic" is an outmost thinking also now, in our days. I admit & confess to be in live with Heidegger as like as Anna arendt Feltribamba (talk) 18:36, 21 March 2021 (UTC)

Yup, Heidegger is a great philosopher, for both people who love him and for people who hate him. Khomeini was a scholar of Aristotle, and influenced by Heidegger. Remarkably was that by then there was published almost no political thought by Heidegger. His black books seem to include antisemitic rants, but that was unknown by then. Tgeorgescu (talk) 18:53, 21 March 2021 (UTC)

I'm not sure I'd class antisemitic rants as "political thought". But hey. I was wondering if Feltribamba was suggesting some change or addition to the article. Thanks. Martinevans123 (talk) 19:00, 21 March 2021 (UTC)

To tgeorgesco

I agree that the socalled "quaderni neri" In italiano, are deeply disturbing but I sm in love also with ruhollah khomeini ( I visited his grave outside Teheran) and the aryan people Feltribamba (talk) 05:19, 22 March 2021 (UTC)

To martinevans

Sorry sir I sgree in full with you, but when in love, I mean platonic love I am not a gay, you understand not too much. A la jean paul sartre position on love.evans are u the brother of the english tennis player? Feltribamba (talk) 05:11, 22 March 2021 (UTC)

I'm sorry, Feltribamba, but I'm finding it quite difficult to understand what you have written. Are you suggesting any changes to the article? Martinevans123 (talk) 14:23, 22 March 2021 (UTC) As far as I know, I am not related to Dan Evans in any way. You may care note that, as shown here, Evans is the 12th most common surname in England and the 4th most common surname in Wales.

Dear sir, you are free to change, confute and even cancel my written thesis if disturb you. Do your best and be happy. Feltribamba (talk) 15:39, 22 March 2021 (UTC)

Place of death?

NYT obit (1976) said Messkirch (plausible). I'd always thought it was Freiburg -- but don't have my Safraski handy. 2601:405:4A80:9E50:C12E:696B:E9BF:6106 (talk) 15:12, 7 April 2021 (UTC)

Yes, Edward B. Fiske in the NYT clearly says: "...died yesterday at the age of 46 in the town of his birth, Messkirch, West Germany." So I have updated the article. If you find a source with Freiburg, we will need to rethink. Thanks. Martinevans123 (talk) 15:28, 7 April 2021 (UTC)

The insufficiency and inaccuracy of the overview section

My recent edit to Heidegger's wiki has been reverted entirely due to the complaint that it was "too informative" for the overview section. Unfortunately, I must totally disagree, with there only being three simple and core concepts truly expanded on—substance ontology, the background, and Care. These are indispensable terms in his philosophy, with immediate and pressing importance. If they are "too detailed," this must only signify an editor who hasn't read or studied Heidegger. Heidegger is difficult, and that's what necessitates having as his outline the general overview. The last edit is disastrous, with incorrect terminology and lacklustre exposure of ideas. Phenomenologybeingandtime (talk) 11:02, 15 July 2021 (UTC)

The lead section should summarize the entire article? Thanks. Martinevans123 (talk) 11:07, 15 July 2021 (UTC)

The lead section should give a concise overview and summarize the main points of the topic as a whole, see WP:MOSLEAD. When adding extensive new content, it's usually best to add it to the body of the article first. And if it is accepted by the other editors and it is important compared to the other content, a sentence or two could be added to the lead. Putting all the material into the lead can easily result in giving undue weight to it.Phlsph7 (talk) 13:48, 15 July 2021 (UTC)

What, or where, is "the overview section?"

There appear to be some minor reversions to lede recently, which cut a few needless words and restored some (minimal) readability to the writing. It doesn't as far as I can see, make any substantive changes to content. 2602:252:D6A:B2C0:FCD7:32BA:8086:6D42 (talk) 14:51, 15 July 2021 (UTC)

The revert here shows there were additions, by Phenomenologybeingandtime, of over 10 Kbytes. Most people would consider that "extensive new content"? Martinevans123 (talk) 15:34, 15 July 2021 (UTC)

The latest revision is clearly (to me) better. But I fail to see any "extensive new content" that was reverted. "Fundamental" from "seminal," "believes" from "notes," etc. These are very good changes but not fundamental (or seminal).

Obviously I don't think "the last edit was disastrous," nor can I discern any "incorrect terminology" in the lede, which I assume some here are calling "overview." BTW I think "overview" implies something more comprehensive than a "lede" which is a brief summary of article's content. This article DOES have a lede -- not sure if it's got an "overview section." 2602:252:D6A:B2C0:FDC7:DA0B:F7C4:F8F (talk) 16:50, 15 July 2021 (UTC)

Last edit should have included his other works in the lead, as well as fixing "being in the world" with "being-in-the-world," and adding the overview of his direct consequences in something like AI. I can understand the latter being elsewhere than the lead— though, looking at Kant's or Hegel's articles, this seems inconsistent. But what should not have been removed is the corrections from beings to entities—the Stambaugh translation is not used in any academic context, we use the Mcquarrie & Robinson. I am inclined to further correct the last edit's notes on Dasein, as simply giving it as a new designation of Man is hardly accurate nor does it illuminate the point of his work, it's shallow to the point of misinformation. I haven't even checked the article contents themselves, but now I plan on it. Phenomenologybeingandtime (talk) 17:02, 15 July 2021 (UTC)

I've added hyphens to "being-in-the-world". Thanks. Martinevans123 (talk) 17:22, 15 July 2021 (UTC)

With "corrections from beings to entities" you mean changing the terminology of Wheeler's quote? I think Wheeler uses the term "beings" himself. I'm not sure what you mean by "notes on Dasein, as simply giving it as a new designation of Man is hardly accurate". Maybe you could quote the sentence(s) you are criticizing. I think the talk of AI belongs less to Heidegger himself but to his interpreters, especially Dreyfus. It could go into the section "Influence and reception in France" but for that we would have to do some rewriting to change the section to influence and reception in general, not just in France. Phlsph7 (talk) 20:31, 15 July 2021 (UTC)

I'm sorry -- I've only now actually seen the "Overview section" that got reverted. I strongly support the revert ! The material that got reverted is far too deep in the weeds, among its other faults.

I'd suggest that some of the material might be stuffed into other articles, if it can be (re-) written in an acceptable fashion. There's a whole Wikipedia glossary of Heideggerian terms which the editor in question might like to play with. (unsigned edit by 2602:252:d6a:b2c0:7cfb:4952:1c0d:c84a)

PS, PBT should study the Wikipedia concept of "LEDE" in some detail. "Wikipedia: is what it is." (unsigned edit by 2602:252:d6a:b2c0:903a:9ce3:77ea:a50b)

Western Mystery Tradition

- a new edit to the lead adds that Heidegger was critical of technology and states that this is "common in the [[Western mystery tradition|Western tradition]]" - the internal link is an easteregg WP:EASTEREGG redirecting to Western esotericism - there are two sources cited, John Richardson's Heidegger and Heidegger's Poetry, Language, Thought, but do either support the connection to western esotericism? - the Western esotericism article does not mention anything about the western tradition being critical of technology and does not mention Heidegger - while the Martin Heidegger article mentions "The Question Concerning Technology", it does not elaborate his criticism of technology - the lead is supposed to be a summary of the article and as the criticism of technology is not explained in the article, I would suggest that this paragraph be removed from the lead - thanks - Epinoia (talk) 17:52, 21 July 2021 (UTC)

At the very least the link has to be fixed/removed: linking it to "Western esotericism" doesn't fit. But apart from the link, the description seems accurate to me. The section "Later works: The Turn" mentions technology but does not go into detail. If we don't leave it in the lead, maybe we can move it there. Phlsph7 (talk) 19:28, 21 July 2021 (UTC)

The "new edit" was merely tinkering with existing lede material that concerned his "Standing reserve" phrase. The new edit accurately associates this phrase with his critique of technology. I didn't pay much attention to and didn't add the "Western Tradition" link. I did vaguely notice something weird about it ("mystery" tradition? WTF?!?). I've no idea what that's talking about. I suggest simply unlinking the phrase.

As to whether it "belongs" in lede, I'm uncertain and neutral. H.'s views on technology are/were significantly influential, but not central to his work. Interesting how the view is both reactionary and revolutionary -- Heidegger in nutshell -- but that's not for the lede and actually, just personal opinion. P.S., I've un-wikified "Western Tradition." Seems whoever wrote that meant something like "western philosophy." Dunno. 2602:252:D6A:B2C0:CD5:D61:A52C:9FF6 (talk) 12:35, 22 July 2021 (UTC)

- removed content on criticism of technology from lead as it is not covered in the body of the article per WP:LEADDD, "Don't include information that is not covered later on." - if integrated into the article it needs to be expanded beyond a flat statement that Heidegger's later work includes a critique of technology and the refs need to be improved. - cheers - Epinoia (talk) 23:06, 23 July 2021 (UTC)

Husserl

I suggest removing or severely shortening the following unsourced graph:

"There is disagreement over the degree of influence that Edmund Husserl had on Heidegger's philosophical development, just as there is disagreement about the degree to which Heidegger's philosophy is grounded in phenomenology. These disagreements centre upon how much of Husserlian phenomenology is contested by Heidegger, and how much this phenomenology in fact informs Heidegger's own understanding."

You could just say "Husserl's infuence on Heidegger is controversial." That would say basically all of above graph and with slightly more clarity and equally unsourced. 2602:252:D6A:B2C0:C012:8E57:B930:23B4 (talk) 04:04, 26 July 2021 (UTC)--

Ontological difference and fundamental ontology

Is this section required?

Reading it, the most it seems to clearly offer currently is a definition of the "ontological difference." It doesn't tie this term very well to the larger picture of his philosophy. It's getting pretty deep into the weeds and makes statements that, for the sake of the reader, aren't explained or supported by the text (Probably by the sources, but not in the current text).

Here's my current edit of the text in the segment.

"Central to Heidegger's philosophy is the difference between being as such and specific entities.[1][2] -- or what he called the ontological difference: He accuses the Western philosophical tradition of confusing being as such with a chimerical ultimate being; for example as "idea, energeia, substance, monad or will to power." He terms this misunderstanding as "being, forgetful" of the "ontological difference."[1][3][4] To rectify this mistake, Heidegger in his own fundamental ontology, focuses instead on the meaning of being.[5][6] One method to achieve this is by studying the human being, or Dasein, in Heidegger's terminology.[7] The reason for this is that we already have a pre-ontological understanding of being that shapes how we experience the world. Phenomenology can be used to make this implicit understanding explicit, but it has to be accompanied by hermeneutics in order to avoid the distortions due to the forgetfulness of being.[1]

Heidegger was concerned with the ontological difference and the meaning of being throughout his career. It's what motivates his project in Being & Time, I think he discusses it there right in the beginning. This is also what underlies a lot of his criticism of the philosophical tradition. The last two sentences of this section elucidate the relation to phenomenology and hermeneutics. It's also covered in other encyclopedias, like the Stanford article cited, indicating that it is important. I think these points show that this section is both informative and important. Phlsph7 (talk) 05:09, 31 July 2021 (UTC)

current vers.

Central to Heidegger's philosophy is the difference between being as such and specific entities.[77][78] -- what he called the 1) ontological difference (ontologische Differenz): He accuses the 2) philosophical tradition of 3)being forgetful of this distinction, which has led to the 4) mistake of understanding being as such as a kind of ultimate entity, for example as "idea, energeia, substance, monad or will to power".[77][79][80] 5) Heidegger tries to rectify this mistake in his own fundamental ontology by focusing on the meaning of being instead, a project which is akin to contemporary meta-ontology.[81][82] 6) One method to achieve this is by studying the human being, or Dasein, in Heidegger's terminology.[83] 7) The reason for this is that we already have a pre-ontological understanding of being that shapes how we experience the world. Phenomenology can be used to make this implicit understanding explicit, but it has to be accompanied by hermeneutics in order to avoid the distortions due to the forgetfulness of being.[77]

1) ontological difference/ontologishe Differenz. Why, in this case, is the German called for? How does this help the reader? 2) "the philosphical tradition" Don't we at least mean the Western phil. trad? 3) "being forgetful of this distinction" It's not necessary to use the word "being" in this clause. Given the topic (Heidegger) its use here is at least inelegant and at most confusing to the reader. Moreover, if "forgetful" is a technical term, it must be defined. If it's not, a "tradition" cannot literally "forget" something. 4) "the mistake of understanding being as such as a kind of ultimate entity, for example..." "as a kind of" This is a vague and needless phrase. Text hasn't explcitly established that "being as such" is NOT (according to H) an "ultimate entity." The reader must fill in the blanks, which isn't possible without a fairly good understanding of H. --Will continune list later. 2602:252:D6A:B2C0:AC48:9F64:13FB:F060 (talk) 14:55, 31 July 2021 (UTC)

1) I don't think that the German translation is essential here. It could be removed.

2) "Western philosophical tradition" would be more accurate, I agree

3) instead of "being forgetful" you could use "forgetfulness", but you can't just leave out the "being". But I think "being forgetful" is easier to understand. It is a technical term but I don't think it's necessary to have a definition here since it should be more or less clear what it means in this context: the distinction was not seen, it was ignored, philosophers forgot to think about it. But I wouldn't mind adding a short clarification either.

4) "as a kind of" This is a vague and needless phrase

This emphasizes that there are different ways how this mistake has been committed (according to H). This phrase is not absolutely essential, but it is not needless either.

Text hasn't explcitly established that "being as such" is NOT (according to H) an "ultimate entity.

It's implicit but I think it should be understandable. But we can establish this explicitly. Something like: according to Heidegger, the tradition sees being as such as an (or as a kind of?) ultimate entity (which is a mistake, according to Heidegger) Phlsph7 (talk) 15:23, 31 July 2021 (UTC)

2) and 3) From Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosphy: "According to Heidegger, the question of the meaning of Being, and thus Being as such, has been forgotten by ‘the tradition’ (roughly, Western philosophy from Plato onwards). Heidegger means by this that the history of Western thought has failed to heed the ontological difference, and so has articulated Being precisely as a kind of ultimate being, as evidenced by a series of namings of Being, for example as idea, energeia, substance, monad or will to power. In this way Being as such has been forgotten."

Sounds like some direct quoting of SEP. The footnote is a bit vague. I think a direct quote should be directly attributed.

2602:252:D6A:B2C0:45F4:E284:24AD:4B75 (talk) 19:48, 1 August 2021 (UTC)

You mean the expression "idea, energeia, substance, monad or will to power"? I think a better solution would be to paraphrase it a little since a quotation is not necessary here. This article provides the following list: "idea, substantia, actualitas, objectivity or the will to power". I suggest we mix the two lists & remove the quotation marks, e.g.: ...idea, energeia, substantia, actualitas or will to power... Phlsph7 (talk) 20:30, 1 August 2021 (UTC)

Note that the writer of the SEP entry, Michael Wheeler, (no awards there for either clarity or elegance) wisely avoided the phrase "Being forgetful." One might, for example, end up with the unfortunate sentence: "The tradition" was "being forgetful, leading to the forgetfulness of Being." It's partly an aesthetic point -- a bit like using the same word repeatedly in a paragraph when other words are available. It might be actively confusing for some, but more likely simply a needless distraction.

I assume Heidegger actually uses the term "forget/forgot/forgotten," in which case I forgot (it's not in the Stamberg B&T index/lexicon). It may be a "technical term" (i.e. used in a unique manner by H?), but likely just a simple metaphor. 2602:252:D6A:B2C0:79AE:2568:5D94:873E (talk) 22:01, 1 August 2021 (UTC)

"In Heidegger’s use of the term, “nihilism” has a very specific meaning. It refers to the forgetfulness of being."? ("Nihilismus" in German). Martinevans123 (talk) 22:18, 1 August 2021 (UTC)

That establishes (?), clearly, that Heidegger's "nihilism" is a technical term. 2602:252:D6A:B2C0:1DC2:7FFC:C125:6112 (talk) 23:22, 1 August 2021 (UTC)

He keeps using the term Seinsvergessenheit and its cognates, which is usually translated as forgetfulness of being (forgetful, forget, etc.). The term is used in encyclopedia entries on Heidegger both here and here. Phlsph7 (talk) 05:03, 2 August 2021 (UTC)

You convinced me. It's a "technical term."

5)

"Heidegger tries to rectify this mistake in his own fundamental ontology by focusing on...."

So -- there's a mistake in his ontology that he tried to rectify? (obviously, this is extremely sloppy error, which when fixed, gets reverted) "by focusing on the meaning of being instead, a project which is akin to contemporary meta-ontology.[81][82] " A) "Instead of what?" B) "Meta-ontology." Introducing this questionable term creates complications for the reader that (even if solvable) lead to little or no immediate clarity re. the term "ontological difference."

6)

"One method to achieve this...."

Since the preceding sentence is a mess, it's unclear what "this" refers to. 2602:252:D6A:B2C0:2534:C117:4445:E2BD (talk) 14:54, 2 August 2021 (UTC)

7)

"The reason for this..."

What's "this" about? Is this the same "This" in the preceding sentence? A different "this?"

2602:252:D6A:B2C0:2534:C117:4445:E2BD (talk) 15:00, 2 August 2021 (UTC)

5) Heidegger tries to rectify this mistake in his own fundamental ontology by focusing on....

Not the mistake is in his own fundamental ontology but the rectification. Maybe this misreading could be avoided by replacing "in his own fundamental ontology" with "through his own fundamental ontology"

5A) Instead of what?

Instead of committing the mistake himself

5B) It is quite difficult to build bridges between Heidegger's philosophy and academic philosophy. This is one such bridge that provides a context. It clarifies the term "ontological difference" by clarifying the term "meaning of being". Inwagen's essay "Meta-Ontology" might be helpful if this interests you.

6) "One method to achieve this...."

this rectification, mentioned in the previous sentence

7) "The reason for this..."

the reason for using the method mentioned in the previous sentence Phlsph7 (talk) 16:23, 2 August 2021 (UTC)

5) Sentence #5 isn't ambiguous. It refers to "the "mistake in his own fundamental ontology." This isn't a "misreading." Probably we have just a grammatical error, rather than the actual intent of the author. Still, that anyone would defend the sentence -- I find deeply discouraging.

"Meta-ontology" was apparently a term introduced in 1998(?). I'm unsure what it's about (or its purported relationship to H may be). The current text isn't very helpful in this regard. The term isn't in the "Cambridge Dictionary of Philosophy" (second ed. 1999). Not in Sanfanski's acclaimed (1998) intellectual bio of MH.

In general, it's not a term one encounters much in the secondary literature on Heidegger. Doesn't belong here as currently written. The Wikipedia article on Martin H. isn't about "academic philosophy." Particularly obscure views concerning narrow aspects of Heidegger's work may be interesting but......

A reader would be lost in any attempt to parse the segment that is under discussion.

2602:252:D6A:B2C0:29E4:D6C1:73D7:5DA9 (talk) 17:01, 2 August 2021 (UTC)

For more sources on Heidegger and Metaontology, see here and here. I think the sources presented so far are more than enough to justify the short mention of it. Phlsph7 (talk) 19:27, 2 August 2021 (UTC)

I'm finding that Heidegger used the term "metontology" which is used in the two sources offered above. The Wikipedia article on "Meta-ontology" says it was coined in 1998 and doesn't mention Heidegger.

Which term are we using? Why does it matter?

What it's all about is even more mystifying than the present text segment.

Yes, Ph.D candidates are desperate to come up with something "new" so they can become "doctors." A general article about X in Wikipedia shouldn't aim at the most obscure aspects of the topic as it may relate to some entirely different topic (Here Heidegger and current "academic philosophy.")

2602:252:D6A:B2C0:619D:2F01:1E08:44DB (talk) 20:07, 2 August 2021 (UTC)

I initially added the wrong links but fixed them right afterwards: they are about metaontology. Maybe you loaded the page right in-between. Your speculations about the motivations for publishing are not relevant here. Phlsph7 (talk) 05:29, 3 August 2021 (UTC)

Point is, I believe there is a wide range in quality and relevance among (practically infinite) potential sources. Ph.D. dissertations are pretty low on my personal list. But maybe the reference I saw was provided in error. No matter.

I'm glad we've finally nailed the question on Metontology/Metaontology/Meta-Ontology! 2602:252:D6A:B2C0:244C:E145:37CC:55C0 (talk) 14:56, 3 August 2021 (UTC)

I went ahead and implemented some of the simpler changes that were discussed here. Phlsph7 (talk) 14:15, 4 August 2021 (UTC)

Additions to Wiki Glossary on H

I've made a new entry in Heideggerian terminology; "Ontological Difference." The entry is entirely based on material in the relevant section of this MH article. However, in this entry, I've removed some grammatical errors & sloppy writing, as well as the digressive material not directly relevant to the term.

Also added "Metontology" to the glossary. Also "Forgetting of Being."

"Forgetting" entry is listed as "Seinsverlassenheit" because I prefer translation "oblivion of being," and "abandonment of being" but it does often comes up as forgetful.

Obviously, the new entry can be changed/"fixed"/expanded/whatever.

2602:252:D6A:B2C0:F45D:DD3E:6A0F:9C59 (talk) 22:09, 3 August 2021 (UTC)

I already made some changes to Heideggerian terminology before seeing your comment. Might be better to move this section to Talk:Heideggerian terminology. I think both forgetfulness and oblivion are translations of "Vergessenheit" while abandonment corresponds to "Verlassenheit".Phlsph7 (talk) 05:08, 4 August 2021 (UTC)

Sounds obviously correct about verlassen. Thanks; my German is almost useless.

Here in the MH article, "technical terms" should certainly be defined for the reader too. But their employment in an "article" should then be aimed at advancing some kind of structured narrative. 2602:252:D6A:B2C0:6C92:5513:B4AA:19D6 (talk) 12:56, 4 August 2021 (UTC)

So far, this section is only about changes to Heideggerian terminology. That's why I suggested the move. Phlsph7 (talk) 14:13, 4 August 2021 (UTC)

We can improve both this article and, not letting the work go to waste, the glossary. Here in the MH "article," technical terms, once defined, should then be employed in advancing some kind of structured narrative.

The separate article fundamental ontology could be expanded into a "main article" for the OD segment. Except as written, FO article is purely based on primary sources. Not credible. 2602:252:D6A:B2C0:C85A:8575:555B:B4F0 (talk) 22:49, 4 August 2021 (UTC)

Meta-Ontology

I've removed the brief mention of the term. Heidegger's focus may be "akin to contemporary meta-ontology, but the reader isn't told how thie may be true, nor why it's relevant to his term "Ontological Difference." His focus may also be "akin" to other aspects of contemporary phil. Why is this particular similarity mentioned? I've essentially raised this question above some days ago, but no real answer. 2602:252:D6A:B2C0:2581:87A4:F215:DE43 (talk) 16:26, 5 August 2021 (UTC)

I restored the sentence since there was no consensus on removing it. Various reliable sources have been presented for its relevance. Phlsph7 (talk) 18:05, 5 August 2021 (UTC)

If it's impossible to make the term's relevance to a narrative of Heidegger's philosophy plain and directly to the reader, then this "article" becomes just a stockpile of sources. That's a very low standard.

It's possible to aim a little higher; for example see

[[1]]

It's the German Wikipedia article on Heidegger. Even in auto-translation, it's a fairly coherent and structured piece. The EN. article will never be as good.

2602:252:D6A:B2C0:C84:489B:ABBF:6AFC (talk) 23:39, 6 August 2021 (UTC)

Recalcitrant "editors"

I've worked a fair bit on this page. Particularly the current "Dasein," "Being" and "Time" segments are, at the moment, nearly all my editing work. Suddenly, any additional changes meet with unreasoned obstruction by one or possibly two "editors," who decline to meaningfully discuss their recalcitrance on this talk page. Perhaps they are unable.

I ran into a remarkably similar circumstance with the Wikipedia article Introduction to Metaphysics. Coincidently, the troublesome editor got banned, and I proceeded to completely gut and re-do the article. Its sourcing had been remarkably thin, with certain key bits badly misunderstood. It's now if nothing else, extremely well sourced.

So pehaps they'll simply go away, at which point, if I'm still around, I might again offer my services.

The latest revert must mean that this article can NOT be expanded using translations from the German version. It's been banned.

Really the question might be whether to simply replace this (in some places) unreadable EN. version entirely with far better DE vers. in translatiom. 2602:252:D6A:B2C0:145B:1FDB:2857:AF33 (talk) 22:06, 7 August 2021 (UTC)

Assume you mean this one. Martinevans123 (talk) 22:16, 7 August 2021 (UTC)

Yeah that one. Also rescued much of Being and Time from primary source-madness.

Here's what I think of the segment "Ontological Difference:"

It's currently part of the leven I subhead "Philosophy."

The OD segment (a level II subhed) concerns Heidegger's distinction between "Being and beings," and then the place of this distinction in H.'s philosophy.

Above the OD segment, there is already a level II subhed, called "Being." Discussion of OD logically belongs there as it is part of H's larger concept of "Being." They aren't "co-primeval" topics -- but rather one is a piece of the other.

"Meta-ontology" is a pure and random digression. Whether whatever the (missing) underlying (digressive) concept to be imparted here to the hapless reader is widely accepted as significantly relevant to understanding Heidegger's OD, we are referred to a couple of published papers. (There are dozens if not hundreds of random papers published annually by desperate college teachers offering no great insight into their many Heidegger topics).

As for the remaining "Philosophy" sub-heads, I'd be very hard on the "eastern thought" and "Ground of History." Particularly ET is "an interesting sidelight" but there are dozens if not hundreds of such rabbit holes and this just seems random as "Meta-Ontology's" alleged kindredness with Heidegger.

"History" is a difficult subject to treat; it might actually belong in a much-improved "Time" segment.

"Influences" is just a grab-bag and mostly a series of sidelights -- interesting but without structure. Probably I'd leave it alone.

2602:252:D6A:B2C0:B9B1:EE4A:44AC:443F (talk) 23:37, 7 August 2021 (UTC)

Pardon my ignorance, but is this some idiosyncratic Heideggerian usage of the word 'recalcitrant'? Did he talk about the Aufsässigkeit of Dasein or something? And why do the "editors" have quotation marks? Harold the Sheep (talk) 05:40, 8 August 2021 (UTC)

@Harold the Sheep: The editor means: "I know what I am talking about and you do not. I am trying to improve the article and you are reverting me. I am weary of you editors and Wikipedia". 86.23.205.181 (talk) 11:38, 8 August 2021 (UTC)

Whereas technical terms should be defined on first use, see "Webster's" for "recalcitrant." And to whether "you" know what you're talking about, it's impossible to say, given "discussion" points like the ones I'm responding to here. 2602:252:D6A:B2C0:819:55BA:C001:F1CF (talk) 14:52, 8 August 2021 (UTC)

O you are the one who is I in my "discussion". Thus whether you or I know what we know is to know more than either can know regardless of how you respond  – or how I? But, indeed, how am I? This is but to ask how are you? But it is chaos to imagine! Ineluctable modality of the risible! That is a technical term. By risible I mean that dough, when heated, becomes big, and rolls, and rolls upward, bigly, like the sun, from whom we grow doughnuts and do-nots and dark-nights. That is another technical term. By dark-nights I mean a recalcitrant time wherein to try to look upon things and their motions. That is another technical term. By motions I mean what people are purported to perform privily with privy parts and privy members in places by name privy. Or, to put it another way, that is idiosyncratic Dasein. But here we have another technical term. Interminable terms and terminologies. Termagants terminate terminal tempers. Tantamount tandem-terms terminate tangentially. ὀτοτύζω.86.23.205.181 (talk) 17:14, 8 August 2021 (UTC)

That's very poetic. Some editors might even be able to attach some meaning to it. But most not, I suspect. Martinevans123 (talk) 17:35, 8 August 2021 (UTC)

@Martinevans123: If you mean the Greek, I think that can translate as "I make an unhappy sound". 86.23.205.181 (talk) 17:50, 8 August 2021 (UTC)

So much clearer now. I was also making an unhappy sound. Martinevans123 (talk) 17:52, 8 August 2021 (UTC)

Am particularly interested in any comments on the various suggested improvements to this article. 2602:252:D6A:B2C0:A9C8:AEB1:4803:EE8E (talk) 23:12, 8 August 2021 (UTC)

To comment seriously, I think that Wikipedia-editors generally do not adequately understand what they try to make articles about, and edits which they make are mostly stupid if not also poisonous. Wikipedia is not based on reliable sources, but on consensus. The consensus is in turn not based on reliable sources nor on understanding, but on ignorance and problems with character. If there is a turd on your seat, woe to you if that turd has been there for a long time, and woe to you if the "watchers" respect the turd. Wikipedia is so difficult to clean up, using exclusively reliable information that is not a copyright infringement, able to be understood by the "general reader", and not a turd, that we really should try to waste less of our time trying to do so. 86.23.205.181 (talk) 10:41, 9 August 2021 (UTC)

To answer you seriously, "Wikipedia is not based on reliable sources...". No, that's wholly wrong. Martinevans123 (talk) 10:47, 9 August 2021 (UTC)

@Martinevans123: Wikipedia purports to be based on reliable sources. But these sources, even if reliable, are rarely checked. Do you check? If you do, you will know how horribly distorted and erroneous the articles can be. Did not you say recently to me that you presumed that content was based on reliable sources? That is how it works. 86.23.205.181 (talk) 11:04, 9 August 2021 (UTC)

Yes, I do check, as far as I can. I expect the editors of other articles to have checked. I expect you to check. If you don't, you should? Or do you refuse out of principle? Martinevans123 (talk) 11:10, 9 August 2021 (UTC)

@Martinevans123: To speak seriously, I almost never read articles, but when I do, it is mostly to see how horrible they are. But to return to the discussion, I think that the "editors" should let the anonymous editor roam and plough freely. Heidegger is inherently and contextually difficult, and this anonymous editor might be the only suitable person to ever appear with a plough and a desire to use it beneficently. 86.23.205.181 (talk) 11:58, 9 August 2021 (UTC)

That must be very depressing for you. We're all editors, whether anonymous or not. But yes, anon IP editors with hardly any history do tend to attract more suspicion. I'm not sure if it's ploughing or chain-harrowing. Cheers. Martinevans123 (talk) 12:29, 9 August 2021 (UTC)

@Martinevans123: Wikipedia is very depressing. It is a middenheap of the rabble over which relatively few can see. Poisons erupt in it and seep into the world. Its most devoted edit it not with their knowledge but with their habit of editing Wikipedia. It stinks. 86.23.205.181 (talk) 15:06, 9 August 2021 (UTC)

Thanks so much for those inspiring words of hope and encouragement. Had you ever considered taking up philately, or traditional folk dance? Martinevans123 (talk) 15:31, 9 August 2021 (UTC)

@Martinevans123: Not until I had read your question. I am nor of the folk nor inclined unto hoarding. Thus was my conclusion. 86.23.205.181 (talk) 16:11, 9 August 2021 (UTC)

There's also campanology, vegetarian cookery and serial killing?? Martinevans123 (talk) 16:17, 9 August 2021 (UTC)

@Martinevans123: I am extremely introverted and accordingly very sensitive to noise. I am actually vegan and regularly cook legumes. Serial killing can be dismissed with the bellreason. If you are implying that I should do something instead of editing Wikipedia, I agree. But alas. Sometimes I sleep so poorly that I am unable to do anything else, including to adequately control my behaviour. 86.23.205.181 (talk) 16:38, 9 August 2021 (UTC)

"Sleeping is no mean art: for its sake one must stay awake all day." -- Mr. F. Nietzsche, Basel. Have you tried counting sheep?Martinevans123 (talk) 18:08, 9 August 2021 (UTC)

@Martinevans123: That is another problem with Wikipedia. Those words are spoken satirically and explicitly dismissed by the main character. Quoting Nietzsche in such a way is one of those distortions to which I have alluded. He was also not in Basel when he wrote that. 86.23.205.181 (talk) 05:16, 11 August 2021 (UTC)

In "such a way"? I wouldn't want to slip into satire or inaccuracy here, would I. You're quite good at spotting "problems", aren't you. Martinevans123 (talk) 06:33, 11 August 2021 (UTC)

@Martinevans123: You do not say so earnestly, but it is true. I have said that I am extremely introverted. Introversion is often linked to social behaviour, particularly that social behaviour is tiring. But that is a symptom, not the thing itself. The extremely introverted human brain simply deals with everything more deeply and slowly and intensely. That is what tires it and ferrets out problems. 86.23.205.181 (talk) 07:39, 11 August 2021 (UTC)

I see. Well, as we all know, WP:Wikipedia is not therapy. But you might find this article easier? Martinevans123 (talk) 08:36, 11 August 2021 (UTC)

@Martinevans123: Thank you for suggesting that extreme introversion is a mental health problem. It is not. I am not interested in therapy nor even with human interaction. I have more or less been responding to what you have said to me. But I will stop now. 86.23.205.181 (talk) 10:04, 11 August 2021 (UTC)

If you are not interested "even with human interaction," I'd suggest Wikipedia may not be the best place for you. We also have bots to deal with, of course. I might challenge your assertion that extreme introversion cannot be a mental health problem. But I do hope you can find some activity that is both enjoyable and rewarding for you, and that fits your personality. Very best wishes. Martinevans123 (talk) 10:43, 11 August 2021 (UTC)

Three suggestions

(please note that my most recent entry here was Aug. 8 "Am particularly interested in any comments on the various suggested improvements to this article.")

Here are three:

1) Merge a shortened version of “Ground of History” with the subsection of Philosophy headed “Time.” To this add minor relevant material concerning Dilthey and Count Yorck. Allen’s cited ideas (grafs 2&3) are speculative and concern topics beyond H. Philosphy (and can be removed or modified.)

2) Merge a shortened version. of" Ontological Difference” (Being vs. beings) with the subsection of philosophy now headed “Being.” Also, from version to be merged, remove ref to “Meta-Ontology.” That which is "akin" to Heidegger’s philosophy isn’t Heidegger’s philosophy (which is the headline of relevant section.) Also, see my other objections above to term's inclusion.

3) Because that which "influenced" H’s phil. isn’t same thing as H’s "Philosophy," remove “Influence” to a new Level II subhead following “Philosophy” section.

Theory: sticking more closely to a structure or framework as delineated by heds & subheads will help make this article more comprehensible.

2602:252:D6A:B2C0:C11A:3E16:2090:112F (talk) 13:10, 14 August 2021 (UTC)

3) I assume you mean remove "Influences" to a new Level II subhead following "Philosophy" section? And I think I understand what you mean. But I don't think the current structure is necessarily misleading. One might even expect "influences" to precede the actual philosophy? Thanks. Martinevans123 (talk) 13:17, 14 August 2021 (UTC)

The subsection is (Heidegger's) Philosophy. The prehistoric human who invented mark-making on cave walls as precursor of writing "influenced" Heidegger. But that's not relevant to the section at hand. If utility and comprehensibility are among goals of this article, we can put (potentially almost endless) "influences" in a separate section. This helps avoid digression and provides a tighter structure.

2602:252:D6A:B2C0:C11A:3E16:2090:112F (talk) 13:27, 14 August 2021 (UTC)

Was my assumption correct, or not? Thanks. Martinevans123 (talk) 13:42, 14 August 2021 (UTC)

You've characterized your assumption by correctly quoting the suggestion: "remove 'Influences' to a new Level II subhead following 'Philosophy' section." So yes, your assumption appears correct. "Influences" is list of discrete elements (potentially speculative and nearly endless) that are separate from Heidegger's "Philosophy."

2602:252:D6A:B2C0:C11A:3E16:2090:112F (talk) 14:13, 14 August 2021 (UTC)

I'm not sure we'd want to add anything that was "potentially speculative and nearly endless", including "mark-making on cave walls as precursor of writing". Martinevans123 (talk) 14:41, 14 August 2021 (UTC)

Consider:

3) Because that which "influenced" H’s phil. isn’t same thing as H’s "Philosophy," remove “Influence” to a new Level II subhead following “Philosophy” section.

As a separate (future) talk-page topic, additions to "Influence" segment might be proposed (probably not by me). But that's a digression. 2602:252:D6A:B2C0:C11A:3E16:2090:112F (talk) 15:13, 14 August 2021 (UTC)

I've already considered (see above). Thanks. Martinevans123 (talk) 15:18, 14 August 2021 (UTC)

You've "considered" (and rejected) making "additions?"

The three suggestions propose zero additions. You quoted the third suggestion and asked whether you presented the correct wording. This is confirmed. Yes, you have quoted the suggestion correctly. So when you say "see above" regarding your "consideration," what are you referencing for discussion?

Perhaps you refer to statement: "I don't think the current structure is necessarily misleading. One might even expect "influences" to precede the actual philosophy? "

1) That the current structure of the "Philosophy" section isn't "misleading" doesn't address whether the section can be improved (how?) or whether it's currently in a state of perfection.

2) Under headline "Philosophy," it's appropriate to find a brief summary of Heidegger's views.

Although it's been claimed, for example, that one must be fully familiar with Husserl to fully understand Heidegger, it would be a mistake to pursue this idea here by preceding the summary with a summary of Husserl.

It's also been claimed (Dreyfus) that Division II of B&T is a secularized version of Kierkegaard. While the claim may well be correct, it would again be a mistake to precede the summary with a summary of K. (would it precede a discussion of Husserl?). You'd have a case of infinite regress, certainly back to the Presocratics and possibly back to our cave man. It's at least an impractical way to structure the section.

This is related to why "Influences" heading is best separated here from "Philosophy." The philosophies of Husserl, Kierkegaard, et al., although certainly "influences," are separate from the philosophy of H. Treating them as discrete topics is a structural aid to clear writing and the grouping together of like ideas (vs various digressions into practically random, albeit relevant topics).

2602:252:D6A:B2C0:C11A:3E16:2090:112F (talk) 16:06, 14 August 2021 (UTC)

suggestion #3

I'd steer clear of both cavemen and infinite regress. I'm not sure the computer servers could cope with that. Martinevans123 (talk) 20:05, 14 August 2021 (UTC)

So are you saying then regarding "Suggestion #3" that infinite regress is implied by the heading "Influences," and that this head should be separated from "Philosophy" heading? Rather than removing "bad" material, the step would merely make clarity incrementally easier to obtain for reader via structuring.

2602:252:D6A:B2C0:FDCC:C1B5:7E2E:E15B (talk) 21:40, 14 August 2021 (UTC)

I don't have a problem with having "Influences" nested (somewhere) under "Philosophy" (except that, perhaps, it's so big). But would be happy to hear other opinions. Philosophy of Friedrich Nietzsche has no "Influences" section, but a series of "Relation to" sections. Martinevans123 (talk) 21:49, 14 August 2021 (UTC)

Yeah I like the "Relations to" concept. "Relations" is a separate topic as we know from cousins, uncles, etc. But genealogy becomes a case of infinite regress. The concept, anyway, is separated from "the philosophy" in the FN article (I hear). Sounds like a good idea.

2602:252:D6A:B2C0:FDCC:C1B5:7E2E:E15B (talk) 21:55, 14 August 2021 (UTC)

suggestion #2

The article's current content under "Being" subhed (and content on H's distinction between "Being" and beings) fails to offer a clear definition. The proposed merger (below) doesn't address this shortcoming. Plz also note -- at least in passing -- that current (sketchy) content under three subheads Dasein, Being, Time, are largely my edits from some months ago & taken from my earlier and extensive edits on Being and Time. (I'm most comfortable with current content under "Dasein"-- less so with current content under the two subheadings Being and Time.)

Here is "Suggestion #2:

"2) Merge a shortened version. of" Ontological Difference” (Being vs. beings) with the subsection of philosophy now headed “Being.” Also, from version to be merged, remove ref to “Meta-Ontology.” That which is "akin" to Heidegger’s philosophy isn’t Heidegger’s philosophy (which is the headline of relevant section.) Also, see my other objections above to term's inclusion."

ALL current content (including disputed "Meta-Ontology" bit) is included below in a proposed (merged) re-write, which is about 15% less wordy than current content and has added virtue of slightly simplifying (clarifying) the current structure of the "Philosophy" heading.

Although with merely pro forma citations, here is potential (merged) re-write:

---

[subeading: BEING]

Heidegger seeks to make explicit a primordial understanding of Being that would elucidate ordinary "prescientific" understanding -- that which precedes abstract ways of knowing, such as logic or theory. [68] This pre-ontological, or primordial, understanding of being, in Heidegger's view, shapes how we experience the world. The "meaning" or "sense of being" (Sinn des Seins) is accessible to Dasein through the ordinary and even mundane experience of "being-in-the-world." Heidegger says this access, via Dasein, is also that "in terms of which something becomes intelligible as something."[67] 8]

Heidegger claims that traditional ontology has prejudicially overlooked the question of being. The distinction between "being as such" and specific entities.[77][78] -- what he called the "ontological difference" — has been forgotten by the Western philosophical tradition in Heidegger’s view. [77][79][80]. This leads to the misunderstanding of "being as such" as a kind of ultimate entity (for example as idea, energeia, substantia, actualitas or will to power.) [77][79][80] Purportedly to avoid this mistake, Heidegger focuses his own fundamental ontology on the "meaning of being" (a project akin to contemporary meta-ontology). [81][82] .[81][82]. In this, he employs phenomenology along with the hermenutic circle — a method relying upon repetitive yet progressive acts of interpretation.[74].

The interpreters Thomas Sheehan and Mark Wrathall have each separately asserted that commentators' emphasis on the term "Being" is misplaced, and that Heidegger's central focus was never on "Being" as such. Wrathall wrote (2011) that Heidegger's elaborate concept of "unconcealment" was his central, life-long focus, while Sheehan (2015) proposed that the philosopher's prime focus was on that which "brings about being as a givenness of entities."[72][73]

Dasein's "non-linguistic, pre-cognitive access" to the meaning of Being didn't underscore any particular, preferred narrative, according to an account of Richard Rorty’s analysis by Edward Grippe.[69] Heidegger holds that no particular understanding of Being (nor state of Dasein and its endeavors) is to be preferred over another. Moreover, "Rorty agrees with Heidegger that there is no hidden power called Being," Grippe writes, adding that Heidegger's concept of Being is viewed by Rorty as metaphorical.

Heidegger actually offers "no sense of how we might answer the question of being as such," writes Simon Critchley in a nine-part commentary on Being and Time for The Guardian (2009). The book instead provides "an answer to the question of what it means to be human," according to Critchley.[70].

[END Proposed Re-write]

2602:252:D6A:B2C0:14AC:8999:68A0:1C73 (talk) 13:38, 16 August 2021 (UTC

---

comment on merger proposal (suggestion #2)

Many of the formulations in the section "Ontological difference and fundamental ontology" have already been discussed at length. But your suggestion includes various changes to these formulations without providing any good reasons for them. After a short look, some seem problematic, like the changes to the part on hermeneutics. Also a first look at the changes to the other parts makes me skeptical. For example, the introductory sentences of the section "Being" were more accessible before. Phlsph7 (talk) 14:58, 16 August 2021 (UTC)

Your suggestion involves many changes at once, which makes it a little difficult to assess. It might be easier if you could break it down into several smaller changes that can be considered one at a time. But in general I'm not opposed to making it less wordy as long as this does not come at the expense of accessibility and informational content. As for merging the section "Ontological difference and fundamental ontology" into the section "Being", this can be considered but I don't see it as a high priority since there are various reasons both for and against it. Phlsph7 (talk) 15:28, 16 August 2021 (UTC)

A merger (as a mere general procedure) is fitting the two "Bits of Content" together -- harmonizing them as much as possible and without removing content. In this case, the proposed merger provides more context for the terms "Ontological Difference" and "Fundamental Ontology." In theory, added context enabled by merger (if accurate) would make the two terms more comprehensible to an uninformed reader.

Both these terms (OD, FO) require and concern the topic/concept (header) of "Being." In a standard "logical" (non-Heideggerian) sense, they are thus subordinate (yet closely related) to "Being." Heidegger might even say Being has "priority." A merger under the header "Being" would help clarify this.

Regarding "the part on hermeneutics:" This material is presently (and redundantly) featured in both bits (another clear advantage favoring merger). I leaned toward retaining the "formulations" from under the current "Being" head -- but this doubtless can be improved.

Re. "Introductory sentence of the section 'Being'" I'm flattered that you like (prefer?) my earlier edit (!!) However, the (grammatical subject of) "topic sentence" as proposed, "an understanding of Being" is closer to the mark (set by headline, "Being"). This vs current topic-sentence's subject, "access to the meaning of..." (Access and meaning, like his "understanding," are separate concepts from "Being.") So perhaps you're right -- but it all remains unchanged in the proposed copy, a few sentences below the (proposed) new topic sentence.

2602:252:D6A:B2C0:14AC:8999:68A0:1C73 (talk) 16:07, 16 August 2021 (UTC)

Various contents of the second part of the section "Ontological difference and fundamental ontology" have been removed in your suggestion. Reducing the word count by removing well-sourced content is usually a bad trade-off. Apart from the changes to that section, not much has changed: the order of some paragraphs is different and some content has been moved around in the introductory paragraph with significantly longer sentences now. As it stands, I'm opposed to your suggestion. Phlsph7 (talk) 06:01, 17 August 2021 (UTC)

"Reducing word count by removing well-sourced content..." If the proposal has removed content, that's contrary to my intent and an error on my part. Can you point out where this has happened?

-- Also, quantifiable metrics can be a highly useful (but inconclusive) method of analysis:

An automated "passive voice" analysis scores the various passages for comparison thus:

Current OD section 14% sentences are written in the passive voice

Current "Being" 14% of sentences are in passive voice.

Proposed full merger re-write 8.7% sentences in passive voice.

• "Sentences with passive voice construction tend to contain extra words when compared to their active voice counterpart. Extra words make for longer sentences which can be more difficult to understand. Use Passive Voice Detector to find these overly wordy sentences."

---

Separately the average "readability score" using several automated tools:

Current OD section: 18

Current "Being" section: 18

Proposed re-write (merger) section: 14

• A lower score means greater "readability"

(Auto tools used found here: https://datayze.com/?category=writing )

2602:252:D6A:B2C0:596D:B926:B260:DD97 (talk) 15:06, 17 August 2021 (UTC)

As mentioned, the content removed concerns the later part of the section "Ontological difference and fundamental ontology", specifically the links drawn between phenomenology, hermeneutics, the understanding of being and forgetfulness of being.

Another serious problem with the suggestion is that it mischaracterizes the hermeneutic circle, which is not identical to hermeneutics. The referenced section in the source mentions hermeneutics but not the hermeneutic circle. As Heidegger uses the term, the hermeneutic circle is not a method but a basic aspect of human understanding. For example from here: '...the hermeneutic circle is the “essential fore-structure of Dasein itself”'.

I get very different results from the readability scores, are you sure you used the right text passages and removed the references? I assume these scores concern general texts and not academic writing, which has quite different standards of quality, especially concerning the use of the passive voice. Phlsph7 (talk) 05:46, 18 August 2021 (UTC)

Question / Comment

How many different IPs/ editors are contributing to this discussion? They seem to be geographically separated. If editors feel strongly enough to discuss here, I'm not sure why they can't simply register as editors. It's very easy. This would be far less confusing for all. Thanks. Martinevans123 (talk) 16:11, 17 August 2021 (UTC)

Off-topic (and/or vaguely general) discussion can be acknowledged (I'd hope) as a failure to advance the aims of a talk page (& may actively harm those aims). Please offer comments here (with specificity) on the directly relevant topic.

2602:252:D6A:B2C0:596D:B926:B260:DD97 (talk) 16:31, 17 August 2021 (UTC)

No, it's just a question about who has said what. That's pretty essential in understanding anything here. Good luck. Martinevans123 (talk) 16:40, 17 August 2021 (UTC) Please focus (with specificity) on the "what" -- not the "who"....2602:252:D6A:B2C0:596D:B926:B260:DD97 (talk) 18:01, 17 August 2021 (UTC)

@Martinevans123: No personal attacks.

Ontopic: It is not difficult to distinguish who says what. But such blindness that sees text as uniform does contribute to explanations of the poor quality of the encyclopedia. I say encyclopedia, but it is clear that Wikipedia is rather a chumbucket wherein milksops divert themselves. What is your name? Please be kind. I don't understand what you're saying, please leave. 86.23.205.181 (talk) 03:16, 18 August 2021 (UTC)

To answer the initial question: as far as I can tell, there are two in the recent discussion, one from the US and the other from the UK. Phlsph7 (talk) 05:50, 18 August 2021 (UTC)

Thank you for clarifying that. I guess one must assume the four WP:SPA IPs editing from New Haven, Connecticut are all the same person. Not sure if they are also "milksops diverting themselves in the chumbucket." Martinevans123 (talk) 07:48, 18 August 2021 (UTC)

Unhurtful feedback

Incidentally, I was reading a Translator's Foreword just now in Heidegger's Hegel's Phenomenology of Spirit. On pp. xii-xiii I read this:

It is easy to accuse both Hegel and Heidegger of taking inappropriate measures with language, of wanting to be deliberately abstruse, obscure, and unclear. This accusation comes from the reluctance to recognize that in both philosophers language manifests new territories of thinking. If we grasp the urgency of what these philosophers want to think, then we realize that they cannot say what they think without saying it in their own way.

I tell you this with two reasons: One: I have actually been inside a Heidegger-book and am accordingly dreory with authority. Two: On reading this that I read there I remembered that once upon a time I made an objection within this article with an OR? tag. The tag and objectionable are there yet:

The analytic tradition values clarity of expression. Heidegger, however, has on occasion appeared to take an opposing view, stating for example:[original research?]
those in the crossing must in the end know what is mistaken by all urging for intelligibility: that every thinking of being, all philosophy, can never be confirmed by "facts," i.e., by beings. Making itself intelligible is suicide for philosophy. Those who idolise "facts" never notice that their idols only shine in a borrowed light. They are also meant not to notice this; for thereupon they would have to be at a loss and therefore useless. But idolizers and idols are used wherever gods are in flight and so announce their nearness.[180]

Thus do I say to you, O you who are trying to improve the Philosophy section, would you like to expand the Philosophy section until that quote is not liable to those "accusations"? That would be a sweet savour for the Lord. 86.23.205.181 (talk) 11:05, 18 August 2021 (UTC)

Yes, as a matter of ordinary writing, H. often (Contributions to Philosophy) seems "not clear or precise in thought or expression." But the editors' far more humble goal (for this article) should be "ordinary writing." Your (interesting) comment isn't directly on point.

Any analysis (+/-) of the proposal ? Nothing substantial?

2602:252:D6A:B2C0:20F2:EA60:5BE3:DFF9 (talk) 22:16, 18 August 2021 (UTC)

I do not know what you mean by "ordinary writing". But as for this proposal and (+/-), I did give feedback but was deleted and attacked with warnings and whinings. I think I basically said of your rewrite: swap the first and second paragraphs, and cut the fourth and fifth. 86.23.205.181 (talk) 03:44, 19 August 2021 (UTC)

PS. An impression I have of Wikipedia is that its writers and readers are mostly interested in popculture and existentialism and pointing out who was a Nazi. I do not know if you want this article to go beyond "a Nazi who wrote an incomprehensible existentialism book called Being and Time". 86.23.205.181 (talk) 04:43, 19 August 2021 (UTC)

I am extremely tired and have not actually read anything relevant since quite a few years ago, but here is my version of your version:

Heidegger claims that traditional ontology has prejudicially overlooked[?] the question of being. What he calls the "ontological difference", the distinction between "being as such" and a particular being has been "forgotten" by the Western philosophical tradition. This leads to misunderstandings of "being as such" as a kind of being (for example as idea). Heidegger focuses his fundamental ontology on the "meaning of being". He employs phenomenological and hermeneutic methods to seek a primordial understanding of Being that would elucidate ordinary "prescientific" understanding.

Thomas Sheehan and Mark Wrathall have each asserted that other commentators' emphases on the term "Being" have been misplaced, and that Heidegger's central focus was never on "Being" as such. Wrathall wrote that Heidegger's elaborate concept of "unconcealment" was his central, life-long focus, while Sheehan proposed that Heidegger's prime focus was on that which "brings about being as a givenness of entities."

[begin Unconcealment section]

86.23.205.181 (talk) 06:43, 19 August 2021 (UTC)

"Ordinary writing" means meeting standard expectations for say, a beginning class in expository writing. This wasn't Heidegger's goal -- but it's the only reasonable one for Wikipedia.

The most recently proposed version of a merger of OD and "Being" (immediately above) ian't an actual "merger" because (perhaps a third of the) material obviously has been cut.

Whatever its merits, the reasons offered for the cuts & proposed organization, and/or why this version is to be preferred over status quo or the earlier proposed version of merger -- are zero.

A very similar lack is found on this talk page for maintaining the status quo, although a few comments (and one or two aggressive editors) express this preference.

In contrast, at least several clear and specific reasons have been offered in favor of the earlier proposed version of a merger. The talk page is thus failing to fully meet its aims.

If this were a formal debate (it's not) the proposed merger would win simply by default. Those favoring status quo essentially, haven't seriously engaged. It's unclear whether this reflects simple inability -- or a bad-faith unwillingness.

2602:252:D6A:B2C0:C8A4:9871:19E5:846F (talk) 14:59, 19 August 2021 (UTC)

Where are these editors who have been "aggressive"? And why are the only options "simple inability" and "bad-faith unwillingness"? Martinevans123 (talk) 15:25, 19 August 2021 (UTC)

I still do not understand what you mean by ordinary writing and I doubt your own expository writing. Your lack of nimblicity through such a sphere is one reason that my version was born. I intimated earlier that your version was not good. This intimation was deleted and I was asked not to tell editors such things. But it seems that you are offended by not being told this, so this unhurtful feedback is a misnomer. Your "merger" is not good. I deleted what was wrong or irrelevant in it and I smoothed it unto easy grasping. My "merger" is a replacement. The status quo is not good. Editors in favour of it cannot be called ignorant while they will whine about personal attacks. But they are lacking adequate knowledge about Heidegger and too sullied with salttears and chumbucket. Maybe some or all of it has been deleted, but I have certainly earlier diagnosed your problematic editors. Your main impediment falls under the "problems with character" diagnosis. Heidegger might be called an "elite" topic. Such topics stress the editors which crawl about them. They are especially sensitive to change while they cannot quite grasp the topic. They defer to authority and think that existing content is authoritative. They may pretend familiarity with a topic, but this familiarity is a familiarity which comes from fresh perusals of secondary sources. Your Cerberus-sop must be yourself. In rhetorical terms, your ethos is lacking. The editors must like you and subsequently warm unto the authority they will grant you. Then you can do what you want with the article. My ethos is impaired by my lofty and despising eyes. What I say here is not only not trusted but opposed  – even though I know what I am talking about! But I do not care about my ethos. Sometimes I cultivate it mockingly, and you can learn how potent the ethos is by acknowledging that you were interested in what I said when I cultivated my ethos even mockingly. Look to it, friend. If you want to "debate", you are doing it wrong. You are stuck in logos, which is the least important part. Look how I scorn your input and talk about myself instead! 86.23.205.181 (talk) 17:42, 19 August 2021 (UTC)

To whom are you replying? It's hard to keep track. But it's looking increasingly like you are WP:NOTHERE. Martinevans123 (talk) 18:20, 19 August 2021 (UTC)

One must applaud the above (second) concrete proposal for changed copy!! Perhaps its would-be (but lacking) rationale is that readers and editors may leap into Heidegger’s hermeneutic circle at any random point --- and thereby be automatically swept into authentic understanding?

If so, this rationale may be credible (?), strictly in its own (Heideggerian) terms. It is, however, a poor method for constructing (& using) a conventional outline (see expository writing 101). It also may foster “magical thinking” on the part of some (editors) regarding the actual utility of Wikipedia and its limits.

It’s also possible to construct a hierarchy of H’s main ideas, using this resulting construction to compose and organize the segmen which is headed “Philosophy” with the intention of producing a brief, free-standing encapsulation of the topic. (The Holtzwege can be provided with an open-ended segment of random entries at the bottom of "Phil" section.)

2602:252:D6A:B2C0:B4F3:B6D5:BB73:3E31 (talk) 00:23, 23 August 2021 (UTC)

Suggestion #2 (revised)

This entry attempts to address specific points raised by Phlsph7. Comments of other recent talk-page participants have been nonspecific and/or off-topic. (But Phisph7, Wikipedia doesn't aspire to (should shun) "academic writing," a genre which doesn't bear critique. More simply, the passive voice should (where possible) be avoided -- along with "academic writing."

A revised draft of B&OD merger below includes P7's current OD segment,  inserted  (in Italics) as a wholly unedited second graph. "Being" material from earlier draft tries to address P7's concerns and other matters that (still) remain problematic. P7's comments on hermeneutics are interesting but perhaps I don't fully see what to do. I've stolen (& edited) a bit from the MH subhed  "Dilty" (in bold) which is good material (whether it belongs here or not). Whatever other material you're seeing (P7 called them "links") please add if missing. Restoring the source notes would be an onerous job for which I'd volunteer.

--Headline here: "Being"--

Heidegger actually offers "no sense of how we might answer the question of Being as such," writes Simon Critchley in a 2009 commentary on Being and Time for The Guardian newspaper. Heidegger answers instead "the question of what it means to be human," according to Critchley. Dasein's experience of the world is shaped by an ordinary, "prescientific" understanding, which precedes abstractions such as logic or theory, Heidegger asserts. This circumstance is purportedly elucidated by a primordial and pre-ontologial understanding of Being as described by Heidegger. The meaning, or "sense of Being" (Sinn des Seins) is accessible to Dasein via the ordinary and even mundane experience of "being-in-the-world." Heidegger calls this access that "in terms of which something becomes intelligible as something." Heidegger's ontology (study of being) required a gestalt formation, not merely a series of logical arguments. To demonstrate and articulate this requirement, the  hermeneutic circle offered a powerful tool. 

Central to Heidegger's philosophy is the difference between Being as such and specific entities. -- what he called the ontological difference: He accuses the Western philosophical tradition of Being forgetful of this distinction, which has led to the mistake of understanding Being as such as a kind of ultimate entity, for example as idea, energeia, substantia, actualitas or will to power. Heidegger tries to rectify this mistake by focusing his own fundamental ontology on the meaning of Being instead, a project which is akin to contemporary meta-ontology. One method to achieve this is by studying the human being, or Dasein, in Heidegger's terminology. The reason for this is that we already have a pre-ontological understanding of Being that shapes how we experience the world. Phenomenology can be used to make this implicit understanding explicit, but it has to be accompanied by hermeneutics in order to avoid the distortions due to the forgetfulness of Being.

The interpreters Thomas Sheehan and Mark Wrathall have each separately asserted that commentators' emphasis on the term "Being" is generally misplaced because Heidegger's central focus was never on "Being" as such. Wrathall wrote (2011) that Heidegger's elaborate concept of "unconcealment" was his central, life-long focus, while Sheehan (2015) proposed that the philosopher's prime focus was on that which "brings about being as a givenness of entities."

But Heidegger intends to portray "no hidden power called Being," according to an account of Richard Rorty’s analysis by Edward Grippe. Heidegger's concept of Being is viewed by Rorty as metaphorical.  Heidegger holds that no particular understanding of Being (nor state of Dasein and its endeavors) is to be preferred over another.  Dasein's "non-linguistic, pre-cognitive access" to the meaning of Being didn't underscore any particular, preferred narrative, according to Rorty (in Grippe).

--END OF REVISED DRAFT SEGMENT-- 2601:405:4A80:8CE0:488B:DF04:D269:6B (talk) 22:24, 30 August 2021 (UTC)

Thanks for addressing my points. The new version avoids most of the earlier criticism. Your revised suggestion #2 has again been revised some hours later, but I would prefer the "old revised" suggestion #2, i.e. this version. The reason is that the new revised version doesn't start with Heidegger's own position but with a criticism of it, which is not a good way to introduce the section, especially since, according to my impression, this criticism is not generally accepted.

As for the hermeneutic circle, I suggest that we use the merger to remove the current passage on it, since as Heidegger understands it, it is also not a tool. I'm not sure that the preceding sentence is very helpful by itself, so we may have to remove it as well, i.e. removal of the following: "Heidegger's ontology (study of being) required a gestalt formation, not merely a series of logical arguments. To demonstrate and articulate this requirement, the hermeneutic circle offered a powerful tool.".

Side note: the IP-edits yesterday come from a different geolocation, so I'm not sure whether they are from the same person as the earlier suggestions, but this does not affect my comment. Phlsph7 (talk) 05:37, 1 September 2021 (UTC)

If you don’t like it, the Dilthy material can go. “Gestalt formation” is, however, a useful concept in explaining “Being-in-the world” and similar matters.

Contrary to your point, Critchley’ doesn’t represent “fringe” views. He’s edited two anthologies of phil essays recently for W.W.Norton based on his years of editing NYT “The Stone” column. See also brief review of his Heidegger book (CHOICE: Current Reviews for Academic Libraries, vol. 46, no. 7,)

Moreover, there’s nothing in current article that contradicts Critchley’s view that H. doesn’t define “Being as such,”

Wikipedia editors should frown on characterizations of Heidegger using the primary source alone. This too easily veers into a random editor’s personal understanding and interpretation. 2601:405:4A80:8CE0:21B4:581C:34CF:A505 (talk) 23:04, 2 September 2021 (UTC)

I just saw that the sentence on the gestalt formation is just copied from the Dilthey section. Copying material within the same article is a bad practice that increases redundancy.

We are closer to a consensus on the version I mentioned earlier, since the current version introduces new controversial changes that are not directly related to solving any of the problems discussed earlier. So I suggest we focus on the previous version instead. Phlsph7 (talk) 18:04, 3 September 2021 (UTC)

If you can say, specifically in some detail what the "controversy" consists of, then it can be addressed. 73.18.190.17 (talk) 23:37, 3 September 2021 (UTC)

My criticism of this version is explained here. As it stands, I'm opposed to the suggestion in its current form. Phlsph7 (talk) 19:05, 4 September 2021 (UTC)

The present plan

It’s unlikely that evidence — or clarity — can emerge to support the objector's contrary “impression” and/or preferences. But if so, he should contact The Guardian, NYT and New School especially about Critchly, because for the moment I won't be following up on this matter.

So the affirmative "plan" is to maintain the “Philosophy” segment as a series of brief and unrelated “mini-contributions” — without regard to coherence, redundancies and variable standards of clarity and sourcing. As a matter of mere theory, however, applying abstract principles of composition to the materials ("ready at hand”) can improve clarity and utility.

The reasoning for the proposed reorganization is (above) detailed and transparent -- not at all half-cocked. It's evidently futile to expect participating editors to offer comparably constructive counter-proposals for writing improvement, and/or same-level and transparent reasoning. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2602:252:D6A:B2C0:71EC:65C7:86D1:73ED (talk • contribs) 19:19, 7 January 2022 (UTC)

Please could you sign your posts, thanks. Martinevans123 (talk) 21:29, 7 January 2022 (UTC)

England vs. USA

This article's lead and several of its subsections on "Philosophy" and under other headings, are written using American English. Several other sections use British style. Several sections probably use both. It's safe to assume most of the material on the reference list is published using American.

Given source material, the whole article should be written in American English, it seems to me. It's not very important, but sticklers should care. There ought to be a "consensus." (Or a "consensus".) 2602:252:D6A:B2C0:71EC:65C7:86D1:73ED (talk) 19:19, 7 January 2022 (UTC)

Policy suggests that we follow whichever style was first evident. Thanks. Martinevans123 (talk) 21:31, 7 January 2022 (UTC)

That seems arbitrary but here is info from " 12 October 2002" -- earliest I could find, which is American. Of the three "links" provided (presumably source for editor), two are American, one I can't determine:

https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Martin_Heidegger&direction=next&oldid=352954

This is from 2004 and is mixed:

https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Martin_Heidegger&oldid=2141808

This is from 2009 and looks all American:

https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Martin_Heidegger&oldid=289084373

Maybe I've missed something.

"The Policy" seems arbitrary. I can live with basically F'd up article, but it's a matter of confusion. If you are referring the reader hundreds of times to material that mainly uses American style.........

CURRENT SCORE:

There are currently (looks like) 26 ". within the body of the article and 20 ."

However, acting in utter confusion, I myself flipped three of the ." to ".

Moreover, a lot of edits I made and sourced originally, using ." have been changed to ". by (presumably) "british" editor(s). I haven't checked for "colour" and stuff like that.

How oughten we to be spelling it? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2602:252:D6A:B2C0:217E:C27D:184F:538B (talk) 01:09, 8 January 2022 (UTC)

2602:252:D6A:B2C0:1C50:9804:10E6:99CD (talk) 23:50, 7 January 2022 (UTC)

In order to follow policy suggested above (and to follow one style throughout the article) I've switched the instances of British style in this article to American. Many of the switches had been originally written in American (by me) but were changed to British. The article was originally edited in American style. A fair guess is that most future editors will be most familiar with American style.

```` — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2602:252:D6A:B2C0:258D:26DE:B0F6:5D18 (talk) 16:26, 10 January 2022 (UTC)

Please could you sign your posts, thanks. Martinevans123 (talk) 16:33, 10 January 2022 (UTC)

The article was created on 18 February 2002‎ by User:Espen, but I don't detect any EngVar preferences in that first version. When was the first Amer Eng edit? EngVar is determied by spelling and grammar, not by the destination of external links. Thanks. Martinevans123 (talk) 16:37, 10 January 2022 (UTC)

Possibly Sept. 17, 2002 was perhaps the earliest date where the question can be at all determined. It's American. Later iterations were mixed but seemed, for a considerable period, to have settled on American.

Obviously I have no unique ability to look this up and see. You can (should) check just as easily !

The changes I've made (to American style) have been quickly reverted to British. The reversion includes vague edit Note implying that the article should follow something called "Logical punctuation."

Maybe that's actually "Wikipedia Style?" If so, that's a hopelessly obscure and certainly non-professional feature of the platform. Also, broadly, a disservice to anyone expected to learn and use standard American English for school and/or work.

Regardless, apparently this article is (again) randomly using BOTH styles?

2602:252:D6A:B2C0:258D:26DE:B0F6:5D18 (talk) 17:50, 10 January 2022 (UTC)

Feel free to look up the corresponding Wikipedia guideline, i.e. MOS:LOGICAL and Wikipedia:Logical quotation on Wikipedia. If you find cases that don't follow it then I encourage you to correct them. The Martin Heidegger talk page is probably not the best place to discuss the usefulness of this guideline. Phlsph7 (talk) 18:26, 10 January 2022 (UTC)

Here's the diff for 17 September 2002. What makes that "American" exactly? Thanks. Martinevans123 (talk) 18:39, 10 January 2022 (UTC)

Unknown Category

What is Category:Articles with MATHSN identifiers and why is it a redlink? Thanks. Martinevans123 (talk) 22:20, 21 February 2022 (UTC)

Seems to have now disappeared from the article. And has turned into a blue link here. Martinevans123 (talk) 12:01, 22 February 2022 (UTC)