I don’t like this quote. It is amusing but not very rational. It is not rational to ignore arguments because they were made by an awful person. It also isn’t rational even if one thinks that an argument or set of ideas is not worth thinking about to actively refuse to discuss those ideas, even if one thinks that the ideas aren’t worth considering. The first part of the quote is marginally defensible if Popper is very sure that Heidegger’s ideas are a waste of time. The second part of the quote, about refusing to talk to people who defend Heidegger makes about as much sense as a religion telling its adherents not to listen to some specific critic.
(That said, while I’m by no means an expert on this matter, my general opinion is that Heidegger is a waste of time.)
It is not rational to ignore arguments because they were made by an awful person.
In academic philosophy there is a tendency to refer to “Heidegger’s arguments and positions” as simply “Heidegger”. (This is true of all philosophers, not just Heidegger). Popper, of course, would have been familiar with this; when I read that quote I got the distinct impression of “Heidegger’s arguments are hollow and his positions are indefensible; please can we agree on this and stop discussing them?”
The second part of the quote, about refusing to talk to people who defend Heidegger makes about as much sense as a religion telling its adherents not to listen to some specific critic.
Heidegger’s theme from beginning to end was “Being”. Why is there something rather than nothing, and what is existence anyway? In practice, it was the second question that dominated his life. He started out in phenomenology, so he was initially interested in being as appearance. We get this idea of existence from somewhere, but where exactly? How does it emerge from appearance? Another theme was the forgetting of Being in favor of beings. The modern mind, with its busyness and technological power, is usually engaged in interaction with one particular thing or another particular thing, and loses sight of the fact of existence as such. This theme led him to a historical examination of the concept of Being in different ages. A distinction between existence and essence—thatness and whatness—develops in Greek philosophy, and persists through the centuries despite many transformations, such as the emphasis on subjectivity and consciousness which characterizes the epistemology-dominated era since Descartes. By the end of his life, Heidegger considered that technology and especially “cybernetics” (computer science and information technology) were the start of a whole new epoch in humanity’s relationship to Being; initially one in which the obliviousness to Being itself would persist—the metaphysical oblivion created by the focus on essence having been joined by a daily sensibility which was all about action rather than thought—but also a circumstance in which there could be a “second beginning”, in which Being might be encountered anew again.
So Heidegger deserves his place in the history of philosophy, and he’s not obsolete yet, even if so much about him and his work belongs to a vanished culture and politics.
By the end of his life, Heidegger considered that technology and especially “cybernetics” (computer science and information technology) were the start of a whole new epoch in humanity’s relationship to Being;
If I recall he convinced his son to become a computer scientist on these grounds.
I once told a university friend of mine, who was majoring in modern philosophy, that Heidegger was the most empty and nonsensical philosopher I had encountered in high school. He blamed this on translation difficulties and my Marxist teacher, and offered to guide me through a selected reading of Sein und Zeit; an offer on which I took him up.
We called it quits (in a friendly manner) after five evenings of heated arguing over whether it was even intellectually permissible to use half of the words Heidegger was using, and I left with the judgment that Heidegger was raping the German language.
I don’t know about raping the German language but your friend is right in that a) Heideggerr, more than maybe any other philosopher ever, is harder to understand in translation and b) a Marxist might have a lot of trouble explaining Heidegger.
He definitely is not an author one should take on by oneself and I definitely can’t explain much of anything he’s said. I do lean toward the position that he said meaningful, even important things but thats totally based on people whose rationality and intelligence I trust regarding other philosophy telling me so. His obscurity is definitely the cause of a ton of bad philosophy.
Here’s another Popper quote on Heidegger. No points for guessing how Popper took this (as is clear from the surrounding context):
“‘I did not understand a word; but I know: this is philosophy’ was the deep conviction of a highly gifted young physicist after he had heard Martin Heidegger speak.”
--”The Unknown Xenophanes”, The World of Parmenides, Karl Popper
-Karl Popper
I don’t like this quote. It is amusing but not very rational. It is not rational to ignore arguments because they were made by an awful person. It also isn’t rational even if one thinks that an argument or set of ideas is not worth thinking about to actively refuse to discuss those ideas, even if one thinks that the ideas aren’t worth considering. The first part of the quote is marginally defensible if Popper is very sure that Heidegger’s ideas are a waste of time. The second part of the quote, about refusing to talk to people who defend Heidegger makes about as much sense as a religion telling its adherents not to listen to some specific critic.
(That said, while I’m by no means an expert on this matter, my general opinion is that Heidegger is a waste of time.)
In academic philosophy there is a tendency to refer to “Heidegger’s arguments and positions” as simply “Heidegger”. (This is true of all philosophers, not just Heidegger). Popper, of course, would have been familiar with this; when I read that quote I got the distinct impression of “Heidegger’s arguments are hollow and his positions are indefensible; please can we agree on this and stop discussing them?”
Relevant old LW post: Tolerate tolerance.
Is his philosophy rubbish (even relative to other philosophy) or is it just a problem with him being a Nazi?
I think both. But mostly I like this quote because it’s hilarious.
That it is. :D
Heidegger’s theme from beginning to end was “Being”. Why is there something rather than nothing, and what is existence anyway? In practice, it was the second question that dominated his life. He started out in phenomenology, so he was initially interested in being as appearance. We get this idea of existence from somewhere, but where exactly? How does it emerge from appearance? Another theme was the forgetting of Being in favor of beings. The modern mind, with its busyness and technological power, is usually engaged in interaction with one particular thing or another particular thing, and loses sight of the fact of existence as such. This theme led him to a historical examination of the concept of Being in different ages. A distinction between existence and essence—thatness and whatness—develops in Greek philosophy, and persists through the centuries despite many transformations, such as the emphasis on subjectivity and consciousness which characterizes the epistemology-dominated era since Descartes. By the end of his life, Heidegger considered that technology and especially “cybernetics” (computer science and information technology) were the start of a whole new epoch in humanity’s relationship to Being; initially one in which the obliviousness to Being itself would persist—the metaphysical oblivion created by the focus on essence having been joined by a daily sensibility which was all about action rather than thought—but also a circumstance in which there could be a “second beginning”, in which Being might be encountered anew again.
So Heidegger deserves his place in the history of philosophy, and he’s not obsolete yet, even if so much about him and his work belongs to a vanished culture and politics.
If I recall he convinced his son to become a computer scientist on these grounds.
I’m not sure what Popper’s motivation for saying that was, but I’ve read a bit of Heidegger and I felt the same way afterward.
I once told a university friend of mine, who was majoring in modern philosophy, that Heidegger was the most empty and nonsensical philosopher I had encountered in high school. He blamed this on translation difficulties and my Marxist teacher, and offered to guide me through a selected reading of Sein und Zeit; an offer on which I took him up.
We called it quits (in a friendly manner) after five evenings of heated arguing over whether it was even intellectually permissible to use half of the words Heidegger was using, and I left with the judgment that Heidegger was raping the German language.
I don’t know about raping the German language but your friend is right in that a) Heideggerr, more than maybe any other philosopher ever, is harder to understand in translation and b) a Marxist might have a lot of trouble explaining Heidegger.
He definitely is not an author one should take on by oneself and I definitely can’t explain much of anything he’s said. I do lean toward the position that he said meaningful, even important things but thats totally based on people whose rationality and intelligence I trust regarding other philosophy telling me so. His obscurity is definitely the cause of a ton of bad philosophy.
Here’s another Popper quote on Heidegger. No points for guessing how Popper took this (as is clear from the surrounding context):
--”The Unknown Xenophanes”, The World of Parmenides, Karl Popper