Would love your thoughts on this video

What happens when we fall out of authentic temporality and throw ourselves back into inauthentic temporality? Find out in this Heidegger Thinking Substack article!

Looking for more obscure poetic Derrida recs

Have you ever been ecstatic? Maybe in some sense, but what about the Heideggerian sense? Find out in our latest Heidegger Thinking Substack post!

Hi, I've read the essay a few times actually but some things still escape me. I have trouble understanding exactly how an artwork discloses "the truth of entities as a whole" (and I've checked the German and it says "das Seiende im Ganzen"). First of all, I don't really get the meaning of "beings as a whole": I know that in German, das Seiende can mean both "what is" and "a particular being", and that English translations are often confusing for this reason (some people render the Sein/Seiende distinction as "Being vs beings" or "being vs the being" or "being vs a being" etc.) But what's "im Ganzen"? What is "what is as a whole"? Isn't "what is" already thought of as a whole, as a totality?

And now my question comes in: I can well understand Heidegger's example with the Greek temple as opening up and fixing a configuration of meaning for the Greek people (a world), and so establishing the coordinates regarding "beings as a whole". But I don't understand how the van Gogh painting is supposed to do the same. How can a painting of shoes unconceal beings "as a whole"? If Heidegger is only saying that via that painting we can discern the world of the peasant, and what is meaningful for that way of being, I can understand that. But how does this match the Greek temple example? Understanding the world of the peasant doesn't have any effect on our own world, so what "truth of entities as a whole" does it disclose? It shows what is decisive for the peasant woman, not for "our world"? So why "entities as a whole"? Maybe I'm stupid and just don't understand or read it wrong.

And I have another question as well. What is in fact the purpose of this essay? Why does Heidegger after Being and Time suddenly move to talking about art, and what is special about art that it makes of it a site for aletheia? Doesn't he later say that technology is also a "truth" of being? And in the Origin of the Work of Art itself he says art is just one of the ways in which "truth happens" (e.g. Basic Writings pp. 186-187: "One essential way in which truth establishes itself in the beings it has opened up is truth setting itself into work. Another way... is the act that founds a political state. Still another way... is the essential sacrifice. Still another way... is the thinker's questioning." And then he adds about science, "By contrast, science is not an original happening of truth, but always the cultivation of a domain of truth already opened...") Well if all of these are "happenings of truth", what's special about art? What differentiates art from all the other ones, and why does Heidegger (say, in contrast to Hegel, with whom he agrees in the Epilogue of the essay that "great art has come to an end", and in contrast to Hegel who thought that art, as an absolute need of the spirit, was replaced by religion, which itself was replaced ultimately by philosophy), why does Heidegger privilege art? Again, what is special about art? Is it just that he takes art to be a possible counter to technology? Why is not the political act, the essential sacrifice, or the thinker's questioning also a counter to technology?

And given the fact that by doing this, Heidegger pushes the question of art and the work of art in the direction of truth and being, what is exactly the purpose of this essay? Does it claim to contribute anything in understanding art, or "great art", or discerning what is a work of art from what is not? Or is it just rather an exposition of how unconcealment comes about in art via the work of art, but the question about what is art remains suspended?

It's a subject I'd like to get into more deeply. Specifically the difference between mathematics and modern science, and specifically about the developments in mathematics that have not yet found an application in physics, or in technology? What drives these? Are these too to be thought of by Heidegger ultimately only within the claiming of Gestell? If you could also point me to some reading, both primary and secondary, I'd be glad. Thanks.

I don't want to scroll through reddit posts anymore and look at endless videos. Can't we just "be" in the group, and that's that?

In this Heidegger Thinking Substack article, we investigate what it means to live and act authentically in Heidegger's philosophy.

Martin Heidegger - Vermächtnis der Seinsfrage. Last volume of the Gesamtausgabe. There is a pdf on Scribd but with barely discernible text and not OCR'd. Thank you.

I am trying to appropriate Heidegger in terms of a "throbbing gristle" pragmatism.

At the moment, I'm reading the Harper Perenial translation, I am eyeing the Cyril Welch and Thomas Sheehan translations. Each and every comment of yours is deeply appreciated and will be read and thought of.

In this Heidegger Thinking Substack article, we explore the elusive notion of conscience. What is conscience? What is it's relation to existence? Find out in the article, which you can read at the embedded link!

Hello,

I've read most of Nietzsche's major works, and since Heidegger apparently was influenced by him, I'd like to read his books as well.

With Birth of Tragedy, On the Genealogy of Morals, and Zarathustra being my favorites, which works of Heidegger deal with similar themes( the importance of art and humanity's morals etc).

Also, how's his prose compared to Nietzsche's? Nietzsche's way of writing is quite aggressive and poetic at the same time, which I really like.

I always thought that Gelassenheit, quite literally (etymologically) is the opposite of Gestell. Ge+lassen vs Ge+stellen. It's translated usually as "releasement" or "letting-be", compared to "enframing", "positioning", "com-posing", "positionality", etc. (Check the Cambridge Heidegger Lexicon, thet render is sth like "(com-)position" there etc.).

And Gelassenheit is "releasement toward things". Or the "letting-be" of beings, the adequate comportment toward beings that matches the "es gibt" of being, without forcing a "frame", without ensnaring being (and beings) like modern technology does, acc to Heidegger.

But recently I heard a different understanding, that Gelassenheit is actually better seen as an equivalent of "existence" (ek-sistence) in Being and Time, and that actually the fourfold (Geviert) is Heidegger's later (and more radical) reinterpretation of "world" and that das Geviert is the model of the world he proposes against the world as Gestell. I.e., rather than an inventory of resources on hold for the unending use of the technological will to will, the world as as the onefold of the artistic-spiritual (?) axis of earth-world (Origin of the Work of Art) and mortals-divinities.

What is your impression about this?

And a few further questions: Is Gelassenheit just another name for "meditative thinking"? It seems that Heidegger has a lot of ways of trying to describe the same thing/phenomenon, e.g. sometimes he speaks of Ereignis, other times of Anfang, sometimes of "beyng-historical thinking", other times of "commemorative thinking", other times of "meditative thinking" etc. I know Gelassenheit is supposed to be thought in relation with the will, and not with metaphysical/representational thinking, for example, but I find it hard to separate those terms into clear categories. Is it wrong to try to do that, anyway?

In other words, what is the relation between meditative thinking and Gelassenheit? Is meditative thinking conducing to a "state" of Gelassenheit? (But that would be willing to achieve it). Is it resignation into meditative thinking a waiting for a kind of bestowal of "Gelassenheit" into the world ravaged by modern technology? And if thinking is no longer thought as the act of a subject, then how is it supposed to occur?

(Maybe it's relevant here, Heidegger ends the dialogue on language with the Japanese on the note of something like, preparing the way for a dialogue not about language, but of language. Therefore, not a thinking about being, but a thinking of being, in the double (subjective/objective) Genitive sense. A dialogue of language, a saying of being, a thinking of being.)

Very ready-to-hand.