Talk:Introduction to Metaphysics (Heidegger book)

Requested move

The following discussion is an archived discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the move request was: Move. I will also convert Introduction to Metaphysics to a disambiguation page per the discussion; as always if one article is identified as the primary topic it can be moved to the base name. Cúchullain ^t/c 12:50, 9 May 2014 (UTC)

---

An Introduction to Metaphysics (Heidegger) → Introduction to Metaphysics (Heidegger) – This is the correct English title of the book; see this link --Relisted. Armbrust ^{The Homunculus} 21:36, 1 May 2014 (UTC) 81.83.137.205 (talk) 20:33, 24 April 2014 (UTC)

• Support Introduction to Metaphysics (book) per WP:NCBOOKS. --BDD (talk) 16:24, 2 May 2014 (UTC)

(edit conflict)While technically Bergson's eponymous work is an essay, I'm not completely convinced as to whether having "book" and "essay" as disambiguators doesn't introduce the perhaps not categorically impossible that is within the realm of Kantian categories that they might not be fully efficacious in their intended function, especially when considering the not entirely dissimilar fields of endeavour of those two authors, won't you say? ^walk victor falk ^talk 17:14, 2 May 2014 (UTC)

• Introduction to Metaphysics redirects to Introduction to Metaphysics (Bergson). — goethean 17:06, 2 May 2014 (UTC)
• Support Introduction to Metaphysics (Heidegger) per my comment above; Introduction to Metaphysics should become a disambiguation page. — goethean 17:21, 2 May 2014 (UTC)

"Introduction to metaphysics", per WP:TWODABS, should point to either of them whichever can be considered the wp:primarytopic; wp:hatnotes are sufficient for disambig. Heiddeger gets a clear advantage in numbers, though it's not a terribly large difference. I know that technically we should award a dab-less title to one of them, but in this case I think it is highly recommendable to keep both "(Heidegger)" and "(Bergson)". ^walk victor falk ^talk 18:14, 2 May 2014 (UTC)

Strike that, "Introduction to metaphysics" should be a dab page, per goethean. ^walk victor falk ^talk 18:25, 2 May 2014 (UTC)

• Support proposed move, also per goethean. ^walk victor falk ^talk 18:25, 2 May 2014 (UTC)

• Comment I have a copy of Heidegger's An Introduction to Metaphysics right in front of me as I type this. What on Earth does it mean to say that Introduction to Metaphysics is the correct title? FreeKnowledgeCreator (talk) 20:33, 2 May 2014 (UTC)

• Two versions appear on WorldCat[1]: Introduction to Metaphysics (Yale U translation, 2000) and An Introduction to Metaphysics (Ralph Mannheim translation...also Yale U. 1973 1959.). — goethean 20:54, 2 May 2014 (UTC)
  • OK, thanks for the clarification. FreeKnowledgeCreator (talk) 00:35, 4 May 2014 (UTC)
• Also, the German title is Einführung in die Metaphysik. Wouldn't An Introduction be Eine Einführung? My German isn't good enough to be sure, but the phrase Eine Einführung does appear to be quite common.[2] — goethean 14:38, 5 May 2014 (UTC)
  • Whatever. I really don't care about the title of the article at this stage. FreeKnowledgeCreator (talk) 21:29, 5 May 2014 (UTC)

---

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page or in a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

Where does the "indelibly fascist" quote come from!?

Τα μετά τα φυσικά

How is metaphysics understood by the lecture . For it is noted that "The title of the course is thus deliberately ambiguous "(21). How is the fundamental question derived to its singular priority.... Διοτιμα (talk) 03:35, 7 December 2017 (UTC)

Julian Young

Looks like an interesting writer of some merit, but it's not a name one encounters much in bibliographies concerning Heidegger. I don't doubt the quote from him is accurate and reasonable, but he's really not the "go-to" guy one would want. Moreover the "Nazi character" of the book isn't widely seen (so far as I know) as its primary or most significant aspect.

Badiacrushed (talk) 22:11, 23 December 2017 (UTC)

It is relevant cited material. Do you have a source contradicting it and stating that Introduction to Metaphysics is not widely regarded as fascist in character? If so, we can mention both views to balance things out. FreeKnowledgeCreator (talk) 22:19, 23 December 2017 (UTC)

The Introduction to Metaphysics is generally NOT ABOUT PENGUINS. Now can you find a source that contradicts this, that says that the Introduction to Metaphysics IS about penguins? If so, lets' have a discussion on whether it's about penguins or not. Basically I am saying this: We see very little commentary here EXCEPT some kind of nazi / fascism thing going on. It appears as if the biggest question about this work is its relation to nazism and fascism. Are there philosophers somewhere who also edit Wikipedia, or is it mostly the people who smell various political things here and there? Why this trigger / ringer so high up in the intro it will basically get people angry, get them looking up the Heidegger / Fascism / Nazism stuff, and then making angry edits or comments in Talk like this one? I know we need politico police, but their commentary doesn't always need to be up in the intro. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.26.188.198 (talk) 14:34, 30 December 2019 (UTC)

"Fascist in character"

Certainly this work is famed for its "inner truth and greatness" quote. The article's lead says the book is "widely regarded as fascist in character" or something like that.

Perhaps this assertion is true, but there's no citation. Young's quote pertains to his personal view, rather than a perceived consensus. Certainly the assertion has been made regarding Heidegger's work as a whole, and it's been quite "widely" entertained. But not to say "accepted" or "widely regarded" as such. It's a controversy.

Irrelevant example: Aspects of the Bible are humorous in character." This is arguably a true statement. Whole books, in fact have been published on this. "The Bible is humorous in character." This would probably be "widely regarded" as a misleading and basically false statement. But I have no sources. Some, no doubt, regard the Bible as a joke.

SO really, considered from a reader's (myself) point of view, this article is a failure. I've spent more than a year reading various works by and about Heidegger. IM might go on my reading list. I came here hoping for information that would be helpful in a decision.

Yes, of course we all know about H's Nazi dealings and his generally reactionary world view.

But no, simply dismissing IM as "basically fascist" doesn't offer, in itself, worthy insight for readers. Badiacrushed (talk) 18:29, 26 December 2017 (UTC)

You write, "Perhaps this assertion is true, but there's no citation." You are incorrect. The material is cited, to Young. Because the citation is present in the main body of the article, it does not have to be repeated in the lead. Please review MOS:LEADCITE and WP:WHENNOTCITE. FreeKnowledgeCreator (talk) 21:03, 26 December 2017 (UTC)

Young's quote pertains to his personal view, rather than a perceived consensus.

Young's personal view is at page 110. As he notes,“the critics of Heidegger's philosophical works of the early thirties, both friendly and hostile, I shall suggest , are all wrong”. As he further notes, “none of these, I shall argue, amount to totalitarianism [and] do not constitute fascism”.

Young's view is here irrelevant. The claim was that there is a widely shared view that the character (and not content ) of the book can be regarded as fascistic. This does not question the views veracity but mentions its existence .

The acknowledgement of the existence of such views is qualitatively different form simply dismissing IM as "basically fascist". This in turn would be a worthy insight for readers ; it informs, contextualizes and shapes their reading : for once, it reflects at what Heidegger himself called Grundstimmung of the work.

Placed in context the quote is an implication of Heidegger’s 1930s corpus . It is a reflection of the view held by Wolin, Herrbamas (who is mentioned in the translator’s introduction to Im) and Sheehan to name a few. Διοτιμα (talk) 07:06, 29 December 2017 (UTC)

I am sorry, but in all honesty your comment is incoherent. I understand the meaning of the individual words, but your assertions are so vague and there are so many illogical jumps from one claim to another that the meaning of the whole is not apparent. If you are trying to make an argument, I cannot see what it is. Could you please explain more clearly what you are trying to say? For the benefit of anyone reading this, Young's comment is actually sourced to page 8 of the book, not page 110. FreeKnowledgeCreator (talk) 09:34, 29 December 2017 (UTC)

Yah not sure about above chatter, but I definitely made a mistake about Young's comment. Point is nonetheless, he's a comparatively obscure analyst. Not necessarily a bad one, but obscure.

The 2001 book "A Companion to Heidegger's Introduction to Metaphysics," published by Yale University, has 13 chapters and 13 authors (not Young), only four of which seem to concern politics. I don't believe the fairly long introduction characterize IM as "fascist." Of course this proves nothing -- yet it may point away from idea that there's is a consensus about the book's "fascist character." I don't know, but am skeptical. Badiacrushed (talk) 20:43, 30 December 2017 (UTC)

Your comments are pointless. You have no evidence Young is "comparatively obscure" and it would be of no relevance if he was. His book, published by a reputable academic publisher, qualifies as a reliable source per Wikipedia's policies. See WP:RS. That is the only relevant issue. FreeKnowledgeCreator (talk) 21:46, 30 December 2017 (UTC)

Well, indeed, perhaps you're right. In that this is a "talk page," it's reasonable for me to merely point out the fact of Young's relative obscurity among Heidegger analysts. I say this on the basis of looking at a half-dozen bibliographies in which Young's works aren't prominent. It's unimportant that you're unaware of this, or deem it irrelevant.

Of course, I'm sure Young's work is of valid interest, and have not questioned Young as a "reliable source" as normally defined at Wikipedia. If you feel that's the "only relevant issue," then you may be ill-equipped to address the larger question -- or perhaps you're right. I simply don't know.

Problem is, the lede says, or implies, that IM (along with B&T) sums up H's views, and that these are of a "fascist" character. I'm unconvinced that as a matter of consensus among analysts, that this is a reasonable summation, despite the use of a "reliable source." Badiacrushed (talk) 00:49, 31 December 2017 (UTC)

No. You have misunderstood what the lead actually states. It states that a specific book by Heidegger is "widely regarded as fascist in character" - not even that it is actually fascist, but just that it is widely seen that way. There is no implication that Heidegger's philosophical views in general are fascist, or that there is any consensus to that effect. FreeKnowledgeCreator (talk) 01:29, 31 December 2017 (UTC)

True, but unfortunately the only character to which the lede refers is "fascist." One could enumerate an infinite number of things that the lede DOESN'T say. Obviously no point in that.

The lede really only says two things: that H. believed IM and B&T summarize his views on ontology (the only topic H dealt with), and that IM is "widely regarded" as fascist in character. That's all.

"Widely regarded" suggests to the ordinary reader, consensus, unless I'm mistaken.

A word search for the term "fascist" of the Stanford EP entry on Heidegger turns up nothing. Same for IE of P. Interestingly, the Stanford article DOES cite J. Young (though many other analysts are more heavily cited).

I'd have thought that if H's ontology were seen by consensus as "fascist in character," then this view, or at least the term, would turn up in those sources.

But I am quite uncertain about this. Badiacrushed (talk) 02:02, 31 December 2017 (UTC)

A preference to stay closely as possible to the original source helps to prevent any "hermeneutical chicanery”. Compared to the original source, one can easily see that the "inner truth and greatness" phrase is nothing but tendentious cherry picking and decontextualisation of the text.

1.For starters it is a "in medias res" quotation: quoting only the middle part of the sentence to present the idea that it is the introductory portion. It omits (or better yet is an outright censorship and distortion of) the introductory part that notes " In particular,what is peddled about nowadays as the philosophy of National Socialism, but which has not the least to do with" and presents only the peacock term the "inner truth and greatness". This creates the illusion that it is an outright claim about NSDAP and not a philosophical polemical against the notion of values as such.

2.The tail end of the quote ("is fishing in these troubled waters of "values" and "totalities") is, in an utterly unacceptable outright act of censorship and distortion also not included. This in turn not only "buries the lede" but also deliberately decontextualises the quote to seem as an outright praise of Nazism rather than a polemical discussion of the notion of values and totalities that encompasses a critique of nazism as an example.

3.It ignores the problematic nature of the infixed scholia( "namely, the encounter between global technology and modern humanity") that is a sure discredit that the quote is a praise of nazism rather than an allusion to Heidegger's analysis of modern technology.

4. The phrase as it stands cannot be used to draw the conclusion that has been widely regarded as fascist in character; for it does so at the great and deep expense of obfuscation and misinformation.

5. Fascism (just as all isms) itself is a rather broadly multifaceted and an overdetermined phrase to bare any semantic relevance on itself ( a perfect example being Orwell's essay what is fascism?).One has to point specific parts of the text that reflect specific parts of a clearly defined notion of fascism and not a vague "inner truth" catchphrase. This would be done properly in the reception part and not in the introduction. But still,one has to justify why only the middle half of "inner truth and greatness" quote is picked over the other 44 words that argue contrary to the conclusion derived from it . — Preceding unsigned comment added by Διοτιμα (talk • contribs) 23:58, 28 February 2018 (UTC)

Heidegger's reference to the "inner truth and greatness" of National Socialism is mentioned because it is a notorious aspect of the book. As such, it is appropriate to mention it in a summary such as the lead. Per WP:LEAD, the lead must "summarize the most important points, including any prominent controversies". Of course the material about Nazism can be further expanded upon in the main body of the article, to better explain it and provide more context. I have no objection to that and would encourage it. Your complaint that I am guilty of "censorship and distortion" is both insulting and laughable. I have, of course, not "censored" any material from you providing more context to explain the quotation because you never even tried to add any. Your complaint about the material is badly argued. No, quoting only part of the sentence does not "present the idea that it is the introductory portion". No, the concept of "peacock" (a reference to WP:PEACOCK?) is not relevant here. No, quoting only part of the sentence does not create "the illusion that it is an outright claim about NSDAP and not a philosophical polemical against the notion of values as such". Your comment, "Fascism (just as all isms) itself is a rather broadly multifaceted and an overdetermined phrase to bare any semantic relevance on itself" is gibberish. Beside that, Heidegger's comment is of course among other things praise of National Socialism - if you refer to the "inner truth and greatness" of something, that's praise. Deal with it. FreeKnowledgeCreator (talk) 00:31, 1 March 2018 (UTC)

Yes; if you refer to the "inner truth and greatness" of something, that's praise - But only and only if the surrounding context argues to this effect. Can you show that? Is the surrounding context in line with your praise claim?

To make it easy, can you provide further context to the phrase that would not only provide the fascist connections that you claim to exist but also offer specific praises of nazism that are given than sticking to the decontextualised "inner truth and greatness" phrase? The point to be made is that it is misleading to use the phrase as it is presented since it hides not only the context but derives a problematic conclusion that is not supported by the full contents of the sentence.What in specific seems praiseworthy about nazism in the quote that speaks of a "peddled philosophy of National Socialism, that has not the least to do with the inner truth and greatness of this movement ?!!

The quote distinguishes between the "peddled philosophy of National Socialism and an alluded other philosophy of National Socialism(that is not talked about in the quote). Which "nazism" are you referring to when you claim that "Heidegger's comment is of course among other things praise of National Socialism". For it is obvious the peddled one is not being praised for " fishing in these troubled waters of "values" and "totalities" " - let alone not being able in " the least to do with the inner truth and greatness of this movement" .Your claim would have to carefully, not only distinguish the two philosophies but also be qualified to reflect that the praise is not leveled at nazism as it is but to the alluded one. But this is in no way a praise of nazism. What is praised is nazism as conceptualised in Heidegger's head which is already not the nazism of crude race biologism ( which is what was intended).

Your inner truth phrase is terribly misleading for it only presents few catchphrases while ignoring and thus censoring the rest of the quote that shows what heidegger is praising as Nazism is an eccentric conception of it that is at variance with general nazism and is rather a critique of it that led him to dig up trenches in 1944 in the upper Rhine. Praytell, Which nazism is Heidegger praising?Διοτιμα (talk) 03:31, 1 March 2018 (UTC)

Do you see anyone agreeing with your views? Do you think it is at all likely that anyone is going to agree with them? If not, you should ask yourself whether commenting here serves any purpose. Talk pages exist to discuss how to improve articles - they are not for general discussion or chit-chat, and if you imagine that I am interested in debating Heidegger with you, you are sorely mistaken. My interest in that is non-existent, and if I somehow wrongly gave you the impression that I am interested, I regret it. You are apparently confused about what my views are, or do not really care, but I will not correct you except to point out that I never claimed the existence of any "fascist connections" between anything and anything else. That is your language, not mine. It is not a good use of your time or mine to ask me to defend or explain views that I do not hold. You still seem to think that I am somehow "censoring" things. I am, once again, doing nothing of the kind, as anyone can see. "Censorship" could be happening only if I were removing material explaining the Heidegger quotation about Nazism in more detail. You never even tried to add such material. FreeKnowledgeCreator (talk) 07:53, 1 March 2018 (UTC)

Do you see anyone agreeing with your views? Do you think it is at all likely that anyone is going to agree with them? Answer: Yes!!!?

Christian lewalter seconded by Heidegger himself (See the introduction to EM at xvi) 

Julian young (whom you use to as a source does) at page 110 of the quoted book. Hans Sluga's essay in " A Companion to Heidegger's Introduction to Metaphysics" at page 208. He interprets the sentence in question as a four pronged polemical aimed at differing groups. As noted in the prior argument, the quotation was "a philosophical polemical against the notion of values as such." Sluga notes that " Heidegger must have wanted to underscore his attack on the theory of values . . . [in 1935 and also in1953] when he [let the quote stand in the text] in order to renew his critique of the philosophy of value and the political appeal to it. For the theory of value was once again in vogue in Germany in 1953" The four pronged polemical claim of Sluga is in line with the distinction of the two philosophies noted above.

As he notes that the sentence made four polemical claims (and not parises)

1. National Socialism has an inner truth and greatness

2. That this must be distinguished from its outer and possibly flawed manifestation.

3. That the speaker himself possesses a unique insight into the inner truth of the movement (this is what is praised)

4. National socialism cannot be grounded in a theory of value and organic unity (page 208)

This is a pure philosophical polemic rather than praises. Were it a praise it would be of what Heidegger conceived to be nazism and not what was nazism in 1935. The polemics, Sluga notes were aimed at

1. Opponents of national socialism

2. Petty , bureaucratic party penpushers

3.Party ideologues

4.Value philosophers

if you imagine that I am interested in debating Heidegger with you, you are sorely mistaken. My interest is to discuss how to improve the article by showing that Your inner truth phrase is terribly misleading; for it only presents few catchphrases while ignoring the broader context in which it lays, thus, allowing you to draw a problematic conclusion that is contradicted by the larger context. This is not a general discussion or chit-chat, but pointing out that a specific phrase and the conclusion it draws in the article is at variance with the larger context from which it was plucked. your language, not mine, claims that "Heidegger's comment is of course among other things praise of National Socialism" . It  claims that as a matter of course a fascist character can be proved from the quote.  Again, in your language, not mine, can you provide further context to the phrase that would not only provide the fascist connections that you claim to exist but also offer specific praises of nazism that are given than sticking to the decontextualised "inner truth and greatness" phrase?This, presumably  is a good enough use of your time or mine; to ask you to defend or explain Which "nazism" are you referring to when you claim that "Heidegger's comment is of course among other things praise of National Socialism". 

Btw Censorship is not limited to removal, it includes tendentious omission and inclusion (which is what the phrase would be if it did not give satisfactory reasons as to why they are done) 10:18, 1 March 2018 (UTC)Διοτιμα (talk)

In response to the question, "Do you see anyone agreeing with your views?", the answer is indeed yes, Διοτιμα, as witness this revert of your disruptive editing by Drmies. You are continuing to try to force through controversial changes - such as the removal of all mention of Heidegger's reference to the "inner truth and greatness" of National Socialism - through edit warring, despite opposition from multiple editors. That won't stand, and neither will your tendentious misrepresentation of sources. You altered a sentence stating that Introduction to Metaphysics "been widely regarded as fascist in character" to "The work is regarded by some as fascist in character". "Some" is a euphemism and a form of weasel words. See WP:WEASEL. The source used is Julian Young's book Heidegger, philosophy, Nazism, which states on page 8 that Introduction to Metaphysics is a work which "even those on the whole sympathetic to Heidegger have generally taken to be indelibly fascist in character." Young is obviously suggesting that there is a general view that the Introduction to Metaphysics is a fascist work. FreeKnowledgeCreator (talk) 00:26, 2 March 2018 (UTC)

As for your comment that the "inner truth phrase is terribly misleading; for it only presents few catchphrases while ignoring the broader context in which it lays, thus, allowing you to draw a problematic conclusion that is contradicted by the larger context" - I would repeat that 1) You are perfectly free to add material explaining that "broader context" and that I would welcome this, and 2) I am not trying to draw any "conclusion" about anything at all, and you are simply confused in suggesting otherwise. Despite your claim to the contrary, it appears as though you are trying to have an argument about the proper interpretation of Heidegger's work, and that is in no way appropriate to a talk page. Though I am not sure, it appears that you are assuming that the sentence "The work, in which Heidegger refers to the "inner truth and greatness" of National Socialism, has been widely regarded as fascist in character" is somehow arguing that the work is "fascist" because of its reference to the inner truth and greatness of National Socialism. If that is your assumption, it is quite wrong. The sentence in question is not an attempt to make an argument or to deduce anything. Without wanting to be too offensive, or inflame matters further, I suggest that you might want to consider how poorly you are communicating and how strange your comments look. FreeKnowledgeCreator (talk) 02:39, 2 March 2018 (UTC)

• I am having a really hard time following Διοτιμα's line of reasoning, but it doesn't really matter--they are trying to argue something complex about their reading of Heidegger, but we don't do readings of Heidegger here: we do what secondary sources allow us to do. What Διοτιμα can do is add material that is based on secondary sources (not on their interpretation of Heidegger), and they certainly cannot remove well-sourced material. Drmies (talk) 05:55, 2 March 2018 (UTC)

Claim: The sentence in question is not an attempt to make an argument or to deduce anything.

Answer: What is it then?

If the sentence is not somehow arguing that the work is "fascist" because of its reference to the inner truth and greatness of National Socialism, then there would be no problem taking the phrase out .

If that is your assumption, then it would have the same semantic value if amended to read thus : The work, in which Heidegger refers to "being and becoming", has been widely regarded as fascist in character" Or better yet, it can be emended to read "The work has been widely regarded as fascist in character" without losing any of its meaning and intention.

A problem arises only when the fascist character is predicted on the inner truth phrase .

There is no denial that some people do not consider, while some do consider the book to be fascist in character. All that has been pointed is that the phrase "inner truth" as is decontextualised an tendentiously placed cannot be used to ground that consideration. If it is not grounding it then there would be no problem plucking it out.

Claim: it appears as though you are trying to have an argument about the proper interpretation of Heidegger's work.

Answer: All that has been done ( just like with the reference to the preface to Being and time and other edits ) is point out the simple fact that the matter as quoted is at variance with the original text. You don't have to interpret anything ; but do a simple comparison with the text to make such foolish accusations about tendentious misrepresentation of sources. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Διοτιμα (talk • contribs) 05:59, 2 March 2018 (UTC)

The sentence "The work, in which Heidegger refers to the "inner truth and greatness" of National Socialism, has been widely regarded as fascist in character" is not an argument but a factual statement, based on two sources. The two sources cited are Introduction to Metaphysics itself and the book Heidegger, philosophy, Nazism by Julian Young. The fact that the sentence is not an argument is not a reason for removing it. That the sentence could be differently written is also not, in principle, a reason for removing it. The point of the sentence is to explain some of the notorious aspects of the book, and I believe it does that reasonably well. If you think the sentence about Nazism requires more context to properly explain it then you could add that context, as you have been invited to do several times now. Incidentally, although I disagree with your removal of the sentence here, I believe that some other parts of your edit were helpful and improved the article and are better than your earlier efforts. Thank you. FreeKnowledgeCreator (talk) 06:53, 2 March 2018 (UTC)

The same criterion offered above still stands.

If the sentence is a fact, then it makes two factual claims:

1.The work refers to the "inner truth and greatness" of National Socialism.

2. The work has been widely regarded by some as fascist in character.

Fact 1(since its the inner truth phrase) can be proved by EM or Julian's: which ultimately depends on EM (for it claims in Em there is such a phrase) . Fact 2 ( which is nothing but the claim that there exist a group of people who consider EM thus) can only be proved by Julian's and not EM which does not even mention the word fascist. Julian, to prove fact 2 will have to name the people who deem EM thus. They in turn will have to allude to specific parts of EM that they deem fascist in character.

The two are unrelated facts. Fact one can be proved by just looking at the text where it says "inner truth". fact 2 is argumentative and depends on pointing to specific points in EM to ground its conclusion that the text is fascist (since this pointed to aspects are fascist) This means that the above criteria applies here too.

If the two are not dependent factually: with fact 1 being the ground to fact 2, then they would maintain their factual veracity when separated.

As an argument, A problem arises only when the fascist character is predicted on the inner truth phrase

As a Fact, A problem arises only when the fascist fact appeals to the inner truth fact as its factual ground.

Supposing one were to make a demand on the fascist claim to offer specific examples in EM? my point was that the inner truth sentence or phrase would not be one of them since it would contradict its claim ( as secondary source quotations and not my own interpretation from Hans, lewalter and Julian have shown above). The point to be made is not a denial of the existence of the fascist perception but the amalgamation of the two claims that are from varying sources and contradictory in their meaning and intention as though they are related in context, intention, and semantics.

Btw the sentence does explain some of the notorious aspects of the book and reasonably well at that. By your own admission, the sentence is factual. all it does is say the work is regarded as fascist in character; and that the work refers to the "inner truth and greatness" of National Socialism. It does not explain anything or how this two facts might be related (if they are at all) and in what sense.Διοτιμα (talk) 08:22, 2 March 2018 (UTC)

That is an example of what I mean by expressing yourself poorly. The talk page is really not a place for lengthy arguments of that kind, and most people are not likely to bother to even try to follow such a comment. It would be unrealistic to look for a detailed response. Of course if you have any specific proposal to make to improve the article (say the addition of material to further clarify the meaning of Heidegger's reference to National Socialism) then other editors will listen. FreeKnowledgeCreator (talk) 08:45, 2 March 2018 (UTC)

Regardless of how poorly expressed or prolixed the comments are ; they are in good sooth. Its intention is to bring to attention that the two quotations from varying sources cannot be amalgamated either in a factual or argumentative manner since they are at variance with each other. How can you understand any specific proposal is you cant understand what the specific problem is. The same fascist claim is presented in the reception part of the article in a non problematic fashion. It is only in its introductory amalgamative form that it is problematic; since the two sources that are used are at variance. If, as you have claimed, that they are not dependent in a factual or argumentative manner (then how are they dependent) then separate themΔιοτιμα (talk) 09:55, 2 March 2018 (UTC)

Your latest edits make some clearly unacceptable changes. You have now made part of the article read, " This opens up the discussion of socio-political entanglements of Dasein and his eccentric notion of the "inner truth and greatness" of National Socialism. These discussions have led the work to be widely regarded as fascist in character". Those changes may have been made in good faith. They also violate basic Wikipedia policies such as WP:NPOV and WP:NOR. You may believe that adding the term "eccentric" before "National Socialism" gives a helpful explanation of Heidegger's views, but it does not. It is not likely in the least that readers will know what it is intended to mean, and it is also blatant editorializing of a kind that has no place in a Wikipedia article. I also have to point out that the sentence "These discussions have led the work to be widely regarded as fascist in character" does not belong in the "Overview" section, which is a summary of the book's contents. It is a statement about how the book has been understood by commentators, and it belongs in the lead. Per WP:LEAD, the lead should "identify the topic, establish context, explain why the topic is notable, and summarize the most important points, including any prominent controversies". That obviously includes the fact that the book has been regarded as fascist. FreeKnowledgeCreator (talk) 21:45, 4 March 2018 (UTC)

Inner Greatness

Certainly the book is most infamous for this quote. But I doubt the quote is seen as offering the work's most valuable or significant insight. This gets to the "fascist in character" bit. The lead seems to dismiss the work with this comment. It's doubtful that a three-word summary of Heidegger would shed much light on the work. ```` — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2602:304:CFA3:D560:288B:5E6:D98D:F8C8 (talk) 00:48, 27 March 2018 (UTC)

Here's another poorly done bit: "As an introduction to metaphysics, Introduction to Metaphysics is a guide into metaphysics and the totality of its fundamental questions."

Why does the first clause of the above sentence exist? Moreover, I'd say the book is entirely idiosyncratic and concerns Heidegger's views, rather than generally guiding the reader "into metaphysics" as a broadly established field of inquiry.

So. that bit seems like a "fail." 76.250.61.86 (talk) 18:43, 31 March 2018 (UTC)

Being and Time

I reverted this edit by Διοτιμα, but after consulting Being and Time I have reconsidered and restored many of the changes made. Note, however, that it was misleading to add that Heidegger commended Introduction to Metaphysics as an "elucidation to the question of being" - the text is not a direct quotation from Being and Time. FreeKnowledgeCreator (talk) 22:17, 24 February 2018 (UTC)

I am afraid I have had to revert this edit by Διοτιμα also. Simply put, filling the article full of quotations from Heidegger is not a way to write a good article and does not help its readers. Rather, the article needs to summarize material and make proper use of secondary sources. FreeKnowledgeCreator (talk) 20:09, 25 February 2018 (UTC)

I have made an ANI post about the disruptive editing by Διοτιμα, including the removal of all mention of Heidegger's praise for Nazism from the lead of the article. This is outright censorship and distortion and is intolerable. Per WP:LEAD, the lead must "summarize the most important points, including any prominent controversies" - in this case, that obviously includes controversies related to Heidegger's pro-Nazi comments. FreeKnowledgeCreator (talk) 10:13, 28 February 2018 (UTC)

Addition to Overview section

Διοτιμα is edit warring to add the following text to the "Overview" section: "As an introduction to metaphysics, Introduction to Metaphysics is a leading into metaphysics and the totality of its fundamental questions. This stems from the fact that, to Heidegger ; “Questions are as they they are actually asked, and this is the only way in which they are”." While I accept that the addition is being made in good faith, Διοτιμα is ignoring the fact that the article is written in English. In English, one does not use expressions such as "a leading into metaphysics", except, I suppose, when trying to somehow force English to conform to Heidegger's German, which produces unfortunate results and of course is of no use to readers trying to understand Introduction to Metaphysics. I for one believe that the article should be written in a way that might help readers understand it and that it should be written in normal and straightforward English, not in weird, contorted pseudo-English. I suggest that Διοτιμα propose a suitably rewritten version of his or her addition. FreeKnowledgeCreator (talk) 08:05, 11 September 2018 (UTC)

The text under dispute is the following: "As an introduction to metaphysics, Introduction to Metaphysics is a leading into metaphysics and the totality of its fundamental questions. This stems from the fact that, to Heidegger, “Questions are as they they are actually asked, and this is the only way in which they are”. This means that the introduction “must first awaken and create the questioning”." The problem with that text as written is simple: it is of no use to readers. The purpose of the article is to explain Heidegger's Introduction to Metaphysics to people not already familiar with the book and with Heidegger in general. No one who lacks familiarity with Heidegger can be expected to know precisely what "a leading into metaphysics and the totality of its fundamental questions" means, or what Heidegger's views that "Questions are as they they are actually asked, and this is the only way in which they are" and that the introduction must "first awaken and create the questioning" mean, or why they would even matter. Lack of apparent importance is as great a problem as obscurity of meaning. I strongly suggest to Διοτιμα, who added the text, that he or she propose a suitably rewritten version that would actually be useful to readers. It may be helpful to explain Heidegger's jargon, but it serves no purpose to simply reproduce that jargon without explanation to readers lacking prior knowledge of Heidegger. FreeKnowledgeCreator (talk) 06:04, 15 September 2018 (UTC)

I for one agree with FKC. The text as is does not make sense in plain English, and unless the jargon being used is explained it is of no use to understanding Heidegger on this important matter/work. warshy ^(¥¥) 19:31, 15 September 2018 (UTC)

--Reguarding the Young quote in lead, the typical Wikipedia thing about "it's a reliable source so therefore it's ok" is obviously so often a matter of bad faith.

I'd be guilty of "original research" or "synthesis," or something, no doubt, for pointing out that the bulk of published analysis concerning this book doesn't focus on its supposed "fascist character." So I just won't bother messing with whoever obviously has this article under their wing. I'm be sure to "lose."

But I do find the lead disappoints my hope of getting much insight. The book is, however, is, nonetheless most superficially known for the quote fragment that is cited.

Recent changes to the lead

Over the last several days, Διοτιμα has, without any discussion on the talk page, been trying to force through a controversial change. It can be seen here. Among other things, the change replaced the statement that Heidegger's Introduction to Metaphysics "has been widely regarded as fascist in character" with the statement that it is "regarded by some writers as fascist in character". Διοτιμα recently made this same change with the edit summary, "expanded lead, as per WP:LEAD". Perhaps user Διοτιμα does not have enough experience on Wikipedia to understand this, but the edit summary he or she used was inaccurate. Διοτιμα's edit made the article very slightly longer in terms of byte size, but it did not expand the lead in any meaningful sense. Rather, it made unexplained changes, including trying to water-down the reputation of Introduction to Metaphysics as a fascist work. I regard this as unacceptable. Διοτιμα, please stop edit warring and stop using misleading edit summaries and discuss your edits here in a reasonable fashion. FreeKnowledgeCreator (talk) 01:46, 9 October 2018 (UTC)

For the benefit of anyone reading this, the information about Introduction to Metaphysics being regarded as fascist in character is sourced to page 8 of Julian Young's book Heidegger, philosophy, Nazism. The relevant passage of the book read as follows: "In chapter 4 I turn to the rather different works of the mid-thirties, especially to the lectures on Hölderin's ′Germanien′ and ′der Rhein′ and the Introduction to Metaphysics, works which even those on the whole sympathetic to Heidegger have generally taken to be indelibly fascist in character." Reading that statement, it ought to be obvious that the wording preferred by Διοτιμα, that Introduction to Metaphysics is "regarded by some writers as fascist in character", understates the extent to which Introduction to Metaphysics is considered fascist in character. There is a general perception, shared even by people sympathetic to Heidegger, that the book is fascist in character. It is far more than simply the opinion of "some writers", as Διοτιμα is trying to claim.

The remaining change that Διοτιμα is trying to make is to replace the text "The work is famous for Heidegger's powerful reinterpretation of Greek thought" with the text, "The work's primary focus on the question of being and its relationship to contemporary Dasein has led it to regarded by some writers as fascist in character". The first part of Διοτιμα's added text, about "The work's primary focus on the question of being and its relationship to contemporary Dasein", has no clear source and may be a case of original research. If the addition is meant to be sourced to page 8 of Young's book, then it is a serious misrepresentation of the source. Nowhere does that page state anything like what Διοτιμα wants to add to the article. FreeKnowledgeCreator (talk) 02:15, 9 October 2018 (UTC)

Warshy, you commented on a previous dispute here, what is your view of this one? I'd likes Drmies's view as well, if he is watching this. FreeKnowledgeCreator (talk) 02:11, 9 October 2018 (UTC)

The edit the way it is is not even grammatically correct, so it would need to be reverted/corrected. As for the characterizations of the work "as fascist in character" 'by some' as opposed to 'widely regarded' as such (a considerable difference in degree), I'd suggest that a second source should be added to reinforce the statement. If there is a debate on this issue, the debate should be explained in an entire separate paragraph or section in the article, at least. Thank you, warshy ^(¥¥) 13:36, 9 October 2018 (UTC)

Drmies, you have commented here before. Do you have any comment on the current disagreement? FreeKnowledgeCreator (talk) 22:43, 9 October 2018 (UTC)

To be clear, the problems with Διοτιμα's edits include the addition of totally uncited text. The user added a sentence reading, "The work's primary focus on the question of being and its relationship to contemporary Dasein has led it to regarded by some writers as fascist in character"; the sentence appears not to be based on any reliable source cited in the article and as far as I can see there is no option but to remove it. The edit summaries Διοτιμα is using, such as "expanded lead", are misleading, and I have to assume at this stage that that's deliberate. FreeKnowledgeCreator (talk) 22:49, 9 October 2018 (UTC)

• FreeKnowledgeCreator, if this is about that one sentence, yours (or "yours") is just much better than the other editor's; it's more precise and less woolly. Drmies (talk) 22:57, 9 October 2018 (UTC)

Thank you. However, the problems with Διοτιμα's edits include not just a poorly worded sentence but the addition of content that appears to be completely uncited, violating WP:VERIFY, and the misrepresentation and misuse of a cited source, the book by Julian Young. Because of this serious misbehavior by Διοτιμα, I have started a discussion at WP:NORN. Διοτιμα has been notified of this. FreeKnowledgeCreator (talk) 00:08, 10 October 2018 (UTC)

2.1 Academic Reviews

There is only one review cited, but the head is plural. The 2001 review (as represented) seems to primarily concern the accuracy and utility of one of the two English translations. Also, the article notes that the reviewer (Groth) criticized the omission (in the translation under review) of an outline that had been included by its original (1953 German Language) editor Petra Jaeger. This outline appears in the translation's second edition (2014). The first edition is currently out of print.

To the extent that the material merely critiques translation and editing as such, the material is pretty irrelevant to this article. The exception (???) may be a single sentence cobbled together by a Wikipedia writer as follows:

He described "Heidegger's readings of Heraclitus and Parmenides" as "famously idiosyncratic", and his "suggestion that they fundamentally agree" as "challenging".[8]

But that sentence is grammatically effed up. "They" here could refer either to Heidegger's agreement with Heraclitus and Parmeides, or H&P's agreement with each other. Moreover, in American English, periods and commas fall inside of quotation marks.

Apart from grammar, the sentence is too far into the weeds and without adequate context to offer any general insight into the book.

Probably best to just eliminate or find something meaningful for this segment.

For that matter, excluding this translation reviewer Groth, the article has only one analytical source (Young). Given the wealth of secondary literature on the subject, it would seem a poorly sourced article. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2600:1702:39A0:3720:F503:427C:F427:D7C9 (talk) 18:18, 24 February 2020 (UTC)

2600:1702:39A0:3720:AD54:D3E3:7920:88D5 (talk) 16:27, 24 February 2020 (UTC)

I have removed the unnecessary subheading, and edited out the unnecessary details. In answer to your question as to what "they" refers to, it refers to the fundamental agreement between Heraclitus and Parmenides according to Heidegger. Freeknowledgecreator (talk) 23:18, 24 February 2020 (UTC)

I think the article has been clearly improved. The sentence about Heraclitis and Parmenides is also now cleaned up so that it's grammatically sensible. However, it's a fairly poor source, consisting of three short graphs that exclusively concern merits of the Fried/Polt translation, vs the earlier one. The remaining five graphs are a cursory summary of the book's actual contents.

Groth's piece doesn't really intend to reflect anything of the book's "reception." Moreover one must merely guess whether by "reception," the subhead is intended to mean something that happened historically, when it "arrived" in 1953 (that might be the most obvious possible meaning), or how it's viewed currently -- or how that view has evolved ?

Not sure how that could be addressed, but Groth could use a caterer. We know there is an entire volume of substantive essays, edited by Fried/Polt and published by Yale, called "A Companion to Introduction to Metaphysics" -- or something like that.

2600:1702:39A0:3720:10BC:59AF:C646:1A6 (talk) 01:12, 25 February 2020 (UTC)

I see no problem with titling a section of an article about a book "Reception". You are the only person I have ever encountered who sees the slightest problem with it. The title seems self-explanatory; a book's "reception" is how people responded to it, for better or worse. It logically includes both the initial reactions to a book and contemporary views. Freeknowledgecreator (talk) 04:04, 25 February 2020 (UTC)

Yes it's not necessarily a legitimate concern. But how/when/why is the subheading "Reception" best applied or omitted in a Wikipedia entry? I'm guessing the criterion is arbitrary and quite foggy, but some observable tendencies: Less likely, perhaps, in older philosophy works and more typical in recent, "popular" works?

To reiterate, the section (and entire article) is thinly sourced and its actual content (at the moment) offers little insight into the topic at hand (although it potentially might). It's nonetheless slightly improved from previous version!

The only statement in this Wikipedia article about the book's significance that is properly sourced is the Nazi bit from Young. The material sourced to the LA review's letters section (note 7) is apparently unsupported by the citation -- and should be removed. (Groth's sole surviving comment concerns a narrow detail, the significance of which in relation to the book's overall content is unexplained, not least by Groth.)

In the "Reception" section, it's asserted that the book is both famous and infamous, and cites the book for support. But the book said about itself neither. This should be properly sourced (preferably not to Young), or removed. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.250.61.86 (talk) 21:52, 25 February 2020 (UTC)

The remaining bits of the Wikipedia article (its present core) are sourced directly from the book, and are represented as an "overview." But this representation is apparently the product of an Wikipedia editor's personal appraisal, and are thus weakly credible at best.

Optimally given these weaknesses, the article should be either pared down, OR (or until) expanded, by somebody willing and able to use the wealth of available sources. (That's not me). — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2600:1702:39A0:3720:D049:D259:67D0:E51A (talk) 21:34, 25 February 2020 (UTC)

All that aside, I think, maybe (could well be wrong) IM was the first H. book translated into English. Its reception as such, among English speakers, might be interesting under the subheading, but then obviously, not as CURRENTLY relevant material.

76.250.61.86 (talk) 15:55, 25 February 2020 (UTC)

The edition of Introduction to Metaphysics that is cited to support the statement "Introduction to Metaphysics is famous for Heidegger's powerful reinterpretation of Greek thought and infamous for his acknowledgement of the Nazi Party" contains an introduction by Gregory Fried and Richard Polt, as well as an afterword by Petra Jaeger. Presumably the statement is actually meant to be cited to Fried and Polt, or to Jaeger, rather than to Heidegger himself. It is unfortunate that there are not page references to clarify the matter. You are correct that this content should be more carefully cited, but I am not convinced that there is a good reason to remove it. Freeknowledgecreator (talk) 23:16, 25 February 2020 (UTC)

It's not there. I've just read through the translators' introduction to both the first and second editions a couple of times. (They are somewhat different). Neither calls the work either "famous" nor "infamous." Neither does it characterize the work as a "reinterpretation" of Greek thought.

Same for Jaeger's afterword.

I may be missing it, but I don't think so. Unless I'm mistaken, the article would be improved by removing this material.

If I'm mistaken, then the citation should be changed to indicate what, exactly is being cited. As currently written it suggests that Heidegger called his book (before it was published) famous and infamous, which obviously would be unlikely. Here's an online link to the (lut-of-print) first edition. I have second edition hard copy. http://dhspriory.org/kenny/PhilTexts/Heidegger/IntroductionMetaphysics.pdf 2600:1702:39A0:3720:E06F:D8C9:ECA:EDCA (talk) 02:47, 26 February 2020 (UTC)

I have replaced the citation with a citation needed tag. Freeknowledgecreator (talk) 20:36, 27 February 2020 (UTC)

Thank you. Much improved without the apparently false citation. Maybe no "citation needed" at all, for that little bit? Very brief googling of "Heidegger, famous infamous" got nothing obviously useful. 2600:1702:39A0:3720:9111:4229:AB06:76E9 (talk) 13:23, 28 February 2020 (UTC)

Note 5

The article’s text offers no “sourced” connection between the QCT essay (note 5) and IM. Something might be gained by making such a connection, but it’s unclear who is making it here -- nor exactly why. 2600:1702:39A0:3720:84CC:A2E:644E:15B4 (talk) 01:17, 29 February 2020 (UTC)

Two proposed sentences

Under “Reception" subhead, I propose two sentences. After first current, existing sentence add:

Gregory Fried and Richard Polt wrote that “interpreters differ widely, and often acrimoniously, on whether Heidegger’s Nazism was due to a a personal character defect” or whether the philosophy itself reflects a fascist outlook. ( citation: IM Second Edition, Yale, 2014, Translators’ Introduction, page xiv)

And following the current, second sentence, add:

However, Young disputes this view, contending instead that Introduction to Metaphysics condemns Nazism for its racism, militarism and attempted destruction of civil society. (citation: Young, P. 117)

WHY?: the first proposed sentence is a neutral statement from an authoritative source regarding one unsettled question reflected in this article.

The other proposed sentence: One may be obliged, in fairness, to represent Young's view concerning his (twice-) quoted statement. Moreover, the existing Young quote is from his introduction (page 8) and refers to a more complete treatment of the idea offered in chapter 4. There Young says:

"A position widely subscribed to by those who believe that some kind of a criticism of Heidegger's philosophy can be mounted on the basis of his political engagement …[is that the]… Introduction to Metaphysics is evidently and indelibly fascist in character“ (cite: Young page 109). Young is not a very elegant writer.

2600:1702:39A0:3720:38E0:957E:F495:BA55 (talk) 01:44, 5 March 2020 (UTC)

Go for it. I'll try to make any necessary formatting cleanup. Freeknowledgecreator (talk) 01:51, 5 March 2020 (UTC)

OK I've added the sentences. Unfortunately, one could possibly get the (mistaken) impression, solely on the basis of this article, that book is extensively and explicitly about Nazism. The new additions don't address this potential problem.

Young is perhaps an acceptable, but problematic source. His "fascist in character" statement is calculated to make his thesis to the contrary easier to argue; serving as a kind of "straw man." Moreover, Young's thesis may be on the far end of the spectrum of potential views regarding the book. Having just eyeballed the thing, and not being an expert, it's not for me to say. And no polling has been done to settle this.

But the question itself is for most readers willing to seriously struggle with Heidegger, mostly beside the point.

76.250.61.86 (talk) 19:52, 6 March 2020 (UTC)

Young is a professor of philosophy, who has had books published by reputable academic publishers. He is a perfectly acceptable source. Freeknowledgecreator (talk) 03:48, 7 March 2020 (UTC)

Your statement is of course correct, but implies the choice among “reliable sources” and what to pluck from any given source is arbitrary. In practice, that's apparently true! But it's not ideal.

Young’s central thesis about IM is that it’s a purely anti-Nazi work (unusual idea). Moreover, Young makes his ancillary point about “fascist in character” in a confused manner. In one instance, it's the general view among “even those sympathetic” — while in another, the view is limited to those “who believe some kind of criticism... can be mounted….”

Both statements are currently and accurately attributed to the same “reliable source,” but they are potentially contradictory and thus create minor confusion. The problem, relatively unimportant to readers of Young’s book, becomes slightly more pronounced in the different context here.

For easy reference:

Young, P. 8 "In chapter 4 I turn to the rather different works of the mid­thirties, especially to the lectures on Hölderlin's 'Germanien' and 'der Rhein' and the Introduction to Metaphysics, works which even those on the whole sympathetic to Heidegger have generally taken to be indelibly fascist in character."

Young P. 109 "A position widely subscribed to by those who believe that some kind of a criticism of Heidegger's philosophy can be mounted on the basis of his political engagement involves a sharp distinction between the early philosophy of Being and Time and the philosophy of the first half of the 1930s. According to this view, while Being and Time is an essentially apolitical work, criticisable, at best, for failing to provide a more powerful bastion against a fascist involvement, the works of the early thirties especially The Origin of the Work of Art' (PLT pp. 15–88), the Hölderlin lectures of 1934–5 (GA 39) and the Introduction to Metaphysics, works which are taken to constitute a unity centred on the Rectoral Address –are seen as evidently and indelibly fascist in character." — Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.250.61.86 (talk) 21:21, 7 March 2020 (UTC)

Re-write lead

Possibly thus:

Introduction to Metaphysics (German: Einführung in die Metaphysik) is a 1953 book about metaphysics by the philosopher Martin Heidegger. The work is a revised and edited lecture course Heidegger gave in the summer of 1935 at the University of Freiburg. The work is famous for Heidegger's reinterpretation of Greek thought. It is distinctive for presenting a total rejection of Nazism. (cite Young p. 116.)

Editor’s Note: "Young is a professor of philosophy, who has had books published by reputable academic publishers. He is a perfectly acceptable source." 2600:1702:39A0:3720:F0A6:635E:460A:7A23 (talk) 20:14, 10 March 2020 (UTC)

Per WP:LEADCITE, the lead does not necessarily require citations. Freeknowledgecreator (talk) 02:34, 11 March 2020 (UTC)

I've added a dozen words to the final sentence of the lead, specifically: "by those who believe Heidegger can be criticized for his political engagement."

It's not controversial that H. "can be criticized for his political engagement." But article caters too much to easy pop caricature of Heidegger.

Young's sole thesis is that nearly everyone but him is wrong about IM. He's quite specific and detailed and possibly correct (I don't think so). But this makes him a relatively poor choice for source. If the source is right, then the information he "provides" is wrong. There are many other choices available for appropriation. 2600:1702:39A0:3720:65DF:FA5C:6DFD:F051 (talk) 22:49, 19 April 2020 (UTC)

Recent edits

To the Editors:

I think adding the full quote in the body of the article is reasonable. It can be effectively introduced by saying (according to the book's index) it's IM's sole mention (p222) of Nazism. Much (50%+) of the existing published literature on IM does spell out this quote (because it's useful).

Maybe I'll restore it here at some point, in the interest of constructively adding content to this article.

Also, the sentence on "Introducing the English-speaking world" to H. &etc... could be more succinct. Significance is currently overstated in article. The book was three years ahead of B&T. The timing of this translation is interesting yes -- certainly. Martin Woessner devotes very little space to this matter in Heidegger in America (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2011). The book aims to be comprehensive and authoritative survey of his historical roll-out and reception.

— Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.250.61.86 (talk) 21:48, 23 April 2020 (UTC) 

To Editor:

Heidegger, in his [1953] preface to Being and Time, identified IM as relevant to the concerns which the unwritten second half of Being and Time would have addressed.

This is simple, key and constructive information about the article's topic. I added it -- and YOU removed. This is NOT constructive editing.

Yes, info is directly from another Wikipedia article, but I'm just too lazy at the moment to confirm with my MacQuarie. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2600:1702:39A0:3720:70F6:3897:F265:3DFA (talk) 22:46, 23 April 2020 (UTC)

To whom it may concern: Using the principle of "keeping like ideas together," I've moved the comment from F&P on the 1959 translation to where it is first mentioned -- under "publication history" or whatever the subhead reads. Also, making clear that "it" was a matter of three years adds context to the F&P comment. Editors here seem to have nothing to say regarding the proposals implied in above discussion? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2600:1702:39A0:3720:A980:88DA:1B1C:FF63 (talk) 20:00, 25 April 2020 (UTC)

SO... lacking any discussion here of what I've laid out above, the proposed edits have been added. I would politely ask that a discussion here happen regarding further reverts/revisions.

2600:1702:39A0:3720:2DB9:2F6B:9511:15C1 (talk) 21:41, 25 April 2020 (UTC)

Groth

Prof. Groth is quoted as saying elements of the book are "idiosyncratic" and "challenging." But WHY does he say this? Without more information, whatever point Groth tried to make is lost -- and the Wikipedia passage practically meaningless. (see quote below).

"In a brief review of the work, the philosopher Miles Groth described "Heidegger's readings of Heraclitus and Parmenides" as "famously idiosyncratic". He considered Heidegger's suggestion that Heraclitus and Permanides "fundamentally agree" to be "challenging".[14]"

76.250.61.86 (talk) 22:02, 25 April 2020 (UTC)

The length of the review is a useless piece of trivia. We do not need to say that a review was long or short - we only need to summarize the most important points made in the review. If a qualified author publishes an assessment of a book in an academic publication we do not need to second-guess him and worry about exactly why he said whatever it was that he said. It is not "practically meaningless" that a scholar judges a particular book in a particular way. Freeknowledgecreator (talk) 04:20, 26 April 2020 (UTC)

Academic reviews aren't equal to Facebook Likes. The "important point" is why and how a reviewer reaches a judgment. Adding some of this information in a Wikipedia article potentially offers useful insight; ignoring it results in a weak and uninformative contribution.

Regarding a source, contextual information -- such as length -- is useful. One simple example: in The New Yorker, books are reviewed in a column labeled "briefly noted" or in full-length features. This provides implicit information about editors' judgment. A further example: the subheading in this article: "Background and publication history." 76.250.61.86 (talk) 15:27, 26 April 2020 (UTC)

Per WP:NPOV: "All encyclopedic content on Wikipedia must be written from a neutral point of view (NPOV), which means representing fairly, proportionately, and, as far as possible, without editorial bias, all the significant views that have been published by reliable sources on a topic." That is the relevant policy. It is enough for Wikipedia that a view is stated by a reliable source. That, ' the "important point" is why and how a reviewer reaches a judgment ' is your opinion. It has nothing to do with Wikipedia's policies. Freeknowledgecreator (talk) 23:35, 26 April 2020 (UTC)

Originally, this article irresponsibly cited Young. It now makes at least some effort to represent the material cited. That's not presently the case with Groth.

Merely saying that Groth applied several adjectives to the topic isn't the desired standard. This is uncontroversial and involves no personal bias. 76.250.61.86 (talk) 00:45, 27 April 2020 (UTC)

The "desired standard" is that we summarize the most important points of what a given review states. The discussion of the Groth review does this well in my judgment. To add a mention that it the review is "brief" is simply to add a distracting piece of trivia of no value to readers. Freeknowledgecreator (talk) 03:59, 27 April 2020 (UTC)

Honorific and professional titles

In a few instances here (not all) I've changed professional titles. Heidegger is a "Philosopher" and among prime cited individuals in this article. It's a bit awkward, but All philosophy professors CALL themselves philosophers. It's needless confusion.

Perhaps it's polite to refer to them as philosophers. It may even be stylistically correct. (Certainly if you follow their universities' stylebook).

They are cited here commenting as historians of philosophy -- and strictly from citation info, function primarily on university salaries. Your community college creative writing teacher is probably an author, so what do you call them?

So I've called them "Professor X." Perhaps Dr. X would be more correct. But Heidegger was a doctor too. 2600:1702:39A0:3720:113E:7002:C1C5:46F8 (talk) 23:24, 25 April 2020 (UTC)

See MOS:CREDENTIAL. In general, Wikipedia simply does not refer to people as "Professor" [whoever]. Freeknowledgecreator (talk) 04:21, 26 April 2020 (UTC)

That's fine. Nicely avoids the issue of whether a philosophy professor is a "philosopher." I've said no, and tried to explain why.

76.250.61.86 (talk) 14:22, 26 April 2020 (UTC)

The article will follow the relevant style guidelines. You cannot simply reject them on the basis of personal opinion. Freeknowledgecreator (talk) 23:34, 26 April 2020 (UTC)

Recent edits

I'll fix: An editor has changed content in the Wikipedia article a manner that misinforms.

Background: In B&T's “Author’s preface to Seventh German Edition" H. notes that he’s removed reference (appearing in earlier editions) to the “second half” of B&T, which, after 25 years, he announces that he will never write. H adds that the just-published IM would “elucidate questions” regarding the planned-but-never-written (yet much-discussed) "second half." The correctness of this assertion apparently hasn't proven universally obvious to fans during the ensuing 70 years -- but nonetheless, there it is.

Amusingly, one might infer (but probably not source, nor therefore use in Wikipedia) that the "Author's Preface" was at least partly intended to boost sales (!). The B&T 7th edition was published simultaneously with first edition of IM. The B&T preface totals eight short (for H!) sentences, covering less than one-half page of a 600-page book. Nobody, apparently regards the B&T preface as offering key information, but it certainly provides interesting context regarding IM. It also "elucidates" material recently added (not by me) regarding an assertion by Fried/Polt. 76.250.61.86 (talk) 17:05, 26 April 2020 (UTC)

Nazi quote

"The works that are being peddled about nowadays as the philosophy of National Socialism but have nothing whatever to do with the inner truth and greatness of this movement (namely the encounter between global technology and modern man)—have all been written by men fishing in the troubled waters of 'values' and 'totalities.' " Fried, Gregory; Polt, Richard (2014) page 222 Introduction to Metaphysics, Second Edition. New Haven & London: Yale University Press. ISBN 978-0-300-18612-3.

---

I've re-added the one-sentence quote from IM on National Socialism. Perhaps a third of the content of this article (at the moment) revolves around this single sentence.

Cutting it would be unjustified.

I've moved it (per suggestion) to the "Summary" section. This creates an awkward and unsurmountable (?) problem: violating the basic writing principle of "keep like ideas together," but apparently in this case, can't be helped.

The "summary" section already notes Heidegger's comment about the "inner truth and greatness" of Nazism. What you have done is to add an undue, overly-long quotation that needlessly repeats information already in the "Summary" section, with the further addition of an unnecessary and inappropriate editorial comment ("The sole mention of Nazism in the book is as follows"). A properly written article about a book does not contain an editor's personal commentary on that book. Freeknowledgecreator (talk) 23:30, 26 April 2020 (UTC)

I guess you're really a stickler for keeping that single sentence by Heidegger from an article about Heidegger. Your view simply takes precedence over the question of whether this additional context is "undue" and repetitive. The article loses and is slightly diminished.

As for personal commentary, the book's index is a primary source made to read. A cited reference to its information is not personal commentary. Moreover, it's noted many times elsewhere, sometimes "infamously." — Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.250.61.86 (talk) 00:36, 27 April 2020 (UTC)

In general, I would not consider it desirable to include a sentence of that length; the goal should be to summarize information. I can see how one could make a case for including that complete sentence, given its notoriety, but personally I would keep it out. If you really believe it ought to be included, then you could place a request for comment if you wished. Freeknowledgecreator (talk) 04:07, 27 April 2020 (UTC)

Each of endless published works on Heidegger that include this quote reflects "competent" editorial judgment. Its wide inclusion in such work (Google the quote) doesn't cause editorial controversy, but rather adds clarity and specificity.

Really pointless to explain this any further here, to one who makes such silly, obvious blunders with this article. The effort is wasted.

But I'm confident the article will be fine and that it will improve and grow for the reader with the addition of sourced and properly selected content.

— Preceding unsigned comment added by 2600:1702:39A0:3720:190C:C094:868:146A (talk) 15:35, 27 April 2020 (UTC) 

Reception

In this regard, I find the subhead "Reception" (where quote was originally inserted) to be, if not "wrong," then inelegant for a philosophy book that is nearly 70 years old.

I suggest it be changed to "Critical Opinions" or, "Fan Comments," or "History's Judgments!" I'm hereby soliciting other suggestions. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.250.61.86 (talk) 22:07, 26 April 2020 (UTC)

Reception is an event in time. One might say that this event happens continually and endlessly. This would be unconventional; a stretch for the concept and contrary to its simple definition.

Material under IM subhead "reception" is (almost ?) entirely from +50yr after the work was "received." This is a bit illogical in the most charitable view; at worst rather silly.

Note the Wikipedia case of Melville's Moby Dick: Under "Reception" is a recounting of critical opinion around the time of publication. The same can be mostly said for the Wikipedia entry on Ben Hur (1959).

The "Reception" subhead is a convention for Wikipedia -- not particularly elegant nor universally followed, nor necessarily required or appropriate.

Examples: "The critical reception of The Wizard of Oz was poor [poorly received by critics]. But critics today now regard the film as a classic."

Example: "The novel, published in 1953, was well-received by critics [at the time]." NOT "The book, published in 1953, was well-received by critics in 2014." NOR "The book was well-received by reviewers in 1953, and continues to enjoy a warm reception from critics."

And "I received the package last year.".... "I received a warm reception at Grandma's house." 76.250.61.86 (talk) 18:53, 26 April 2020 (UTC)

It does not serve a purpose to make nonsensical or disruptive suggestions (eg, changing a section title to "Fan Comments"). The change would be vandalism. Freeknowledgecreator (talk) 23:32, 26 April 2020 (UTC)

Right. So all joking aside and for reasons outlined above, I propose changing title to "Critical Views" or "Critical Opinions."

Other suggestions are solicited, and/or why "Reception" is preferred for a segment without substantial content from when the book was "received?"

76.250.61.86 (talk) 00:18, 27 April 2020 (UTC)

If you want to add content relating to how Introduction to Metaphysics was received when it was first published go ahead. That would be a good idea and it would improve the article. I do not, however, see that the title of the "Reception" section presents a problem, or that a different title would be an improvement. Freeknowledgecreator (talk) 04:03, 27 April 2020 (UTC)

Hmmmmmm.....but can you can't offer any reason? I'm getting the picture.

Having requested this previously, I assume the answer is simply "no, not possible."

76.250.61.86 (talk) 13:32, 27 April 2020 (UTC)

Your objections to the title "Reception" were rambling personal reflections about the meaning of the term "Reception" that I do not believe it would serve any purpose to respond to. Freeknowledgecreator (talk) 00:14, 28 April 2020 (UTC)

---

OK here's the crux repeated (from above):

"Reception is an event in time. One might say that this event happens continually and endlessly. This would be unconventional; a stretch for the concept and contrary to its simple definition. Material under IM subhead "reception" is (almost ?) entirely from +50yr after the work was "received." This is a bit illogical in the most charitable view; at worst rather silly."

The material under subhead doesn't conform to definition of "Reception." The subhead might be changed, to one that more accurately reflects the currently existing material to which it refers.

You believe this point is irrelevant -- and/or, you simply lack capacity and/or desire to perceive the point at all. Which is perfectly okay! Given these limitations, it would be foolish of me to remain involved in the your project -- or as you see it, to try to spoil it in any way.

2600:1702:39A0:3720:1162:C2A0:84D3:155B (talk) 02:17, 28 April 2020 (UTC)

The term "Reception" does not have a single definition. If you do not wish to "remain involved in the your project", that is up to you, of course. Freeknowledgecreator (talk) 03:04, 1 May 2020 (UTC)

Too Toxic

I'm pleased to have expanded this article's reference list by about 30 percent. But it remains a poorly sourced and generally weak article. Sadly, my further involvement is impossible.

Freeknowledge's basic unfamiliarity with topic -- coupled in an unfortunate manner with his all-too frequent, questionable and insistent judgments -- make him an unfit and unacceptable collaborator.

In a related matter, FK has introduced an elaborate error, revealing ignorance of what's typically among the first and primary "facts" that genuinely interested readers will encounter about the book in question. As a former contributor here, I am embarrassed and humiliated by his blunder.

Given this amply demonstrated incompetence, I urge that FK abstain from further attempts to edit the already mangled information -- and from making other "improvements." But I'm done. Woe to any who foolishly imagine that given FK's presence, such a gem as this article can be easily improved.

76.250.61.86 (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 14:17, 27 April 2020 (UTC)

I do not think that the article is a "gem". It is obviously a poor article. If you think I have "introduced a non-trivial and fairly elaborate error", please point it out so that I can correct it. Freeknowledgecreator (talk) 00:10, 28 April 2020 (UTC)

It's your baby, Freek ! I leave it to you.

2600:1702:39A0:3720:1162:C2A0:84D3:155B (talk) 02:30, 28 April 2020 (UTC)

The article is the work of multiple people. I did not begin the article. Asserting that the article contains "a non-trivial and fairly elaborate error", and then not explaining what it is when politely asked, is not constructive behavior. Freeknowledgecreator (talk) 02:32, 28 April 2020 (UTC)

Inadequate familiarity with subject matter to make the edits? If so, best to leave the article alone, thus avoiding still more humiliating blunders. Maybe read more Heidegger instead?

I choose not to contribute, and am very relieved to realize that the category "constructive" is irrelevant to non-contributors.

2600:1702:39A0:3720:4965:10F0:1656:CA8F (talk) 13:16, 28 April 2020 (UTC)

If you "choose not to contribute", why comment on the talk page at all? Again, if you can identify any error I may have inadvertently added, I will correct it. Freeknowledgecreator (talk) 11:14, 29 April 2020 (UTC)

FKC's Gone?

It appears that, for reasons not directly related to this article, FKC won't be contributing for a while. Therefore, I've taken the opportunity to correct the error he introduced.

I may also resume my efforts to extend this article's content with sourced material. 76.250.61.86 (talk) 01:15, 30 May 2020 (UTC)

I'm presently focused on adding content rather than on organizational issues of the article. The additional content however, is and will probably continue to exacerbate existing organizational problems.

I don't view existing headers or the "organization," such as it is presently, as sacrosanct and will eventually make changes that I hope will be logical. I've already replaced "Reception," provisionally with "Contemporary analysis." This is because most if not all writers available as sources are more intent on analysis rather than on offering a good/bad "reception."

2600:1702:39A0:3720:C11:3FA3:A77B:17C1 (talk) 01:50, 31 May 2020 (UTC)

Reorganization and new headers

The three (presently) new headers are suggested (not verbatim) by similar structure of "Companion To IM" book of essays from which the most recently added sources are drawn.

The previous "Summary" section (content nearly all retained) was based on IM (primary source) and was/is "original research." Editor X deciding (with or without other editors) what constitutes a "Summary" of IM would be "OR" and probably inadequate. I really don't see how one would "source" a "Summary" as such.

Simply avoiding the issue seems like fair solution.

The previous "Reception" header might be revived separately. But I'm not seeing any good, handy sources and am not personally interested in the concept. To those taking on this project, I recommend "Heidegger in America" by Martin Woessner - Cambridge 2010.

Under the new "Politics" header (or in ANY version of this article) material should be added regarding objections raised by Jurgen Habermas in the 1950s regarding "inner greatness" quote. There's various material in one of the more general, current Wik. articles on Heidegger. It may or may not be advisable to simply import the stuff here.

I've removed first reference to "fascist in character." I've retained the second reference to the phrase and the "meat" of this source (previously added by me), which undercuts its own own assertion. Because of this self-abnegation, and because the assertion itself is unsupported by other current sources, it's reasonable to somewhat deemphasize, thus avoiding "undue weight."

The article has significant room for expansion and improvements. I've more than doubled the list of sources while making necessary refinements in the use of some of the few earlier sources.

I certainly hope and expect that many other editors will (soon, or eventually) take an interest in doing similar work on expanding this article.

2600:1702:39A0:3720:81B3:9548:A2B2:1B08 (talk) 15:54, 1 June 2020 (UTC)

Former "Summary" material

From the limited material that formerly constituted the "Summary" segment:

A key quote within this material: "for metaphysics grounds an age, by giving "that age the basis upon which it is essentially formed."

It's from an essay called "World Picture" (delivered as lecture in 1938). I've added the correct attribution within the text. A reader might otherwise fairly assume it came from IM. If one simply removed it, the whole larger bit would fall apart. I really dislike deleting other people's material and have entirely avoided doing so.

But the material's relevance to IM isn't demonstrated via sources. It points up the difficulty of "editor X" offering their personal "summary" of whatever topic. Personally I wouldn't attempt such a thing via Wikipedia.

Perhaps it should be replaced with something more appropriate. 76.250.61.86 (talk) 23:20, 2 June 2020 (UTC)

The lectures' relation to Being and Time

The article claims that: Heidegger suggested the work relates to the unwritten "second half" of his 1927 magnum opus Being and Time. This is further elucidated or supported by the claim that: In an eight-sentence preface to this 1953 edition of Being and Time, Heidegger wrote that the newly available Introduction to Metaphysics would "elucidate" material contemplated for the planned, but long-abandoned second half of Being and Time.

Unfortunately, the relevant passage in Being and Time and the interpretation adopted by the Translators' introduction to introduction to Metaphysics shows that the claim is profoundly misguided.

The passage form Being and Time runs: For the elucidation of that question the reader may refer to my Einfuhrung in die Metaphysik . . . All hinges on what "that question" is supposed to mean.This is taken by the translators of introduction (in both the first and second editon of the text) to be "the question of Being"

The First edition. . . Martin Heidegger suggested that for an elucidation of the question of Being raised by this text, Second edition: . . . he suggested that for an elucidation of the question of Being raised by this text,

This interpretation is further supported by the fact that the aforementioned preface notes that

Nonetheless, its path still remains a necessary one even today, if the question of being is to move our Dasein.For the elucidation of that question . . .

The confusion might've arisen from what "its path" is supposed to refer to: The whole book First half Second half But this is irrelevant; since "of that question" maintains the same meaning in all references Διοτιμα (talk) 12:31, 4 June 2020 (UTC)

My opinion is similar to yours regarding clarity of H's 7th Ed preface. However, "the interpretation adopted" by translators seems quite standard, and it's reasonable to defer to their expertise.

You're right: We need secondary sources on this question. They should be easy to locate. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2600:1702:39A0:3720:BD7B:D132:AFA:BB6F (talk) 16:36, 4 June 2020 (UTC)

Moreover, my personal & speculative view (not for Wikipedia) is that the whole business was, in part, a ploy to boost sales of BOTH 7th ed B&T AND IM. (A "Twofer" as they say in retail advertising!). When/where else did H. write (merely) EIGHT sentences on any topic??) -- & what other H works were published simultaneously??

At any rate, the preface does say pretty clearly that the "second half" of B&T is a dead letter, and if you're interested in what it might have said, go buy a copy IM. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2600:1702:39A0:3720:E4FC:AEF7:3C24:78A6 (talk) 15:38, 4 June 2020 (UTC) 2600:1702:39A0:3720:946A:79B6:7376:C0B3 (talk) 15:26, 4 June 2020 (UTC)

---

A MUCH less-than-optimal (but basically OK) secondary source on "Author's Preface": https://reviews.ophen.org/2016/05/20/lee-braver-ed-division-iii-heideggers-time-unanswered-question/#_ednref6 Heidegger directs us to two quite different texts to help us better understand the (incomplete) project of Being and Time: the Basic Problems of Phenomenology and the Introduction to Metaphysics.[vi] [vi] See M Heidegger, The Basic Problems of Phenomenology, trans. A Hofstadter (Bloomington: Indiana University Press, 1988), 1, Note 1/ GA 24, 1, Note 1 and the Author’s Preface to the Seventh German Edition of Heidegger, Being and Time.

Maybe you can find something that is stated in a way that's more easily useful -- or maybe I'll try. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.250.61.86 (talk) 18:17, 4 June 2020 (UTC)

At the risk of appearing pedantic, an in depth analysis of what "its path" and "that question"  are alluding to should be undertaken. 

1. Semantic: its path can refer to

Being and Time 
First  half
Second half

The second  half is excluded; given the fact that the sentence  in both the basic  problems(the path it took) and the translation of Being and time by john  Macquarrie  &  Edward  Robinson (the  road  it  has  taken) are in past tense. The translation  by joan is ambiguous (its path).

2. Contextual. The first half is excluded on the basis that it  deals with the "Interpretation  of Dasein  in  terms  of temporality" (which was later deemed unnecessary and thus not worth  repeating); rendering the sentence  redundant if this  is  taken as the referent. 
. This leaves  only Being and Time which deals with "the  question  of  Being" 
Thus, that question (the question of Being)  and not the "Interpretation  of Dasein  in  terms  of temporality" is the relation that the preface  aims at alluding at.
This can also be  supported  from the basic  problems of phenomenology ; where the translator notes that 
Being  and time as pulished, Kant and  the problem of  Metaphysics and the basic  problems of phenomenology  [with some reservations constitute] in there volumes the entire treatise which Heidegger had originally wished to call Being and Time.  
The introduction is a variation on the explication on the question of being and can thus relate only to  Being and Time and not its second  half which deals with specific  questions  that in the furtherance of that question...
Hence, at any rate, the preface does not  say pretty clearly that the "second half" if you're interested in what it might have said, go buy a copy IM.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by Διοτιμα (talk • contribs) 22:09, 4 June 2020 (UTC) 

Yes. All interesting and very unsual points! In particular, it's a valuable reminder that relying purely on primary sources (H) can result in havoc. In general, in a very "large" sense, you may well be correct, although in a more narrow and simple sense, the existing material in the article seems reasonable (and now, thanks to you well sourced).

Regardless, a more careful reading of the preface reveals I had made a very foolish (and somewhat minor) error, which I've corrected. Thank you for indirectly pointing this out !!

I've added the source to which I referred above in which the writer notes that "Heidegger directs us" (in author's preface to 7th Ed) to IM "to help us better understand the (incomplete) project of Being and Time."

I encourage you to expand the article using sourced material -- especially secondary sources.

By way of self-congratulations, I'd like to point out that as of this writing, I've added 14 (?) of the 23 reference notes for this article. Most of what I haven't added were primary sources.

2600:1702:39A0:3720:15F5:AF83:4BCD:F111 (talk) 23:17, 4 June 2020 (UTC)

Expand this article

(-edited comment, see history)

If you’d like to expand this article, please avoid excessive reliance on primary sources. The reason for this avoidance is adequately explained elsewhere -- if not already obvious.

I’ve recently added a substantial number of secondary sources to both the “Being and Time” and “Introduction to Metaphysics” Wikipedia articles -- and by necessity in the process, largely changed them.

Previously both articles had relied mostly on editors’ personal commentaries and explanations of selected citations from the relevant primary source. This is NOT a preferred editing model (although it’s presently followed by most or all of the other W. articles on specific H. texts.)

Also, try and limit new material here to substantive cited information that may incrementally add insight:

WRONG: "Jane Smith said 'It's all bullshit!' (ref)

RIGHT: "the biochemist Jane Smith's DNA testing of 1999 samples indicated that the shit is from an adult male of the species Bos taurus." (ref)

Or SOMETHING like that. Not always easy or successful. 2601:405:4A80:9E50:8DEF:D4A3:CCB9:6EBE (talk) 15:30, 13 September 2020 (UTC)

Presocratics

RE. “Presocratic” segment:

Among the section's four existing sources, three present (added) information and analysis concerning the book’s content. Groth merely applies two purportedly descriptive terms, “idiosyncratic” and “challenging.”

The mere fact that Groth holds this opinion is unenlightening. Groth may or may not be correct, but there is nothing in the current version of the article that would enable a reader to evaluate his view or its relevance.

Unless something substantive is available from Groth, I’d suggest removing the material.

Moreover, there is some evidence that Groth holds “fringe” views on Heidegger (see note 4, Miles Groth page).

"Referring to publishers, Groth complained (2004) that 'no one will touch' his own, superior personal translations (of two Heidegger essays) 'since I am not part of the inner circle of Heideggerians.' [4] Groth claims that in contrast with existing English translations, Heidegger's works [in their original language] are "quite clear and concise." "

Among all potential sources, Groth is a relatively poor choice -- because he's published nothing specifically devoted to "Introduction to Metaphysics" and isn't widely seen as a "Heidegger expert." Indeed, Groth is most widely noted as a "men's rights advocate," based apparently on his primary career as a psychology professor at Wagner College (Staten Island).

2601:405:4A80:9E50:795A:B84A:D960:428 (talk) 15:04, 20 January 2021 (UTC)

Not getting any objection nor alternative input, I'll go head and remove Groth.

2601:405:4A80:9E50:8425:7459:5816:F3F6 (talk) 21:31, 25 January 2021 (UTC)

Groth

See above section "Presocratics" on Groth.

Further edits regarding Groth? Please discuss. 2601:405:4A80:9E50:5421:8822:3C56:22AD (talk) 16:48, 28 February 2021 (UTC)