Talk:Martin Heidegger/Archive 5

Archive 1

←

Archive 3

Archive 4

Archive 5

Archive 6

Archive 7

→

Archive 10

Of Socks

Looks like we have another sock of Julian (possibly two). I've placed a note on the page of the admin who blocked him originally to ask if a full sock report is needed. It looks so blatant to me that I hope we can just have action taken. --Snowded ^TALK 15:06, 22 February 2010 (UTC)

It would be helpful if all editors would discuss here rather than throw out remarks in the edit summaries. What is important is not whether editors agree with me, with mvetfrog, or someone else; what matters is what is said by the sources we are representing here. Repeating myself, can anyone point either to a book-length study of Heidegger, or to an encyclopaedia study of substantial length, from the last twenty years, which does not give examples - with quotes - of his support for Hitler?

I don't really understand why people are so concerned about National Socialism v Nazism. Young's book is favorable to Heidegger, but sill uses "Nazism" in its title. Why does this matter?KD Tries Again (talk) 15:38, 22 February 2010 (UTC)KD Tries Again

I'm happy for the lede to reference Nazi not National Socialism and open to a quote. However we need to clear out the sock and then discuss --Snowded ^TALK 16:09, 22 February 2010 (UTC)

I noticed the NS v Nazi issue when Jsp722 (talk · contribs) began replacing "Nazism" with "National Socialism". His other edits to the article were questionable, and reverted (by me, among others). [1][2][3] So I was surprised when other editors upheld Jsp722's edit replacing 'Nazism' with 'National Socialism'. — goethean ॐ 19:25, 22 February 2010 (UTC)

I agree that most of Jsp722's edits were bad. The "Nazi" versus "National Socialist" issue is distinct, however, and I agreed with him about that. UserVOBO (talk) 19:29, 22 February 2010 (UTC)

Mtevfrog has argued, if I understand him, that the quotation from Heidegger should be in the "Heidegger and National Socialism" section, where proper context can be provided. I agree with what I take to be his position, so I shifted the quotation. Heidegger's support for Hitler can be and is made clear in the "Freiburg" section without the quotation. UserVOBO (talk) 18:56, 22 February 2010 (UTC)

My question is - what is the basis for his position? Where is the precedent which suggests that details (e.g. quotes, titles of articles) should be excluded from discussion of Heidegger's life or philosophical work? That may have been a tenable position twenty or even five years ago, but no longer. We can't reach consensus based on this or that editor's personal preference, or we'll be reverting back and forth forever. Can you engage me on the question of what the sources say and do?KD Tries Again (talk) 19:09, 22 February 2010 (UTC)KD Tries Again

Obviously you'd have to ask Mtevfrog what the basis for his position is. I'm not even 100% sure I've understood what his position is; that's a matter for him to clarify. So long as there's no obvious need to include the quotation from Heidegger in the Freiburg section, I can't see any very good reason for including it there. All I can say is that it seems more appropriate to a section dealing with the issue of Heidegger's National Socialist involvement in detail. UserVOBO (talk) 19:14, 22 February 2010 (UTC)

KD Tries Again, kindly do not misrepresent my position. Where have I stated anything like what you have attributed to me? Where have I stated that the details of Heidegger's involvement "should be excluded from discussion of Heidegger's life or philosophical work"? What I have argued, and I have clearly failed to make this clear, for which I apologize, is that the best place for including these factual biographical details in this encyclopedia article is in the "Heidegger and Nazism" section. As I have stated several times previously, this is NOT a matter of taking a position in relation to the questions you repeatedly raise. You claim to be "puzzled" that I consider the "Heidegger and Nazism" section to be a biographical section. Why do I say this? Have you read the section? What do you think it contains? Is not what it contains very largely biographical facts about Heidegger's involvement? In short, again, the "Heidegger and Nazism" section IS biographical and, in fact, exists as a magnifying glass examination of the issue, giving prominence to what is obviously an important issue, as I have repeatedly stated. As I have also stated, I am the editor who has inserted most of that detailed biographical fact, and done so in a factual, neutral and encyclopedic manner, which is why it has remained in nearly identical form since I did so some time ago. Again, this has nothing to do with taking any position whatsoever on the significance of that involvement for judging Heidegger, nor for judging his philosophy. It is not a matter of asserting that this involvement is not relevant to his philosophy. It is a question of where the best place for including such facts might be. My argument is that there is no point having a "Heidegger and Nazism" section if you then fill the rest of the biographical section with precisely the facts that belong in the "Heidegger and Nazism" section. And I further believe that allowing this to begin opens the door to all those single purpose editors who do not care about the quality of the article, but only about trying to damn the subject of the article through the content of the article. Thus my agreement with the very simple point made by UserVOBO above. Nothing I have written here in this comment differs from anything I have said before, and I hope not to have to repeat the same points again. If other editors have some other view, that is their business, but please do not attribute positions and opinions to me that I have not expressed and that are not mine. Mtevfrog (talk) 19:35, 22 February 2010 (UTC)

Take a step back and look at the current article. It has section numbered 2., labeled Biography. It then has a section numbered 3., labeled Philosophy. It then has a section numbered 4., labeled Heidegger and National Socialism. All I am saying is that the section on Heidegger and National Socialism is not in the Biography section of the article. Does it contain biographical information? Clearly it does, and one solution to this dilemma would be to move the salient points up into the Biography section (deleting section 4. entirely), leaving a link to the separate, more detailed (it ought to be, anyway) article. I can support that. What I can't support, based on the sources I've cited (and so far nobody has contested the citations), is selectively toning down the reference to Heidegger's Nazism in the biography section.

Referring to single purpose editors is a straw man in this case (regardless of the edit war/sock problems) because the entirety of the contemporary literature on Heidegger's life and work is equally single purpose. This is not a WP phenomenon, and I really wish someone who disagrees with me would engage on the basis of what the sources say.KD Tries Again (talk) 19:47, 22 February 2010 (UTC)KD Tries Again

The article may have a section called "Biography", but properly speaking the article as a whole is a biography. So that argument really gets one nowhere. Neither do borderline personal attacks, and accusations of single-purpose editing. UserVOBO (talk) 19:53, 22 February 2010 (UTC)

But it isn't. The article upholds a distinction, common to many WP articles about individuals, between the life and the work. The complicating factor is that part of the life is sectioned off into a different section. I proposed a compromise some time back which preserved that structure, but made sure that the issue was sufficiently highlighted in the Biography section. If that compromise is no longer acceptable, we should look at different options.KD Tries Again (talk) 19:57, 22 February 2010 (UTC)KD Tries Again

The "Heidegger and National Socialism" section states, in part, "The Löwith account from 1936 has been cited to contradict the account given in the Spiegel interview in two ways: that there was no decisive break with National Socialism in 1934 and that Heidegger was willing to entertain more profound relations between his philosophy and political involvement." This is hardly evidence that the article upholds a distinction between Heidegger and his work. The point of the Heidegger and National Socialism section is to discuss both. UserVOBO (talk) 21:37, 22 February 2010 (UTC)

We must be at cross purposes. I am saying that it is quite normal for WP articles about - say - philosophers or astronomers or novelists - to be divided between a section about the life and a section about the work. Taking mvetfrog's point at face value, the Heidegger article has two sections about the life - one about a specific part of it - separated by a section about the work. Maybe this is the problem. Incidentally, the point about the Lowith account is one of several indications that the H. & National Socialism section needs updating anyway; for several years, commentators relied on Lowith to contradict the Der Spiegel version; this is no longer necessary, as we now have other and more direct sources.KD Tries Again (talk) 22:09, 22 February 2010 (UTC)KD Tries Again

The Heidegger and National Socialism is about his life and his work. So, what we have are a section about the life, a section about the work, and a section about both. I don't see that as posing a problem. UserVOBO (talk) 04:28, 23 February 2010 (UTC)

Snowded apparently believes that any edit he disagrees with is from a sock puppet and that he can revert the edit for no other reason than his faith in this principle. I am not a sock puppet. Although I have no way of proving this to you, I do not see why I should have to. The use of the term "national socialism" is overly broad and could refer to various movements that use that name. I am attempting to clarify which brand of National Socialism Heidegger was associated with, since Snowded and his ilk will not allow the article to use the word (Nazism) that is more accurate, more widely used in scholarly research, and more widely understood. I do not understand why there is a need to maintain the ambiguity that Snowded clearly covets. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Brain.wilson (talk • contribs) 21:57, 28 February 2010 (UTC)

You are a newly created editor, who is only concerned with this page (Oh and some clear vandalism on the one other page you have edited). Sorry with the history of the last two weeks around this issue I'm afraid I am suspicious. The pattern of person abuse, failing to follow WP:AGF in your comment above is further evidence, matching the behaviour of our serial sock. If you don't revert and address content issues rather than attacking editors then I will be less suspicious. My view on the ledge (previously stated) is that either NS or N will do, although in general I think NS should be applied. I also don't think there is any risk of confusion. However lets see what other editors think.

Snowded has reverted my change once again, claiming that the "pipe link" makes it clear that I am a sock puppet. I do not know what the "pipe link" is, but since I am not a sock puppet, it cannot possibly make it clear that I am. He further adds that I should "Make your case on the talk page". However, I tried to do this last week, and Snowded refused to discuss the issue. He simply said that "the debate has moved on anyway" and when I asked for a more substantive response, he implied that I was a sock puppet.

The term National Socialism has been applied to movements of several countries, as Wikipedia's own page on the subject makes clear. Therefore, it is ambiguous which National Socialist movement Heidegger was associated with. I am trying to clarify this ambibuity. How can this possibly be objectionable?

Why is it that Snowded has such a vested interest in maintaining this ambiguity? Brain.wilson (talk) 22:10, 28 February 2010 (UTC)

What vested interest are you referring to or inferring? --Snowded ^TALK 22:14, 28 February 2010 (UTC)

Your clear desire to obfuscate Heigegger's involvement with Nazism.Brain.wilson (talk) 22:39, 28 February 2010 (UTC)

I suggest you strike that remark. Its offensive and untrue. Continued attacks on editors can end up with you getting blocked, --Snowded ^TALK 22:40, 28 February 2010 (UTC)

You are unable to explain why Wikipedia must refer to Heidegger's involvement with Nazism as involvement with National Socialism. Since the term you prefer is overly broad, less used in scholarly research, and less widely understood by the general public, I assume that you must want to obscure his involvement with Nazism. What other explanation is there?Brain.wilson (talk) 22:45, 28 February 2010 (UTC)

Try reading the multiple comments and discussions above, there have been several discussions of this and I have others have made our positions clear. If you check my original compromise proposal you will see how absurd the above accusation is. You need to calm down and read the guidelines on how to edit Wikipedia. --Snowded ^TALK 22:51, 28 February 2010 (UTC)

I am quite calm and would prefer that you not project your own emotional state onto me. I offered a rebuttal to your arguments on Feb. 13th in the first section of this discussion page. You refused to respond to the substance of my rebuttal. Instead you chose to attack me as a sock-puppet. As I stated in my rebuttal, the claim that National Socialism should be used rather than Nazism because Nazism has a wider meaning is nonsensical, given that National Socialism also has a wider meaning. Your secondary claim that Nazism is "the historically correct and professional term (as used in Encyclopedia Britannia, etc)" is refuted by the fact that scholarly journals routinely favor the term "Nazism" over "National Socialism". In fact, the online version of Encyclopedia Britanica, which you provide as an example of professionals favoring the term "National Socialism", uses "Nazi" an order of magnitude more often than "National Socialism". You cite Linder as support for your argument, yet the particular passage that you link to is an explanation by Linder as to why he will use the term "Nazi" rather than "National Socialist" throughout his book. As I stated, I fail to see why this is evidence that Wikipedia should do the opposite.

Perhaps you should try responding to the multiple rebuttals to your arguments given above. Rather than dismissing arguments that refute yours as sock puppetry, you need to calm down and read the guidelines on how to have civil discussions among Wikipedia editors.Brain.wilson (talk) 01:56, 1 March 2010 (UTC)

Aside from the first two (inaccurate) sentences and the comical last paragraph, the remainder of this does not reference me or arguments that I have made as far as I can see. --Snowded ^TALK 05:26, 1 March 2010 (UTC)

The first sentence which you claim is inaccurate makes a claim about my own emotional state and my own personal preference. You apparently feel that you know more about my own emotional state and personal preferences than I do. That is really quite remarkable, given that you don't know me.

The second sentence which you claim is inaccurate asserts that I offered a rebuttal to your arguments on Feb. 13th in the first section of this discussion page. The rebuttal is right here on this page. I don't know how you could possibly claim that it is not there.

As to your claim that I am responding to arguments that you have not made, you wrote on Feb. 12th that the term Nazi was not appropriate because "It has a wider meaning than National Socialist and its inappropriate for the article on Heidegger."

And, I will note, that you still have not responded substantively.

The point I made back in February was that the discussion had moved on. Answered had been given to the points you raised later in the discussion. As I said at the time, the discussion had moved and and you needed to catch up/read. There is no obligation on editors to repeat points already made. Your paragraph above makes various references to The Encyclopedia Britannia & Linder, neither of who I have referenced, so your answer is confused as it its target and I still think you should calm down a bit. The vandalism on Elizabeth Cheney being another illustration. --Snowded ^TALK 07:23, 2 March 2010 (UTC)

Heidegger was a German, and there is no other kind of National Socialism he could possibly be associated with than German National Socialism. 'Clarifying' that it was German National Socialism he was associated with is completely unnecessary and just makes a mess of the lead. UserVOBO (talk) 23:20, 28 February 2010 (UTC)

You feel that replacing "National Socialism" with "German National Socialism" makes a mess of the lede. As Wikipedia itself states, "National Socialism" is a term that refers to movements in several different countries. Yet somehow simply adding the disambiguating word "German" makes a mess of the lede?Brain.wilson (talk) 01:56, 1 March 2010 (UTC)

It makes a mess of the lead to add things that are not necessary. It is not necessary to say that Heidegger's National Socialism was German, because he was German. No one except you is worried that readers of the article will come away with the impression that Heidegger was involved with Chilean Nazism. UserVOBO (talk) 07:14, 1 March 2010 (UTC)

I see. You believe that Germans can only be involved with German National Socialism. You believe that there were no Germans involved in Chilean National Socialism. You are, of course, simply wrong. Several of the founders of the Chilean National Socialist Party were German.Brain.wilson (talk) 01:58, 2 March 2010 (UTC)

There is no reason why readers would think that Heidegger was involved with founding the Chilean National Socialist Party, and it borders on trolling to suggest there is. I have no interest in continuing this discussion. UserVOBO (talk) 07:22, 2 March 2010 (UTC)

This is actually a good point. Nazism is more specific than National Socialism. — goethean ॐ 02:11, 2 March 2010 (UTC)

I don't think there is any danger of confusion here, and at the time he made his various statements he had joined the National Socialist Party and supported its leader Hitler. I think his philosophy led him to require some instantiation of meaning (as it did for Sartre in a different political context) but that is not relevant here. In a compromise I proposed many years ago I suggested using Nazi in the lede where reference is made to his controversy, but National Socialist elsewhere, other than one specific case where he explicitly supported Hitler. I still think that is a sensible way forward if there is real disagreement here. However I would prefer the consistent use of National Socialist throughout. --Snowded ^TALK 07:23, 2 March 2010 (UTC)

Would you summarize the arguments for using National Socialism (if there are any others) rather than Nazism, in order to save me from reading a book-length collection of talk page threads? — goethean ॐ 15:23, 2 March 2010 (UTC)

Where Are We At?

I don't wish to misrepresent anyone, so pleasee correct me if I am wrong. My perception is that:

• Some editors would prefer to have no direct statements of support for Nazism by Heidegger in the section labeled Biography. For myself, I think that's hard to support, and I would prefer to have at least one appropriate quote.

Maybe we should all take time to think about this, but at the end of the day I don't see any way to resolve the issue except by reviewing relevant sources.KD Tries Again (talk) 23:41, 22 February 2010 (UTC)KD Tries Again

The structure of the article is best left the way it is. Integrating the "Heidegger and Nazism" section into the biographical section might seem like a good idea, but that would then mean there is an extremely large amount of material before any discussion of Heidegger's philosophy. This would be a very awkward way of presenting things, if not an inherent distortion. It is much better to include a description of his life, as with most other biographical entries of this kind, followed by the description of his work, followed by the extended description of his Nazi entanglement. This makes sense: life, work, Nazi controversy. I know I am repeating myself, but this has nothing to do with taking a stand on any of the questions about the way these three things interrelate, nor does it have anything to do with sources, nor does it have anything to do with "toning" anything "down": it is simply a question of the most suitable way of presenting these three aspects of any serious Heidegger article. The structure as it exists is the best structure. Finally, it is not at all true that Heidegger scholarship is "single purpose": the question of the relationship between Heidegger's life, work and politics is extremely complex, with many diverse analyses by many serious scholars (literally hundreds of books and articles on the topic). That they all think it was bad to be associated with Nazis does not at all diminish this complexity or this diversity. But on the other hand there are single purpose editors of Wikipedia who have no interest in this diversity nor this complexity, but have the sole interest of attacking Heidegger via Wikipedia, an interest which comes at the expense of the article itself. I cannot possibly see how pointing this out is a "straw man" argument: it is the very situation which has led to the current block of one editor. Mtevfrog (talk) 02:55, 23 February 2010 (UTC)

We do have some disagreements then. I didn't, of course, say that all Heidegger scholarship is single purpose. That would be ludicrous. What I've said several times, and nobody has contested it, is that all book-length studies of Heidegger over recent years have dealt with the Nazism issue in the context of his life and work; it is no longer the case, as it once was, that his politics can be dealt with as a footnote or in an appendix. I think the same is true of encyclopaedia articles of any substantial length, but I am willing to be contradicted. The works I've cited, both on this page and in the article, reflect the diversity and complexity of the issue, but it is central to all of them. The structure of this WP article makes it appear peripheral. I've suggested a compromise, but as I said above asking for some statement of Heidegger to be incorporated in the first half of the article - the part labeled Biography - really is very, very minimal in the context of current Heidegger scholarship.KD Tries Again (talk) 03:29, 23 February 2010 (UTC)KD Tries Again

My view is that the bibliography should explicitly mention his membership of the National Socialist Party and his support for Hitler. I don't think there is a need for a quote there (better later in the article) but I don't object to a short one in the body of the text. The earlier form was too prominent and better in the section on national socialism anyway. Overall I take the view that Heidegger's philosophy stands whether he supported the Nazi's or not. The view that if someone was a National Socialist then that is the most important aspect of their life is not necessarily the case, and certainly not with Heidegger. However for some editors any association is enough. --Snowded ^TALK 07:17, 27 February 2010 (UTC)

I always respect your opinion, but things have changed in the last few years, and the view that Heidegger's work cannot be considered apart from his Nazism is now mainstream scholarly opinion. There is not yet a consensus, but the list of Heidegger scholars who see the philosophical work and politics as inseparable is now too long to be overlooked (I don't necessarily agree). And I have no doubt that the best-selling book on Heidegger over the last couple of years is Faye's, which argues that his life and work is entirely reducible to promotion of Nazism. That remains an extreme opinion. Of course, what's really needed is some solid work on the Nazism section, but I don't have much time for it right now.KD Tries Again (talk) 23:03, 27 February 2010 (UTC)KD Tries Again

I do not know how much regard you have for Leo Strauss' commentaries about Heidegger. But he said that for sure Heidegger's emphasis on preferring momentary resoluteness to long-term prudence would drive him to become a Nazi, but his philosophy is not inherently pro-Nazi. What's your take? Wandering Courier (talk) 23:15, 27 February 2010 (UTC)

I suppose my fault in this respect is that I have read Heidegger, but not many books about Heidegger and there no recently. I'd be happy to reflect that body of the work in the section, and I'd be interested if you have any commentary on the distribution of that opinion. Is it just US for example. He and Sartre took different roads, but it seems to be that in both cases their philosophy and social interactions drove them to a political position; while there is some inevitable co-evolution its not co-dependency. --Snowded ^TALK 06:08, 28 February 2010 (UTC)

Strauss said that there is no possibility of ethics in Heidegger, but man cannot be without the society/community so Heidegger must resolutely clinch onto the historical destiny of his nation, namely, at the time Germany in its Nazi form. But this appears to be an accident that Heidegger was born into the era, if he was born in a country where a left-wing national liberation movement was fomenting he would be likely an enthusiastic supporter of that movement. I read some of Sartre, and Sartre differs from Heidegger that he actually did have one, if idiosyncratic, set of ethics. But his adherence to leftist socialism may be the same source from Heideggerian resoluteness, that he happened to be living in a time where socialism was the fad. If Sartre lived in Germany with Heidegger, he might well have had the same destiny as Heidegger did. No insult to Sartre, who I personally have great regard of, but I believe with some tweak in accidents Sartre might have chosen to become a collaborationist in Vichy France. Wandering Courier (talk) 06:39, 28 February 2010 (UTC)

Agree, its the whole stabbing your hand with that of your mistress in the cafe in Roads to Freedom thing. Mind you I always found Sartre and Camus got their ideas across better in their novels, one wonders what would have happened if Heidegger had the literary ability of a Mann! --Snowded ^TALK 07:08, 28 February 2010 (UTC)

Incidentally, I stumbled upon and read this today and was amused that this British gentleman believes radical Islamism was "existentialist" in character, which would be consistent with both Heidegger and Sartre's support for radical/extremist ideologies in different ways. Wandering Courier (talk) 07:51, 28 February 2010 (UTC)

Strauss, Lukacs, Adorno all castigated Heidegger for his politics; but really everything published more than ten to twenty years ago suffers from ignorance of the seminar/lecture notes, correspondence and other documents which have been steadily appearing in recent years. Not only is the Gesmtausgabe still not complete, there remains a lot of unpublished archival material. I listed a bunch of recent books further up the page, but the books by Bambach (2003) and Faye (2005) are essential reading. Not necessarily for the commentary (some of which is downright bizarre in Faye) but for all the new material from Heidegger which is quoted. Not a U.S. thing - the issue has been big in France and Germany too.KD Tries Again (talk) 15:59, 28 February 2010 (UTC)KD Tries Again

Lead expansion

The current lead only mentions his book, the fact that he was German, and he was a member of the Nazi party, and I think it is both insufficient and giving some facts undue weight over others. What was his main ideas? On the article of Hegel there is mention that he was a historicist who was a founder of German idealism, on Plato it must say that his idea was theory of forms. On Heidegger, however, one cannot know what his philosophy is roughly like from the lead. Therefore, I propose adding that 1) He revolutionized the concept of Being from always be to being at the present moment, and thereby rejected metaphysics 2) He was in the phenomenology tradition associated with Husserl, and lastly, 3) He was a critic of the rational-technological society of his time. Admittedly I have not read Heidegger's book personally, but my knowledge of Heidegger mostly comes from essays on him by one of his fellow German philosopher, Leo Strauss. So correct me if I am wrong in any of those aforementioned facts. Regards. Wandering Courier (talk) 22:15, 26 February 2010 (UTC)

The text you wanted to add was, "Imbued in the tradition of phenomenology, he attacked metaphysics and focused on fundamental problems of ontology." I find that to be unacceptable because it is obscure (not all readers would know what "imbued" means), sensational (the use of the word "attacked" rather than something more neutral or academic), and vague (how did Heidegger 'attack' metaphysics and in what way did he focus on the fundamental problems of ontology?). Maybe some revised version of that would be acceptable. See what Mtevfrog thinks. UserVOBO (talk) 01:25, 27 February 2010 (UTC)

I agree with both these problems; and I understand the frustration with summarizing Heidegger. Heidegger went through a lot of changes in his career (academics refer to it as “Heidegger I and Heidegger II” [even in publications, e.g. Dreyfus “Being-in -he-world; Commentary on Being and Time Division I”]).

However, in reference to this statement: "Imbued in the tradition of phenomenology, he attacked metaphysics and focused on fundamental problems of ontology."

I propose: “Heidegger undertook a “destruction” of the entire tradition of philosophy from the perspective of phenomenological-hermeneutics[1][2]. He begins this work in “Phenomenological Interpretation of Aristotle; an initiation to phenomenological research”; which are published lectures he delivered in 1921-1922[3]. He further develops his method in “Ontology--The Hermeneutics of Facticity”; and undertakes the “destruction” in “Being and Time”. A subsequent publication by the name of “The Basic Problems of Phenomenology” adds specificity to Heidegger’s claims as he directly applies his method to many authors within the western philosophical tradition; most notably Kant, Aristotle, Hobbs, Mill, and Aquinas.[4] ”

In terms of the lead, we can’t say that he was in the same school of thought as Husserl (on of his teachers); he actually began a new school of phenomenology which is in direct contention with Husserl’s. He disagreed with the subject-object dichotomy that Husserl inherited from Descartes. You are close on the question of being: he contended that the philosophical tradition had completely missed every day experience and concentrated on the “universals” of being. This either in terms of objects (a being) or an empty concept of being (a metaphysics). He sought to build a “fundamental ontology” that is to say, an ontology of Being in its ‘transitive form’. He uses the German word Dasein which in colloquial speech meant just everyday existence (Dreyfus gives the example “earning your daily bread| [earning your daily dasein]”). Heidegger saw the same problem with the usage of this word in Germany and the usage of Being in the western tradition. He deconstructs the etymology of the word into Da-Sein [there-being], translated Being-There and begins his analysis. On the question of Technology, your right…

[1] Ontology--The Hermeneutics of Facticity-Martin Heidegger [2] Being and Time- Ibid. [3] Phenomenological Interpretation of Aristotle; an initiation to phenomenological research-Ibid [4] Basic Problems of Phenomenology-Ibid

I have these books so I will reference appropriately if these are changes that we would want to make… —Preceding unsigned comment added by Pessimistic Realist (talk • contribs) 09:47, 11 June 2010 (UTC)

Full protection: please use 'editprotected' to get changes made

It looks like User:Jonathansamuel is now prepared to waste our time indefinitely. He failed in his efforts at persuasion, and of course he knows he is right, so he is turning all his talents to the creation of registered socks. I've put a month of full protection on the article, but I hope that all the regular editors will not be too inconvenienced. When you have something to add, leave a note on this Talk page with the {{editprotected}} template, and an admin will respond. You can also make a request on my user talk in case there is any delay. Changes requested in this way should either be uncontroversial, or be supported by a consensus. Sorry for the trouble. EdJohnston (talk) 15:41, 14 March 2010 (UTC)

I made another request for someone to look at a range block given the sock farm, pending that I think you had no alternative. Thanks --Snowded ^TALK 21:58, 14 March 2010 (UTC)

EditProtection Request

{{editprotected}} The only admin ever to examine this case on its merits, and to reach a conclusion on this Talk Page, was Poor Yorick. Please implement admin Poor Yorick's decision, which was that the Heidegger article should use both Nazism and National Socialism. One possible implementation of of admin Poor Yorick's recommended policy would be to change the first instance of National Socialism to Nazism and leave the rest as is. EddieVitelli (talk) 17:31, 14 March 2010 (UTC)

Here is what Poor Yorick had to say:

Quote of Poor Yorick's previous comments
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
"""Yes in fact they do. "All material in Wikipedia must be attributable to a reliable, published source. All articles must adhere to Wikipedia's neutrality policy, fairly representing all majority and significant-minority viewpoints that have been published by reliable sources, in rough proportion to the prominence of each view." Poor Yorick (talk) 19:54, 15 February 2010 (UTC) The reliable sources policy concerns what sources can be used. It isn't a style guide, and this is only a style issue. It is preferrable to use mainly one term for the sake of consistency and style, and I just don't think that the RS policy indicates otherwise. Since the terms mean basically the same thing, this is not a neutrality issue. UserVOBO (talk) 19:57, 15 February 2010 (UTC) There are reliable sources that use both terms, so it is a balance issue. As far as I can see this version had the support of all engaged editors other than our JS who is under a one week block. I suggest that the block on editing the article is lifted and we restore to that version, then we can start to improve from there. --Snowded TALK 20:03, 15 February 2010 (UTC) The fact that both terms are used in reliable sources is not a good reason for the article to pointlessly alternate between two terms that mean essentially the same thing. The RS policy would only be relevant if the question of what term should be used affected the article's neutrality, but it doesn't. UserVOBO (talk) 20:06, 15 February 2010 (UTC) I wasn't aware of any suggestion of pointless alternation. Using Nazi at the start linked to the reason for his controversial nature seems reasonable (we could add NS after in brackets). Thereafter use NS other than in one case where the source referenced Hitler, hence by change to Hitler at that point. --Snowded TALK 20:37, 15 February 2010 (UTC) If you want to use that MOS argument, you will need to make explicitly clear that the terms are being used interchangably in this article, and that would require the first sentence to read either Nazism (National Socialism) or National Socialism (Nazism). Because it is not immediately apparent they mean the same thing, and is thus a balance issue. For example, there are reliable sources that do not use those terms synonymously; for example, National Socialism refers to the ideology, and Nazism refers to the applied National Socialist ideology by Hitler. Poor Yorick (talk) 20:22, 15 February 2010 (UTC) I think it is sufficiently clear that the terms mean the same thing. They certainly mean the same thing to most people, and so readers are likely to assume that they mean the same unless there is some indication otherwise. Are there any Wiki articles that are written in the way you suggest this one should be? As for reliable sources, please produce the sources in question, if you want to make a serious argument. UserVOBO (talk) 20:28, 15 February 2010 (UTC) I do not wish to become an involved editor of this article. The problems of this article stemmed from the fact that are indeed disagreements on both sides; one believing National Socialism should be the prevalent term, another believing Nazism should be the prevalent term as well as placement of the controversial quote by Heidegger regarding Hitler. I am merely acting as an administrator in this conflict and I do not intend to take sides. I am merely stating the conditions that are required in order to proceed. First, the Nazism/National Socialism debate must reflect reliable source usage if it is a balance issue or be made explicitly clear it is a Manual of Style preference. Second, as discussed by another administrator regarding this issue "Heidegger's links to Nazism must not be whitewashed, but nor must they be given undue scrutiny. History does not remember Heidegger primarily as a prominent Nazi intellectual/professor, but as a philosopher of some significance. Wikipedia policy on this is clear: we ought to apportion a similar distribution of focus to subtopics of Heidegger as the majority of reliable sources do." As I said before: Is the biography section with the quote regarding Heidegger's direct quote supporting Hitler acceptable as it is now? If not, will an indirect paraphrase summarizing the quote and Freiberg dismissal be acceptable, with the direct quote and details of the Freiburg dismissal placed in the "Heidegger and Nazism" section? Do reliable sources discuss the quote in a subsection regarding Heidegger's Nazi connections or do they include it in their biographies? Poor Yorick (talk) 20:47, 15 February 2010 (UTC)""" EddieVitelli (talk) 17:31, 14 March 2010 (UTC)

• EddieVitelli, since this is your only edit on Wikipedia, it is reasonable to assume that you are actually User:Jonathansamuel, who is indefinitely blocked. I'll wait to see if anyone else comments here. Under the rules, your comment could be removed from the page, but I'll leave it for now. EdJohnston (talk) 17:47, 14 March 2010 (UTC)

I agree with Poor Yorick. It seems using both terms would appease both sides of the argument. It also seems that most Wikipedia pages that deal with National Socialism / Nazism use both terms. 72.93.213.25 (talk) 18:55, 14 March 2010 (UTC)

I urge the reviewing admin to decline this request. This article has been the subject of sockpuppet and meatpuppet attacks for over the past month and all edits by the puppets are the same and all have to deal with Wikipedia "whitewashing" Heidegger's "nazism". A glance over the article history would show a strong consensus of editors that reverts these additions as vandalism. ThemFromSpace 08:48, 15 March 2010 (UTC)

Not done: please establish a consensus for this alteration before using the {{edit protected}} template.. By the way, any editor can remove an inappropriate {{editprotected}} request. — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 11:28, 15 March 2010 (UTC)

Second EditProtection Request And Request For Review Of First EditProtection Request

{{editprotected}} A consensus exists throughout WikiPedia that links to both Nazism and National Socialism are allowed. For instance, there is a Wikipedia article entitled Nazi Party. Yet on this Heidegger article, and this Heidegger article alone, single-minded editors have banned use of the link Nazism and replaced all instances of it with National Socialism.

Please modify the first paragraph so that the link points to Nazism and not National Socialism.

Here is the text of the initial EditProtection request. I ask that the initial EditProtection request be appealed, reopened and reviewed: EddieVitelli (talk) 12:28, 15 March 2010 (UTC)

Oppose, yet another product of the sock farm trying another route --Snowded ^TALK 13:48, 15 March 2010 (UTC)

Not done: please establish a consensus for this alteration before using the {{edit protected}} template. — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 17:20, 15 March 2010 (UTC)

Nazi/National Socialist

I haven't changed my mind that the term "National Socialist" is usually preferrable to "Nazi". This is not for any "emotive" preference that I might have for "National Socialist", but precisely because some seem to prefer the term "Nazi" for emotive reasons - foolish as it is, since they refer to the same thing, some people think "Nazi" a worse term than "National Socialist", and they want to use the worst term. However, I believe that probably slightly more editors (KD Tries Again, Snowded, and Mephistophelian) would like to see at least some of the "National Socialist" references in the article changed to "Nazi" than would prefer to see the current wording retained. I am happy to agree to such a change if it is based on a genuine consensus of Wikipedia editors and is not being done simply to appease the persistent sockpuppeteer Jonthansamuel. UserVOBO (talk) 00:21, 16 March 2010 (UTC)

My suggestion remains that there is a case for saying that the reason he is controversial is that he was associated with the Nazis (see earlier compromise). However for me that was a way of avoiding an edit war. I think that National Socialist should be used consistently. Our sock would not accept the compromise, so putting in that change will not stop the attacks on the page.--Snowded ^TALK 00:36, 16 March 2010 (UTC)

It might be helpful to have an informal poll on the issue to see where the editors interested in the issue stand now. UserVOBO (talk) 00:49, 16 March 2010 (UTC)

Third request

Following discussions with both Snowden and EdJohnston, I'd like to recommend the following changes.

• In the lead section, the last sentence should link to the Nazi Party and read as follows:

However, Heidegger remains controversial for his political views, and membership of the National Socialist German Workers' Party (abbrev. Nazi Party) from 1933 to 1945.

• The heading titled 'Heidegger and National Socialism' should be altered to read:

Heidegger and Nazism

• The three instances of 'NSDAP' should be replaced by 'National Socialist', 'Nazi Party', 'the party', or a similar expression.
• Under the sub-heading 'Freiburg', there is no need for an internal link to a position further down the article.

(i) By changing the lead section in the way shown above, there would be a direct link to the article on the Nazi Party, a more substantive and higher quality article than that on National Socialism. The sentence allows editors to use the terms 'National Socialist' and 'Nazi' interchangably and without any prospect of confusing the reader. In addition, the passage informs the reader that Heidegger is controversial for both his views and his membership of the party, an important point.

(ii) The appropriate heading title should be identical to that of the main article on 'Heidegger and Nazim'.

(iii) 'NSDAP' is not a valid abbreviation since Nationalsozialistische Deutsche Arbeiterpartei is never used in the article. 'National Socialist', 'Nazi', 'Nazi Party' or 'the party' should be used, depending upon the context and as long as no terms are used repeatedly in a single sentence.

(iv) Uncontroversial clean-up.

Nb. Instances of the term 'National Socialism' or 'National Socialist' should always be kept where they are quoations. If x refers to Heidegger in a book as subscribing 'to National Socialism' then they should be quoted as saying such, and not 'to Nazism'.  Mephistophelian (talk ● contributions) 00:41, 16 March 2010 (UTC)

I do not agree with Mephistophelian's proposed change to the sentence the lead ends with. "Political views" is vague and seems almost evasive - we need to be totally explicit about what ideology Heidegger endorsed. Either "Heidegger remains controversial due to his involvement with National Socialism" or "Heidegger remains controversial due to his involvement with Nazism" would be better. Also it needs to be clear that issue wasn't simply Heidegger's involvement with the Nazi Party but his involvement with Nazism as a way of life. UserVOBO (talk) 00:45, 16 March 2010 (UTC)

(ec): National Socialist should be used in headings etc. and in all cases other then when another term is used in a reliable source. Lede phrase is clumsy, better "Heidegger remains controversial for his involvement with the Nazis from 1933 to 1945. --Snowded ^TALK 00:49, 16 March 2010 (UTC)

UserVOBO, the term 'involvement' is then equally 'vague'. There are, of course, degrees to which one can be 'involved' with a party or ideology. Other terms include 'engagement' and 'affiliation', but neither indicate the extent of his belief, which is still in debate. Heidegger is controversial also for his post-war comments and interviews, so the phrase "Heidegger remains controversial for his involvement with the Nazis from 1933 to 1945," wouldn't be quite appropriate. It's important to state that the controversy didn't expire in 1945. Since both 'Nazi/s/sm' and 'National Socialist'/'National Socialism' are currently used in the text, it's necessary and proper to include the full title of the party and abbreviation at the earliest opportunity.

Is the following preferable to either of you:

"However, Heidegger remains controversial for his involvement with the National Socialist German Workers' Party (abbrev. Nazi Party) from 1933 to 1945, and his post-war political views."

 Mephistophelian (talk ● contributions) 01:19, 16 March 2010 (UTC)

I would consider using the full name of the Nazi Party rather cumbersome and probably unnecessary, and again, it's necessary to be more specific than "political views." UserVOBO (talk) 02:42, 16 March 2010 (UTC)

"However, Heidegger's influence has been marred by the controversy surrounding his long-term membership of the National Socialist Party, his speeches and writings in support of it, and by concern expressed over the relationship between his political and philosophical thought."

• The above sentence is more specific, and I've dropped the dates in favour of 'long-term' to try and improve construction. I had a look for the GA review, but couldn't find it. I'd be interested to see it if it still exists. In any case, judging by the archives, concern over the wording of the article dates back to the time the article was written. A shame it never made it to GA status. Let me have any more suggestions for the introduction or elsewhere.  Mephistophelian (talk ● contributions) 05:58, 16 March 2010 (UTC)

"Heidegger's influence has been marred" is a rather unfortunate turn of phrase. The issue, I suppose, is the damage his endorsement of Nazism caused his reputation, not his "influence" - which might imply that Heidegger's Nazism is bad because it has prevented him from being more influential. UserVOBO (talk) 20:20, 16 March 2010 (UTC)

• Valid point. Well noted.  Mephistophelian (talk ● contributions) 20:31, 16 March 2010 (UTC)

Part of the problem (and we need to reflect this) is that some people judge his philosophy through the lens of his membership of the National Socialist Party. Others (including myself) feel that his Philosophy would have inclined him to support the Nazis as Sartre (for similar reasons) supported the Communists although with less commitment. For many people his philosophy is not marred or damaged in any way, but his character is. --Snowded ^TALK 23:03, 16 March 2010 (UTC)

I can only repeat what I've said already, but it might just be worth it. Polling individual editors here on the degree of Heidegger's involvement is a specious exercise. The article should reflect the current balance of views expressed in reliable sources. I have listed, I believe, all the key sources, but I will do so again below. That his philosophy cannot be read other than in the context of his engagement with Nazism is at the very least a mainstream, respectable viewpoint; arguably it is now the majority view of active Heidegger scholars; there is not, however, universal consensus. If anyone disagrees with my assessment, let's roll our sleeves up and discuss, but so far most editors participating here have said they haven't looked at the recent literature. Not much I can do about that. I still regard the Nazi/National Socialism debate as, in comparison, quite trivial - but casual familiarity with the sources will show both terms widely used. Both should appear in the article; at any rate, I'd like to see someone come up with an authentic reason for excluding "Nazism" when it appears in the title of many works about Heidegger.KD Tries Again (talk) 23:48, 16 March 2010 (UTC)KD Tries Again

Sources: The main biographical source for this article has to be Ott, Martin Heidegger: A Political Life, the authoritative work in German or English. ...(I)t is no longer the case that Heidegger's political involvement is treated by scholarship as a footnote to his biography. For better or worse, it is the main topic in current Heidegger scholarship and many works now treat it thematically - as a topic of philosophical analysis - and not just biographically. Among these are Charles Bambach,Heidegger's Roots; Hans Sluga Heidegger's Crisis; Julian Young, Heidegger, Philosophy and Nazism; Farias, Heidegger and the Nazis; the expanded edition of Poggeler, Heidegger's Denkweg; Faye, Heidegger, L'introduction du Nazisme dans la Philosophie; papers by Kisiel, Sheehan and many others; and collections such as Margolis & Rockmore (eds) Heidegger and Nazism; Wolin (ed) The Heidegger Controversy and Neske and Kettering (eds) Heidegger and National Socialism: Questions and Answers. There are works by Derrida and Lacoue-Labarthe too, but I think we have enough. (I have most of these, and get at all of them quite easily.)KD Tries Again (talk) 23:55, 16 March 2010 (UTC)KD Tries Again

Happy to accept it is a view, and that it may be the dominant (but not exclusive) one in current scholarship. Happy to accept that Nazi should be linked to the controversy in the lede and that his direct support of Hitler should be there as well. Section titles and reference to party name should be National Socialist, otherwise as per reference. Its been the sensible way forward throughout. --Snowded ^TALK 00:14, 17 March 2010 (UTC)

I am sure somesuch compromise would be just fine. Excluding the term "nazism" from the article entirely would be inappropriate, as it's quite evidently widely used in the scholartly literature - just look at the titles above.KD Tries Again (talk) 20:17, 17 March 2010 (UTC)KD Tries Again

Well my proposal (previously agreed) still stands, if it had not been for the sock farm it would be there and stable --Snowded ^TALK 21:47, 17 March 2010 (UTC)

Nothing about Hitler and no reference to "Nazism" in the current lede. As it stands, it might reflect the preference of one editor or another, but doesn't reflect your proposal. Annoying, it's now locked. Snowded, do you find the following lede acceptable? If you do, maybe we can get some other editors on board and keep it stable. The sock puppet business is an annoying distraction - any editor who can't live with the following needs to come here and make the case that it somehow doesn't reflect current scholarship:

"Martin Heidegger (26 September 1889 – 26 May 1976) (German pronunciation: [ˈmaɐ̯tiːn ˈhaɪ̯dɛɡɐ]) was an influential German philosopher. His best known book, Being and Time, is considered to be one of the most important philosophical works of the 20th century. Heidegger remains controversial due to his involvement with Nazism and statements of support for Adolf Hitler."

KD Tries Again (talk) 14:35, 18 March 2010 (UTC)KD Tries Again

Deal if we then leave the rest --Snowded ^TALK 14:43, 18 March 2010 (UTC)

The section on Heidegger and Nazism does need updating - and I think the best way to do it is to update the separate article first. If I can find time, I'll do that. But I am not going to be ploughing through the article changing National Socialism to Nazism, if that's what you mean.KD Tries Again (talk) 15:06, 18 March 2010 (UTC)KD Tries Again

I didn't think you would, just want it documented and agreed for others. Oh the book you recommended has now arrived at home by the way - I will pick it up when I land Saturday. --Snowded ^TALK 15:09, 18 March 2010 (UTC)

The suggestion seems fine to me. I'm aware of some of the recent literature, but nothing really in the last five/six years. I still feel that 'NSDAP' should be changed for the reasons given, perhaps with the first instance changed to 'Nazi Party', the second to 'of the party' instead of 'in the NSDAP', and the third to 'Nazis'. If I can be of any assistance later, I'd be quite happy to take a look at some of the recent papers and journals. Best.  Mephistophelian (talk ● contributions) 16:29, 18 March 2010 (UTC)

I support KD Tries Again's proposed wording for the lede. AJRG (talk) 16:51, 18 March 2010 (UTC)

No objection. UserVOBO (talk) 18:54, 19 March 2010 (UTC)

{{editprotected}} The above discussion under Third Request has resulted in a consensus.

• The lede should be as follows: "Martin Heidegger (26 September 1889 – 26 May 1976) (German pronunciation: [ˈmaɐ̯tiːn ˈhaɪ̯dɛɡɐ]) was an influential German philosopher. His best known book, Being and Time, is considered to be one of the most important philosophical works of the 20th century. Heidegger remains controversial due to his involvement with Nazism and statements of support for Adolf Hitler."  Mephistophelian † 19:32, 19 March 2010 (UTC)

•  Done I have changed the article lead as proposed in the above {{editprotected}} request, since I agree that it has consensus. EdJohnston (talk) 01:36, 20 March 2010 (UTC)

Edit request from PCpaul196, 9 May 2010

{{editsemiprotected}} Please change, "Heidegger died on May 26, 1976 and was burried in the Meßkirch cemetery." "Burried" should be "buried." PCpaul196 (talk) 10:53, 9 May 2010 (UTC)

•  Done --Snowded ^TALK 11:03, 9 May 2010 (UTC)

Suspicious pattern of editing by new accounts

Over the last several days, this article has seen a suspicious pattern of editing by new accounts. See this edit by HerrWiki, and this rather similar edit by SteveAzniak, which made similar changes to the section dealing with criticism of Heidegger by Levinas. Both accounts started editing only very recently, and both have, among other things, changed "National Socialism" to "Nazism", which was a preoccupation of Jonathansamuel's (the accounts were created within days of each other, HerrWiki on April 11 and SteveAzniak on April 12). I have advised both accounts that their behavior could create a suspicion of sockpuppetry.

I apologize in advance if my suspicions turn out to be baseless, but it's starting to look as though the article is being targeted by Jonathansamuel again. UserVOBO (talk) 23:20, 13 May 2010 (UTC)

We need to be careful of WP:BITE here, but I agree their are similarities in set up and name style to Jonathansamuel. Lets see how it pans out. --Snowded ^TALK 04:36, 14 May 2010 (UTC)

Given this edit by HerrWiki, reverting me without any comment or explanation, it's almost certainly sockpuppetry. Continuing a given behavior after being warned it will create a suspicion of sockpuppetry in the minds of other editors doesn't look like an innocent mistake. These accounts have such a similar history (both created in mid-April 2010, then both remaining dormant till mid-May 2010, then making similar edits to the same part of this article within days of each other) that it's most unlikely to be coincidence. UserVOBO (talk) 08:13, 14 May 2010 (UTC)

Again, see this edit by SteveAzniak, making the same change as HerrWiki, and likewise doing so without any comment or explanation, and after being warned that this kind of editing will create a suspicion of sockpuppetry. Just possibly, this is meatpuppetry rather than sockpuppetry, but it hardly seems likely there's an innocent explanation. UserVOBO (talk) 22:03, 14 May 2010 (UTC)

Looks like s/hes back again 0 may need to go under protection again--Snowded ^TALK 06:57, 15 May 2010 (UTC)

Note that the HerrWiki account was created at exactly 16:41 on April 11, which was immediately after a checkuser request lead to many of Jonathansamuel's sockpuppets being blocked. The name HerrWiki is similar to MonsieurWiki, one of the socks that was blocked. UserVOBO (talk) 00:33, 16 May 2010 (UTC)

Copyright problem?

Judging from the style of writing, the length of discussion and style of discussion, and the lack of refs where one would expect them, I am concerned that this article is largely lifted from elsewhere. Some for example may be from [User talk:Epeefleche/Archive 1 here], though there is no telling where it is from -- much may be from an off-internet source. Thoughts?--Epeefleche (talk) 10:25, 20 May 2010 (UTC)

I doubt it. Did you mean to provide a link to the possible source?KD Tries Again (talk) 03:36, 27 May 2010 (UTC)KD Tries Again

I expect it is a source that is not on-line (whether a book or an essay). There are many of those. The style of writing (critical POV commentary) is normal for bios and essays, but not for encylopaedias/wp. That, coupled with swaths being unsourced, heightens my concern.--Epeefleche (talk) 06:41, 27 May 2010 (UTC)

I would need a specific reason to be concerned. Much of the article was written by an editor with a strong interest in Heidegger, and I've no reason to believe he needed to reproduce texts from other sources. If there are any problematic statements which need sources, please highlight them. Sixty plus sources is not too bad by WP standards.KD Tries Again (talk) 21:25, 30 May 2010 (UTC)KD Tries Again

On Heidegger's Conceptual Break

I would like to add a note stating that Heidegger introduced a new grammar of being. Presumably, a descriptively adequate grammar does not affect the structure of an important distinction in language use. In the discussion as it is, the systematic use of complex symbols is to be regarded as the ultimate standard that determines the accuracy of any proposed grammar.

Summarizing, Heidegger assumed that relational information is necessary to impose an interpretation on nondistinctness in the sense of authentic Being. Furthermore, an important property of the types of authentic Being is not to be considered in determining a stipulation to place the constructions into various categories which are outside of the concept of Being-In-Itself. JSirgento (talk) 13:54, 21 May 2010 (UTC)

Please do not add anything without a source. UserVOBO (talk) 01:19, 23 May 2010 (UTC)

Agreed. Note -- if the tagged material remains unsourced, I've a mind to delete some or all of it.--Epeefleche (talk) 05:58, 23 May 2010 (UTC)

The inability of naturalist philosophy to engage with the nature of existence is explicit in Shakespeare's Hamlet. That representation may stem from an Andalusian Jewish understanding of the Persian Illuminationist movement then flowering in Mulla Sadra, but "Memento Mori" had been a theme of Art for millennia. Heidegger may be more rigorous, but he is not being original. AJRG (talk) 10:54, 11 June 2010 (UTC)

Flagged protection?

The flagged protection trial is going live in a day or two. I was wondering if this would be a good article to test the process? Flagged protection would allow good-faith IP revisions, while any obvious sockpuppet changes may still be rejected. Any thoughts on this? ThemFromSpace 09:52, 14 June 2010 (UTC)

No harm can be done! However our sockpupets here builds IDs with a series of edits on other pages before hitting this one, so I am not sure if that would catch him? We really need a form of protection that only allows longer term editors as a fall back. --Snowded ^TALK 09:59, 14 June 2010 (UTC)

It may be a good idea, though I'm not very familiar with the proposed system and I'm unsure how it would work in practice. Some of the changes the person behind the recent swarm of socks might want to make would be obvious, others wouldn't necessarily be so obvious. UserVOBO (talk) 00:02, 15 June 2010 (UTC)

Jesse Glenn Gray

Just created article on this significant U.S. Heidegger translator & scholar. Please either tell me it's redundant and delete, or work diligently to improve. It is currently of very low quality. Thanks.

Calamitybrook (talk) 06:02, 8 July 2010 (UTC)

Kuki Shūzō

The short list of notable students should include Kuki Shūzō. These are relevant factors to consider:

• 1. There are no other non-Europeans in this list.
• 2. In 1927, Heidegger was introduced to Kuki in Edmund Husserl's home in Freiburg before Kuki began attending lectures at the University of Marburg.
• 3. In 1933, Kuki published the first book length study of Heidegger to appear in Japanese, The Philosophy of Heidegger (Haideggā no tetsugaku).

Source: Nara, Hiroshi. (2004). The Structure of Detachment: the Aesthetic Vision of Kuki Shūzō with a translation of "Iki no kōzō." Honolulu: University of Hawaii Press. ISBN 0-8248-2735-X; ISBN 0-8248-2805-4

• 4. Heidegger referenced a conversation "between a Japanese and an inquirer" in On the Way to Language (Aus einem Gespräch von der Sprache).

Source: Heiddeger, Martin. (1971). On the Way to Language. San Francisco: Harper & Row.

Note Gesamtausgabe (Heidegger)

I. Abteilung: Veröffentlichte Schriften 1910–1976

• Aus einem Gespräch von der Sprache. (1953/54) Zwischen einem Japaner und einem Fragenden -- see also, Marra, Michael F. (2002). Japanese hermeneutics, pp. 89-202., p. 202, at Google Books

• 5. In 1957, Heidegger himself expressed a desire to have written the preface to the German translation of Kuki's 1930 book, The Structure of "Iki" (いきの構造,, Iki no kōzō).

Source: Light, Stephen. (1987). Kuki Shūzō and Jean-Paul Sartre: Influence and Counter-Influence in the Early History of Existential Phenomenology. Carbondale: Southern Illinois University Press. ISBN 0-8093-1271-9

Since Heidegger himself acknowledged a significant, years-long relationship with Kuki Shūzō and his work, this name does belong amongst the small group of students in the infobox and in the text of this article. --Tenmei (talk) 18:05, 15 July 2010 (UTC)

Arendt in lede

This edit elides a significant point and should be reverted. — goethean ॐ 04:06, 11 August 2010 (UTC)

The purpose of the lead is to summarise the main points of the article - not to include any and every fact that someone might think interesting. By all means, discuss Arendt's being Heidegger's mistress, but not in the lead, please. Including it there effectively implies that she promoted Heidegger as a thinker because she was his mistress - we owe our readers better than that. UserVOBO (talk) 06:52, 11 August 2010 (UTC)

Herbert Wetterauer drawing

I am strongly opposed to including Herbert Wetterauer's drawing of Heidegger in this article. I don't think using a drawing to show what someone looked like in an article is ever appropriate; it is particularly inappropriate to use the Wetterauer drawing, since it is in deeply bad taste. It's a cozy, folksy drawing that portrays Heidegger in a soft-edged way - the kind of thing that would have some viewers of the article thinking, "Oh gee, look at Heidegger - isn't he cute! What a character!" It hardly needs explaining why that is a wholly wrong response to Heidegger, and it's clearly not a response we should be encouraging. UserVOBO (talk) 21:48, 24 September 2010 (UTC)

Your judgment on the artistic qaulity of this drawing is only one possible opinion. I do not think that the artist has had the intention to palliate Heidegger. Contrary, it is a very good study of the difficult and also suspected and doubtful personality of Heidegger. Besides, it is the only available picture of Heidegger in Wikimedia Commons and I think, it is better than nothing. --Hirt des Seyns (talk) 22:58, 24 September 2010 (UTC)

Any drawing that portrays Heidegger in a cute or folksy way, as that drawing does, is a bad drawing, regardless of the skill with which it is done, because it's simply in bad taste and inappropriate. Wikipedia articles are not improved by adding junk of that kind; it should be removed. UserVOBO (talk) 23:06, 24 September 2010 (UTC)

You are the judge about good and bad taste? --Hirt des Seyns (talk) 23:10, 24 September 2010 (UTC)

You see the problem with this discussion. I explain why the picture is inappropriate - you respond with something that can be construed as a personal attack. In my judgment, yes, the picture is in bad taste. You have the right to disagree if you like, but not to suggest that I'm trying to force my views on everyone else, or that I'm acting as though other editors' views did not matter. UserVOBO (talk) 23:14, 24 September 2010 (UTC)

It’s a pity that the discussion comes abrupt to such an end. The picture is yet good enough for the German Wikipedia. --79.219.8.1 (talk) 09:21, 25 September 2010 (UTC)

English Wikipedia isn't German Wikipedia, and we aren't obliged to follow what they do there. UserVOBO (talk) 20:50, 25 September 2010 (UTC)

I think, there may be a problem with the copyright of the recent picture.--Das Volk (talk) 20:42, 21 February 2011 (UTC)

The "recent" picture is deleted, I have added the only available picture from Wikimedia Commons.--Das Volk (talk) 21:49, 8 July 2011 (UTC)

Nazi affiliation

In the first paragraph, I changed "involvement with Nazism" to "affiliation with Nazism". "Involvement" is a bit weasally and vague (virtually everyone in Germany was involved with Nazism, whether they were happy about it or not. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.229.55.38 (talk) 05:46, 17 November 2010 (UTC)

Reverted this edit. I agree that "involvement" is vague; the problem with "affiliation" is that it's inadvertently misleading. Heidegger was affiliated, in the strict sense of the term, with the NSDAP very briefly. That really isn't the problem. That affiliation would have been comparatively unproblematic had his contextualization of it in the "Der Spiegel" interview been accurate. It wasn't. The difficulty is much broader than the "affiliation." Maybe there are better words than "involvement" though.KD Tries Again (talk) 05:04, 4 January 2011 (UTC)KD Tries Again

Support might be better, although any characterization is problematic, given Heidegger's twists and turns and complete refusal to say anything about it post-war. There can be no doubt, however, about his approach to Nazism during the brief period of his rectorship. As George Steiner, who is otherwise overwhelmingly sympathetic to Heidegger, particularly in his critical remarks on poetry, put it: "it is vile, turgid, and brutal stuff in which the official jargon of the day blends seamlessly with Heidegger's idiom at its most hypnotic." Once something is said, it is extremely difficult to unsay it, having set the tone for the attitude, although later he moderated his approach so that it appeared congruent with another inexplicable Nazi sympathizer, the Norwegian Knut Hamsun: in bulk, the Nazis promised to eliminate the sham nature of modern society and restore authenticity to the world. The fact that they did no such thing seems not to have fazed either one, or on the other hand, it may have inspired their timidity once they realized they were caught up in the mob. In any case, given what Hitler had already done and written in Mein Kampf and the vigilante nature of his henchmen, it is extemely difficult to justify some of Heidegger's comments, for instance the one in the Freiburge Studenten Zeitung of November 3, 1933: "The Fuhrer himself is the only present embodiment and future embodiment of German action and its law." See George Steiner, Martin Heidegger, Viking Press, New York, 1978, pp. 118-24 passim.Uniquerman (talk) 18:05, 20 January 2011 (UTC)

Influenced by Adolph Hitler?

On 14 December 2010, a user contribution at 201.79.236.116 lists Adolph Hitler in the Info Box (under "Influences") as a (presumably) significant influence on the life and thought of Martin Heidegger.

How so?

Ok, well I'll play along a little. Let's look, for example, at this recent edit by a user at 98.225.167.150 on 15 December 2010:

“ Recent scholarship has shown that Heidegger was substantially influenced by St. Augustine of Hippo and that Martin Heidegger's Being and Time book would not have been possible without the influence of Augustine's thought and especially his Confessions. ”

Can we substitute Hitler's name for St. Augustine and make a similar statement? :

“ Scholarship has shown that Heidegger was substantially influenced by Adoph Hitler and that many of Heidegger's writings, teachings, treatises, and public addresses would not have been possible without the influence of Hitler's life, thought, speeches, and writings ”

From this perspective, the latter (speculative & imaginary) quote cannot be substantiated and therefore I am removing Adolph Hitler from the list of influences on Heidegger that was recently edited into the Infobox. Christian Roess (talk) 06:53, 15 December 2010 (UTC)

Indeed, it would be hard to make the case that Hitler influenced Sein und Zeit, since it was conceived before Hitler was a household name. Nevertheless, Heidegger said in his Introduction to Metaphysics, written in 1935 and reissued in 1953: "The works that are being peddled about nowadays as the philosophy of National Socialism [but] have nothing to do with the inner truth and greatness of this movement...". Furthermore, "As R. Minder has shown, Heidegger's study of Hebbel, Dichter in der Gesellschaft...of 1966, is replete with Nazi jargon of Blut and Boden and the sanctified mission of the Volk". See reference, previous section.Uniquerman (talk) 18:17, 20 January 2011 (UTC)

Humboldt University?

Heidegger remained at Freiburg im Breisgau for the rest of his life, declining a number of later offers, including one from Humboldt University of Berlin. Did he really receive a call from East Berlin after 1949? Seems strange to me given his political affiliation.--92.78.97.159 (talk) 19:16, 15 December 2010 (UTC)

Paring down of Heidegger and National Socialism section

I have pared down this section, largely because it overlaps with the article Heidegger and Nazism. Also because the section as it stood was patchy and incomplete, and in some cases was blatantly wrong (e.g. referring to Heidegger's Rectorate address by the title "The University in the New Reich" when the actual title was "The Self-Affirmation of the German University"). The full article Heidegger and Nazism is the right place for block quotes and details. The section in this article should be a smoother summary which uses direct quotation only for the most salient points.

My method was as follows: wherever elements from this article were not already covered in the other article, I merged them into the other article. Wherever they were covered in the other article, I deleted them after summarizing the principal relevant points. As much as possible, whenever I removed text from this article, I summarized the removed text in such a way that no facts were omitted in the pared down version.

I will of course admit that my edit is not perfect, and I invite other users to modify it. However, the wholesale reverts made by Goethean are inappropriate, since they reintroduce material that does not fit Wikipedia's guidelines.Wwallacee (talk) 10:48, 24 December 2010 (UTC)

Sorry, but Goethean was correct to revert. The section now is an unsustainable whitewash, with unsupported statements, misrepresentation of sources (Husserl was not able to continue using the library; look at what the sources say), and honestly reflects a lack of awareness of current scholarship. We need to go back to the previous version and edit by consensus. I don't disagree with the principle that much of the material should be in the sub-article, but what remains here should be accurate. I have restored an earlier version. Please seek consensus here before making major changes.KD Tries Again (talk) 05:17, 4 January 2011 (UTC)KD Tries Again

Orphaned references in Martin Heidegger

I check pages listed in Category:Pages with incorrect ref formatting to try to fix reference errors. One of the things I do is look for content for orphaned references in wikilinked articles. I have found content for some of Martin Heidegger's orphans, the problem is that I found more than one version. I can't determine which (if any) is correct for this article, so I am asking for a sentient editor to look it over and copy the correct ref content into this article.

Reference named "Sheehan":

• From Heidegger and Nazism: Thomas Sheehan, "Heidegger and the Nazis", a review of Victor Farias' Heidegger et le nazisme, in The New York Review of Books, Vol. XXXV, n°10, June 16, 1988, pp.38-47
• From Ernst Nolte: Sheehan, James (April 8, 1993). "Heidegger and Nazism: An Exchange". Retrieved 2007-06-21.

I apologize if any of the above are effectively identical; I am just a simple computer program, so I can't determine whether minor differences are significant or not. AnomieBOT⚡ 21:18, 24 December 2010 (UTC)

Islam

The islam section is unnecessary and unwarranted. I think it should be deleted. There isn't overwhelming evidence to show that Heidegger per se was a notable enough influence in order for this piece of information to be included in the article. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 142.1.217.237 (talk) 23:06, 22 March 2011 (UTC)

Not a single picture of him?

Brush drawing of German philosopher Martin Heidegger, made by Herbert Wetterauer.

Picasso's portrait of Daniel-Henry Kahnweiler.

Why is there not a single picture of Heidegger in the entire Article? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 212.89.209.115 (talk) 14:21, 7 June 2011 (UTC)

This is probably because there are no free images of him. I found an image on German Wikipedia, but it is a drawing, not a photo. I think it is better than nothing, so I'm posting here. I would prefer to wait a moment before adding the picture to the article. What do others think? --Vejvančický (talk | contribs) 12:42, 27 August 2011 (UTC)

When compared with the skilled art of previous times, the "modern art" of the 20th century certainly appears crude and comical.Lestrade (talk) 15:38, 28 August 2011 (UTC)Lestrade

You don't like modern art, Lestrade? In my opinion the drawing is quite a harmless and merciful, especially when comparing i. e. with Picasso's portrait of Daniel-Henry Kahnweiler. I consider this as a good chance to make one of our articles more lively. Moreover, Mr. Wetterauer is surely not a dauber :)--Vejvančický (talk | contribs) 16:08, 28 August 2011 (UTC)

We're an encyclopedia, not an art gallery. What we really need is a neutral photo, not an artist's redition. --Nuujinn (talk) 16:26, 28 August 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for your opinion, Nuujinn. Heidegger is a featured article on German Wikipedia, and the drawing is pasted directly in the lead section :) Personally, I would accept this portrait also at en:wiki (I like modern art), but your argument is surely valid. --Vejvančický (talk | contribs) 16:31, 28 August 2011 (UTC)

Nuujinn's comment is symptomatic of the state of contemporary art. It is also related to the fact that photography and cinema are the dominant visual arts today.Lestrade (talk) 20:44, 30 August 2011 (UTC)Lestrade

Meh. Perhaps I should reread "The Work of Art in an Age of Mechanical Reproduction" again, but we're an encyclopedia, not a gallery of art. It's difficult enough to find a neutral photo, artistic renditions are problematic at best. --Nuujinn (talk) 00:59, 31 August 2011 (UTC)

Since Heidegger belongs to the long list of philosophers who prefer to restrict themselves solely to the analysis of verbal concepts, it is fitting that his discursive purity is not sullied by an intuitive image.Lestrade (talk) 20:37, 31 August 2011 (UTC)Lestrade

S'ok by me. If you want to add an image of a broken hammer, that might work. --Nuujinn (talk) 23:14, 31 August 2011 (UTC)

You want to have a visual emblem as an image in a biographical article? Heidegger's use of the broken hammer example was an unfortunate choice of explanatory devices. But, then, he probably wanted to be poetic. He was verbal, not pictorial, and does not deserve an image.Lestrade (talk) 23:26, 1 September 2011 (UTC)Lestrade

It does not exist a photography, showing Heidegger, with a free copyright, that’s the problem. The drawing by Herbert Wetterauer is used in 56 Wikipedia-Articles world-wide. (Look here) Hirt des Seyns (talk) 09:01, 5 October 2011 (UTC)

move section

This article jumps right into his arguments without giving some sort of background or general idea of what the man wrote about. I think the following section should be moved somewhere else and replaced with something more general and broad. After all, it is supposed to be the beginning of the article, not getting down to the knitty gritty of his thought.

Heidegger argues that philosophy is preoccupied with what exists and has forgotten the question of the "ground" of being. We find ourselves "always already" fallen into a world that already existed; but he insists that we have forgotten the basic question of what being itself is. This question defines our central nature. He argues that we are practical agents, caring and concerned about our projects in the world, and allowing it to reveal, or "unconceal" itself to us. He also says that our manipulation of reality is often harmful and hides our true being as essentially limited participants, not masters, of the world which we discover. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.84.68.252 (talk) 05:39, 10 May 2012 (UTC)

But this is pretty much in a nutshell what Heidegger thought. I challenge anyone to come up with something more general. Mfhiller (talk) 06:26, 22 May 2012 (UTC)mfhiller

I moved a part of the Overview to the Heidegger and Nazism page, section The Heidegger controversy, I didn't change the text.Filinthe (talk) 15:00, 29 May 2012 (UTC)

Neutrality

Concerning the relations between Heidegger and Nazism, I tried to make it more neutral.Filinthe (talk) 11:39, 30 May 2012 (UTC)

okakura kakuzo's the book of tea

Ive just read a paragraph in Gadamer's section that I was surprised not to see mentioned here, does anybody want to take charge of this?:

In 1968, Gadamer invited Tomonobu Imamichi for lectures at Heidelberg, but their relationship became very cool after Imamichi pointed out that Heidegger had taken his concept of Dasein out of Okakura Kakuzo's concept of das-in-der-Welt-sein (to be in the being of the world) expressed in The Book of Tea, which Imamichi's teacher had offered to Heidegger in 1919, after having followed lessons with him the year before.[11] Imamichi and Gadamer renewed contact four years later during an international congress.[11]

Tomonobu Imamichi, In Search of Wisdom. One Philosopher's Journey, Tokyo, International House of Japan, 2004 (quoted by Anne Fagot-Largeau in her [1] course at the Collège de France on 7 December 2006). --201.215.75.98 (talk) 03:58, 10 June 2012 (UTC)

Why not you?Mfhiller (talk) 06:21, 28 June 2012 (UTC)mfhiller

"Philosophers and scientists" or "Philosophers of science"?

Hallo there everyone,

To whom it may concern in the "Overview" section of the Martin Heidegger article I have recently hyperlinked

"(...) philosophers and scientists (...)"

with the

"Philosophy of science" article

motivating my action with this comment in the edit summary:

"Hyperlinked "(...) philosophers and scientists (...)" with the "Philosophy of science" article. I thought about hyperlinking just "scientists" but I guess this "sounds" better. Plz feel free to undo. Thanks."

This change has been then undone by Omnipaedista (talk) which motivated his/her action writing in the edit summary:

"per WP:EGG".

Where "EGG" stands for "Eastern Egg"... so I thought of changing:

"(...) philosophers and scientists (...)"

into

"(...) philosophers of science (...)"

and hyperlink the two nouns with the

"(...) philosophy of science (...)" article.

But, again, this change has been reverted by another editor, Arthur Rubin (talk) which motivated his action with:

"Reverted 1 edit by Maurice Carbonaro ([[User talk:Maurice Carbonaro|talk): Changing "philosphers and scientists" to "philosphers of science" is a significant change.".

Well, well, well... I would like to invite both this "allegedly-easy-undoing" editors to generally participate more actively in publicly commenting changes: especially this last one. And, if possible, to open comment-sections in the article talk pages in the future when "undoing". That's because good faith edits performed by other wikipedians which are trying to contribute constructively .... edits that could have taken a great deal of reading, thought and consideration could easily make frustrated their authors when they notice their efforts being "bursted" in a few seconds. Arthur, I would like also to point out that also writing "philospher" (without an "o") instead of "philosophers" *IS* a "significant change". In the future please try to pay more attention in double checking the spelling of your edit summaries... especially when you are "undoing". Because in behaving this way you push editors like me to unwillingly transform talk pages in forums. Thanks.

  M aurice   Carbonaro  11:20, 20 December 2012 (UTC)

Western Nihilism ?

It's scandalous that a Martin Heidegger biography, features only negligible reference to such major concern of his philosophy.

E.g. From Professor Michael Allen Gillespie's book: 'Hegel, Heidegger, and the ground of History' (1984) P.151:

'Nihilism, which is the revelation of Being as the how of beings, is thus in Heidegger's view the greatest event in the history of the West...'

[Now added by me 25/12/2012.] — Preceding unsigned comment added by Beingsshepherd (talk • contribs) 03:43, 25 December 2012 (UTC)

Beingsshepherd (talk) 03:49, 24 December 2012 (UTC)Beingsshepherd

Why was the Pope reference deleted?

Pope Benedict XVI, claims he was particularly influenced by the works of Heidegger, in his youth, when studying at University .

Not significant enough or just put in the wrong segment? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Beingsshepherd (talk • contribs) 04:07, 5 January 2013 (UTC)

Nazism Coverage

I understand that Jewish authors want to hit Heidegger. But this wish turned this article into a court record. Is this article trying to inform readers about Heidegger and his contributions to philosophy or trying to judge and defame him?

• Is Wikipedia a court?
• Are wikipedia articles weapon?
• Is a Nazi-hunter keeping his diary on Wikipedia?

The parts about Nazism should be seriously reduced if not removed--98.199.22.63 (talk) 10:12, 3 February 2012 (UTC)

updated --98.199.22.63 (talk) 06:42, 4 February 2012 (UTC)

Easily answered. The article attempts to reflect the current state of Heidegger scholarship and the quantity of such scholarship dedicated to the role of Nazism in Heidegger's life and thought has grown enormously in the last few years. Now you can think that's good or bad, but the article properly reflects it.KD Tries Again (talk) 18:51, 10 February 2012 (UTC)KD Tries Again

I think undue weight is given to Nazism in this article. There's little discussion of many important aspects of Heidegger's legacy, and while his relationship with Nazism is interesting, I don't think this article covers it neutrally. The "Blonde Beast" lecture in particular shows that by the 1940s, Heidegger was deeply disillusioned with Nazism. The statements in the lead about him "expressing regret" IMO, although correct, do not belong there. While Heiddeger did not publicly express regret, there's a lot of evidence in his writings that he felt it. Just my 2c. --He to Hecuba (talk) 18:58, 10 February 2012 (UTC)

Agreed. He "never apologized or expressed regret" only matters if he was explicitly asked to do so, and explicitly refused. Despite the obvious evils of Nazism and Heidegger's questionable if brief support for the movement, we might as well add that he never denied beating his wife. --194.199.7.36 (talk) 11:10, 29 February 2012 (UTC)

Your unstated premise is that being a Nazi is uncontroversial. — goethean ॐ 17:11, 29 February 2012 (UTC)

The only reason anyone cares about whether Martin Heidegger was or was not a Nazi is because of his philosophy. No one cares whether random-nobody-German was a Nazi, because random-nobody-German didn't make an important contribution to culture. The philosophy itself has to be the focus of the article. 24.21.175.70 (talk) 03:13, 8 March 2012 (UTC)

The record is by no means so straightforward. Heidegger did not place himself in circumstances where he was likely to be publicly challenged on his political record. He chose Der Speigel, a conservative publication, as the vehicle for an interview to be published only after his death; the questions gave ample opportunity for him to clarify his thoughts about Hitler - but he didn't (it's online, read it). Then there's his confrontation with Paul Celan, his decision to keep a statement about the "inner truth and greatness" of Nazism in a 1953 text (with a belatedly added qualification in parentheses), and the suppression of passages in the Complete Works (Heidegger's Roots by Charles Bambach is a key text). As I said earlier, the task here is to represent the scholarly literature, not to rebalance it according to one or other editor's opinion. Anyone who has a feel for the scholarly literature will be aware that Heidegger's Nazism is now a central issue in the reception of his philosophy. We are way past the stage when it was possible to suggest Victor Farias was exaggerating the issue in his (awful) book. (By the way, I'm not Jewish, and neither, as far as I can see, are many of the scholars treating this subject.)KD Tries Again (talk) 18:46, 9 March 2012 (UTC)KD Tries Again

Whatever makes you think that the Der Spiegel is a conservative publication???? --KMJagger (talk) 22:43, 10 March 2012 (UTC)

Yeah, how is "Der Spiegel" conservative? I feel like some people don't want an article on Heidegger's philosophy so much as an article about why no one should care about his philosophy because he was a "Nazi". However, again, the only reason a person needs to tell people not to read a person's philosophy is if that philosophy is already noteworthy. 24.21.175.70 (talk) 04:35, 12 March 2012 (UTC)

I withdraw my description of Spiegel, but it's a trivial point. Instead of speculating on editor's motives, how about addressing the literature. Is there a reputable encyclopedia article or book-length work published on Heidegger in the last ten years which doesn't make his politics an important focus? Take a look at SEP. Take a look at IEP. Go on Google Books and take a look at any studies of Heidegger from the last decade. Also, note: " The philosophy itself has to be the focus of the article." The section on Nazism is about 1400 words of a 13,000 word article. Ten percent on Heidegger's Nazism is minimalist, I'd say.KD Tries Again (talk) 14:39, 12 March 2012 (UTC)KD Tries Again

Yes, it has indeed become a cottage industry in academia. But, I say again. No one would care about whether Heidegger were a Nazi were it not for his contributions to philosophy. The Nazi question merits a paragraph at best here. Heidegger's philosophy should be the focus of the article. The article is for people who don't know anything about Heidegger, not for academics who already know about Heidegger to promulgate their views about his politics. 24.21.175.70 (talk) 00:32, 13 March 2012 (UTC)

Also, having looked closer at the article, I've noted there is already a "Heidegger and Nazism" article. All this article needs to do is provide the most rudimentary summary of that article's contents and direct the reader there. There is no reason to reproduce in bulk content in a related article when a simple link will suffice. 24.21.175.70 (talk) 20:16, 13 March 2012 (UTC)

It's about ten per cent of the article which is indeed mainly about his philosophy. Reducing it further would put Wikipedia out of step with other tertiary sources and with current scholarship. Wikipedia's task is to reflect scholarship, not pass judgment on it - i.e. "cottage industry."KD Tries Again (talk) 15:03, 14 March 2012 (UTC)KD Tries Again

Academia is nothing if not faddish. 24.21.175.70 (talk) 05:42, 15 March 2012 (UTC)

The "citation needed" mentions seem redundant in the section concerning the Der Spiegel interview; that interview is mentioned as the source in the very beginning of the section. --89.27.36.41 (talk) 00:10, 25 March 2012 (UTC)

Correct. Fixed.KD Tries Again (talk) 15:08, 5 April 2012 (UTC)KD Tries Again

I came to this article not to read up on Heidegger's political philosophy (National Socialism) but to see how well-written the stuff is about Heideggerian phenomenology and ontology. They are well written. And very boring. The stuff about his political philosophy is much more interesting, one has to admit. Believe me, I like a good analysis and exposition of philosophy and love the subject. But lets face the fact that Heidegger's actual philosophy is pretty non-notable. There's nothing quotable or proverbial accept maybe a few-words-printed-like-this. (Think of Socrates' "unexamined life not worth living", Plato's Cave Allegory, Aristotle's Golden Mean, Descartes' Cogito Ergo Sum, Nietzsche's "that which does not kill me", Confucius' Golden Rule, etc... Okay, okay, in his What is Metaphysics? Heidegger says, "the nothing nothings"). I know Heidegger influenced such and such and such and such but the influence is so broad and contradictory (Sartre vs. Derrida, Levinas vs. Rorty) that its like saying that these folks were influenced by having-been-alive-during-the-20th-century. Aristotle was right when he said that humans are a political animal. If you ever want Wikipedia to make a profit or be interesting, or discuss something that has relevance to the world -add more stuff on Heidegger's political philosophy and keep the pretending that there is anything-at-all to his non-political philosophy to-a-bare-minimum. Teetotaler — Preceding unsigned comment added by 216.57.126.236 (talk) 05:37, 26 August 2012 (UTC)

Okay, someone asked for books about Heidegger that did not dwell on his Nazism, so...

• Heidegger, Metaphysics and the Univocity of Being By Philip Tonner, 2010
• Heidegger by William J. Richardson, 2003 largely avoids the issue, glancing off of it twice.
• Heidegger: The Man and the Thinker By Thomas Sheehan, 2010 does delve into the topic with substantial favor to Heidegger's position, saying, "The question seems to be whether his thought from 1912 to 1976 can be measured by the yardstick of his politics from May, 1933, through February, 1934."

The question becomes, what is this article here for? Is it meant to cover the reason that he's notable (his philosophy) or the reason that that notability has become controversial (his brief support for Nazism)? IMHO, there is no doubt that it must exist for both purposes. However, both topics should be covered with some sense of their relative importance. Heidegger's contributions to philosophy (anonymous's concerns, above that he failed to produce a "quotable" sound bite aside) are clearly the reason that he is notable and should certainly be the backbone of the article without a doubt.

Right now, the word "Nazi" (or some derivative) appears 52 times in the article. National Socialsism (or some derivative) appears 21 times. By way of comparison, the word, "being" appears 157 times. While this number is larger than the former, I think it's quite clear that having nearly half as many mentions of politics as the central tenant of his philosophy in the article makes it a bit overly focused on his political life relative to its importance... -Miskaton (talk) 18:12, 26 July 2013 (UTC)

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

"Heidegger advocated a change in focus from ontologies based on ontic determinants to the fundamental ontological elucidation of being-in-the-world in general, allowing it to reveal, or "unconceal" itself as concealment.[11]"

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

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

Martin's name IPA

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

Introduction

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Lead too long

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Edit war

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Edit request

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

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

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

Incomprehensible lead

I have not read Heidegger. I may have attempted to do so in my youth, and found him incomprehensible. Certainly I find the following two sentences of the second paragraph here incomprehensible: "He argued that Western thinking had lost sight of being, and that by people finding themselves as "always already" moving within ontological presuppositions, they lose touch with their grasp of being and its truth thus becomes "muddled". As a solution to this condition, Heidegger advocated a change in focus from ontologies based on ontic determinants to the fundamental ontological elucidation of being-in-the-world in general, allowing it to reveal, or "unconceal" itself as concealment." Wikipedia is supposed to be for the general reader, but this makes me feel ontically challenged. Rothorpe (talk) 01:17, 7 September 2015 (UTC)

Join the club. The sockpuppet of Kingshowman that was editing this article accused me of being an ignoramus who has never read Heidegger. Actually, although I've read nine books about Heidegger, the only book by Heidegger I've read is Introduction to Metaphysics (I've never read more Heidegger than that because there are many other authors who are more interesting to me and I prefer to spend my time reading them instead). The sentence that you describe as incomprehensible is (mostly) incomprehensible to me as well. Yet I don't think that removing it is a good idea. It would be better to politely ask an editor who is familiar with Heidegger to rewrite that sentence to make it more comprehensible to the general reader. FreeKnowledgeCreator (talk) 01:55, 11 September 2015 (UTC)

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

Influences

Can someone fix them? 37.63.103.4 (talk) 20:14, 5 September 2023 (UTC)

Could you be more specific about the problem you see? Patrick J. Welsh (talk) 21:22, 5 September 2023 (UTC)

As a person who visits this page quite often, i have noticed that the number of influences has been reduced SHARPLY. Pretty much half (maybe even more) of his influences has been deleted. I can name pretty much all of them, but i wonder is there a way of basically restoring them the way they were. Btw, thank you so very much for your interest. I can provide further information down the line. 37.63.103.4 (talk) 15:34, 6 September 2023 (UTC)

Hi, thanks for clarifying! I am the one who removed most of the influences. By way of justification, I repost here what I added as a hidden comment to the Infobox. Most of my pruning was governed by the second bullet point, which could be rephrased as "If it's not important enough to be discussed in the article, it does belong in a summary of that article."

PLEASE EDIT ONLY IF FAMILIAR WITH THE POLICIES OUTLINED AT MOS:INFOBOX.

In particular:

• "The less information it contains, the more effectively it serves that purpose, allowing readers to identify key facts at a glance. Of necessity, some infoboxes contain more than just a few fields; however, wherever possible, present information in short form, and exclude any unnecessary content."
• Everything in the Infobox must be supported by the article itself. Anything that requires a citation does not belong.
• With respect to lists or catalogs, longer is not better. If it is not possible to be comprehensive, a list will invariably become arbitrary. Unless it is clear from the article itself what does and does not belong, that category probably should not be in the Infobox at all.
• Those interested in creating and tending longer lists might consider Wikipedia:Stand-alone lists, to which the article could then link with a "See also" wherever most appropriate.

Thank you for helping to minimize bloat and keeping everything reader-friendly!

I hope this makes sense as a justification? Quite possibly some of the links I removed will be restored as the article is further developed.

Cheers, Patrick J. Welsh (talk) 16:50, 6 September 2023 (UTC)

I would kindly ask you to add most of them back, because as a person with knowledge on Heidegger, the removal is quite unnecessary and harmful. 37.63.103.4 (talk) 20:14, 6 September 2023 (UTC)

Hey again, I want to say that I really appreciate your keeping this in the Talk page and not risking an edit war. Also, I do not doubt your knowledge of Heidegger, and I apologize if I seemed to suggest otherwise.

Could you provide details (if possible, with sources) on what specifically is missing from the article? For I certainly am not defending it as complete. I'm sure everyone would welcome any constructive edits you might make to improve the article.

My governing concern, btw, when editing is with what best serves readers—not in the first place with the policies and style guidelines Wikipedia. In this case, however, I think the MOS:INFOBOXPURPOSE policy gets it right. Heidegger read, and so was in some sense influenced, by a tremendous number of thinkers. The index of names in Kisiel's The Genesis of Heidegger's "Being & Time alone runs five pages! If the influence is not important enough to be described (even if just briefly!) and sourced in the article, it just does not belong.

Regards, Patrick J. Welsh (talk) 20:58, 6 September 2023 (UTC)

Thank you very much for the feedback and your care for the page!

When it comes to the influences, several medieval theologians are missing (like Anselm, Bonaventure, Thomas Aquinas although he could have been mentioned, Meister Eckhart and maybe some more), so are some other german philosophers alive during his time (Jacob von Uexkull, Emil Lask, Count Yourk, Karl Jaspers...) and Rene Descartes could also be added. There's a huge possibility i could be forgetting some names, but for now these are all i can mention.

Might add some in the future. Thank you so very much. 77.76.19.67 (talk) 10:14, 7 September 2023 (UTC)

Also i just realised Kant and Hegel aren't included, which is quite strange considering he wrote books on them. 77.76.19.67 (talk) 10:16, 7 September 2023 (UTC)

Hey again, if your aim is to be as comprehensive as possible with this list, I again encourage you to have a look here: Wikipedia:Stand-alone lists. The list you make could then be included as a "See also" under Early Influences in the same way the that Heideggerian Terminology is included underneath Philosophy.

The folks at the WP:TEAHOUSE will be helpful if you need have any questions about how to do this. They also have some documentation laying of the basics of editing, which could be useful.

That way, readers who want something more extensive than what can be covered in an encyclopedia article can easily find it.

If you decide to follow this route, linking back to this discussion might help to get the List page approved more easily.

Cheers, Patrick J. Welsh (talk) 16:38, 7 September 2023 (UTC)

I've tried editing several times, but the results have been quite terrible... Can somoene do it? 37.63.103.4 (talk) 20:17, 7 September 2023 (UTC)

If the edits you are trying to make are those to the Infobox you describe above, they will be reverted. To the best of my understanding, what you propose violates several perfectly good Wikipedia policies, and you have not even attempted to explain why this is an instance in which readers would be well served by overriding them (which I am entirely willing to accept is sometimes the case).

Here is another:

"To provide encyclopedic value, data should be put in context with explanations referenced to independent sources. As explained in Encyclopedic content above, merely being true, or even verifiable, does not automatically make something suitable for inclusion in the encyclopedia." (WP:INDISCRIMINATE)

I appreciate your perfectly level tone and your good intentions, but I do not understand why you persist in this. I've suggested two good ways you might incorporate the information on influences into Wikipedia: edit the article itself with appropriate contextualization of the specific nature of the influence supported by good sources, or else create a self-standing list page with the ambition of being as comprehensive as possible.

If you feel that I am in the wrong here, please see Wikipedia:Consensus for options by which to move forward.

Regards, Patrick J. Welsh (talk) 20:48, 7 September 2023 (UTC)

@PatrickJWelsh: I agree that the list of influences should be limited to the essentials to be useful. However, the influences for Heidegger seem to be very numerous. One difficulty is how to decide who should and who shouldn't be included. Patrick's suggestions to only include the ones that are discussed in the article is one way to do it. I would prefer the alternative of removing the whole list from the infobox. This way, we avoid the problem of how to draw the line between essential and non-essential influences. Phlsph7 (talk) 08:20, 8 September 2023 (UTC)

Just do it... You obviously have little real knowledge of Heidegger, so just act as the tool for the neccessery means.. 37.63.103.4 (talk) 18:02, 11 September 2023 (UTC)

If you see anything incorrect in the current article, please do share here! Also, if you have suggestions for further improvements, please likewise do share with supporting scholarly sources in as much detail as possible.

Cheers, Patrick J. Welsh (talk) 18:43, 11 September 2023 (UTC)

Please, recommend me somoene who is actually keen on doing his job. 37.63.103.4 (talk) 11:36, 12 September 2023 (UTC)

In order to have a productive talk-page interaction, I suggest that you change your tone. Phlsph7 (talk) 12:01, 12 September 2023 (UTC)