Talk:Martin Heidegger/Archive 9

Archive 5

←

Archive 7

Archive 8

Archive 9

Archive 10

Archive 11

Archive 12

Lead

As a result of recent edits, the second sentence of the lead currently states,

"A poll of North American college and university teachers of philosophy identified his first book, Being and Time (1927), as one of the central philosophical works of the 20th century."

That statement is inappropriate. It does not belong in the lead. It must either be reverted back to the previous version ("His first and best known book, Being and Time (1927), is regarded as one of the central philosophical works of the 20th century"), or it must be removed entirely. The purpose of the lead is to present information of enduring importance and relevance. What "A poll of North American college and university teachers of philosophy" revealed is not information of enduring importance and relevance. It is not only trivial but obviously trivial. The purpose of the change appears to be to downgrade as much as possible the importance of Being and Time by reducing the statement that it is seen as important by philosophers to as trivial and as inconsequential a form as possible. The change is a form of disruption. The lead should not contain trivial statements. Freeknowledgecreator (talk) 23:51, 28 November 2019 (UTC)

I note that VeryRarelyStable actually stated, "If an accurate description of its provenance is sufficient to "trivialize" it, then it is trivial and should be trivialized." My response is that deliberately including material in the lead that you actually admit is trivial is a form of disruption. Freeknowledgecreator (talk) 23:55, 28 November 2019 (UTC)

"Its" and "it" in that statement refer to the claim that Being and Time is "regarded as one of the central philosophical works of the 20th century". If the source of that "regard" is an opinion poll of North American teachers of philosophy, then to say so is to accurately report the importance of Being and Time, whereas to obscure it and report the poll's findings as fact is to overstate the importance of Being and Time. If in fact the poll is not the only source of the "regard", then it should be relatively easy to summarize the other reasons for this "regard", as in "Every major philosopher since Heidegger has made use of the concept of Geworfenheit" or whatever, in fact, those other reasons are. If on the other hand the poll is the only source of the "regard", then the statement "Being and Time is regarded as one of the central philosophical works of the 20th century", stated as fact without reference to its provenance, misrepresents the true state of affairs. —VeryRarelyStable (talk) 00:19, 29 November 2019 (UTC)

Nothing in your comment answers my criticism of your edit. You deliberately added a statement to the lead that you yourself admit is trivial, which is a form of disruption. Freeknowledgecreator (talk) 00:22, 29 November 2019 (UTC)

The word "trivialize" was yours. I do not claim that "A poll of North American college and university teachers of philosophy identified his first book, Being and Time (1927), as one of the central philosophical works of the 20th century" is a trivial statement; you claimed that it "trivialized" the status of Being and Time.

I maintain that if attributing it (accurately) to "a poll of North American college and university teachers of philosophy" is sufficient to "trivialize" the statement "Being and Time is regarded as one of the central philosophical works of the 20th century", then the statement "Being and Time is regarded as one of the central philosophical works of the 20th century" was already trivial. I did not add, or restore, anything that I thought was trivial.

—VeryRarelyStable (talk) 00:30, 29 November 2019 (UTC)

Yes, the word "trivialize" was mine, but you indicated agreement with it ("then it is trivial and should be trivialized"), even if you are now trying to backtrack from that. In any case, the fundamental point remains: a statement about what a poll revealed is trivial and does not belong in the lead. Freeknowledgecreator (talk) 00:33, 29 November 2019 (UTC)

I did not. I expressed what would necessarily follow if you were correct about the "trivialization". ("If an accurate description of its provenance is sufficient to "trivialize" it...") —VeryRarelyStable (talk) 00:35, 29 November 2019 (UTC)

I note your failure to respond to the point that a statement about what a poll revealed is of insufficient importance for the lead. May I ask whether you would accept a return of the statement that Being and Time is "regarded as one of the central philosophical works of the 20th century" if it were supported by additional citations, and if so, how many more would be needed? Or do you object to it on principle, no matter how many citations are provided? Freeknowledgecreator (talk) 00:43, 29 November 2019 (UTC)

I think a statement like that needs to be supported by exposition, rather than just citations. What's central about it? What indispensable philosophical concepts come from it? (In the lede, naming those concepts will do; the explanations of them can wait till the body.) —VeryRarelyStable (talk) 00:44, 29 November 2019 (UTC)

As for "a statement about what a poll revealed is of insufficient importance for the lead" – well, if a poll is the source of the statement "Being and Time is regarded as one of the central philosophical works of the 20th century", then the statement "Being and Time is regarded as one of the central philosophical works of the 20th century" is a statement about what a poll revealed, regardless of whether this is openly stated. If that's enough to disqualify it from the lede then the only option is to drop it entirely. (But of course it's not just "a poll", it's a continent-wide poll of academic philosophy teachers, which carries rather more weight.) —VeryRarelyStable (talk) 00:50, 29 November 2019 (UTC)

The lead is a summary. It doesn't have to go into full detail. That's the purpose of the rest of the article.Freeknowledgecreator (talk) 00:45, 29 November 2019 (UTC)

Which is why I say merely naming the concepts will do for the lede; the explanations can wait till the body. And it only has to be the two or three most important ones. —VeryRarelyStable (talk) 00:50, 29 November 2019 (UTC)

Since the lead is only a summary, it is perfectly acceptable for it to state that "Being and Time" is regarded as one of the central philosophical works of the 20th century". You have presented no valid objection to that statement. Freeknowledgecreator (talk) 00:54, 29 November 2019 (UTC)

Regarded by whom? Certainly not by everybody, or even every philosopher. ("Being and Time is regarded as one of the central works in existential philosophy of the 20th century" would not be objectionable.) "By a majority of North American philosophy teachers, as measured by a poll" helps answer that question. But without it, it misleadingly gives the impression that this "regard" is universal or at least without serious contest. That impression is false. That is my objection. —VeryRarelyStable (talk) 01:00, 29 November 2019 (UTC)

Being and Time obviously is a "central philosophical work of the 20th century" in the sense that it is a highly influential philosophical work. That is objectively true and it is inconsequential if some philosophers would reject such a statement. As I said, you've presented no valid objection to the statement "His first and best known book, Being and Time (1927), is regarded as one of the central philosophical works of the 20th century". It should be restored. More citations could be provided, but I don't believe they are necessary. Your rewording the statement into a statement about what a poll stated makes it inappropriate trivia. Freeknowledgecreator (talk) 01:05, 29 November 2019 (UTC)

"Obviously" isn't a citation, and repetition isn't an argument. Why is it invalid to avoid presenting misleading impressions?

There are lots of "highly influential" works; it takes a bit more than being "highly influential" to count as "central".

Whether it's "inconsequential" that "some philosophers" would reject such a statement depends rather critically on what proportion of philosophers "some" represents.

The statement "Being and Time is regarded as one of the central philosophical works of the 20th century" is something a poll stated. If "what a poll stated is inappropriate trivia", then the statement of the work's centrality is inappropriate trivia. You can't turn something important into something trivial by stating where you got the information from.

—VeryRarelyStable (talk) 01:11, 29 November 2019 (UTC)

The statement that Being and Time is a highly influential philosophical work obviously isn't a citation. However, it is a statement that anyone who takes the trouble to look up books and articles about Heidegger, or who informs himself about 20th century philosophy, would realize is true. If you haven't taken that trouble, why exactly would you become so interested in editing an article about Heidegger? Your comments about the wording that reduces the statement about Being and Time being regarded as important to the results of a poll are confused, self-referential nonsense. The statement "Being and Time" is regarded as one of the central philosophical works of the 20th century" could be backed up by numerous sources, so plainly it is not simply "something a poll stated" and obviously should not be described that way. Freeknowledgecreator (talk) 01:20, 29 November 2019 (UTC)

No, I meant the word "obviously" doesn't count as actually backing up your arguments with facts.

There is a large school of thought that disagrees with you about Heidegger being central to 20th-century philosophy. They include all the academics I've personally heard lecture about him. Some dwelt on his Nazism and his relationship with Hannah Arendt, others on the obscurity of his language (and asserted that it reflected an obscurity of thought). Perhaps these people are a minority – I don't know – but they are not an inconsequential minority.

Well, if it could be backed up by numerous sources, adduce them. Or better still, explain what concepts from Being and Time are so important to modern philosophy. Even if it's only in the body of the article and not the lede. I've taken a quick look through the article and found several reiterations of the centrality of Heidegger's thought, but scant supporting explanation of what was so central about it. Sartre developed Existentialism after reading him but Heidegger himself felt Sartre misrepresented him. Derrida got the concept of "deconstruction" from him. OK, those are two important philosophical concepts, but it takes more than two concepts to be a "central work". And not all philosophers are either existentialists or deconstructionists.

—VeryRarelyStable (talk) 01:32, 29 November 2019 (UTC)

You are confusing "agreement with" with acknowledging the importance" -----Snowded ^TALK 07:07, 29 November 2019 (UTC)

Would the Martin Heidegger article improve or worsen if the Three Highly Experienced Editors ceased making edits? Enormous effort is wasted arguing ridiculous points. The article is clearly biased. It seems likely to me that if these three suspended involvement for some period of time, then the article would improve, i.e. converge towards the goal for a wikipedia article — "to create a comprehensive and neutrally written summary of existing mainstream knowledge about (Martin Heidegger)." I propose we conduct this experiment, where the Three Highly Experienced Editors cease editing for some period of time (6 weeks?) and see what happens. I, for one, am dedicated to the goal of wikipedia. Would they be willing to do this? If not, why not? Sbelknap (talk) 02:52, 29 November 2019 (UTC)

The Baruch poll is cited in the Wittgenstein article in a similar way. There is nothing wrong with using a poll to make the point that 'Being and Time' is considered important by some content experts. Sbelknap (talk) 18:44, 29 November 2019 (UTC)

You could just duplicate the article in your sandbox and eventually propose another version to be merged with this one. Azerty82 (talk) 19:34, 29 November 2019 (UTC)

There emphatically is something wrong with mentioning what a poll stated in the lead of what is meant to be a serious encyclopedia article. A poll, by definition, reflects opinion and has no authority; the finding of a poll is trivial information. So I utterly reject a change such as this. I believe the article should restore the wording that was there before the disruptive editing to the lead began (eg, that Being and Time is "regarded as one of the central philosophical works of the 20th century"). It could be supported by multiple citations, and the fact that it can be backed by multiple sources shows that there is absolutely no reason to present the statement as the finding of a poll. An appropriate thing to happen at this stage would be for further citations to be added, if they are thought necessary. Then, if agreement cannot be found to restore the previous wording, editors should agree on some different wording, one that does not degrade Wikipedia and embarrass it as a project by talking about opinion polls. Freeknowledgecreator (talk) 23:04, 29 November 2019 (UTC)

The Baruch poll is presented in the lede of the Wittgenstein article. There are many such surveys or polls that are in ledes of other wikipedia articles. There is certainly no guidance that supports your assertion that having poll results in a lede is inappropriate. There are multiple sources that question the value of 'Being and Time' and multiple sources that praise its value. A poll of philosophy teachers seems as good a source as any other. For now, I will delete the assertion from the lede until there is some consensus on this talk page. :The Baruch poll is presented in the lede of the Wittgenstein article. There are many such surveys or polls that are in ledes of other wikipedia articles. There is certainly no guidance that supports your assertion that having poll results in a lede is inappropriate. There are multiple sources that question the value of 'Being and Time' and multiple sources that praise its value. A poll of philosophy teachers seems as good a source as any other. For now, I will delete the assertion from the lede until there is some consensus on this talk page.

This isn't a discussion about the Wittgenstein article. You're forgetting the fact that just because an article states something that doesn't mean that it should state that thing. I don't care whether there is a guideline specifically related to statements about the importance of philosophical works being worded as statements about the result of opinion polls or not. The wording you restored is an embarrassing blight on Wikiepdia and should be replaced with something else. Freeknowledgecreator (talk) 23:09, 29 November 2019 (UTC)

should state? Are you familiar with Hume's Guillotine? Please provide some sort of evidence or logical argument supporting your assertion that citing a poll in the lede is somehow wrong? This doesn't seem obvious at all. Sbelknap (talk) 00:21, 30 November 2019 (UTC)

A poll has no authority in determining what philosophical works are or are not important, are or are not seen (rightly or wrongly) as being important, or are or are not influential. Freeknowledgecreator (talk) 05:42, 30 November 2019 (UTC)

Then the statement about Being and Time being important should not have been there in the first place, since the only source cited for it was the Baruch Poll. But your first response was not to remove the statement about Being and Time's importance, but to remove the statement about it having been determined by a poll.

(I remain a little puzzled by the assertion, however. What could possibly determine what philosophical works are or are not important but the aggregated opinions of respected scholars of philosophy? Why should the fact that these opinions were aggregated by polling make any difference to their weight?)

—VeryRarelyStable (talk) 06:44, 30 November 2019 (UTC)

Scholarship is not based on opinion polls, and "teachers of philosophy" are not necessarily "respected scholars of philosophy". Obviously a better source would be preferable. The appropriate thing would have been to find one, not to add rubbish about opinion polls to the lead. Freeknowledgecreator (talk) 07:01, 30 November 2019 (UTC)

Then why did we have a statement sourced from a poll in the lede for so long? Is it OK to base our scholarship on opinion polls as long as we don't admit that's what we're doing? —VeryRarelyStable (talk) 07:15, 30 November 2019 (UTC)

It is pointless to ask me why. I cannot explain everything that happens on Wikipedia. If you're asking why I didn't remove it myself, that's because I have been much more interested in working on other articles. Freeknowledgecreator (talk) 09:23, 30 November 2019 (UTC)

You didn't just not remove it; you reverted to it. You've been quizzing me on why I then undid your revert; I think the converse question is fair enough. —VeryRarelyStable (talk) 09:41, 30 November 2019 (UTC)

Let us carefully consider the meaning of the emotionally-charged reaction by some editors to edits to the Heidegger article that are factual, well-sourced, and non-controversial among scholars. Many such edits are reverted or deleted without good reasons. Threats to deplatform well-intentioned editors are made. I urge interested editors to review the log of edits going back many years to understand what I mean. This pattern of behavior seems inimical to the goal of wikipedia. Isn't this exactly the reason why the mechanism of topic banning exists? Why is this harmful behavior permitted? What can be done to solve this problem? Sbelknap (talk) 17:53, 30 November 2019 (UTC)

• Outside editor comment. I've just taken a look at this article lead for the first time. I don't tend to edit philosophy articles so I might be able to help towards consensus. I've been at WP for over a decade and have worked on very many ledes in very controversial topic areas. I suggest this lede gets cut right down, per WP:LEDE "It should be written in a clear, accessible style with a neutral point of view." For example, I studied philosophy in my last two years of high school (which was a long time ago) and attended university to masters degree but fwiw, I don't know what ontic means. I assume it's semantically connected to ontology somehow, but having to click a blue link in the lede to understand the word is not what we mean by accessible. If you look closely, the use of the word assumes the reader knows what it means: contrast Britannica's use of 'existentialism' [1] which even if the reader doesn't know what it means, the reader understands what its relationship is to the subject. That example should point to a re-write of the lede section. Further, what North Americans think about him isn't WP:NPOV. Why does the world care what North Americans think? That is not to take sides in the discussion above; I am simply calling for major simplification in all areas of the lede. Remember: this article is not for philosophers to win fights over, it's for their grannies and their grandchildren to understand. Cuts for simplification are a great way of achieving NPOV, because the more generic the meaning, the more universally applicable it becomes. Starting with Martin Heidegger was a German Philosopher. -Chumchum7 (talk) 06:35, 1 December 2019 (UTC)

  Seconded by a similar outsider. I dont remember why this page on my watchlist and i was about to delete it from there, but I have read this talkpage through and i was impsessed with the high level of civility of the discussion. Cudos to all.

At the same time i cannot help but notice that most of the discussion is among a handful of pagewatchers i suspect entrenched in their opinions for so long time as not to see roads to compromises. (Btw wikilawyering is not one of them.) An example is the battle over a quote "heidegger is... but at the same time...". Both sides are right here. But their rightness comes from different considerations. It is like a fight over "The Sun is the source of life on the earth, but it is so hot that if you land on it, you will evaporate instantly". Both clauses are true (with reservations), independent of each other, and put in one sentence for a reason. Question: is this latter reason crucial to the understanding the Sun, or it is a mere rhetoric device, an example of the ying/yan cliche? If the contraposition is crucial, then secondary sources must dwell on it profusely, and then it must be in the lede. Otherwise the two facts may be stated independently without particular loss of meaning. And both may be included in the lede independently, if they summarize important pieces of the article.

That said, there is a generic advice for disagreements, especially ones which lead to pagelock: instead of writing repetitive walls of text (meaning you dont hear each other), bring in independent opinions, i.e, start RFCs for clearly defined controversies. And be prepared to be patient, y'all know of long battles over mere trifles in wp. Good luck, I am unwatching. - Altenmann >talk 20:01, 1 December 2019 (UTC)

I do agree with you, Chumchum7. But I'm afraid that a longer scroll through the archives of this Talk page will reveal that "this article is for grannies and their grandchildren to understand" is itself a point of contention and a source of insta-reverts. As one of the partisans in that debate too I'm obviously going to have a biased viewpoint (the parties seem to be approximately the same as in the present disagreement); but the other side of the debate has given reasons like "That's as comprehensible as Heidegger ever gets" when they remove clarification templates – i.e. (as I read their position), because Heidegger's own writing was obscure, therefore his Wikipedia article has to be obscure as well or it's not representing him properly. —VeryRarelyStable (talk) 03:10, 2 December 2019 (UTC)

I don't believe anyone has said that the article must be obscure. It is only reasonable to point out that some obscurity may be unavoidable. Freeknowledgecreator (talk) 03:21, 2 December 2019 (UTC)

Here is a proposed lead:

Martin Heidegger (/ˈhaɪdɛɡər, ˈhaɪdɪɡər/;[12][13] German: [ˈmaʁtiːn ˈhaɪdɛɡɐ];[14][12] 26 September 1889 – 26 May 1976) was a German philosopher in the Continental tradition of philosophy. Heidegger argued that a person's life experience (being-in-the-world) could not be reduced to their logical thoughts alone but instead must include their emotional experience. Heidegger's work influenced the work of the existential philosophers.

From 1928 until 1967, Heidegger was a Professor of Philosophy at the University of Freiburg; he was briefly rector of the University, though his tenure as rector was fraught with difficulties and he ultimately resigned after eleven months. He published many philosophical works, perhaps most notably, 'Being and Time' (Sein und Zeit 1927), which concerns the nature of being and the issue of authenticity. Karl Jaspers, writing in the first volume of his work Philosophy (1932), credited Heidegger as making essential points in 'Being and Time' about "being in the world" and also about "existence and historicity". Heidegger argued that the original meaning of the philosophical concept of truth was unconcealment and criticized the framing of existence in terms of a technological instrumentalist understanding of mechanism and purpose.

Born in rural Meßkirch, Baden-Württemberg, he was the son of the sexton of a rural Roman Catholic parish. He studied theology at the University of Freiburg while supported by the Catholic church, later switching to philosophy. He completed his doctoral thesis on psychologism in 1914 and his thesis for qualification as a University teacher in 1916. His scholarly work was influenced by Edmund Husserl's phenomenology. For the next two years, he worked as an unsalaried Privatdozent, and then served as a soldier in the German army during the last ten months of World War I.

Heidegger's work is considered by many readers to be difficult to understand or obscure; this opinion is shared by some philosophers, particularly those from the analytic tradition of philosophy. Despite this, a poll of North American college and university teachers of philosophy identified his first book, Being and Time (1927), as one of the central philosophical works of the 20th century. Heidegger was a prominent member of the Nazi Party and during his time as rector he supported the Nazification of the University of Feiburg. Due to his promotion of Nazism, Heidegger was forbidden to teach at the University of Freiburg between 1945 and 1951 when his teaching privileges were restored. Despite the urging of colleagues and friends, Heidegger never disavowed his Nazism. He only referred to his Nazism obliquely, saying "He who thinks greatly must err greatly."

Sbelknap (talk) 23:07, 4 December 2019 (UTC)

References

I reject your suggestion. It is poorly written and would lower the quality of the article. Essentially none of it acceptable. A statement like "Heidegger argued that a person's life experience (being-in-the-world) could not be reduced to their logical thoughts alone but instead must include their emotional experience" is trite nonsense and isn't in any way supported by the article body. Freeknowledgecreator (talk) 23:20, 4 December 2019 (UTC)

And your alternative laymen's explanation is… Sbelknap (talk) 01:37, 5 December 2019 (UTC)

You're claiming that Heidegger was a prominent member of the Nazi Party"? I can't even see that supported at Martin Heidegger and Nazism, let alone in the main body of the article here. Martinevans123 (talk) 23:23, 4 December 2019 (UTC)

Hmm. Maritn Heidegger and Nazism has "In September 1945, the Denazification Committee published its report on Heidegger. He was charged on four counts: his important, official position in the Nazi regime; his introduction of the Führerprinzip into the University; his engaging in Nazi propaganda and his incitement of students against "reactionary" professors. He was subsequently dismissed from university the same year. In March 1949, he was declared a "follower" (Mitläufer) of Nazism by the State Commission for Political Purification. But he was reintegrated in 1951, given emeritus status, and continued teaching until 1976. In 1974, he wrote to his friend Heinrich Petzet: "Our Europe is being ruined from below with 'democracy'"." "important, official" seems like prominent to me, but "important, official" is OK, too. Sbelknap (talk) 01:37, 5 December 2019 (UTC)

OK, alternatively the New York Review of Books has "He was also a convinced Nazi."Sbelknap (talk) 01:37, 5 December 2019 (UTC)

"Heidegger argued that a person's life experience (being-in-the-world) could not be reduced to their logical thoughts alone but instead must include their emotional experience" is certainly not nonsense; I can understand what it means without having to strain my brain, which puts it in sharp contrast with the "explanations" of Heidegger's philosophy in the article (in consequence of which I find it difficult to judge whether it is accurate as well as readable).

(In case the non-partisan observers are wondering, this is the sort of thing I was referring to before, about one party blocking the other's attempts to clarify the writing here. Any attempt to summarize Heidegger's philosophy in words that can be understood is rejected as "bad writing" or "nonsense" or what-have-you without any suggestions for improvement other than "leave it the way it is".)

The proposed lede is in my opinion better-written than the existing one. The word "prominent" needn't be a hill to die on; it can be swapped for something like "committed". There is room for improvement in some of the phrasing: for instance

Heidegger was forbidden to teach at the University of Freiburg between 1945 and 1951 when his teaching privileges were restored

would be clearer if it were rephrased as

Heidegger was forbidden to teach at the University of Freiburg from 1945 until his teaching privileges were restored in 1951.

But these kinds of things don't constitute a reason to reject the new lede entirely.

What I am wondering is – is it not the case that, since the publication of the Black Notebooks, some of Heidegger's critics consider his work to be not merely obscure but deeply bound up with anti-Semitism and Nazism? Shouldn't that at least rate a mention in the lede (as well as more balanced consideration in the article)? – along the lines of

...and during his time as rector he supported the Nazification of the University of Freiburg; some critics argue that his Nazism deeply influenced his philosophy.

or possibly the wording we had before, namely

...and during his time as rector he supported the Nazification of the University of Freiburg; there is controversy over the degree to which his Nazism influenced his philosophy.

—VeryRarelyStable (talk) 00:18, 5 December 2019 (UTC)

Agree, your phrasing on sequence of suspension from teaching at Freiburg is an improvement. Also, agree with your phrasing on Nazism (possibly) influencing his philosophy. Sbelknap (talk) 01:52, 5 December 2019 (UTC)

Second draft of lead, based on comments.

---

Martin Heidegger (/ˈhaɪdɛɡər, ˈhaɪdɪɡər/;[12][13] German: [ˈmaʁtiːn ˈhaɪdɛɡɐ];[14][12] 26 September 1889 – 26 May 1976) was a German philosopher in the Continental tradition of philosophy. Rejecting the Latinized German used by previous German philosophers, Heidegger expressed his ideas using simple German words in novel ways and building compound German words that were rarely used or were neologisms. Some of the apparent obscurity of Heidegger is due to this (what he considered essential) building of a new German vocabulary for philosophy. For example, in his early work, Being and Time (1927), Heidegger attempted to recover what he considered the fundamental philosophical question of what it means for something to be, avoiding words derived from the Latin word 'existentia' and instead using the German word Dasein ("being-there"). Heidegger argued that Dasein is defined by care: a human's practically engaged and concernful mode of being-in-the-world, in opposition to such Rationalist thinkers as René Descartes, who defined human existence by a human's ability to think (e.g., 'Cogito ergo sum'). Heidegger's work influenced the work of the existential philosophers and the postmodernists.

From 1928 until 1967, Heidegger was a Professor of Philosophy at the University of Freiburg; he was briefly rector of the University, though his tenure as rector was fraught with difficulties and he ultimately resigned after eleven months. He published many philosophical works, perhaps most notably, 'Being and Time' (Sein und Zeit 1927), which concerns the nature of being and the issue of authenticity. Karl Jaspers, writing in the first volume of his work Philosophy (1932), credited Heidegger as making essential points in 'Being and Time' about "being in the world" and also about "existence and historicity". Heidegger argued that the original meaning of the philosophical concept of truth was unconcealment and criticized the framing of existence in terms of a technological instrumentalist understanding of mechanism and purpose.

Born in rural Meßkirch, Baden-Württemberg, he was the son of the sexton of a rural Roman Catholic parish. He studied theology at the University of Freiburg while supported by the Catholic church, later switching to philosophy. He completed his doctoral thesis on psychologism in 1914 and his thesis for qualification as a University teacher in 1916. His scholarly work was influenced by Edmund Husserl's phenomenology. For the next two years, he worked as an unsalaried Privatdozent, and then served as a soldier in the German army during the last ten months of World War I.

Heidegger's work is considered by many readers to be difficult to understand or obscure; this opinion is shared by some philosophers, particularly those from the analytic tradition of philosophy. Despite this, a poll of North American college and university teachers of philosophy identified his first book, Being and Time (1927), as one of the central philosophical works of the 20th century. Heidegger was a important, official member of the Nazi Party and during his time as rector he supported the Nazification of the University of Feiburg. Based on some comments written by Heidegger in his Black notebooks, some critics argue that his Nazism deeply influenced his philosophy, though others agree. Due to his promotion of Nazism, Heidegger was forbidden to teach at the University of Freiburg between 1945 and 1951 when his teaching privileges were restored. Despite the urging of colleagues and friends, Heidegger never disavowed his Nazism. He only referred to his Nazism obliquely, saying "He who thinks greatly must err greatly."

---

Sbelknap (talk) 21:59, 5 December 2019 (UTC)

So, you're still claiming that "Heidegger was a prominent member of the Nazi Party"? I still can't even see that supported at Martin Heidegger and Nazism, let alone in the main body of the article here. The lead section is meant to summarize this article. Thanks. Martinevans123 (talk) 22:03, 5 December 2019 (UTC)

Sbelknap, you have every right to put forward whatever suggestions for the lead you wish. Other editors have an equal right to respond that your suggestions to date are no good. It is not appropriate for the opening sentences of the lead to state something such as, "Rejecting the Latinized German used by previous German philosophers, Heidegger expressed his ideas using simple German words in novel ways and building compound German words that were rarely used or were neologisms. Much of the apparent obscurity of Heidegger is due to this (what he considered essential) building of a new German vocabulary for philosophy." Essentially that is editorial commentary; it simply doesn't belong in the article, let alone in the lead. Also, a bit of thought would suggest that pretty much all philosophers of note have been "considered by many readers to be difficult to understand". So, no, such trivia as "Heidegger's work is considered by many readers to be difficult to understand or obscure" absolutely and emphatically does not belong in the lead. Nor do we need statements about what "many readers" think, whatever "many readers" is supposed to mean - it is uselessly vague. The lead should note what actual philosophers think of Heidegger; not what unqualified, anonymous, and unidentified "many readers" allegedly think. Freeknowledgecreator (talk) 22:15, 5 December 2019 (UTC)

The difficulty of reading Heidegger is mentioned in the body of the article; it is the subject of the quote from Roger Scruton. Part (but not all) of the reaason for this difficulty was Heidegger's building of a new German vocabulary for philosophy. This is not in serious dispute by scholars. Its OK with me to use some other word than prominent, but that is the *meaning* of the quote I cited above. Sbelknap (talk) 22:18, 5 December 2019 (UTC)

Does the article actually state something as stupid as, "Heidegger's work is considered by many readers to be difficult to understand or obscure", or anything to that effect? Because if it does, that needs to be removed. It is of no relevance what "many readers" think if the "readers" in question are simply ordinary, unqualified, non-philosophers who happen to read Heidegger and find it hard. Freeknowledgecreator (talk) 22:20, 5 December 2019 (UTC)

You can find the quote from Roger Scruton using the page search function of your web browser. There is rather a lot of variability in what other philosophers think of Heidegger. Some consider his application of religious/spiritual concepts to phenomenology to be an intellectual cul-de-sac, best skimmed over or forgotten. Some consider his work to be utter nonsense or wordplay. Others consider Heidegger's work to be of central importance. How to summarize that in the lede? Is not the experience of readers of Heidegger at least as appropriate to the lead as the various opinions of philosophers? Sbelknap (talk) 22:26, 5 December 2019 (UTC)

Ah yes. The "utter nonsense" again. I think we've covered Russell, with that single quote above, haven't we? Please show us some quotes from all those others. Many thanks. Martinevans123 (talk) 22:45, 5 December 2019 (UTC)

Our focus here is on building a strong lede for this article. Let us stay on topic, shall we? Sbelknap (talk) 22:54, 5 December 2019 (UTC)

If we're all focused, let's not use totally unsupported pejorative phrases like "utter nonsense", shall we? Martinevans123 (talk) 22:56, 5 December 2019 (UTC)

The phrase "utter nonsense" is a quote that is provided (with citation) in the body of the article: 'Roger Scruton stated that: "His major work Being and Time is formidably difficult—unless it is utter nonsense, in which case it is laughably easy. I am not sure how to judge it, and have read no commentator who even begins to make sense of it"' However, this quote is not in the lead and your comment is off topic. Sbelknap (talk) 23:17, 5 December 2019 (UTC)

Scruton doesn't sound so sure, does he. He uses the word "unless". How many commentators had he read by 1989? Jeff Collins doesn't tell us, does he? Martinevans123 (talk) 23:26, 5 December 2019 (UTC) p.s. although that Collins book does give us a little pen-and-ink sketch of Heidegger that looks remarkably like Adolf Hitler.

Any suggestions for the lead? Sbelknap (talk) 23:39, 5 December 2019 (UTC)

You've suggested "in his early work, Being and Time (1927)". Wasn't that his first book? And also his most notable? Martinevans123 (talk) 23:43, 5 December 2019 (UTC)

According to the Heidegger Gesamtausgabe, where Heidegger dictated the order of his works, Frühe Schriften (1912–1916) predated Sein und Zeit (1927). Arguably, On Time and Being is Heidegger's most notable work, as it documents his "turn". Sbelknap (talk) 00:18, 6 December 2019 (UTC)

I'm afraid I have to say the points about Germanic and Latinate roots, and the details of his early life, don't seem weighty enough for the lede – though I'd hang on to them for the article. Here's a draft edit from me (I've dropped the references so that we don't get them piling up at the end of the section, not because I don't think they should be there):

Martin Heidegger ([pronunciation guide] 26 September 1889 – 26 May 1976) was a German philosopher in the Continental tradition of philosophy. Heidegger was concerned with the question of existence – what it means for something or someone to be. Heidegger used the German term Dasein ("being-there") to denote the human experience of existence. He argued that Dasein is defined by care: a human's practically engaged and concernful mode of being-in-the-world, in opposition to such Rationalist thinkers as René Descartes, who defined human existence by a human's ability to think (e.g., "Cogito ergo sum"). Heidegger's work is a key reference point for the existential philosophers and the postmodernists.

From 1928 until 1967, Heidegger was a Professor of Philosophy at the University of Freiburg; he was briefly rector of the University, though his tenure as rector was fraught with difficulties and he ultimately resigned after eleven months. He published many philosophical works, perhaps most notably his first book, Being and Time (Sein und Zeit 1927), which concerns the nature of being and the issue of authenticity. Karl Jaspers, writing in the first volume of his work Philosophy (1932), credited Heidegger as making essential points in Being and Time about "being in the world" and also about "existence and historicity". Heidegger argued that the original meaning of the philosophical concept of truth was "unconcealment" and criticized the framing of existence in terms of a technological "instrumentalist" understanding of mechanism and purpose.

Heidegger's work is considered by many readers to be obscure or difficult to understand; this opinion is shared by some philosophers, particularly those from the analytic tradition of philosophy. Despite this, a poll of North American college and university teachers of philosophy identified Being and Time as one of the central philosophical works of the 20th century.

Heidegger was a mid-ranking member of the Nazi Party, and during his time as rector he supported the Nazification of the University of Freiburg. Based on some comments written by Heidegger in his Black notebooks, some critics argue that his Nazism deeply influenced his philosophy, though this is disputed. Due to his promotion of Nazism, Heidegger was forbidden to teach at the University of Freiburg from 1945 until his teaching privileges were restored in 1951. Despite the urging of colleagues and friends, Heidegger never disavowed his Nazism. He only referred to it obliquely, saying "He who thinks greatly must err greatly."

—VeryRarelyStable (talk) 01:30, 6 December 2019 (UTC)

The suggestion suffers from the same problems as earlier suggestions, for example, in a paragraph such as, "Heidegger's work is considered by many readers to be obscure or difficult to understand; this opinion is shared by some philosophers, particularly those from the analytic tradition of philosophy. Despite this, a poll of North American college and university teachers of philosophy identified Being and Time as one of the central philosophical works of the 20th century." Again: it does not matter what "many readers" may think, even if there were a citation that actually stated that "many readers" think this or that of Heidegger. It also does not matter what a poll stated. Freeknowledgecreator (talk) 01:42, 6 December 2019 (UTC)

Does not matter to whom? The Gods of Lankhmar? The obscurity/difficulty/absurdity/ of Heidegger's writing would certainly matter to a reader of wikipedia intent on learning more about Heidegger. I note that no evidence is provided in support of this dubious assertion. quod grātīs asseritur, grātīs negātur Sbelknap (talk) 03:51, 6 December 2019 (UTC)

Now, having repeated that many times, and used boldface for emphasis, you might try providing an actual supporting argument. What objective, non-opinion-based yardstick did you use all those times you decided it was important for the lede to keep saying that Being and Time was a "central" philosophical work? —VeryRarelyStable (talk) 03:14, 6 December 2019 (UTC)

This draft version of the lede looks good to me. Sbelknap (talk) 03:46, 6 December 2019 (UTC)

It's garbage. In answer to your question above: it does not matter what "many readers" think about Heidegger in the sense that it is objectively trivial information, and as such does not belong in the article's lead section. Per WP:LEAD: "The lead serves as an introduction to the article and a summary of its most important contents." Essentially every writer in western history who has been regarded as a philosopher has seemed "difficult" to many of those who have tried to read him - which makes it stupid for the lead to state something such as "many people find reading him difficult." Readers learn nothing of value from the inclusion of such inappropriate material. Let's not pander to anti-intellectualism. Freeknowledgecreator (talk) 07:14, 6 December 2019 (UTC)

• Outside editor returns: Further to my point of principle above: Occam's Razor anyone? I know next to nothing about Heidegger, but I have done a lot of editing in controversial topic areas, which is an exercise in condensation. Remember that at all times we are to seek the most universally acceptable phrasing (not the most comprehensive), and this can be done by reducing text to a basic form and then building it up if necessary. So let's start with some bare bones - and go ahead and correct inaccuracies:

Martin Heidegger ([pronunciation guide] 26 September 1889 – 26 May 1976) was a German philosopher. From 1928 until 1967, he was a Professor of Philosophy at the University of Freiburg. He published many philosophical works, most notably his first book, Being and Time (Sein und Zeit 1927), which has been described as one of the central philosophical works of the 20th century.

Heidegger was concerned with the question of existence – what it means for us 'to be'. Heidegger used the German term Dasein ("being-there") to define the human experience in terms of action - rather than thought, as opposed to some of his predecessors. Heidegger's work is a key reference point for existentialist philosophy.

His work is an aspect of the Continental tradition of philosophy; it is considered by philosophers from the Analytic tradition to be obscure, difficult to understand or even nonsensical. Some critics argue that Nazism deeply influenced his thinking, although this is disputed. Due to his association with Nazism, Heidegger was forbidden to teach at the University of Freiburg from 1945 until his teaching privileges were restored in 1951.

-- Chumchum7 (talk) 05:06, 6 December 2019 (UTC)

Chumchum7, respectfully, most, if not quite all, major philosophers in western history have sometimes been considered to be "difficult to understand" even by philosophers. That being the case, what possible purpose do you believe noting that Heidegger's work has been considered "difficult to understand" by some philosophers serves? It's a completely inappropriate statement that does not belong in the lead. I also do not believe that it is properly cited. True, the article does note "This quote expresses the sentiments of many 20th-century analytic philosophers concerning Heidegger" - but that peculiarly worded observation is not the same as the material you are proposing to add to the lead. Given how strangely worded and vague it is, I also suspect it is not genuinely supported by the citation given. Freeknowledgecreator (talk) 07:30, 6 December 2019 (UTC)

I hardly think it's unfair to point out that the man who said "Making itself intelligible is suicide for philosophy" tended to be a bit harder to follow than the average philosopher. Perhaps the relevant lede paragraph could be rejigged around that, as something like

His work is an example of the Continental tradition of philosophy; it is considered by philosophers from the Analytic tradition to be obscure, difficult to understand or even nonsensical. Heidegger himself did not seek to be widely understood, arguing that "Making itself intelligible is suicide for philosophy." He was a member and public supporter of the Nazi Party during its tenure; some critics argue that Nazism deeply influenced his philosophy, although this is disputed. Due to his association with Nazism, Heidegger was forbidden to teach at the University of Freiburg from 1945 until his teaching privileges were restored in 1951.

—VeryRarelyStable (talk) 11:11, 6 December 2019 (UTC)

@Freeknowledgecreator "...what possible purpose do you believe noting that Heidegger's work has been considered "difficult to understand" by some philosophers serves?" The purpose of fulfilling WP:LEDE, namely: "It should identify the topic, establish context, explain why the topic is notable, and summarize the most important points, including any prominent controversies." If there is a prominent, notable and verifiable debate about (i) his comprehensibility or (ii) criticism about his comprehensibility from the Analytical school, our guidelines require us to include it in the lede. If there isn't, they don't. So are you saying there isn't? Because I really don't care per se; I only care about establishing if there is or there isn't for the purpose of achieving consensus and article stability. I agree with your point that all major philosophers are difficult to understand, so the bottom line is whether the incomprehensibility is particularly prominent or widespread in this case. On the matter of citations being inaccurate, then that's a different matter and said content should be cut immediately. -Chumchum7 (talk) 12:51, 6 December 2019 (UTC)

Heidegger is controversial for three reasons: he was a Nazi; his philosophy is possibly nonsensical (or possibly not!); and he had sexual relationships with his female students. Of these, the most important controversy (in my opinion) is whether or not his philosophy is nonsensical. The reason this is the most important controversial aspect of Heidegger is that he is notable for being a philosopher, so the possibility that what he did is utter nonsense is directly in his wheelhouse of competence. Sbelknap (talk) 16:28, 6 December 2019 (UTC)

@Sbelknap Please list a few references that verify that there is a notable controversy about whether his philosophy is possibly nonsensical - or possibly not. It seems one is here [2] -Chumchum7 (talk) 19:31, 6 December 2019 (UTC)

Theodor Adorno is perhaps the most prominent critic of Heidegger. The best primary source of Adorno's critique of Heidegger's philosophy, and more generally Husserlian phenomenology, is his Against Epistemology. in which he criticizes Husserlian Phenomenology. Lukacs devotes an entire chapter in The Destruction of Reason (Die Zerstörung der Vernunft, Berlin, 1954) to criticizing Heidegger and german Existenzphilosophie in general. Herman Philipse's Heidegger's Philosophy of Being discredits Heidegger's thought entirely. Of secondary sources, Biletzki discusses criticism of Heidegger by Carnap (chapter 13) Sbelknap (talk) 20:50, 6 December 2019 (UTC)

Might be worth adding that fact at Theodor W. Adorno, which mentions Heidegger but not quite in such strong terms. Martinevans123 (talk) 21:57, 6 December 2019 (UTC)

From Martin Jay's review of 'Towards a New Manifesto' we have this:

Among the most interesting topics pursued by Horkheimer and Adorno is that of the ambivalent implications of argumentation for philosophy, an issue that is performatively acted out in the dialogue itself. Both Horkheimer and Adorno recognize that there is something sinister in the undiluted hostility to argument in certain twentieth-century philosophers. "Thinking that renounces argument -- Heidegger -- switches into pure irrationalism," Adorno cautions; "the mistrust of argument is at bottom what has inspired the Husserls and the Heideggers. The diabolical aspect of it is that the abolition of argument means that their writing ends up in tautology and nonsense." (72) There is somehow a vital link, they suggest, between the imperative to argue and the imperative to turn theory into practice.

Sbelknap (talk) 22:52, 6 December 2019 (UTC)

Sorry. No idea how that supports or negates the fact that Adorno is the most prominent critic of Heidegger. Martinevans123 (talk) 22:56, 6 December 2019 (UTC)

Let us not conflate levels of abstraction. Two separate assertions: Theodor W. Adorno is a notable philosopher. Adorno opines that Heidegger's abolition of argument ends in tautology and nonsense. QED. Sbelknap (talk) 23:03, 6 December 2019 (UTC)

Ah, I see. We're back on the "nonsense" thing again. Martinevans123 (talk) 23:07, 6 December 2019 (UTC)

Again, assuming good faith by @Martinevans123, please note that the Adorno cite is responsive to the query. Sbelknap (talk) 23:28, 6 December 2019 (UTC)

Again, sorry. No idea how that supports or negates the "fact" that Adorno is the "most prominent critic of Heidegger." Martinevans123 (talk) 23:32, 6 December 2019 (UTC)

I invite interested editors who are not @martinevans123 to review the query by @chumchum7 and judge for themselves whether my citation of Adorno is response to @chumchum7's query. Further, deponeth sayeth not. Sbelknap (talk) 23:42, 6 December 2019 (UTC)

Martinevans123, why does Adorno have to be the "most prominent critic" for his opinion to be notable? —VeryRarelyStable (talk) 23:52, 6 December 2019 (UTC)

I wasn't suggesting that he did have to be. I was suggesting that, if it was a fact, it ought to appear in his article. By the way, T disagree with Chumchum7's choice of that paper by Taylor Carman in Philosophy and Phenomenological Research, as evidence that "there is a notable controversy about whether his philosophy is possibly nonsensical". Martinevans123 (talk) 00:07, 7 December 2019 (UTC)

And yet you've twice queried the support for that claim, rather than attending to whether Adorno's opinion on Heidegger constitutes an indication of something notable enough for the lede. —VeryRarelyStable (talk) 02:49, 7 December 2019 (UTC)

Perhaps we should all just continue, and assume that the claim "Theodor Adorno is perhaps the most prominent critic of Heidegger" is an axiomatic truth. Evenso, I'd suggest that's worth mentioning at Theodor W. Adorno. Martinevans123 (talk) 10:27, 7 December 2019 (UTC) p.s. if there was a whole section in the article discussing Adorno's criticism of Heidegger, then yes, it might belong in the lead.

• Question to all. Separately, of all the major philosophers, if ranked by alleged incomprehensibility, who are verifiably around the top? Is Mr H in this group or not? -Chumchum7 (talk) 19:31, 6 December 2019 (UTC)

Well, here's one small indication: there's a series of books called "Philosophy through jokes" or something which I discovered in a bookshop recently while Christmas shopping. One of them was titled "Heidegger and a hippo walk up to those Pearly Gates..." and it turned out to be about Heidegger and existentialism, but the point of the jokes was that – at least according to that author – Heidegger was the most incomprehensible philosopher in the Western canon. (Heidegger and a hippo walk up to the Pearly Gates. St Peter says "We only have room for one more today, so we'll let through the first one who can explain the meaning of life." Heidegger says [Heidegger quote about Being, which I didn't attempt to memorize, inserted here]. St Peter says to the hippo, "It's your lucky day.")

Others with similar though lesser reputations for obscurity include Hegel and Kant. I've seen suspicion directed at Hegel and Heidegger, but not Kant, that their obscurity is either a deliberate screen for meaninglessness or that they got lost in their own verbiage without realizing it. This is not something that goes with all philosophy or even all German philosophy: at any level of the philosophical canon, from big names like Plato and Nietzsche down to contemporary writers like Daniel Dennett and James Flynn, you can find people writing perfectly comprehensibly.

—VeryRarelyStable (talk) 22:23, 6 December 2019 (UTC)

Maybe you should add that at the Hippopotamus article? Martinevans123 (talk) 00:09, 7 December 2019 (UTC)

I do apologize for my inappropriate attempt at levity. I should have realized it would be a fatal distraction. I see from your edit summary that the phrase "here's one small indication" was entirely crowded out. Of course it would take a survey of the opinions a wide range of informed writers to verify where Heidegger falls on the incomprehensibility list, but, well, the appropriateness of using surveys of people's opinions as sources has been called into question in this section already, hasn't it? (Still unclear as to what we're being asked to refer to instead.) —VeryRarelyStable (talk) 02:49, 7 December 2019 (UTC)

A minor issue is whether or not we should include in this biography some key info on his early life in the lede/lead. One major flaw with the current approach to Heidegger in wikipedia is that his "beautiful" philosophy is riven from his "ugly" life, so we have a separate article on Heidegger and Nazism, and relevant information in several other articles. Yet, this article is a biography! Regarding the lede, it does seem important to his development as a philosopher that Heidegger's father was a sexton of a small Catholic parish, that the Catholic church supported his study of theology at Freiburg, that his thesis was on psychologism, that he was influenced by Husserl, and that he served as a German soldier. Each of these elements is interesting in light of his professional work. I boiled this down to the following: "Born in rural Meßkirch, Baden-Württemberg, he was the son of the sexton of a rural Roman Catholic parish. He studied theology at the University of Freiburg while supported by the Catholic church, later switching to philosophy. He completed his doctoral thesis on psychologism in 1914 and his thesis for qualification as a University teacher in 1916. His scholarly work was influenced by Edmund Husserl's phenomenology. For the next two years, he worked as an unsalaried Privatdozent, and then served as a soldier in the German army during the last ten months of World War I." Thoughts? Sbelknap (talk) 15:59, 7 December 2019 (UTC)

No objections. His father's secular occupation might be mentioned, at least in the article? Martinevans123 (talk) 16:55, 7 December 2019 (UTC)

- I think this belongs in the Biography section, not in the lead - the lead, at 5 paragraphs, already exceeds the length recommended in MOS:LEAD - we can't have every detail about his life in the lead, the lead is a summary - the Biography section already notes that his father was a sexton, no need to repeat it in the lead - no problem adding any missing material to the article, but not relevant to the lead - Epinoia (talk) 17:33, 7 December 2019 (UTC)

This is *precisely* how this article has gone so terribly off the rails. The biography "section" is not some subsidiary section of the Martin Heidegger article, it is the entire article. The lede summarizes this biographical narrative. This is a *biography*. Its primary subject is a person. That person is Martin Heidegger. This article is about Heidegger's life. He was raised a Catholic, studied theology, switched to philosophy, became a University professor, became a Nazi, thought, wrote, and taught about philosophy, and lived a life. We are writing a biographical narrative, not (primarily) a philosophical treatise. Please review the lead/lede of biographies of other philosophers. The Friedrich Nietzsche and Ludwig Wittgenstein ledes are particularly well done. Sbelknap (talk) 22:00, 7 December 2019 (UTC)

Most bio articles don't include Early life detail in the lead. Are philosophers different in some way? Martinevans123 (talk) 22:04, 7 December 2019 (UTC)

- Wikipedia:Biography dos and don'ts says, "Don't give undue weight to traits unrelated to notability." - I think this applies especially to the lead - in the lead we want only information related to notability and not give undue weight to minor details that belong in the body of the article, resulting in unnecessary clutter in the lead - Epinoia (talk) 22:34, 7 December 2019 (UTC)

Please do read MOS:LEADBIO and WP:MOSBIO and look at some examples: Thomas Edison, Albert Einstein, Fidel Castro, Bertrand Russel and the aforementioned Wittgenstein. Some article leads about philosophers are well-written. Others make the same error that is seen in the Martin Heidegger article, neglecting the biographical narrative. Most biography article leads do include some information about the person's life, in the context of what makes them notable. Sbelknap (talk) 23:12, 7 December 2019 (UTC)

References

Further edits to Lead

A group of editors has done some excellent work on the wikipedia glossary for Heideggerian terminology. I've linked to this resource in the lede, but I notice that the body of the Martin Heidegger article is out of synch with and inferior to the glossary where those terms are used in the body of the article. I'm attempting to fix some of this, while focusing on the lede. I could use some input on how to adjust the use of Heideggerian terminology in the body of the Martin Heidegger article. Sbelknap (talk) 19:42, 8 December 2019 (UTC)

Also, I'm struggling with how to (briefly) mention "the turn" in the lead. IMHO, "the turn" belongs in the lead because this arc of thought/feeling is at least as important as Heidegger's work on being-in-time, and in a sense supercedes what he wrote in Sein und Zeit. I'm having trouble reducing this to a sentence, and the confused text in the body doesn't help much. Any suggestions? Sbelknap (talk) 19:47, 8 December 2019 (UTC)

The current draft has this truly awful sentence,

Heidegger also argued that the original meaning of the philosophical concept of truth was disclosure, to philosophical analyses of art as a site of the revelation of truth, and to philosophical understanding of language as the "house of being."

, which is notable both for being difficult to understand and for not reflecting the evolution of Heidegger's thoughts on the relationship between disclosure (Aletheia) and truth. It seems to me that the lede could be improved by simply deleting this sentence. Thoughts? Sbelknap (talk) 19:59, 8 December 2019 (UTC)

Writing in lead is becoming incoherent

For example, "Heidegger argued that Dasein is denoted by Sorge the German word he used to express the human experience of care or concern about Dasein." This wording is incoherent. Does this mean Dasein is Sorge is Dasein? What is this "denotation?" Aren't we missing some commas? What is the German term for this notion of "experience?" I suspect there is none. CCS81 (talk) 20:20, 8 December 2019 (UTC)

I tend to agree. I really don't understand what that sentence is trying to say. I also disagree with trying to write the lead section before the material, which it is meant to be summarising, has been expanded and agreed in the relevant sub-section(s) of the main body. Martinevans123 (talk) 20:40, 8 December 2019 (UTC)

What does "Heidegger argued that Dasein is denoted by Sorge" mean? Thanks. Martinevans123 (talk) 20:56, 8 December 2019 (UTC)

Removed text from lead; deleted garbled sentence from third paragraph of lead. Sbelknap (talk) 21:02, 8 December 2019 (UTC)

In the lead section: "Heidegger was "an enthusiastic supporter of the Nazi Party" (with two sources). But in the article main body: "According to historian Richard J. Evans, Heidegger was not only a member of the Nazi Party, but "enthusiastic" about participating" (with no sources). The lead section is supposed to be a summary of the entire article. Why do we have unique material in the lead? That should not happen. Martinevans123 (talk) 22:41, 8 December 2019 (UTC)

Roger Scruton

The quote "His major work Being and Time is formidably difficult—unless it is utter nonsense, in which case it is laughably easy. I am not sure how to judge it, and have read no commentator who even begins to make sense of it" is sourced to Jeff Collins (1998), Introducing Heidegger, Thriplow, Cambridge: Icon Books: [3], also known by the title Heidegger for Beginners. But Collins is not a notable author and this might not be considered an authoritative source on Heidegger. Would the primary source be any better: Roger Scruton (2010), A Short History of Modern Philosophy from Descartes to Wittgenstein, London: Routledge: [4], page 270? Another possible secondary source, available online, might be Michael Watts (2014), The Philosophy of Heidegger, London: Routledge: [5]. Thanks. Martinevans123 (talk) 17:15, 6 December 2019 (UTC)

"Collins is not a notable author" is yet another assertion posted on this talk page without any evidence. Collins is the author of a series of books about philosophers that are written for beginners. I've seen these in my local bookstore. The book on Heidegger has been favorably reviewed. Here is that review:

This is a recent volume in the "For Beginners" series, edited by Richard Appiganesi, which ranges from Machiavelli to Postmodernism, from Newton to Stephen Hawking, from the Enlightenment to Chaos Theory. Each book is written in comic-strip form, with endearingly inept illustrations. This may seem off-putting to the earnest autodidact; in fact, the approach works very well: the books may look unserious, but they are soundly based. The treatment of Heidegger's stubborn, extremely intricate, often impenetrable - wholly nonsensical, according to some, such as the logical positivists - philosophy is clear and, rare in treatments of this thinker, jargon-free. Heidegger is a controversial figure, not only for his philosophy but for his politics: he joined the Nazi party in 1933, and never publicly recanted his admiration for its policies. For all the difficulty of his philosophy, his concerns are always with the here-and-now, with the question of what it is to be in the world - with human being. Jeff Collins - I assume he is the author of the text - has done an admirable job of explicating the work of this profound, frequently maddening, but always exciting thinker.

Sbelknap (talk) 19:50, 6 December 2019 (UTC)

The source should be removed; I agree that it is not an "authoritative source on Heidegger", and nor should it be used as a source for Scruton's views. The book is aimed at explaining Heidegger in simplified terms to a popular audience; it is not a serious academic source and it downgrades the quality of the article to use it place of a serious academic source. The Irish Times is not a philosophical journal and its opinion does not matter. Freeknowledgecreator (talk) 18:30, 6 December 2019 (UTC)

Jeff Collins is not notable in terms of a Wikipedia article. Feel free to create one. I'm not sure that the notability of philosophical commentators hinges on whether or not they appear on the shelves of your local bookstore. Martinevans123 (talk) 18:32, 6 December 2019 (UTC) p.s. Richard Appiganesi also has no Wiki article.

Jeff Collins is a Senior Lecturer in Art History at the University of Plymouth. He teaches and writes about critical theory, postmodernism, and the philosophy of art. What other sort of background would be better suited for authoring a work on Heidegger? There are many notable persons who lack a wikipedia biography. Among other reasons, that is why we have wikipedia editors: wikipedia is an unfinished enterprise. If one wants to learn about something about which one knows little, one effective strategy is to go to the "young adult" section of your public library and read the books on that subject. Such books do not assume very much about baseline knowledge. I suggest that *almost every* wikipedia article would benefit from citing sources written for beginners along with more advanced sources. That is a big chunk of wikipedia's audience. The assertion that wikipedia should only cite "academic" or "authoritative" sources is contrary to the philosophy of wikipedia. This does explain how this Martin Heidegger article has gone so horribly astray! Sbelknap (talk) 18:54, 6 December 2019 (UTC)

What's the objection to just using the primary source, exactly? Thanks. Martinevans123 (talk) 18:57, 6 December 2019 (UTC)

Because that is not how we do things at wikipedia. Please see WP:RS "Wikipedia articles should be based mainly on reliable secondary sources, i.e., a document or recording that relates or discusses information originally presented elsewhere." I have no objection to *also* citing primary sources. But WP:RS instructs us to emphasize secondary sources. Sbelknap (talk) 19:06, 6 December 2019 (UTC)

I guess either Scruton made that comment or he didn't. There's nothing more reliable than his own book. The advantage of the primary source is that it shows the context. I wonder could your remember to sign your posts, Sbelknap? It's sometimes confusing if another editor replies and there is no clear singature for an earlier post. Many thanks. Martinevans123 (talk) 19:45, 6 December 2019 (UTC)

It is also true that the advantage of the secondary source is that it provides context. Here on wikipedia, we emphasize secondary sources, as per WP:RS. Again, I have no objection to citing both the secondary source and the primary source in this particular case. Sbelknap (talk) 19:49, 6 December 2019 (UTC)

Would you care to outline here the "context" that Collins gives for that quote? Because, looking at an online version of that book, I can't see any. Thanks. Martinevans123 (talk) 19:54, 6 December 2019 (UTC)

Was the rest of the book, other than the quote, invisible to you? As with any secondary source, it is the text (or in this case text plus illustrations) that provides the context. Sbelknap (talk) 22:03, 6 December 2019 (UTC)

I was looking for some explanation for the Scruton quote. It seems somewhat unlikely that Collins would take a whole book explain that one sound-bite. Perhaps your local bookshop copy has the answer? I could see the Hitler-like pen-and-ink sketch, thanks. Martinevans123 (talk) 22:10, 6 December 2019 (UTC)

I will here assume that your query is posed in good faith. If you do not wish to add Jeff Collins's book to your library or e-library, you can see the context here: https://books.google.com/books?id=onJvBwAAQBAJ&pg=PT17&lpg=PT17&dq=%22Jeff+Collins%22+heidegger+scruton&source=bl&ots=L4NjlWWW_4&sig=ACfU3U2uEF2wSERWcdRGlN69tpXWt-4JEA&hl=en&sa=X&ved=2ahUKEwigwPW9haLmAhUj1VkKHaJ-A7MQ6AEwAnoECAoQAQ#v=onepage&q=%22Jeff%20Collins%22%20heidegger%20scruton&f=false

Sbelknap (talk) 22:16, 6 December 2019 (UTC)

Yes, I saw that. Sorry, that's not what I would call "context". Perhaps someone else could ellucidate how that single Scruton quote is explained. Martinevans123 (talk) 22:25, 6 December 2019 (UTC)

res ipsa loquitur Sbelknap (talk) 22:56, 6 December 2019 (UTC)

Martinevans123, what would you call "context"? There's a pattern here of you demanding it and then declaring yourself unsatisfied with the answer. —VeryRarelyStable (talk) 02:52, 7 December 2019 (UTC)

I've made a few observations. I may have made a few requests. As far as I can see I've "demanded" nothing. And I don't see any "pattern." I'd call "context" some kind of explanation or perspective on that soundbite. I can see nothing else on that page online. Perhaps it's because it's a snippet view. If you have a printed copy it might make more sense/ be more expansive. Martinevans123 (talk) 09:15, 7 December 2019 (UTC)

• General note. We need to keep focused on the part of this knot that everyone can agree on. That will start loosening it up for it to finally get untied. So, let's note the difference between (i) there's a well-known, prominent or notable public debate about Heidegger's comprehensibility and (ii) Heidegger is incomprehensible. Without agreeing on the latter, can we all agree on the former? -Chumchum7 (talk) 06:25, 7 December 2019 (UTC)

The disagreement among engaged editors on this page has been between these two assertions: (i) there's a well-known, prominent or notable public debate about Heidegger's comprehensibility and (ii) Heidegger is comprehensible. Sbelknap (talk) 06:49, 7 December 2019 (UTC)

Well in that case we're getting closer to a solution. Let's stop even talking about the latter, because it is a matter of opinion and not even required in the lede. If we can find wording for the former that suits everyone, we'll have a breakthrough. Let's remember that Wikipedia is not about competition between ideas, it's about collegiality in finding an idea that has consensus. -Chumchum7 (talk) 09:09, 7 December 2019 (UTC)

I am not immediately going to revert it, but I question the merits of this edit by Sbelknap. Any explanation of Heidegger's ideas is always going to be "difficult to understand" for some people, so I doubt that "this is difficult to understand" is a valid reason for removing something. Freeknowledgecreator (talk) 23:50, 7 December 2019 (UTC)

- the whole "Heidegger is difficult to understand" reveals more about the reader than about Heidegger - people projecting their own intellectual limitations onto Heidegger - I don't fully understand quantum physics, but if I said, "I can't understand quantum physics so it must be nonsense." I would sound pretty dumb - Heidegger does take work to understand, but he can be understood - so we should drop all this Heidegger is incomprehensible or nonsense, it is not true and is irrelevant to his philosophy - Epinoia (talk) 00:42, 8 December 2019 (UTC)

We are not here to conduct our own original research. Whether or not you find Heidegger comprehensible is irrelevant. Instead, we are writing an article about Heidegger that reflects consensus opinion of secondary sources, when that is available, or that describes multiple perspectives when there is no consensus. The reason that the incomprehensibility or nonsensicalness of Heidegger is relevant is because that is what some secondary sources hold to be the case. Sbelknap (talk) 06:27, 8 December 2019 (UTC)

The difference is, there isn't a school of physicists that maintains that quantum physics is nonsense. Even physicists who prefer different specialties and leave quantum physics to others don't maintain that quantum physics is nonsense. —VeryRarelyStable (talk) 06:34, 8 December 2019 (UTC)

Here is the first sentence from the second paragraph of the lead:

"In the first part of Being and Time (1927), Heidegger attempted to turn away from "ontic" questions about beings to ontological questions about the idea of Being itself, and recover the most fundamental philosophical question: the question of Being, of what it means for something to be."

Here is a simpler version:

"In Being and Time (1927), Heidegger addressed the fundamental philosophical question of what it means for something to be."

Can we all agree that the tortured and pedantic first sentence does not belong in the lede of a wikipedia article? In terms of its *meaning* if the first sentence is OK, how exactly would the second sentence be not OK? Sbelknap (talk) 00:37, 8 December 2019 (UTC)

Your proposed change to the sentence does not simply remove material. It alters the meaning of text, without evidence that the change is correct. I already tried to explain the problem to you. You proposed "simpler version" would be better if it removed the word "fundamental". Freeknowledgecreator (talk) 00:42, 8 December 2019 (UTC)

OK:

"In Being and Time (1927), Heidegger addressed the philosophical question of what it means for something to be."

Sbelknap (talk) 01:02, 8 December 2019 (UTC)

Freeknowledgecreator, I'm reading your edit summaries, and I'm really hoping that I'm wrong, and that, while reverting edits on the basis of "not being consensus", you are not planning to dig your heels in and refuse to allow anything but the present state of the article to become "consensus". —VeryRarelyStable (talk) 06:34, 8 December 2019 (UTC)

References

• VeryRarelyStable, the same question has crossed my mind. They don't appear to have responded to my engagement with them above:

@Freeknowledgecreator "...what possible purpose do you believe noting that Heidegger's work has been considered "difficult to understand" by some philosophers serves?" The purpose of fulfilling WP:LEDE, namely: "It should identify the topic, establish context, explain why the topic is notable, and summarize the most important points, including any prominent controversies." If there is a prominent, notable and verifiable debate about (i) his comprehensibility or (ii) criticism about his comprehensibility from the Analytical school, our guidelines require us to include it in the lede. If there isn't, they don't. So are you saying there isn't? Because I really don't care per se; I only care about establishing if there is or there isn't for the purpose of achieving consensus and article stability. I agree with your point that all major philosophers are difficult to understand, so the bottom line is whether the incomprehensibility is particularly prominent or widespread in this case. On the matter of citations being inaccurate, then that's a different matter and said content should be cut immediately. -Chumchum7 (talk) 12:51, 6 December 2019 (UTC)

• Per Wikipedia policy, the said user would do themselves a favor to attend to the fact that the current lede does not have consensus, in order to avert future assessment of whether WP:OWN is causing the gridlock here.
• Wikipedia guidelines say the lede must include any notable controversies; there seems to be widespread agreement that there is a verifiable public and academic discourse - whether anti-intellectual or not - about whether or not Heidegger is comprehensible (which, to repeat ad nauseam, does not mean Heidegger is incomprehensible).
• So, what's Freeknowledgecreator's proposed simpler version? -- Chumchum7 (talk) 07:03, 8 December 2019 (UTC)

This sentence in the lead is particularly awful:

"Heidegger approached this question through an inquiry into the being (the living human creature) that has an understanding of Being, and asks the question about that creature itself. He called the human experience of Being Dasein ("being-there")."

Here is an alternative:

"Heidegger approached this question through an inquiry into the human experience of Being. In reference to this human experience of being, Heidegger rejected the Latinate term "existential" preferring to use the German word Dasein ("being-there")."

Sbelknap (talk) 07:18, 8 December 2019 (UTC)

(i) Yes to "In Being and Time (1927), Heidegger addressed the philosophical question of what it means for something to be.". (ii) Yes what you describe as an awful sentence really is awful. Good of you to suggest an alternative. I'd suggest go further: "Heidegger approached this question through an inquiry into the human experience of Being, which he called Dasein ("being-there")." -Chumchum7 (talk) 07:37, 8 December 2019 (UTC)

Chumchum7, I have never altered my view that the article should not emphasize the issue of Heidegger being considered difficult to understand, as that's a pathetic issue that doesn't distinguish Heidegger at all from other major philosophers. Maybe the issue of Heidegger's writings being considered obscure would be worth exactly one sentence in the article; there's no reason for to be covered in the lead. Freeknowledgecreator (talk) 08:56, 8 December 2019 (UTC)

Freeknowledgecreator, thank you for the reply. You and possibly others say it's a pathetic issue, while other editors still say it's a notable issue. Herein lies the problem. Can you offer an attempt at solving it? -Chumchum7 (talk) 09:49, 8 December 2019 (UTC)

@Freeknowledgecreator:, I'm looking over the edit summaries for your latest batch of reverts and I have to ask: what do you think the word "consensus" means? —VeryRarelyStable (talk) 23:33, 9 December 2019 (UTC)

@Freeknowledgecreator: once again given your latest revert and its edit summary, I have to repeat the question, and also my earlier one. Do you intend to keep reverting whatever you don't agree with, while also not engaging on the talk page except to re-state your position, and then blame others for not getting "consensus"? —VeryRarelyStable (talk) 05:18, 11 December 2019 (UTC)

Just to remind folks, I was asking about the best source for the Roger Scruton quote. No more. No less. Thanks. Martinevans123 (talk) 11:35, 8 December 2019 (UTC)

A significant number of modern philosophers could be considered obscure it is not notable. If anything 'Being and Nothingness'is even worse and some of modern analytical philosophy worse again. Further much of said criticism comes from a very different school or from political motivation - he was not a very nice person! By way of a compromise we could use a third-party source (there has too little of this) "Like his great rival Hegel (who also made life difficult for his non-German readers by trying to 'teach philosophy to speak German'_, he is alternately worshipped, reviled, or sympathetically assimilated to other, more accessible philosophers, especially Wittgenstein." The Oxford Companion to philosophy Honderich second edition pp375 -----Snowded ^TALK 06:46, 11 December 2019 (UTC)

The Nazi question

Using a third-party source again. "His initial support for nazism was rooted not in anti-semitism, bus in distaste for technology and industrialised mass society, which he associated with the USA and USSR; later he regarded Nazism as an aspect of technological modernity and its 'forgetfulness of being' rather than as an abnormal excrescence" Honderick: Oxford Companion second edition pp372. This is as impecable a third party source as you can get get - its is not an online collection of essays - so I would normally just replace much of the primary source bloat but I offer it for commentary first -----Snowded ^TALK 06:57, 11 December 2019 (UTC)-----Snowded ^TALK 06:58, 11 December 2019 (UTC)

What's the publication date on that? Before or after the Black Notebooks? —VeryRarelyStable (talk) 07:45, 11 December 2019 (UTC)

The point is not strictly relevant; it is a reliable third-party source and it does not deny anti-Semitism. This quote supports that "The notebooks also show that for Heidegger, antisemitism overlapped with a strong resentment of American and English culture, all of which he saw as drivers of what he called Machenschaft, variously translated as "machination" or "manipulative domination". Also from a reliable source which would argue a reference to the US Cultural aspect is important - to repeat the phrase from Honerick does not say he was not anti-Semitic (read it carefully)it references to roots of his support for the Nazis. Something which is important in relation to Hegel and others -----Snowded ^TALK 09:48, 12 December 2019 (UTC)

Edit to the Young Hegelians

This entry was deleted from the Young Hegelians subsection:

Martin Jay's review of Theodor Adorno's and Max Horkheimer's book, 'Towards a New Manifesto' states:

Among the most interesting topics pursued by Horkheimer and Adorno is that of the ambivalent implications of argumentation for philosophy, an issue that is performatively acted out in the dialogue itself. Both Horkheimer and Adorno recognize that there is something sinister in the undiluted hostility to argument in certain twentieth-century philosophers. "Thinking that renounces argument -- Heidegger -- switches into pure irrationalism," Adorno cautions; "the mistrust of argument is at bottom what has inspired the Husserls and the Heideggers. The diabolical aspect of it is that the abolition of argument means that their writing ends up in tautology and nonsense." There is somehow a vital link, they suggest, between the imperative to argue and the imperative to turn theory into practice.

References

Adorno is a prominent philosopher of the Frankfurt School. Adorno and others in the Frankfurg School were critical of Heidegger's philosophy. Here, a record of a conversation between Adorno and Horkheimer provides a statement about Heidegger's work. This edit is supported by two citations, one a book and the other a book review. This belongs in the Young Hegelians section of the Martin Heidegger article. Something must be done to stop the systematic removal from the Heidegger article of high-quality material that is critical of Heidegger. We have had and continue to have a serious POV problem.Sbelknap (talk) 19:29, 11 December 2019 (UTC)

- the quotation doesn't really contribute to the understanding of Heidegger's philosophy, so is unnecessary - that "the mistrust of argument is at bottom what has inspired the Husserls and the Heideggers" is highly debatable, and probably untrue; were Heidegger and Husserl both inspired by a mistrust of argument?, unlikely - the sensational, emotional and religious language in the quotation makes it dubious as philosophy: "sinister", "undiluted hostility", "diabolical" - Adrono and Horkhmeimer don't prove anything, they "caution" and "suggest" - and there is "somehow a vital link" - somehow?, they obviously don't know what this vital link is, but use it as a basis for argument anyway - putting in this whole quote gives undue weight to a minor point of view - perhaps reduce it to a sentence along the lines of, "Philosophers of the Frankfurt School, such as Adrono and Horkhmeimer, suggest that Heidegger has a mistrust of argument that ends up in tautology and nonsense." with the citations - WP:UNDUE - Epinoia (talk) 23:00, 11 December 2019 (UTC)

It would certainly be preferable to cite Adorno and Horkheimer's book directly rather than someone's review of it. Still, I think Sbelknap is right. Specific material critical of Heidegger is removed from this article as soon as any piece of it is added, as being trivial; general statements to the effect that there is controversy over Heidegger are removed as being unsupported; then when specific examples are adduced they are removed as being trivial, and so on. The idea that there may be a general tide of criticism towards Heidegger, of which any one piece of criticism might indeed be minor but put together they come to something significant, is not being allowed to show through. This constitutes a POV problem. Epinoia, you previously compared the criticisms to people not understanding quantum physics, but I think a better comparison would be if the article on string theory excluded all mention of loop quantum gravity, or vice versa. —VeryRarelyStable (talk) 00:12, 12 December 2019 (UTC)

Generally, I would agree that using direct quotes is better. However, we've tried almost everything to try to get to a NPOV on Heidegger's Nazism, the obscurity of his jargon, and the opinion by some credible evaluators that his work is specious nonsense. When quotes from high-quality sources are used, they are attacked as not being the primary source. When primary sources are used, they are attacked as being outliers. Here, I tried to combine a primary source and a secondary source. Interested readers can see the context of the secondary source or, if they choose, see the context of the primary source. Alas, the Heidegger apologists who congregate here have, so far, mostly succeeded in maintaining this article in a state of hagiography. Sbelknap (talk) 03:29, 12 December 2019 (UTC)

Personal attacks again I see, evidence mounting. Anyone who disagrees with you is an apologist. It simply isn't relevant to the article -----Snowded ^TALK 09:50, 12 December 2019 (UTC)

There have been no personal attacks. I will here rely upon the generally-understood concept of "Heidegger Apologist" which has nothing to do with me personally. This term is widely-used. Here, for example:

If there is a whole school of criticism of Heidegger in this vein, that is relevant to the article. —VeryRarelyStable (talk) 10:06, 12 December 2019 (UTC)

One thing to try, Sbelknap, though it might take some time: collate all the criticisms we've had speciously rejected as "minor", maybe in your Sandbox or something, and post them all in one go in the relevant sections. That would be pretty undeniable evidence of notability to an unbiased observer. —VeryRarelyStable (talk) 10:09, 12 December 2019 (UTC)

- there is nothing wrong with criticizing Heidegger - criticism is one of the ways in which philosophy advances - but simply to characterized Heidegger as obscure or nonsense does not help in the understanding of his philosophy - for example, if you read, "Punk rock is just noise", that would not help in understanding punk rock, but if you read, "In emphasizing the sonic aspects of music, speed, volume, distortion, etc., over the melodic elements, punk rock limits the emotional expression of music to anger and frustration", it might help in understanding punk rock, even if you disagree with it - similarly with Heidegger, we need criticism that aids in our understanding of Heidegger not simple condemnations, and the criticism needs to be given appropriate weight - Epinoia (talk) 16:06, 12 December 2019 (UTC)

This is a good example of the problem. You are substituting your own judgement for that of eminent scholars and philosophers. It matters little what I might think or what you might think. What matters is what notable scholars think, as recorded in high-quality primary and secondary sources. Sbelknap (talk) 16:11, 12 December 2019 (UTC)

Agree with Epinoia and there is no way "the Heidegger apologists" is not a personal attack -----Snowded ^TALK 17:41, 12 December 2019 (UTC)

OK. What is your preferred term for editors who systematically revert well-sourced edits that show Heidegger in an unfavorable light? Sbelknap (talk) 17:55, 12 December 2019 (UTC)

In the case of this article ones who have a different opinion from you on questions of weight, relevance and balance. Try and learn to work with them rather than throwing out insults and we might get somewhere. Wikipedia has well-established processes for resolving disputes all of which are available to you; none of them include insults. There are also processes to deal with editors who can't resist personal attacks and invoking them is becoming more rather than less likely in your case -----Snowded ^TALK 18:33, 12 December 2019 (UTC)

Your unwieldy term does not accurately describe the group of currently engaged editors who systematically violate the rules of wikipedia by rejecting well-sourced information that puts Heidegger in a negative light. Those who control the words, control the thoughts. Please explain how "Heidegger apologist" is inaccurate and how it constitutes a personal attack. Sbelknap (talk) 18:48, 12 December 2019 (UTC)

So far what we have learned is that trying to "work with" the Three Very Experienced Editors gets us absolutely nowhere. All changes critical of Heidegger are reverted. Contrary to the edit summaries given for the reverts, no amount of supporting citations and no degree of rephrasing sways the outcome. The only thing that does work, as we accidentally found out a short while ago, is removing something more critical of Heidegger at the same time, so that the article ends up more Heidegger-positive on balance.

Meet me in the middle, says the unreasonable man.

You take a step forward. He takes a step back.

Meet me in the middle, says the unreasonable man.

—VeryRarelyStable (talk) 23:10, 12 December 2019 (UTC)

You've been met in the middle when you pay due attention to weight. A lot of the material you are both suggesting is entirely appropriate for the Heidegger and Nazisim article but not here where the material (and the criticism of Heidegger) is already covered. If you can't or won't see that personal attack point then the option only will be to build a case for ANI. Any continuation and I start to do that. Wikipedia rules are VERY clear- you should not be commenting the motivations other editors either as individuals or more generally -----Snowded ^TALK 08:54, 13 December 2019 (UTC)

References

I have tried to avoid speculating as to other editors' motivations. My comments refer to patterns of behaviour observable through months to years of this article's edit history. As for weight, it is a live controversy whether Heidegger's Nazism was incidental or central to his philosophy. By shunting it off to another page this article takes a stance in that controversy. —VeryRarelyStable (talk) 10:39, 13 December 2019 (UTC)

Heidegger's anti-semitism

Added resignation statement of former chair of Martin Heidegger society to body; added anti-semite to the lead with citation. Sbelknap (talk) 23:08, 12 December 2019 (UTC)

Removed. The "resignation statement of former chair of Martin Heidegger society" is not information about Heidegger himself and does not belong in the article, since it has only an incidental connection with the article subject. See WP:PROPORTION. It was irresponsible to state in the lead that Heidegger was "an anti-semite" without qualification and without context to help readers understand such a statement, so I have removed that as well. Freeknowledgecreator (talk) 23:30, 12 December 2019 (UTC)

Like that. Thank you for the demonstration of what I was just saying, Freeknowledgecreator. I think we all know that if there had been "qualification" on the statement in the lede, you would have removed it as being "too long". —VeryRarelyStable (talk) 23:55, 12 December 2019 (UTC)

Your comment fails to assume good faith. I don't really regard it as helpful for the lead of a biographical article to simply state that someone was "an anti-Semite" and leave it that. Even the lead of the article on Adolf Hitler doesn't simply state that Hitler was "an anti-Semite". It provides more specific and more useful information. Freeknowledgecreator (talk) 00:08, 13 December 2019 (UTC)

A few months ago I was ready to assume good faith. One month ago I was trying hard to keep assuming good faith. There comes a point when an assumption is no longer tenable in the face of mounting evidence to the contrary. —VeryRarelyStable (talk) 00:11, 13 December 2019 (UTC)

This reversion by Freeknowledgecreator is inappropriate. Measures are needed to restrain the repeated inappropriate behavior of these Heidegger apologists.Sbelknap (talk) 00:48, 13 December 2019 (UTC)

Added quote from their article Heidegger’s Radical Antisemitism by Jeff Love and Michael Meng to Contemporary European reception subsection. Sbelknap (talk) 00:58, 13 December 2019 (UTC)

Added quote with citation of Emmanuel Faye from his book.Sbelknap (talk) 01:27, 13 December 2019 (UTC)

The goal is to maintain a balanced and neutral perspective on the subject of Heidegger. While there is a small amount of information in this article that is critical of Heidegger, this article does not even begin to reflect the range of scholarly opinion. Those editors who subvert efforts to present a balanced view of Heidegger, including the analyses of scholars and philosophers who are critics of Heidegger, are not remaining faithful to the philosophy of wikipedia.Sbelknap (talk) 01:30, 13 December 2019 (UTC)

Sbelknap, I do accept that you are trying in good faith to improve the article, and I am sorry to have to revert your recent edits. There are numerous problems with them. It is irresponsible to add a statement such as "Many scholars consider Heidegger's philosophy to contain a core element of anti-semitism" to the lead, without offering the slightest information about how or in what way Heidegger's philosophy is supposedly anti-semitic. Again, I sympathize with what you are trying to do, since the accusations of anti-semitism are important, but material like that is pandering to sensationalism. The issue is a complex one and has to be dealt with carefully. I also have to note that, in some cases, you made factually inaccurate or misleading changes that seem to reflect lack of familiarity with the subject matter. For instance, you changed a section title reading, "The Young Hegelians and Critical Theory" to "Criticism by the Young Hegelians". If you actually look at the article Young Hegelians, you will see that it states, "The Young Hegelians (German: Junghegelianer), or Left Hegelians (Linkshegelianer), or the Hegelian Left (die Hegelsche Linke), were a group of German intellectuals who, in the decade or so after the death of Georg Wilhelm Friedrich Hegel in 1831, reacted to and wrote about his ambiguous legacy." If the Young Hegelians were active in the early to mid 19th century, how then did they "criticize" in any fashion the 20th century philosopher Heidegger? Your change here is simply confused and inaccurate. Freeknowledgecreator (talk) 02:41, 13 December 2019 (UTC)

That is not actually what happened. The previous version of this subsection title was the "Left Hegelians and Critical Theory." I didn't make that title. My understanding is that the Left Hegelians and the Young Hegelians are one and the same. My understanding is that the critical theorists are intellectual descendants of the Young Hegelians. I've changed this subsection title in an attempt to get closer to the descriptor that covers those that are mentioned in the subsection. If you have a better title, great.Sbelknap (talk) 03:21, 13 December 2019 (UTC)

You note in your recent edit summary that the material you added is "well-sourced". To be quite clear about it, it is not enough for material to be "well-sourced" to be added to the article. It also has to be appropriate in nature and to meet tests such as due weight. See WP:PROPORTION. Material such as that concerning Günter Figal has minimal connection with the article subject, Heidegger, and does not belong here. Freeknowledgecreator (talk) 02:47, 13 December 2019 (UTC)

You are asserting that the Martin Heidegger Society is not somehow associated with Martin Heidegger? Do tell!Sbelknap (talk) 03:52, 13 December 2019 (UTC)

The subject of the article is Martin Heidegger, not the Martin Heidegger Society. The fact that the society and its former President are in some sense connected with Heidegger does not automatically mean that material about them is relevant here. The decision of Günter Figal to resign as as President of the Martin Heidegger Society is certainly undue for this article. You have shown poor judgment by insisting on trying to include it here. Freeknowledgecreator (talk) 05:29, 13 December 2019 (UTC)

The quotation from the article by Jeff Love and Michael Meng is unreasonably long. Material from academic articles should be properly summarized, not presented in the form of unreasonably long quotations. Though it is not the most important issue, you incorrectly placed the name of their article, "Heidegger’s Radical Antisemitism", in italics - book titles are italicized, but titles of articles are not. Freeknowledgecreator (talk) 02:52, 13 December 2019 (UTC)

The quote seems OK with me. There are certainly many long quotes in wikipedia. You seem to be arguing for nuance and complexity, and at the same time insisting that the negative material be presented in a form so brief that it is difficult or impossible to understand what meaning is being conveyed in the cited source. The effect of this is to obscure the meaning of material that is negative about Heidegger.Sbelknap (talk) 03:24, 13 December 2019 (UTC)

Yes, no doubt it seems "OK" to you; however it isn't. We summarize material here at Wikipedia. We don't quote massive chunks of text taken from articles, as that is inappropriate and an incompetent way to go about writing an encyclopedia. It is entirely possible to have nuance and complexity without quoting very lengthy passages from academic articles (and pointlessly including the title of the article in the main body of the article, rather than in the references section, as well). If you want to do something appropriate, try summarizing the point being expressed by Love and Meng and get rid of that pointless quotation, pointlessly presented in block quotes. Freeknowledgecreator (talk) 03:31, 13 December 2019 (UTC)

There is always a reason to reject material that is critical of Heidegger, isn't there? Your opinion about the length of quotes in wikipedia is falsified by simply reading wikipedia. On this contentious issue, it is my considered opinion, after many attempts to improve this article, that the only way to move forward is to emphasize quotes from good sources. If you are so intent on summarizing the Love and Meng quote, propose such a summary and other editors will evaluate your summary.Sbelknap (talk) 03:40, 13 December 2019 (UTC)

You are quite wrong. Per WP:IMPARTIAL: "The tone of Wikipedia articles should be impartial, neither endorsing nor rejecting a particular point of view. Try not to quote directly from participants engaged in a heated dispute; instead, summarize and present the arguments in an impartial tone." That is part of a policy that editors are expected to follow. Your refusal to do so makes your edits unacceptable. Freeknowledgecreator (talk) 05:31, 13 December 2019 (UTC)

You included content stating, "In his book, Heidegger, the introduction of Nazism into philosophy, Emmanuel Faye notes that Heidegger’s philosophy is Nazi ideology" - that is entirely inappropriate, per WP:NPOV, because it present the opinion of a single scholar as though it were uncontroversial, uncontested fact. There are obviously scholars - such as Julian Young - who totally disagree with such an assessment of Heidegger's philosophy, so it is really outrageous to present Faye's opinion as if it were uncontested fact. Freeknowledgecreator (talk) 03:05, 13 December 2019 (UTC)

The blurb from Julian Young's book, which "challenges (the) tide of opinion" that Heidegger's philosophy is irredeemably discredited by Heidegger's Nazism. That shows the *opposite* of what you assert; it is Young that is struggling against the tide of Heidegger criticism. This consensus view that Heidegger's Nazism contaminates Heidegger's philosophy requires inclusion in this wikipedia article. Here is the blurb from his book.Sbelknap (talk) 04:04, 13 December 2019 (UTC)

Since 1945, and particularly since the facts of the "Heidegger case" became widely known in 1987, an enormous number of words have been devoted to establishing not only Heidegger's involvement with Nazism, but also that his philosophy is irredeemably discredited thereby. This book, while in no way denying the depth or seriousness of Heidegger's political involvement, challenges this tide of opinion, arguing that his philosophy is not compromised in any of its phases, and that acceptance of it is fully consistent with a deep commitment to liberal democracy.

Blurbs are essentially advertising material. They are not part of the book's actual text and do not have scholarly status. It's pretty stupid to quote a blurb as though it showed much of anything. No, Sbelknap, the blurb of that book does not show that there is a "consensus view" that "Heidegger's Nazism contaminates Heidegger's philosophy". Freeknowledgecreator (talk) 05:35, 13 December 2019 (UTC)

Where do you see the text "Faye notes that Heidegger's philosophy is Nazi philosophy."? Here is the current text quoting Faye.

In his book, Heidegger, the introduction of Nazism into philosophy, Emmanuel Faye argues that Heidegger’s philosophy is Nazi ideology.

“By its very content, it disseminates within philosophy the explicit and remorseless legitimation of the guiding principles of the Nazi movement.”

Sbelknap (talk) 03:45, 13 December 2019 (UTC)

I am aware of what the current text is. It only reads that way now because I changed your blatantly biased addition. Freeknowledgecreator (talk) 05:36, 13 December 2019 (UTC)

VeryRarelyStable, you stated, "Please get consensus before making contentious changes". I could say the same thing to you. You should not have restored Sbelknap's edits. Though they are certainly being made in good faith, they are sensationalistic, biased in that they present controversial opinions as if they were uncontested fact, not in accord with WP:NPOV, and sometimes simply outright factually mistaken, as I have noted at length. Freeknowledgecreator (talk) 02:54, 13 December 2019 (UTC)

CCS81 indicated above that Sbelknap's edits are effectively turning the article into garbage. Frankly that seems to be correct. Freeknowledgecreator (talk) 02:58, 13 December 2019 (UTC)

@Freeknowledgecreator The anti-semitism issue is addressed well by the quoted material I included. Your reversion of these edits is inappropriate. The resignation of the head of the Martin Heidegger society because of Heidegger's anti-semitism is certainly relevant here. The engaged editors have had 5 years to "deal carefully" with this "complex issue." Since 2014, there is much scholarly work that has engaged the material disclosed in the Black Notebooks. That work was simply not adequately reflected in the Martin Heidegger article.Sbelknap (talk) 03:04, 13 December 2019 (UTC)

No, the issue is not "addressed well" by your edits because they were blatantly biased and presented controversial opinions, such as Emmanuel Faye's view that Heidegger’s philosophy is Nazi ideology, as if they were uncontested fact. That is unacceptable when other scholars hold completely contrary views. You may be editing in good faith but your edits are frankly incompetent and destructive. The comment from Günter Figal is not "criticism" of Heidegger or his philosophy at all; it simply a statement by one person explaining his reasons for resigning from the Martin Heidegger Society. It does not belong in the article. Freeknowledgecreator (talk) 03:16, 13 December 2019 (UTC)

What do you think "consensus" means, Freeknowledgecreator? Do you think it's "Agrees with Freeknowledgecreator"? If not, why do you habitually revert changes you disagree with on the basis that they "didn't get consensus", then raise objections when the same reason is given for undoing your edits? In asking other editors to "get consensus", do you have any intention of listening to their side of the case or even negotiating for a reasonable compromise? Or do you intentionally use this as a pretext, knowing full well that if you simply disregard other editors' arguments, "consensus" will never be reached? —VeryRarelyStable (talk) 03:06, 13 December 2019 (UTC)

I would be more than happy to arrive at a compromise version. For example, the statement about Faye's opinion could be rewritten to neutralize it, by presenting it as simply Faye's opinion, rather than uncontested fact. That would be appropriate, albeit it would be only one of the changes necessary to that material. Sbelknap's behaviour has shown however that he has little interest in editing neutrally or in compromising with other editors. Someone who wanted to edit neutrally would have presented Faye's opinion as opinion to begin with, instead of presenting the view that Heidegger's philosophy is "Nazi ideology" as though it were unchallenged fact. Freeknowledgecreator (talk) 03:12, 13 December 2019 (UTC)

Faye argues that Heidegger's philosophy is "Nazi ideology." Making an argument is not the same as presenting an opinion and not the same as stating a fact. The current text accurately describes what Faye has done in his book. Sbelknap (talk) 03:15, 13 December 2019 (UTC)

The material you added stated, "Emmanuel Faye notes that Heidegger’s philosophy is Nazi ideology". That presented Faye's opinion as if it were fact. That was a blatantly biased addition. If you add blatantly biased material of that kind, why be surprised that it gets removed? Again, some of the material you added might be appropriate in a different form; unfortunately, you are clearly not editing neutrally, so it would seem best under the circumstances to simply undo your edits. Your additions are not only less than neutral but also confusing, poorly presented, and definitely lower the quality of the article. I cannot revert them all immediately because of the three revert rule, but I'd encourage Snowded, CCS81, or anyone else for that matter, to revert all your recent changes. Freeknowledgecreator (talk) 03:26, 13 December 2019 (UTC)

How is adding relevant, well-sourced quotes on a topic that is neglected in this article anything but a plus? Your quarrel would seem to be with the scholars and philosophers that wrote this material, not other editors.Sbelknap (talk) 03:32, 13 December 2019 (UTC)

That comment shows that you really don't understand the problems with your recent edits. The problem with adding "relevant, well-sourced quotes" is that we do not add direct quotations at all except where it is really necessary. Rather, we summarize the content of sources and present it in our own words. WP:OVERQUOTE is a useful essay with some good advice on this issue. You should read it. Besides the excessive use of quotation, your quotations are poorly organized and poorly presented. The "contemporary criticism" section (former titled "Contemporary European reception") now reads particularly badly as a result of your recent edits. You have added new material there without any apparent logic, in terms of where the quotations have been placed. Freeknowledgecreator (talk) 05:10, 13 December 2019 (UTC)

Please re-read the Faye sentence and quote. It doesn't say what you claim it says.Sbelknap (talk) 03:47, 13 December 2019 (UTC)

That material, in the form in which you originally added it, states, "Emmanuel Faye notes that Heidegger’s philosophy is Nazi ideology." If you cannot understand why that was an inappropriate and biased addition then that is a good example of why you should refrain from editing this article, or any article on a controversial topic. The "notes that" part implies that Faye's opinion is fact. Freeknowledgecreator (talk) 04:47, 13 December 2019 (UTC)

Changes were excessive - more legitimate in part on the Heidegger and Nazi article it would be a lot better if controversial edits were discussed here first -----Snowded ^TALK 08:45, 13 December 2019 (UTC)

Here's the thing: the existence of the Heidegger and Nazi article is the problem - not the solution. That material belongs in this article. The bifurcation into a "good" biography and a "bad" biography simply obscures Heidegger's negative aspects from most readers, who will never look at the Heidegger and Nazi article. As others have noted, the most interesting aspect of wikipedia are the actions - and interactions of wikipedia editors. Some graduate student can write a PhD thesis on the bizarre antics of those who work to obscure Heidegger's Nazism.Sbelknap (talk) 14:24, 13 December 2019 (UTC)

Wrong. Per WP:SUMMARYSTYLE: "A fuller treatment of any major subtopic should go in a separate article of its own." The relationship between Heidegger and Nazism has sufficient coverage to warrant its own dedicated article, leaving a briefer summary of the topic in this article. Freeknowledgecreator (talk) 00:21, 14 December 2019 (UTC)

References