>Pure Nothing is the same as pure Being
What did he mean by this?
He didn't mean anything by it. He was a charlatan who has managed to convince idiots that rambling obscure self-contradictions are profound.
>>895050
wew lad dont cut yourself on that edgy angst
>>895047
Dasein
Once you acknowledge Pure Being, you acknowledge Pure Nothing.
>>895047
It means that he was a deluded nazi, who gives a shit.
>>895047
He was saying that pure being has a comprehensibility of nothing
>>895047
That quote belongs to Hegel, not Heidegger.
>>897060
Heidegger basically endorsed Hegel completely and they both talked about the dialectical relationship between Being and Nothing uite a bit. It could honestly be either. We're reading it in English, anyway.
>>895047
If there is nothing it can't be impure famalam
>>895047
it means "pure Being" doesn't exist
>>900118
>The Nothing itself Nothings
?
in order to have authentic being dasein must have an authentic understanding (anticipation) of its own inevitable negation or end. Thus what gives relevance to dasein is its relation to its end, in this case nothing. dasein must understand this nothing in order to understand itself.
>>895050
B T F O
>>900245
yeah and? "nothings" = nihilates, makes nil. the Nothing bounds daseins factical end, makes it into nothing. "Pure being" is not here, being is always situated.
>>897071
No, that's not true (the differences between Heidegger and Hegel are immense, and Heidegger never "endorsed" Hegel), and it really actually is Hegel. Straight from the Science of Logic.
>>900257
So is this supposed to be Baudrillard making fun of charlatans?
>>895047
Is there any point to Hedegger's metaphysics. As obscure as Hegel's system is once you learn it, than you at least it's a nice attempt to explain how ideas are formed and developed on the macro scale.
Heidegger just seems like he is attempting to sound profound.
>>902538
Heidegger's work isn't quite as unified as Hegel's, and that's partly because as Heidegger's understanding of the question he put to himself changed, so did the approach and the contents. Heidegger's question, you might fairly say, is about why beings have meaning at all, and how he discusses it changes depending on how metaphysics is understood to deal with such a question. Later Heidegger rejects metaphysics, so looks for an answer that doesn't rely on metaphysics.
>>902627
You say he is concerned with how things have meaning? Is this a teleological meaning, one per-ordained. Or is it an existentialist question about how they "ought" to have meaning?
Does he believe that all things either have to or have not a meaning? Or is the very concept of meaning/no meaning just a human perspective?
what I never got is why people just automatically think that because someone is well known, that their ideas are worth not only reading about and understanding, but also responding to
it's crazy. even today you read things like "my response to Nietzsche argument x", or "why I disagree with Schopenhauer", or "plato was wrong about x"
I've done this experiment where I've gotten direct quotes from famous philosphers and presented it as my original work on 4chan. people's response is completely different than if they thought it was written by a famous 'authority'. I've even made the exact same thread one presenting the writing as my own, written on 4chan, and another as a quote.
people will attack yo, write you off, call you an idiot, call you pretentious, say it's worthless etc if they just think it's your own writing. but the response is completely different if they think it was written by an 'official' famous well-known philosopher who has 'authority'.
all this shows me is that people aren't actually caring about the ideas, or the arguments. no they're basically practicing the fallacy of 'appeal to authority'.
so it's like this thread. would OP have ever made a post qutoing just an anon and wondering "what did he mean by this?". no, op wouldn't of even cared in the first place. he would of written off the anon's post, even if it were the exact same as what heidegger published.
so really op, do you actually care about the idea (that was incidentally published by heidegger), or do you care about HEIDEGGER: THE OFFICIAL PHILOSOPHER
because it's a big difference.
basically what I am saying is why do you want to understand what this particular guy published? why is he any better than understanding say the mind of a 4chan poster?
>>903650
OP here
>what I never got is why people just automatically think that because someone is well known, that their ideas are worth not only reading about and understanding, but also responding to
The problem with your whole post is that philosophy is just a bunch of people responding to each other's arguments.
>even today you read things like "my response to Nietzsche argument x", or "why I disagree with Schopenhauer", or "plato was wrong about x"
What do you think the point of a philosophy discussion board on 4chan is?
There are plenty of philosophy-based memes that circulate here, maybe you don't understand the human element of the process of memetic production.
When I made this thread I cared about Heidegger: the 4chan meme.
>>902637
His questions is about how things *do* have meaning, but to clarify further, that sorta seems to mean (in the early work, anyway) that beings have a context or horizon which they stand within. When we see our bed, or some other being we interact with in some regular way, it's not as if we treat it as 1) completely alien every time we encounter, nor do we 2) treat it as a neutral scientific/mathematical object made up simply of such geometrical arrangements of material, but rather that the being is perfectly intelligible, and that *that* is fucking weird.
A nice summary of this reading of Heidegger can be read here:
http://www.heideggercircle.org/Gatherings2011-01Sheehan.pdf
Oh for god's sakes, OP's quote has nothing to do with Heidegger. From Hegel's Encyclopedia Logic:
https://www.marxists.org/reference/archive/hegel/works/sl/slbeing.htm#SL86
"Pure Being makes the beginning: because it is on the one hand pure thought, and on the other immediacy itself, simple and indeterminate; and the first beginning cannot be mediated by anything, or be further determined.
All doubts and admonitions, which might be brought against beginning the science with abstract empty being, will disappear if we only perceive what a beginning naturally implies. It is possible to define being as ‘I = I’, as ‘Absolute Indifference’ or Identity, and so on. Where it is felt necessary to begin either with what is absolutely certain, i.e. certainty of oneself, or with a definition or intuition of the absolute truth, these and other forms of the kind may be looked on as if they must be the first. But each of these forms contains a mediation, and hence cannot be the real first: for all mediation implies advance made from a first on to a second, and proceeding from something different. If I = I, or even the intellectual intuition, are really taken to mean no more than the first, they are in this mere immediacy identical with being: while conversely, pure being, if abstract no longer, but including in it mediation, is pure thought or intuition."
(cont)
>>904332
"If we enunciate Being as a predicate of the Absolute, we get the first definition of the latter. The Absolute is Being. This is (in thought) the absolutely initial definition, the most abstract and stinted. It is the definition given by the Eleatics, but at the same time is also the well-known definition of God as the sum of all realities. It means, in short, that we are to set aside that limitation which is in every reality, so that God shall be only the real in all reality, the superlatively real. Or, if we reject reality, as implying a reflection, we get a more immediate or unreflected statement of the same thing, when Jacobi says that the God of Spinoza is the principium of being in all existence.
But this mere Being, as it is mere abstraction, is therefore the absolutely negative: which, in a similarly immediate aspect, is just Nothing.
(1) Hence was derived the second definition of the Absolute: the Absolute is the Nought. In fact this definition is implied in saying that the thing-in-itself is the indeterminate, utterly without form and so without content — or in saying that God is only the supreme Being and nothing more; for this is really declaring him to be the same negativity as above. The Nothing which the Buddhists make the universal principle, as well as the final aim and goal of everything, is the same abstraction.
(2) If the opposition in thought is stated in this immediacy as Being and Nothing, the shock of its nullity is too great not to stimulate the attempt to fix Being and secure it against the transition into Nothing."
(cont.)
>>904332
"With this intent, reflection has recourse to the plan of discovering some fixed predicate for Being, to mark it off from Nothing. Thus we find Being identified with what persists amid all change, with matter, susceptible of innumerable determinations — or even, unreflectingly, with a single existence, any chance object of the senses or of the mind. But every additional and more concrete characterisation causes Being to lose that integrity and simplicity it has in the beginning. Only in, and by virtue of, this mere generality is it Nothing, something inexpressible, whereof the distinction from Nothing is a mere intention or meaning.
All that is wanted is to realise that these beginnings are nothing but these empty abstractions, one as empty as the other. The instinct that induces us to attach a settled import to Being, or to both, is the very necessity which leads to the onward movement of Being and Nothing, and gives them a true or concrete significance. This advance is the logical deduction and the movement of thought exhibited in the sequel. The reflection which finds a profounder connotation for Being and Nothing is nothing but logical thought, through which such connotation is evolved, not, however, in an accidental, but a necessary way.
Every signification, therefore, in which they afterwards appear, is only a more precise specification and truer definition of the Absolute. And when that is done, the mere abstract Being and Nothing are replaced by a concrete in which both these elements form an organic part. The supreme form of Nought as a separate principle would be Freedom: but Freedom is negativity in that stage, when it sinks self-absorbed to supreme intensity, and is itself an affirmation, and even absolute affirmation."
>>895047
if you say "pure nothing", you accept that there is being in the nothingness
>>895047
What would impure nothing and impure being mean?
>>902637
Quoted for da truth.
One girl I had a crush on was absolutely certain that Sartre was a genius and I should read him. When I finally asked which book I should start with she was like, I don't I never read any lol!
Granted she was a girl. But still. The proverb "it is not what is said but who says it" applies to philosophy too.
>>904577
Cont.
To answer OP I don't think it's worth your time reflecting on a statement that is appallingly contradictory. Grow out of these "genius" 20th philosophers.
>>904550
Pure Being makes itself Impure Being, which is partly what is meant by "Pure Being is the same as Pure Nothing". Pure Being is an abstraction lacking all content and any relations. It becomes Pure Nothing once you recognize that, well, shit, Pure Being (again, Being absent of relations) is no different than Pure Nothing. Impure Nothing, I'm less sure about. I suspect that would be the move to Becoming in Hegelian dialectic, but I'm not sure that I could really defend that as terminologically sound for "impure nothing".
See the link at >>904332 for more details.
>>895050
Well, did he offer an argument or just assert it? Out of context you can't really make sense of it, sure.
>>903650
A few idiots on 4chan that get pleasure from attacking another annon's ideas=high philosophical criticism
judging a field based on how people on porn respond to it is fucking stupid
>>895047
i'm more concerned with his critique of the critique of reification.
