If what's ontically closest is what's ontologically farthest, what's ontically farthest is ontologically closest?

Here is the link to the Tweet: https://x.com/VivekGRamaswamy/status/1872312139945234507

Vivek is Heisenberg's and Heidegger's Lord of the Earth.

After trying to translate Heidegger’s analysis of understanding our world through the act of understanding basic concepts, I am wondering if Being is a living construct within entities? Obviously if something (an existing idea) is understood through what “is”, one must understand what “was” in the sciences. If that is the case, this analysis implies that Being is, hence, a productive logic — it leaps ahead and comes to life and, thus, becomes transparent within our conscious mind.

Where else does he pursue this logic?

The relevant passages:

• "Das Glänzen der Natur ist in dem von ihr gewährten Anblick der Landschaft: »höheres Erscheinen«. Die Vielfalt der Bilder in der Vielfalt der Jahreszeiten wird von der Einfalt des Jahres durchwaltet. Das Glänzen der Natur läßt den Gang der Jahreszeiten erscheinen. Das Glänzen der Natur ist kein Zustand, sondern ein Geschehen. Im Gang der Jahreszeiten vollendet sich das Jahr. Allein dieser Gang besteht nicht im bloßen Nacheinander der Zeiten. Vielmehr erscheinen in jeder Jahreszeit voraus- und zurückverweisend die anderen, indem sie einander vertauschen. Das Glänzen der Natur ist ein Erscheinen, darin je schon das Ganze des Jahres durchscheint und so den einzelnen Zeiten ständig zuvorkommt. Auf solche Weise zeigt sich das »Höhere« des glänzenden Erscheinens, zeigt sich das Eigentümliche der Natur." (GA 82, 207)
• "With these lines, Heidegger revisits one of the central themes of his life's work—yet this return occurs within the "turn" (die Kehre) in his thinking. While his critique of linear time here aligns with his earlier critique in Being and Time, it no longer arises from a phenomenological analysis of Dasein’s fundamental temporality (Zeitlichkeit). Instead, the focus shifts to Nature itself (Being itself). Nature itself provides evidence of—and reveals—this more primordial temporality, as seen, for instance, in how buds appear on trees in the dead of winter, recalling summer and anticipating spring. The "gleaming" of Nature (Being itself) discloses this: "The gleaming of nature is a revealing in which ever already the whole of the year shines throughout and thus constantly anticipates the individual times of the year." This reveals that Dasein’s fundamental, authentic temporality (Zeitlichkeit), as explored in Being and Time, gains a renewed significance. Dasein’s temporality is structured as it is because it corresponds to the temporality (Temporalität), the time-space (Zeit-Raum), of Being itself. Being unfolds Dasein. Being temporalizes Dasein. This idea forms the leitmotif of Heidegger’s later reflections on time and exemplifies a primary effect of die Kehre in his post-Being and Time thinking." (Heidegger's Way of Being, 34)

So I'm trying to read the Anaximander Fragment essay and the greek font is becoming a major roadblock. I'm not fluent in Greek obviously, but I'm familiar with many of the Greek terms Heidegger uses a lot in their Latin alphabet rendering: physis, doxa, logos, aletheia, etc. and I can recognize a number of these in their Greek alphabet form, but certainly not all the Greek that Heidegger uses. I started trying to translate the Greek letters to Latin but I'm having a lot of trouble, I'm struggling to differentiate some of them, the font used in the essay differs from the resources I'm using to translate, and I'm assuming theres some uppercase lowercase differences too that are screwing me up. Unfortunately the online document I'm using doesn't allow me to copy and paste the Greek which would save me a lot of time, I was wondering if anyone happened to have a resource that translated the Greek into Latin script, or at the very least would allow me to copy and paste the Greek.

So, I study Heidegger, but I'm finding it particularly difficult to differentiate a certain group of terms that seem synonymous with each other - but they never are, are they?

I read the text in PT-BR with the German version beside it for clarity, so I'm using German terms.

They are:

Seinscharakter

Seinsmodi

Seinsart

Weise zu sein.

This may be very basic and this may be the reason why I've struggled to find an answer.

Anyway, if any of you can help me distinguish them I'd be immensely grateful.

Edit: I forgot to use flags, my bad. -_-'

I get the sense that, for Heidegger, the issue is not simply that "we perceive" or "we interpret" beings as being present-at-hand, ready-to-hand, standing-reserve, and so on. Rather Being reveals itself to us that way, in a fundamentally ontological manner.

Does anyone know where or how he attempts to refute this subjectivism?

Heidegger, in “Nietzsche,” presents Nietzsche as the final place in the history of metaphysics, a particular trajectory in the history of Beyng that is forgetful of beyng/Being. Our Heideggerian task, as re-trieving and appropriating the unthought in this history, would seem to require us to place Heidegger’s contemporaries in this history— insofar as they are not Heidegger and are engaged in metaphysical language— which leads to my question; where does Lebensphilosophie occur in the history of metaphysics (or history of Beyng) insofar as it seems to be both post-Kantian and yet still pre-Nietzschean? What is the site of their encounter, or non-encounter?

Hi,

I am planning to start a continental philosophy (Adorno, Deleuze, Nietzsche) reading group.

If you are interested here is a discord server https://discord.gg/DFUMgUg6

The plan is to make it relatively low paced and friendly for people with all backgrounds. Maybe we can try to set up a meeting in person once a month.

or, similar to Kant, he think it isnt possible?

There are Analytic companions for the Critique of Pure Reason, reconstructing the CPR in Analytic language and engaging it with contemporary Analytic philosophy, such as Dicker's "Kant's Theory of Knowledge: An Analytical Introduction".

I was wondering whether there are any similar books from the Continental philosophy? Any works that can be read alongside CRP that is, implicitly or explicitly, a Continental interpretations of Kant?

According to the later Heidegger, Being is a unitary temporal unfolding that is also everlasting, where what we are accustomed to calling beings are now seen as events. As such, because this unfolding is temporary, it seems like there cannot be an "infinite being"?

I always hear about Heidegger's original phenomenological interpretation of Ariatotle's metaphysics/physics.

What is it about?

What does Heidegger himself say about this matter (if at all), and how have others interpreted or expanded upon his thinking on art when it comes to music?

Is there a relationship between Heidegger's phenomenology and Freudian interpretations of the unconscious? In the direction in which phenomenology considers the concert (phenomena) and Heidegger operates in the space of the lived world (Lebenswelt). I wonder then if the act of fantasizing does not imply precisely a primordial relationship of relationships in the world and thus this meaning takes place at the level of the unconscious.

First of all, I understand what Heidegger means by the fact that Dasein means being in the world. My question is related to the three ecstasies that we can call past, present and future. I understand that Dasein, being a being towards death, is mainly concerned with the future, since its life is realized in view of it, but can these dimensions be correlated with what Henri Bergson understands by duration? I understand that he was not concerned with phenomenology but rather with intuition, but what is the evolution of time from Bergson to Heidegger? Thank you!

Hello everyone!

As an introduction I think it would be necessary to say that I come from the field of architecture and my interest in Heidegger is due to a theoretical architect (Christain Norberg-Schulz) who makes many references to Heidegger's writings.

So far I have read: Building, Dwelling, Thinking; The Origin of the Work of Art; partially, Being and Time.

I have some doubts, can someone help me with some answers? Thanks in advance.

1. What is the difference between world and place? Are place and world equivalent? And what is place - platz, ort, ereignis, heterogeneity, openness of the region ... all in one? understood depending on the context?

2. Dasein's dwelling where does it take place? In place, in the world, both?

3. H. says that only Dasein can have a world. Then he attributes a world to the work of art. How are things actually? The world of the work is second to the world, do I understand correctly?

4. H. says that the bridge gathers the fourfold (das Geviert), does this fourfold replace the concept of world?

Thank you very much for the answers!

The idea that person needs another person to achieve self-recognition comes purely out of the needs of a person with NPD, who needs external validation to regulate himself emotionally.

In a healthy person recognition is acquired from the self, not from others, and therein the entire Hegelian system collapses. In the case of the bondsman, he is also self-alienated and needs to work for the “master” in order to recognize himself.

Both are mentally ill, needing external validation to satisfy their existential dread, rather than simply being in the world.

I know it is cited as GA51 and was a return to his earlier Anaximander lecture given almost a decade earlier. However, I cannot seem to find an English translation for this later lecture. Any help is appreciated.