Talk:Being and Time

On "itself" in "Being itself" ( ontological quantification or difference)

This ontological designation (in its more concrete form) dates back to Aristotle who themathised “first philosophy” as the contemplation [θεωρεῖ ] of being as being [τὸ ὂν ᾗ ὂν]. Since Aristotle, ontology has always been quantified. He does not say being [τὸ ὂν ] but being as being [τὸ ὂν ᾗ ὂν]. The qualification is necessary for it delimits and clarifies what the question is about and how it ought to unfold. As Heidegger repeatedly notes “the being of being [being itself) is note a being”, it is important to qualify this distinction for easy understanding. This is Heidegger’s letter ontological difference that the Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy notes is “ the crucial distinction between Being and beings (entities)". To see the relevance of the qualification “itself” in “being itself”, it is necessary to compare all the edits.This can be seen by taking these lines as an example

Original : [Heidegger attempts to revive ontology ] through understanding being itself. (note that the designation was already in the original)

Edit 1: Heidegger attempts to revive ontology through understanding being itself (being of being not beings).

Edit 2: Heidegger attempts to revive ontology through a reawakening of the question of the meaning of being.

Edit 3: Heidegger attempts to revive ontology through a reawakening of the question of the meaning of being itself. The question of being asks of the being of being i.e being itself and not the being of beings. As Heidegger notes in the Introduction to Metaphysics “the "question of Being" means asking about beings as such (metaphysics). But if we think along the lines of Being and Time, the "question of Being" means asking about Being as such”

Edit 4: Heidegger attempts to revive ontology through a reawakening of the question of the meaning of being.

Edit 1 and 3 are nothing but a clarification of the word “itself”. The first is guided by the assumption that a parenthetical explanation is enough since the designation was already there (if it was poorly written it should have already been removed). Being “itself” qualifies being to mean nothing but the being of being (what is being in general) and not the being of a being (i.e the being of time or history or space). Ontology asks about the being of being, without a qualification like “itself” there is no clear distinction to what is meant; study of a being or study of of being as a being.

The Third edit stems from a need to further clarify the edit and to show its relevance by dispelling a (now recurrent but always)unsubstantiated claim of it being poor writing. Being “itself “ clearly delimits the question to “asks of the being of being i.e being itself and not the being of beings”. it seems prudent to add a quote from Heidegger who notes that "question of Being" means asking about Being as such”

To attain further clarity, what if Edit 2 or 4 (with the reason given for the change being that 1 and 3 are poorly written with no substantiation of any kind of what is poor in specific and how it could be fixed) is taken ?. What comes to mind is Heidegger's Bewailing about the oblivion of being "itself"

Is the “question of the meaning of being” about a being or being? For any being is a being. Ontology will be asking for the meaning of being and not being as such or itself (whatever quantification). To add unnecessary information, The Internet Encyclopedia of philosophy article on Heidegger notes In agreement with the quote from the introduction of metaphysics “Metaphysics inquires about the being of beings, but it reduces being to a being; it does not think of being as being. Insofar as being itself is obliterated in it, metaphysics is nihilism.” Tell W. J. Korab-Karpowicz, or rather Aristotle himself (itself) That the qualification being itself is poor writing . . .Διοτιμα (talk) 05:04, 1 September 2017 (UTC)

Note in the lead

I am not going to respond directly to Διοτιμα's comments above. I think it is sufficient to note that while a comment such as, "The question of being asks of the being of being i.e being itself and not the being of beings" may possibly be a passable attempt to imitate Heideggerian jargon, it is certainly not good English and as such does not belong anywhere in the article. In normal English, one does not say that a "question of being" or anything else "asks of" something, and I for one think the article should be written in normal English, as much as possible. Διοτιμα, if you cannot find an appropriate way of rephrasing your addition, please leave it out. FreeKnowledgeCreator (talk) 05:03, 2 September 2017 (UTC)

It is rather amusing to note that less words would have been spent if the preceding was used to quantify the first roll back edit summary. As usual, the concern is not with the content ; for it is noted outright that one is “not going to respond directly to Διοτιμα's comments above”. What is left is nothing but squabbles over subjective stylistic representation. Thus the form (which is assumed to be external or undetermined by the content ) is used to determined what should appear. With this, the question is shifted from “is the designation “itself” and the appended explanation an accurate representation of the content?” to “is it Normal and Good English?”. This can be seen from the fact that "question of being" and "asks of" and not “being of being i.e being itself and not the being of beings” is the issue. With this, all one has to do is note [with total disregard to the matter at hand; Heidegger the most neo-logical thinker] that 1. In normal English, one does not say that ζ 2. it is sufficient to note that [ζ] is certainly not good or normal English 3. [ζ] as such does not belong anywhere in the article. But with such argument one condemns all philosophy. To give examples

Your main argument assumes that “In normal English, one does not say that a "question of being" or anything else "asks of" something. The second is an idiom which is defined as to “ask something of someone or something” Thus, it is correct (or Normal Good English) to say that [ζ] asks [something] being [of something] of the being of being. “The question of” is correct for its only “a question of time before you will reply that “I am not going to respond directly to Διοτιμα's comments above” The question there is time (how long it will take). Apart from this, the articles quoted on the section on being itself from The Internet Encyclopedia of philosophy and The Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy on Heidegger use “the question of being” 30 and 15 times respectively; with the latter noting that “In any case, for many readers, the initially strange and difficult language of Being and Time is fully vindicated by the realization that Heidegger is struggling to say things for which our conventional terms and linguistic constructions are ultimately inadequate”. Contrary to your assumptio that it is an attempt at Heideggerian jargon, it is standard philosophical terms used in the secondary literature. On The designation “being in itself” ; or the designation “itself”. I think it is sufficient to note that both translation of Heidegger in English use it at minimum 13 times with the Stambaugh exceeding to 28 times. Just to take one:

Macquarrie & Robinson: The task of ontology is to explain Being itself and to make the Being of entities stand out in full relief

Stambaugh:The task of ontology is to set in relief the being of beings and to explicate being itself.

Your assumption that “In normal English, one does not say that a "question of being" or anything else "asks of" something” is not grounded . The question of being asks of the being of being i.e being itself and not the being of beings is rather a clear sentence if read without prior prejudice.

Contrary to simplistic misrepresentations,Heidegger followed by Hegel belong to a class of thinkers that pay very close attention, respect and patience to language. Heidegger (disregarding later ambivalence ) even goes further to call it the house of being, while Hegel claims that it “has the divine nature”. Heidegger followed by Kant then Spinoza also carefully define their terms. You cannot find any term (or jargon ) in Being and Time that Heidegger does not carefully define the traditional philosophical or normal use, then venture ahead to define how it ought to be understood. All This is brought by the matter and not subjective stylistic preferences. In Being and Time Heidegger notes very early that If “The being of beings "is" itself not a being . . . [it ]will require its own conceptualization, which again is essentially distinct from the concepts in which beings receive their determination of meaning” [H6] He in effect says that being cannot be conceptualized or even talked of about (of) with the concepts used to talk about beings like it is a being . (you can see how hard it is to make a distinction between being and being). At the conclusion of the introduction he comments on the claim about good and normal language I.e “awkwardness and "inelegance" of expression in the following analyses”(H39). He notes that “it is one thing to report narratively about beings and another to grasp beings in their being. For the latter task not only most of the words are lacking but above all the "grammar."(ibid). He claims that there is not lack of a few words by a grammar trough which to discuss his very question!!! It is quite uncouth to disregard this attention at the expense of Normal English

At this point one recalls Lucas entry on the talk page

Do we need to highlight Heidegger's neologistic language early in the article?

I do feel however, that, far from being absurd, something does need to be said straight up in the intro about Heidegger's use of language. This is so that, reading the subsequent jargon language in parts of the article, will not be so off-putting. A "heads-up" is a good idea. Up to a few days ago there was a link to the Heideggerean terminology page in the intro which is very helpful for people not familiar with Heidegger. Unless you suggest that the page is for people who already know B&T, this issue of language indeed requires highlighting. Though I understand that other editors may be enurred to this language and fail to appreciate its importance for newby readers, and especially for certain Anglophone readers who consider B&T's language as obscurantist.-- Lucas (Talk) 06:58, 5 February 2007 (UTC)

There is nothing amusing going on here. You need to read WP:TLDR. The abbreviation stands for, "Too long; didn't read". The upshot of it is simply that if you want your comments to be taken seriously, you should make them concise and to the point. No one is obliged to read or respond to absurdly long comments, especially not weird, rambling, and barely coherent comments that come across as trolling. Nevertheless, I did read your comment. It does not address my concern that your addition is poorly worded. It appears rather to be an attempt to divert discussion. You write that some argument you attribute to me "condemns all philosophy". My response is: I do not care. We are not here to discuss the legitimacy of philosophy; we are here to discuss how the Wikipedia article about Being and Time should be written. Continue to make absurdly long (and also pretentious and irrelevant) comments and you are simply going to wear out other editors' sympathy. FreeKnowledgeCreator (talk) 02:25, 3 September 2017 (UTC)

Your claim was that “In normal English, one does not say that a "question of being" or anything else "asks of" something” . All that has been been shown is that all the words you highlighted are used by well respected Scholars on the matter. All that you can now weirdly, pretentiously and irrelevantly say is that this is going “wear out other editor's sympathy?” Διοτιμα (talk) 02:31, 3 September 2017 (UTC)

No. You provided no reliable source in which the specific expression "the question of being asks of..." is used. Even if you had, it would have been irrelevant. The fact that a particular source uses a particular expression or phrase does not mean that Wikipedia must do so also. Feel free to suggest an improved or reworded version of your addition. I will consider it on its merits. FreeKnowledgeCreator (talk) 02:48, 3 September 2017 (UTC)

Now you have shifted from you claim about Good Normal English to a demand that I provide a quote that is equal word for word to my own explanation!!! How can that be done unless I had plagiarized it . The formulation “the question of being asks of” you claimed to be ungrammatical. It has been shown contrary to that that the “question of” is commonly used while “asks of” is a correct idiom. This does not compel anyone to use it but shows that your claim was wrong . Now Asking for a specific word order of non technical words is rather absurd since it cannot be given. All that can be shown that it is grammatical and common philosophical parlance and thus contrary what you had claimed. Διοτιμα (talk) 03:26, 3 September 2017 (UTC)

No, I haven't shifted from anything to anything. Apparently you misunderstood what I wrote, which is strange, since it was perfectly simple. Good writing has always been my concern. Furthermore, I did not claim anything about whether "the question of being asks of" is grammatical, nor for that matter object to the expression "question of" - where did you get that idea? The lead currently uses the expression, "the question of the meaning of being", so why would you assume I object to it? I simply disagree that the expression "the question of being asks of..." is good English. "The question of being concerns...", or or some similar expression, would be more appropriate. FreeKnowledgeCreator (talk) 03:42, 3 September 2017 (UTC)

First and Second Part

Note that Dreyfus's commentary concerns only the first part. Dreyfus states his reasons pretty clearly and they seem quite significant relative to any understanding of B&T. Perhaps not coincidentally, a number of college-type courses also, only deal with first part. Yet all this is ignored in the Wikipedia article? 2602:304:CFA3:D560:FDD4:7944:72C1:A075 (talk) 19:42, 9 March 2018 (UTC)

It is true that the article lacks an entry on the structure (both projected and actualised) of the work. But Dreyfus' own pædagogical manoeuvres are only of secondary interest in an elucidation of this. With a disregard to the organic and systematic unity of the parts , the structure of the work can be presented thus.

Part One: the Interpretation of Dasein in terms of temporality, and the explication of time as the transcendental horizon for the question of Being.

I. the preparatory fundamental analysis of Dasein; ( Dreyfus' commentary )

2. Dasein and temporality;

3· time and Being.

Part Two: basic features of a phenomenological destruction of the history of ontology, with the problematic of Temporality as our clue

1 . Kant's doctrine of schematism and time, as a preliminary stage in a problematic of Temporality

2. the ontological foundation of Descartes' 'cogito sum', and how the medieval ontology has been taken over into the problematic of the 'res cogitans';

3· Aristotle's essay on time, as providing a way of discriminating the phenomenal basis and the limits of ancient ontology

Only the two sections of part one were published in what is called "Being and time " The rest: or rather thematic intimations were offered in subsequent lectures; like Basic problems, Kant and the problem, Phenomenological interpretation of Kant. As Heidegger , in the preface to the seventh edition eventually noted : While the previous editions have borne the designation 'First Half', this has now been deleted. After a quarter of a century, the second half could no longer be added unless the first were to be presented anew.

The distinction is already noted in the article ; but rather in an unclear way ; in the background. The so called "other important works from this period" in the related work section can be taken as a substitution to the unpublished work. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Διοτιμα (talk • contribs) 03:14, 29 April 2018 (UTC)

Dasein

The addition of " or the human being in the abstract" is problematic in two ways.

1. It is not correctly cited: no page numbe.

2. It is in absolute contradiction to what the very essence of Dasein should be.

As BnT notes

"Dasein is never to be taken ontologically as an instance or special case of some genus of entities as things that are present-at-hand" (BnT, H ; 42)

The smaller Concept of Time also notes that

"If this entity is to be determined in its ontological character, then we must not abstract from its specificity as in each case mine"(8E). — Preceding unsigned comment added by Διοτιμα (talk • contribs) 15:46, 2 May 2018 (UTC)

A rambling and self-absorbed mini-essay on factual errors in the “Destruction of metaphysics”

Claim I: As part of his ontological project, Heidegger undertakes a reinterpretation of previous Western philosophy. (“Destruction of metaphysics”)

There in no Destruction of metaphysics but a Destroying or Destructuring of the History of Ontolog. This stems from the fact that “The destructuring of the history of ontology essentially belongs to the formulation of the question of being and is possible solely within such a formulation”(H,20). The destruction is limited to ontology (that asks the question of being) and not metaphysics which is about the nature of reality; or the totality of “Western philosophy”. Further more, the destruction does not aim at metaphysics or even ontology as a fixed doctrinal system, but  “its criticism concerns "today" and the dominant way we treat the history of ontology”(ibid). It is concerned with how the question of being relates to ontology, and thus aims at “a loosening of the sclerotic tradition and a dissolving of the concealments produced by it . . .; so as to allow “the question of being   to achieve clarity regarding its own history”(ibid).

Claim II: He wants to explain why and how theoretical knowledge came to seem like the most fundamental relation to being.

As per  Heidegger, the Destruction is done, since “The question of being attains true concreteness only when we carry out the destructuring of the ontological tradition”.  It thus aims at the destructuring of the traditional content of ancient ontology”;which, since it is limited to the question of being , “is to

be carried out along the guidelines of the question of being” .  This means “pursuing the task of destructuring on the guideline o f the problem of temporality”(H,21). There is nothing about theoretical knowledge or its relation to being.

Claim III : In Being and Time Heidegger briefly undertakes a destructuring of the philosophy of René Descartes,

How is This even possible?

The projected second part of Being and time would be the Destructuring. As per  Being and time, it was headed : Part two : basic features of a phenomenological destruction of the history of ontology, with the problematic of Temporality as our clue. The second subsection of this division would have dealt with Descartes (as per its heading): 2. the ontological foundation of Descartes' 'cogito sum' , and how the medieval ontology has been taken over into the problematic of the 'res cogitans'  

But only he first two subsections of the first part was published! Where does it take place?

Claim IV : ...but the second volume, which was intended to be a Destruktion of Western philosophy in all its stages, was never written. Even-though true   (it was never written or published as BnT) , it was covered elsewhere in lectures like Basic Problems and Kant and the Problem. But the claim  “Destruktion of Western philosophy in all its stages” is wrong. BnT notes that  “Within the scope of this treatise, which has as its goal a fundamental elaboration of the question of being, the destructuring can be carried out only with regard to the fundamentally decisive stages of this history”(H,23). — Preceding unsigned comment added by Διοτιμα (talk • contribs) 14:32, 11 July 2018 (UTC)

Any chance you could take on updating the article to incorporate corrections/clarifications? That section appears to be at least 11 years old, so it's unclear if its author will be here to discuss it with you. --John (User:Jwy/talk) 15:23, 11 July 2018 (UTC)

Publication history

According to SUNY Press blurb, x translation: "takes into account the many changes that he made in the final German edition of 1976." I've never heard of "the final German edition of 1976." Tough to imagine Heidegger working on B&T in the year of his death. I don't think he really did.

English translations rely on 1953 "Seventh German Edition" (but see SUNY marketing blurb???). I think, after all, the SUNY translation, like MacQuarie, was based on the Seventh Germ. ed., the blurb not really withstandng.

The 7th includes probable shortest piece of published writing of his entire career, the "Preface." Which edition removed dedication to Husserl??? Was it restored?

2600:1702:39A0:3720:CCE7:84F6:DABE:C1AA (talk) 18:36, 3 July 2020 (UTC)

Lede

Here is the current lede, but with proposed edits for brevity and improved "readability" :

Being and Time (German: Sein und Zeit) is a 1927 book by the German philosopher Martin Heidegger, in which the author seeks to analyse Being and its temporal context. Heidegger maintains that despite its central importance, philosophers have misunderstood and avoided this concept since Plato, applying it solely in the analysis of particular beings. By reawakening this question of the meaning of Being, the work attempts to revive ontology through an analysis of Dasein, "the being to whom the question of being is important."

Being and Time, immediately recognized in 1927 as original and groundbreaking, has been described as Heidegger's magnum opus, a key document of existentialism -- with wide-ranging impact on related forms of philosophy as well as on cognitive science. Its stature in the history of philosophy has been favorably compared with that of the major works of Kant and Hegel. Being and Time employs Edmund Husserl's phenomenology, and is dedicated to Husserl "in friendship and admiration".

Compare current version:

"Being and Time (German: Sein und Zeit) is a 1927 book by the German philosopher Martin Heidegger, in which the author seeks to analyse the concept of Being.* Heidegger maintains that this has fundamental importance for philosophy and that, since the time of the Ancient Greeks, philosophy has avoided the question, turning instead to the analysis of particular beings. Heidegger attempts to revive ontology through a reawakening of the question of the meaning of Being. He approaches this through a fundamental ontology that is a preliminary analysis of the being to whom the question of being is important, i.e., Dasein.

Heidegger wrote that Being and Time was made possible by his study of Edmund Husserl's Logical Investigations (1900–1901), and it is dedicated to Husserl "in friendship and admiration". Although Heidegger did not complete the project outlined in the introduction, Being and Time remains his most important work. It was immediately recognized as an original and groundbreaking philosophical work, and later became a focus of debates and controversy, and a profound influence on 20th-century philosophy, particularly existentialism, hermeneutics, deconstruction, and the enactivist approach to cognition. Being and Time has been described as the most influential version of existential philosophy, and Heidegger's achievements in the work have been compared to those of Immanuel Kant in the Critique of Pure Reason (1781) and Georg Wilhelm Friedrich Hegel in The Phenomenology of Spirit (1807) and Science of Logic (1812–1816). The work influenced philosophical treatises such as Jean-Paul Sartre's Being and Nothingness (1943)."

[+Note at least two among the foremost current H. scholars, Sheehan and Wrathall, assert that H. was not primarily interested in "Being." (Points for contrariness?) ++Note: I don't know article's (inconsistent?) style for B/being.]

— Preceding unsigned comment added by 2600:1702:39A0:3720:99FB:6F6B:96DD:2D85 (talk) 11:51, 24 August 2020 (UTC)

2600:1702:39A0:3720:690D:3921:824C:B4E (talk) 19:04, 23 August 2020 (UTC)

new lede

So, for better or worse -- idea was to retain existing content.

The proposed lede has been up on talk page (above) for several days, inviting discussion.

It was then reverted with comment "sorry, it is you who must justify your changes; your version is much worse for writing and formatting."

But this comment is an assertion that doesn't explain why it "is much worse for writing." It uses fewer words, to express all existing ideas in lede. It deletes certain details that belong in the body of the article. I'd appreciate any attempt to make a credible case that proposed lede is "much worse for writing."

2600:1702:39A0:3720:CD58:F9A4:BB19:C4E0 (talk) 15:45, 28 August 2020 (UTC)

Proposed Lede

Let me "justify" the proposed changes.

Sentence #1

Adds phrase "in its temporal context." ....... It's called Being and Time -- No?

Sentence #2

Proposed:

"Heidegger maintains that despite its central importance, philosophers have misunderstood and avoided this concept since Plato, applying it solely in the analysis of particular beings." [25 words]

Sted:

"Heidegger maintains that this has fundamental importance for philosophy and that, since the time of the Ancient Greeks, philosophy has avoided the question, turning instead to the analysis of particular beings." [31 words]

Discussion:

The proposed phrase "since Plato" sted "since the time of the Ancient Greeks:" is a clarification/correction of significant information. Note Heidegger's view that the Presocratics ("Ancient Greeks") had it "right" and that the concept went wrong beginning with Plato and Aristotle.

Also, some needless words and phrases can be removed: "the time of" and "for philosophy." Employing "despite" (sted "and") explicitly suggests a relationship (albeit ambiguous) between the first claus and what follows within the sentence. "And" as used here, is merely additive.

"Central/fundamental" -- mostly a distinction without a difference; "central" is less pretentious and ordinary, thus less distracting.

See original two clauses: "philosophy has avoided the question, turning instead to the analysis of particular beings."

The "concept" (Being), has turned -- without explanation -- into a "question?" Moreover, nothing explicitly ties the "analysis of particular beings" to this "concept/?question." It's needlessly ambiguous and might mean an alternate activity, )"instead,'"") that is entirely irrelevant to topic at hand -- rather than merely misplaced.

The proposed phrase eliminates the concept/question ambiguity; "it" refers specifically to "this concept" -- "being" -- as something "applied" to particular beings.

thus: "....applying it [in error,] solely in the analysis of particular beings."

Sentence #3

Proposed text:

"By reawakening this question of the meaning of Being, the work attempts to revive ontology through an analysis of Dasein, "the being to whom the question of being is important." [30 words]

Vs. existing text:

"Heidegger attempts to revive ontology through a reawakening of the question of the meaning of being. He approaches this through a fundamental ontology that is a preliminary analysis of the being to whom the question of being is important, i.e., Dasein." [42 words]

Discussion:

Beginning with the most specifically defined action contained in the sentence, "reawakening of the question of the meaning of being," --from which the other phrases logically follow -- makes the intended meaning more immediately clear.

The other described actions, "attempts to revive ontology" and "a preliminary analysis of the being," are both more nebulous phrases and refer to actions potentially accomplished through various unstated ways and means. Within this sentence, these to actions are entirely dependent on the more specific phrase, "reawakening the question."

Further:

To call an ontology "fundamental" is redundant.

To call an ontology "an analysis" is peculiar and redundant.

To qualify this analysis as "preliminary" relates to the weeds of Heidegger -- and isn't appropriate to the lede, where an explanation of why it's "preliminary" and/or why this is significant is impossible.

I'll probably continue with second graf a little later....

For starters, I'd say of the existing second graf, what or which is its "topic sentence?" ... 2600:1702:39A0:3720:1C71:84AB:5AEA:935C (talk) 18:35, 28 August 2020 (UTC)

Second graf of lede

Here's my analysis of the five currently existing sentences of second graf of lede. This analysis is followed by the proposed (three) replacement sentences (three lines). The three proposed sentences are written with the goal of improving readability while retaining all "essential" information presented in current version (seven lines).

the current five sentences:

1) Heidegger wrote that Being and Time was made possible by his study of Edmund Husserl's Logical Investigations (1900–1901), and it is dedicated to Husserl "in friendship and admiration".

This “topic sentence” is structurally non-functional as such. The underlying insight pertains to the book’s use of Husserl’s phenomenology; title of Husserl's main work is a detail that belongs in body, not lede. Regardless, the fact that Heidegger is, to an uncertain and debatable extent, a phenomenologist, offers little help in a brief summary.

ALSO note that in American usage at least, quotation marks correctly appear outside of punctuation in most instances (& certainly this instance).

2) Although Heidegger did not complete the project outlined in the introduction, Being and Time remains his most important work.

Significance of first clause is unexplained. It’s of very limited value and a negative distraction, in a brief description of the book. Thus the information doesn’t belong in the lede.

Regarding second clause, "although" and "remains" are curious word choices. "Although you'd expect X, what happened was Y." How is this construction intended to apply in this sentence?

3. It was immediately recognized as an original and groundbreaking philosophical work, and later became a focus of debates and controversy, and a profound influence on 20th-century philosophy, particularly existentialism, hermeneutics, deconstruction, and the enactivist approach to cognition.

We already know it’s a “philosophical” work — so no need to again identify it as such.

Merely mentioning “debates and controversy” without further explanation begs the question. The book’s relationship to existentialism is introduced in sentence #4, making its mention here awkward. A list of related philosophies doesn’t provide immediate insight to “Being and Time.”

4. Being and Time has been described as the most influential version of existential philosophy, and Heidegger's achievements in the work have been compared to those of Immanuel Kant in the Critique of Pure Reason (1781) and Georg Wilhelm Friedrich Hegel in The Phenomenology of Spirit (1807) and Science of Logic (1812–1816).

This is needlessly long-winded.(See proposed sentence 2, below).

5 The work influenced philosophical treatises such as Jean-Paul Sartre's Being and Nothingness (1943).

Lacking adequate structure, this graf scatters mention of other philosophers throughout almost randomly while providing too much information that is (at best) marginally relevant to a brief overview of B&T. Please see comment regarding sentence 3, above.

————

1. Being and Time, immediately recognized in 1927 as original and groundbreaking, has been described as Heidegger's magnum opus, a key document of existentialism -- with wide-ranging impact on related forms of philosophy as well as on cognitive science.

this combines the useful information in original sentences two and three plus first half of # four.

2. Its stature in the history of philosophy has been favorably compared with that of the major works of Kant and Hegel.

retains second half of original sentence #4.

3. Being and Time employs Edmund Husserl's phenomenology, and is dedicated to Husserl "in friendship and admiration”.

retains useable information in original sentence #1 and places at end of graf, given its non-essential value to lede.

2600:1702:39A0:3720:34A1:D41C:6F63:8114 (talk) 23:11, 28 August 2020 (UTC)

Lede II

Having edited current version of lede (assuming it stands for a bit) I'd like to propose adding to the lede with brief mention of a few Heideggerian terms. In particular, "Dasein" and "Authenticity." There's an endless potential list, obviously.

One is struck today by how frequently the term "Authenticity" is thrown about. Users should be more aware of H. in backgound. 2600:1702:39A0:3720:1DF3:34CE:6DA6:431B (talk) 01:09, 30 August 2020 (UTC)

Don't want to discourage your activities here at all - I've interest in this topic but have not put in the (I believe must be considerable) effort to learn enough about it to contribute more than stylistically or clean up vandalism. But I do suggest two things: 1) make sure you are aware of the standard practices around reliable sources so we know your changes are not just your own and 2) consider signing up with a user id. It is actually more private than using the IP address, which maps to the computer you are using. And it gives you a page here people can communicate with your directly.

I look forward to further improvements on this page. --John (User:Jwy/talk) 16:03, 30 August 2020 (UTC)

Thanks very much. I'm not greatly concerned with my personal privacy, and as you probably know, citations aren't required in the lede. But in fact, the body of this article cites almost exclusively a single primary source, Being & Time. This is a major problem. If you want to read or learn about Being and Time, obviously it's advisable to avoid this article.

The article is largely an anonymous person or persons' private interpretation of a notoriously opaque work. On that basis, a fair case could be made to delete from Wikipedia, the whole damned thing!!!! But I don't really care.

--Edit -- I haven't read the article's body very carefully. Probably a couple of categories could/should be added. The question is partly decided by whatever sources an editor has available. The structure of any book offering an interpretive overview would typically offer clues (or templates) in its table of contents about relevant subcategories for this article.

76.250.61.86 (talk) 16:45, 30 August 2020 (UTC)

Expand this article

(-edited comment, see history)

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

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

Previously both articles had relied mostly on personal explanations and commentary based on selected citations from the primary source. (It's a non-credible model, presently followed by most or all of the other W. articles on specific H. texts.).

I've not managed to completely remove this material from either article, and perhaps a little bit is tolerable. One could call "it" "original research" -- but if at all reasonable, it's probably not very "original." Some effort at sourcing can pay off.

But also, try to limit new material here to substantive cited information that may offer insight. Example

WRONG: "Jane Smith said 'it's all bullshit!'

RIGHT: "the biochemist Jane Smith's testing of many samples during 1999 indicated that their source was a bull."

Or SOMETHING like that -- difficult and perhaps not always successful.

2601:405:4A80:9E50:8DEF:D4A3:CCB9:6EBE (talk) 15:27, 13 September 2020 (UTC)

Destructuring of metaphysics

This section should be either re-worked or scrapped because, as currently written, almost all of it is NOT directly relevant to B&T.

"In Being and Time Heidegger briefly refutes the philosophy of René Descartes (in an exercise he called "destructuring)..." It then makes a brief comment on supposed intentions for unwritten "second volume."

The remainder of the section speaks in generalities about Heidegger's career "in later works...." (NOT B&T) and then takes a stab at defining "Destruction" without adequately linking the term to B&T or its basic concepts.

Moreover, the sourcing is limited and hard to assess.

Yes, the Descartes thing is important to the book's central themes, but this isn't stated. And maybe yes Heidegger's methodologies are of interest but not very clear.

Not sure if I'm that interested.

Perhaps the concept of destructuring (as method) can be folded into "Phenomenology/hermeneutics/etc," and the Descartes thing left to explicaiton of subject/object (not), under "Being-In the World" talk. 2601:405:4A80:9E50:1DAF:583F:3272:E892 (talk) 22:53, 9 May 2021 (UTC)

2601:405:4A80:9E50:1DAF:583F:3272:E892 (talk) 22:53, 9 May 2021 (UTC)

Methodologies

Under the new heading, "Methodologies," an additional section on hermeneutics is probably appropriate. Potentially material can be simply imported from other Wikipedia articles, but from what I've seen, they're a bit weak.

The existing copy under "Methodologies" on destructuring and phenomenology is also weak, but justifiable, I suppose. Optimally, and obviously, the material should be directly tied to B&T.

Hermeneutics

I added a brief segment on Hermeneutics. Available Wikipedia material elsewhere doesn't seem sufficiently related to B&T and/ore sourced. The stuff I added (one source) is weak and can be certainly be expanded, improved, etc.

If the article is to present a list of H's methodologies, certainly hermeneutics should be included. If nothing else the material I added can be a placeholder -- pending improvements.

2601:405:4A80:9E50:618A:75BB:D83B:2346 (talk) 14:52, 19 May 2021 (UTC)

phenomenology

I've imported (and heavily edited) a few sentences from other wikipedia articles, along with their sources or lack thereof.

The result is very muddy but the "new material" is slightly more relevant than previously existing (which I mostly left alone).

2601:405:4A80:9E50:EC84:6DC3:55DA:BE2 (talk) 00:47, 24 May 2021 (UTC)

Material from "background"

I moved material on "phenomenology" and "hermeneutics" to the heading "Methodologies." 2601:405:4A80:9E50:D8FA:C73C:4B0:9225 (talk) 12:40, 26 May 2021 (UTC)

Reception

I removed material on "letting be" and technology. With relation to Heidegger, these topics are invariably discussed in relation to his works that are other than (not) B&T.

Also added Adorno stuff. The segment is still a rat's nest -- but I reorganized slightly. I'd actually like to entirely remove a few more bits that seem (to me) especially obscure or obvious.

Probably adding something about Rorty would be appropriate. This is however, beyond me. 2601:405:4A80:9E50:14E0:CF7D:985E:593D (talk) 03:57, 31 May 2021 (UTC)

I've cut some stuff -- hope no oxen gored. Still a weak section. Nothing explicitly about post-modernism -- that's his main influence! Nothing on Rorty.

2601:405:4A80:9E50:D532:441A:FF1E:99F8 (talk) 14:10, 31 May 2021 (UTC)

A part of the section's problem is that it has tended to confuse "Heidegger" with B&T and/or to make them fully interchangeable.

(This article is about B&T).

If one writes of Heidegger's "influence and reception" concerning subsequent thought on "technology," the point of reference is probably not B&T. On architecture, environment and other topics, the point of reference is similarly likely to be his later work, not B&T. 2601:405:4A80:9E50:75E1:6408:CF1C:9576 (talk) 15:26, 31 May 2021 (UTC)

Sympathetic summary of recent edits

I've reorganized some material and removed bits here and there. Although sourced, I felt that these removed bits headed deeply into the weeds without adequately tying (now omitted) details to the "Big Picture."

My overall goal is largely to improve the article's readability rather than impose a particular point of view. 2601:405:4A80:9E50:E0A4:33EF:CBDB:143B (talk) 18:32, 3 June 2021 (UTC)

Destructuring

Remains a particularly weak section. It gives little sense of the subject, particularly as it relates to B&T. 2601:405:4A80:9E50:CDF0:5269:54BD:D6A7 (talk) 14:54, 6 June 2021 (UTC)