Talk:Heideggerian terminology

Clean-up
This page needs a grammatical clean-up at a minimum, and perhaps some technical/philosophical clean-up as well.--Radicalamy 18:31, 16 August 2006 (UTC)Radicalamy

Cleaned up somewhat, though it needs further work.Lucaas 20:31, 19 August 2006 (UTC)
 * There is a point to including the german translation of Ontological. Although it is true that the english word 'ontological' has its etemylogical root in the greek term 'ontos' - this is about Heideggerian terminology, and a better understanding of the German terms Heidegger uses is helpful, I believe. Sam 18:55, 12 September 2006 (UTC)

I agree, in general it is good to give a German term even along with the everyday German meaning. However, I think it is redundant for these Greek terms, eg, philosophy, ontology, etc., nor are they really German in the first place. Lucas


 * ah, I see your point. I'll take it out and if in the future more terms are added, we'll go with that guideline for simplicity.  Thanks for the input. Sam 17:50, 13 September 2006 (UTC)

Additions
I removed two empty additions, Worldhood and Clearing. Until there is content written for them, I do not think they should appear in the list. - Sam 17:36, 10 November 2006 (UTC)

Disclosedness / Erschlossenheit
How about a section about Disclosedness (Erschlossenheit)? Seems it's a term important enough to put here. Then it would be fit that Aletheia is incorporated under it. Nejtan 08:48, 1 December 2006 (UTC)

Entfernung?
please explain —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 69.12.157.214 (talk) 01:55, 20 January 2007 (UTC).

Existence
The page now reads: "Simply put, Heidegger uses this word only to denote the noun - that something is." I don't think this is correct. Heidegger uses Sein for that noun. Heidegger says (p. 32, H.12):


 * Understanding of Being is itself a definite characteristic of Dasein's Being. Dasein is ontically distinctive in that it is ontological.... ["Being-ontological" signifies] "being in such a way that one has an understanding of Being". That kind of Being ... we call "existence".

Therefore, Dasein exists, but a stone does not exist in this sense, because a stone does not have an understanding of being. Heidegger would say that Dasein exists, whereas a stone is vorhanden (usually translated "present-at-hand"). —Preceding unsigned comment added by Antonios Christofides (talk • contribs) 14:31, 26 August 2010 (UTC)

Facticity
Someone over at the article on Facticity seemed not to understand Heidegger's concept of thrownness. Perhaps that should be added to this article and a link to this article should be included there? KSchutte 03:26, 26 February 2007 (UTC)

Befindlichkeit
Should be in there... --71.202.236.97 (talk) 21:16, 25 April 2008 (UTC)


 * @71.202.236.97
 * Ha! I just posted the same thing.
 * May I ask if you've found any good scholarship on it, elsewhere? 2601:245:C47F:F040:F832:2767:D31C:608E (talk) 01:05, 28 January 2023 (UTC)

Ready-to-hand
The section says "Only when it breaks or something goes wrong might we see the hammer as present-at-hand, just lying there." I think this is wrong. When a tool breaks, it becomes unready-to-hand, not present-at-hand. In the Sept. 6 lecture of Philosophy 185, available as an archived webcast at the UC Berkeley site, Dreyfus and students spent considerable time discussing just when a tool is not ready-to-hand, a point not at all clear in Being and Time. Dreyfus concluded, perhaps tentatively, that a hammer is R-to-H only when it's being used transparently (one's attending to the activity of hammering, and the hammer becomes invisible, or "withdraws"). What is the hammer's status when it's lying in a drawer? Not presence-at-hand, apparently, but unreadiness-to-hand. Cognita (talk) 05:59, 15 September 2008 (UTC)

The lectures are at http://webcast.berkeley.edu/course_details.php?seriesid=1906978475. Cognita (talk) 06:04, 15 September 2008 (UTC)

Hi there, I just wanted to say that I think there is some confusion about the terms 'ready-to-hand' and 'present-at-hand' in the article. For example, the article mixes up the terms when it says, 'When a thing is revealed as present-at-hand, it stands apart from any useful set of equipment but soon loses this mode of being present-at-hand and becomes something, for example, that which must be repaired or replaced.' Both when the hammer is lying there, but before it is necessarily intended for use, and when it is in use, when it becomes almost attentively 'invisible' as you say, it is ready-to-hand. Presence-at-hand belongs more to the 'ontological' (in the sense that Heidegger somewhat redefines this word to be associated with Dasein's projection of meaningful structures of 'concern' onto entities) whereas ready-to-hand belongs to the ontical, and has a proximal, 'worldly character' (H.75 Being and Time). When the hammer breaks it becomes both 'unready-to-hand' and moves closer to being present-at-hand. Heidegger does seems to be saying that if you only focus on the present-at-hand in developing philosophy, you will really get nowhere in articulating the meaning of Being, but the term itself is still crucial in terms of how Dasein attributes meaning to the world, which I don't think is reflected in the article at the moment. As Heidegger says, 'whenever the world is lit up in the modes of concern which we have been Interpreting, the ready-to-hand becomes deprived of its worldhood so that Being-just-present-at-hand comes to the fore.' (ibid) Hope that helps. Will 11:26, 6 June 2014 (UTC)

Presence-to-hand and Readiness-to-hand as Attitudes
Removed hypertext linking the word 'attitude' to the Wikipedia article on propositional attitudes in the second paragraph. Presence-to-hand and readiness-to-hand are attitudes that Dasein takes up toward things in its environment, but these are not propositional attitudes like beliefs and desires. Presence-to-hand and readiness-to-hand are ways of relating to entities in one's environment, not to propositions. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.117.230.219 (talk) 19:15, 2 March 2010 (UTC)

Welcome to Wikipedia! I reverted your edit, because I thought you may have confused "present-at-hand" and "ready-at-hand". However, now that I reread this section, I think you're right, and have reverted back to your version. I'm sorry. That said, I'm not sure I have the expertise to be confident in this edit. Can others review this? Also, I would encourage you or others who feel qualified to Be Bold and try to explain these terms in simpler language for mere mortals like me. Sondra.kinsey (talk) 22:45, 17 January 2017 (UTC)

"Thematic" & "Pre-thematic"
One of the most common questions from students engaging early Being and Time for the first time concerns the difference between "thematic" and "pre-thematic." Might it be sensible to add a section to the article for these two? If so, I might try to type something up before the end of the night.

(Yogenzaga1 (talk) 00:05, 3 November 2010 (UTC))

Citations, wording of the Ready-to-hand section
This article is quite helpful--I'm glad it exists as a discrete entry--but there do seem to be a number of issues I don't quite feel qualified to repair (as much as I hate to criticize without helping). Generally speaking, there are several parts that read like OR, but most importantly I think some of the language might be confused. For example, the second paragraph of the Ready-to-hand section reads, "Importantly, the present-at-hand only emerges from the prior attitude in which we care about what is going on and we see the hammer in a context or world of equipment that is handy or remote, and that is there 'in order to' do something. In this sense the ready-to-hand is primordial compared to that of the present-at-hand. The term primordial here does not imply something Primitive, but rather refers to Heidegger's idea that Being can only be understood through what is everyday and 'close' to us. Our everyday understanding of the world is necessarily essentially a part of any kind of scientific or theoretical studies of entities — the present-at-hand — might be. Only by studying our 'average-everyday' understanding of the world, as it is expressed in the totality of our relationships to the ready-to-hand entities of the world, can we lay appropriate bases for specific scientific investigations into specific entities within the world." It could just be my limited knowledge of Heidegger talking, but I think the key terms are accidentally switched in at least one place and I can't tell what the next to last sentence is saying. "...essentially a part of any kind of..studies of entities...might be?" --Rhododendrites (talk) 01:45, 20 February 2013 (UTC)

"ownmost"
Is "ownmost" a well-known English word? Does it require some explanation? Martinevans123 (talk) 20:33, 7 December 2019 (UTC)
 * Yeah, it could. 2600:1702:39A0:3720:1D:A4FF:1591:9BF0 (talk) 19:18, 30 June 2020 (UTC)

Original Research; Primary Sources
This article is, quite literally, nearly hopeless in terms of attaining minimal credibility. Adding necessary attributions would require a vast amount of work that almost certainly nobody is willing to undertake. Thus the hopelessness.

About half the article's 34 citations are from Heidegger. In these "primary source" instances, the reader must rely on anonymous editors' personal interpretations -- a dubious proposition. At a glance, several of the non-H citations look possibly of questionable relevance.

Large parts of this article offer zero citations. Given about two dozen terms, one might say, very generally, it needs at least 50 secondary source citations (say two per entry, average) to become reasonably "sourced."

I would certainly never suggest deletion -- and it's not necessarily a terrible article. Probably it could benefit slightly from some sort of unpleasant "template" that points out sourcing issue.

2600:1702:39A0:3720:1D:A4FF:1591:9BF0 (talk) 19:18, 30 June 2020 (UTC)

Kehre
The Kehre section seems to conflate "Kehre" as a term Heidegger uses with its use as a method of interpretation of Heidegger's oeuvre. The use of "Wild fantasies" in the first paragraph feels like non-neutral language. Additionally, citations for the various authors' interpretations of the Kehre need citations. Also, "It is also to be emphasized further that Kehre is in no way the transition from phenomenology to a so-called "meditative thinking" as some interpreters would have us to believe..." requires some kind of citation and it should be noted that "some interpreters" are acting as interpreters of the text, and therefore their position constitutes a particular viewpoint on the work. It can be noted that these interpretations are likely not internally consistent with the rest of the oeuvre, but to invoke them and then immediately dismiss them out of hand without reference I think fails purpose of the glossary entry. Owensp1006 (talk) 16:38, 3 July 2020 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Owensp1006 (talk • contribs) 16:35, 3 July 2020 (UTC)
 * I agree (See section immediately above). It's almost certainly hopeless in terms of obtaining proper citations. Presently it offers ZERO citations, and is fairly typical of the entire project in this regard. (The term "wild fantasies" is itself a wild fantasy about proper editing.)

Would like to add: As with all of Wikipedia, the segment (and entire article) is only as credible as its citations (hint). — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2600:1702:39A0:3720:182E:FFCC:181C:B4AA (talk) 15:37, 8 August 2020 (UTC) 76.250.61.86 (talk) 16:43, 19 July 2020 (UTC)
 * I've completely deleted the section, which was (like much of this article) entirely unsourced. In its place, I've substituted relevant material taken directly (cut and paste) from the Martin Heidegger article which seems to be well sourced.

It appears that the editor responsible for the unsourced material is no longer around (???) 2600:1702:39A0:3720:ED7B:5BF0:B379:6297 (talk) 23:10, 10 August 2020 (UTC)
 * I've now substantially shortened the material and edited for re-purposing, ading two sources. Please note the brief segment now includes a dozen citations up from ZERO for the deleted material.

2600:1702:39A0:3720:A052:CA52:E399:A6FE (talk) 12:37, 11 August 2020 (UTC)

Would really, really, *really* appreciate some help cleaning this article up
I'm hoping someone can help me with this - this article is lacking in lang templates and is a major violation of MOS:OUR for which it ought be taken out and shot

Every instance of 'we', 'our', 'us', etc, needs rewriting from something that sounds like a Heideggerian textbook to a literal Wikipedia article talking these concepts, not just discussing them as. I don't tend to edit psychology(?) articles, and I've tried to do my best in the sections I've edited so far, but a), I don't have much of a clue if I've accidentally changed the meaning of something, and b), this really isn't my area, so I feel like my brain is melting. Someone interested in this topic who can give it a going-over would be a godsend.

This article also uses a lot of German terminology, majority of which isn't wrapped in a lang tag as of now. Every instance of a currently-italicised German word, even those in a subheading, needs putting in a lang tag, as thus:

lederhosen

And the terms at the top of each subheading ought to look like this:

lederhosen

Without a colon at the beginning, as that's a false subheading.

I'd really appreciate some help - this article is large, at least when editing on mobile, making it tedious, and I'd like not to misrepresent any concepts here where possible - in fact, making them more easily-understood would be ideal. Thanks! --Ineffablebookkeeper (talk) 17:01, 4 November 2021 (UTC)

Befindlichkeit
No article about Heidegger's terminology can be complete without Befindlichkeit. Without getting into it here, I encourage anyone interested in helping to explore it. It ties in with gelassenheit, to an extent, although gelassenheit is a sort of "quality" of befindlichkeit. Loose translation is "the underlying, pervasive felt sense that colors how one finds oneself as a conscious being-in-the- world." If emotions are the felt responses to our ontic engagement, and moods are the more stable sense of the broader patterns of that ontic engagement, Befindlichkeit is the state of our ONTOLOGICAL engagement with Being-itself. This, of course, isn't entirely divorced from the ontic, but it shows how intricate the range and quality of experience is.

Sorry, I KNEW that I wouldn't be able to keep it short. And it probably doesn't make any sense. Look up Eugene Gendlin's great article on the topic. Very much worthwhile 2601:245:C47F:F040:F832:2767:D31C:608E (talk) 01:04, 28 January 2023 (UTC)

Paragraph on documentary
It might be best to take this to the talk page to avoid having an admin protect the article. Khashmashi, in the future, it might be better to follow WP:BRD since you are pretty close to WP:3RR.

As for the added paragraph that discusses this specific documentary, I tend to agree with PatrickJWelsh. According to WP:PROPORTION, An article should not give undue weight to minor aspects of its subject but should strive to treat each aspect with a weight proportional to its treatment in the body of reliable, published material on the subject. The academic literature on Heidegger and his terminology is huge. The documentary in question is a very recent work. I don't think that it is often cited in academic sources. So dedicating a full paragraph to it is not justified. By the way, IMDB is an unreliable source, see WP:IMDB. Phlsph7 (talk) 21:31, 22 January 2024 (UTC)

Why AUTHENTICITY missing???
Does anyone know why "authenticity" is missing from this list? I'm just sayin' 50.4.132.185 (talk) 00:20, 5 March 2024 (UTC)