Talk:Martin Heidegger

reorganization by IP editor
Hi @2001:569:538b:6500:805d:75c9:4c13:8fbb,

You recently made a large-scale organizational edit to the biographical and Nazi material in the article without even an edit description. It's not clear to me that this is an improvement, but I'd like to offer a chance to explain why you think it is.

If you or someone else does not provide a compelling justification for the changes, I will probably restore the previous version. If I do this before you see this note, do not worry. All edits are saved in the article history, and your changes could be restored if there is later consensus.

You might also have a look at WP:ACCOUNT on the benefits of creating a username and account.

Thanks for your attention to this article!

Cheers, Patrick J. Welsh (talk) 15:27, 28 October 2023 (UTC)


 * I support the revert if there is no convincing explanation forthcoming. Phlsph7 (talk) 08:15, 29 October 2023 (UTC)

restoring film section
@Susmuffin, I am restoring the film section to the article. One could argue that the inclusion of Terrence Malick is merely a pop cultural reference. However, he studied Heidegger at the doctoral level, and there is a considerable academic literature on Heideggerian themes in Malick's body of work. Once this has been pointed out, it is hard not to see everywhere.

The other two films prominently feature Heidegger scholars and are directly about his thought. I think that readers are well served by their mention in the article. In contrast to the content of "Further reading" sections, it is not likely to occur to most readers to seek out secondary films about a philosopher. I would classify these two as unlikely to be challenged and so not in need of supporting citations, but reviews could surely be adduced if necessary. You couldn't really write about them without saying in the process that they are about Heidegger.

(I've seen The Ister and, although I've not seen Being in the World, which does not appear to be streaming anywhere either, I know the work of a few of the scholars who participated.)

Please explain further if you still think this should not be included. Although I think it is a nice addition to the article, I don't have especially strong feelings on the matter and am entirely open to the counter-arguments of anyone who disagrees.

Cheers, Patrick J. Welsh (talk) 20:58, 3 November 2023 (UTC)

Valuable RS
An overview of the discussions whether Heidegger was a racist: tgeorgescu (talk)  23:02, 1 March 2024 (UTC)