Talk:Martin Heidegger/Archive 12

"One of the greatest..."
The second sentence of the opening paragraph now says this: "He is considered to be one of the greatest philosophers of the 20th century."

First of all, no such claim is made in the main body of the article, where it should be before it can be added to the lead section. Second, the text of the first ref, Korab-Karpowicz (2022), is this: "Martin Heidegger is widely acknowledged to be one of the most original and important philosophers of the 20th century, while remaining one of the most controversial." No mention of "greatest" there. Third, I don't know if the other two sources, Rooney (2020) and McManus (2020), are WP:RS or not; they do not have any online links and so are not visible, so I don't know if they support the claim of "one of the greatest" or not. Martinevans123 (talk) 10:19, 14 February 2022 (UTC)


 * For arguments that these changes are contentious, see here and here. Phlsph7 (talk) 11:28, 14 February 2022 (UTC)


 * I don't think 'greatest' belongs anywhere, but 'most important' is fine and its supported by the main body of text. Some people think he shouldn't be but that is a different matter -Snowded TALK 12:01, 14 February 2022 (UTC)


 * I tend to agree. Would Heidegger have lasted the full 10 rounds with Muhammad Ali? Martinevans123 (talk) 12:09, 14 February 2022 (UTC)


 * Probably not but from memory he did well as number 11 in the Greek's v Germans Philosophy Match -Snowded TALK 12:25, 14 February 2022 (UTC)


 * The old 3-4-3 formation was totally wasted on him, wasn't it. But you've got to admire his classic Being and Half Time. Martinevans123 (talk) 12:37, 14 February 2022 (UTC)


 * @Martinevans123: I don't know, would Ludwig Wittgenstein? ('Was an Austrian-British philosopher who worked primarily in logic, the philosophy of mathematics, the philosophy of mind, and the philosophy of language. He is considered to be one of the greatest philosophers of the modern era'). What do you think?
 * Overall, it seems to me that the lead of this article has been systematically vandalized and diminished in quality by people who apparently have some bias against Heidegger. For those who do actually know a thing or two about philosophy, this sentence should be a completely uncontroversial way of highlighting the importance of Heidegger. Especially since it's substantiated by sources who - I dare say - have some more authority on philosophy than the Wikipedia-editors here.
 * Also, to complain that this isn't reflected in the main body of the text is quite ridiculous, I really wonder if you've read the article at all. And moreover, why is this even necessary when stating the importance of any figure in any field or domain? Again, this sentence should be obvious for anyone who has a little understanding of the history of philosophy. 213.124.174.59 (talk) 12:41, 14 February 2022 (UTC)
 * Not in the least, @Martinevans123: You wrote 'I don't know if the other two sources, Rooney (2020) and McManus (2020), are WP:RS'. This is what I mean when I talk about having a bias. The laziness of refusing to a. look up the source (in the first sentence one can read: 'Martin Heidegger (1889–1976) is often described as one of the great philosophers of the 20th century.'). And b. the author: Professor Denis McManus is a Professor of Philosophy at the University of Southampton. But of course Martinevans123 from the University of Wikipedia knows far more about 20th century philosophy! 213.124.174.59 (talk) 12:53, 14 February 2022 (UTC)
 * "The laziness of refusing to a. look up the source... And b. the author"? So I'm expected to have rushed over to Amazon and ordered my copies of the books for next day delivery, yes? Neither author is sufficiently notable to have an article? I checked. But kindly leave out the sarcasm and insults. Thanks. Martinevans123 (talk) 12:58, 14 February 2022 (UTC)
 * You began the sarcasm when suddenly Muhammed Ali entered the discussion. Apart from that, the books are easily accessible online. Rooney e.g. is stating precisely what I have written in the lead of the article (you can look this up on Google Books). Same goes for Denis McManus' article that is largely accessibly online and is writing for Oxford University Press (how can you doubt the reliability of this?). Again, I don't understand why a discussion on something basic like this is necessary, but I suspect some kind of (analytic?) bias which already resulted in a strong reduction of the quality of this article. 213.124.174.59 (talk) 13:07, 14 February 2022 (UTC)
 * Comparative terms such as "the greatest" or "one of the greatest" seem to me to be more appropriate for boxing champions than for philosophers. That's the point I was making, to User:Snowded. And I certainly wasn't directing my sarcasm to any other editor. If a source is available online it's usual to include a url in the reference, something I had assumed you would have done, as you did with the first of your sources. The requirement for the lead section to summarise the entire article, and have nothing novel, is policy here. It's not something I've personally dreamt up. If those three new sources you've found are so good, why are they not already used in the article? Martinevans123 (talk) 13:28, 14 February 2022 (UTC)


 * I recall a philosopher friend of mine at Yale who regarded himself as broadly an Aristotelian analytic but did say that he regarded Sein und Zeit as one of the deepest challenges to his position. That does sound 'great philosopher' league. I don't like these claims unattributed and plenty of philosophers regard his work as confused mystification; my impression is that this view is held to a far greater degree than the similarly negative views that exist on Wittgenstein and the not-so-much-earlier Nietzsche. &mdash; Charles Stewart (talk) 15:40, 14 February 2022 (UTC)

Those comments were directed to my edit, in the same way my sarcasm was directed to your comments; so please stop complaining. I’ve stated above that Ludwig Wittgenstein’s page has the exact same formulation; yet you are here complaining and not there. Why? I already gave the answer when I was talking about the Anglo/analytic bias that I’m sensing here. With regard to your last question: why on earth would these sources have been used when it’s semantically already in the article? Look e.g. at the influence section of the article. Secondly, I’ve added these sources because you initially complained about the lack of literal quotations. Now you have your literal quotation and it’s something else that you find (again I’m sensing a bias here). Also, where in the Wittgenstein article is his apparent ‘greatness’ derived from?89.205.133.144 (talk) 15:23, 14 February 2022 (UTC)
 * Are you the same anon IP editor that started this little battle as IP 213.124.174.59, on Ziggo, geolocating to Nijmegen? Seems you've now switched to T-mobile via Amsterdam? Martinevans123 (talk) 15:53, 14 February 2022 (UTC)
 * We've yet to see any literal translations from Rooney (2020) or McManus (2020). We just know one does not exist in Korab-Karpowicz (2022). The place to dicuss Wittgenstein is Talk:Ludwig Wittgenstein. Martinevans123 (talk) 15:57, 14 February 2022 (UTC)


 * I agree with that "most important" is better than "greatest". I would prefer "most influential" since assessing influence is more objective than importance. The two sources I cited earlier show that Heidegger's influence on analytic philosophy is minimal. An earlier version restricted the characterization to "German philosopher", which works. A better qualification might be "continental philosopher" instead of just "philosopher". Both the passages cited in favor of "greatest philosopher" also contain the weasel words "widely acknowledged to be" or "is often described as". I think it would make sense to add such a qualification to our formulation as well. Phlsph7 (talk) 16:07, 14 February 2022 (UTC)


 * I guess direct links and/or page numbers to searchable online editions of Rooney (2020) and McManus (2020) might be a good starting point. But then I am very lazy and biased, allegedly. I still think any such superlatives should be fully substantiated in the main body (probably somewhere in "Influence") and that's where the supporting references should be. Martinevans123 (talk) 16:54, 14 February 2022 (UTC)
 * @Martinevans123: Very nasty & even aggressive behavior to put my location in the discussion like that; I do hope the moderator is seeing this and does something about this, as this completely out of order in my view.


 * With regard to the discussion, those books are like I said freely accessible online, you can look it up easily. The question remains why this is such a probleem for Heidegger, but apparently not for Wittgenstein (and no, I see no reason to change that for Wittgenstein, as ‘greatest’ is semantically similar to ‘most influential’ or whatever).


 * @Phlsph7: I’m sorry but this is nonsense and also own research. Besides, the fact that Heidegger had a bigger influence elsewhere does not justify this. And also, why should the distinction be made for Heidegger as a ‘continental philosopher’ and not for Wittgenstein, this is simply weird and I know no philosophy book that actually does that, they are simply ‘philosophers’.


 * It is in my opinion important that these articles show consistency, which is as a result of biased writing now lacking. 89.205.133.144 (talk) 18:38, 14 February 2022 (UTC)


 * IP 89, if you choose to edit as an anonymous IP, you must realise that network and geolocation details are in the public domain, instantly traceable from the link on your User contributions page. Any admin following this will see that you've swapped IP's to continue arguing. Your first IP address has been blocked for disruptive editing. So this one is likely to be blocked also, for block evasion. Martinevans123 (talk) 18:45, 14 February 2022 (UTC)
 * To openly put my location in the discussion hasn’t got anything to do with the discussion & is completely irrelevant! You know damn well that we’re the same person, which makes it simply a nasty attempt at intimidation and once again avoiding the content of the discussion. 89.205.133.144 (talk) 18:53, 14 February 2022 (UTC)
 * I have no idea if you are the same person - you don't have a single account. I have no interest in "attempting to intimidate" you. I think I've made my views on your edits quite clear. Martinevans123 (talk) 19:15, 14 February 2022 (UTC)
 * To specify someone’s location is completely irrelevant, and to say you’re unaware this is the same person is of course complete nonsense.
 * For the record: you started this ‘little battle’, I simply added a completely uncontroversial sentence with proper sources that you for some reason refuse to accept in favor of your own opinion. Then you started talking about Mohammed Ali and now you’re specifying my location for some reason. 89.205.133.144 (talk) 19:28, 14 February 2022 (UTC)
 * Then you may wish to engage with the other contributors here, who also all seem to agree that your addition is not needed, while you still can. Martinevans123 (talk) 19:35, 14 February 2022 (UTC)
 * All contributors seem to agree that this addition is not needed? So now you can read the mind of 'all contributors'? It does seem to me that at least one of the above contributors stated: 'That does sound 'great philosopher' league'. But apparently it doesn't count if it's not in accordance to your opinion?
 * Once again, I'm completely baffled by the fact that a basic notion like this - which is not only common knowledge, but supported in explicit or implicit terms in virtually every article on Heidegger in philosophy textbooks, even in this article itself! (in what way is 'one of the greatest' semantically any different from 'Heidegger is "widely acknowledged to be one of the most original and important philosophers of the 20th century'?) - is disputed.
 * I've already gave McManus' Oxford Bibliography article on Heidegger, everyone can read it here:, it's on page 5. Another example was this book: , page 22 has the literal quotation of the lead. But again, the amount of examples are in abundance, which makes me wonder who of the contributors here really has a background in philosophy.
 * Last but not least, I think consistency is important in Wikipedia. Personally, I'm not a great fan of 'the greatest this' and 'the greatest that', but if this is apparently happening in other articles, hence my example of Ludwig Wittgenstein, then I see no reason why it shouldn't apply to Heidegger. Cornelis Dopper (talk) 20:33, 14 February 2022 (UTC)
 * No, I'm not a fan of 'the greatest this' and 'the greatest that'. either. Wikipedia articles need not be consistently poor. The page 5 of McManus (2010) visible to me is headed "Heidegger's Work" and I don't see anything here about his being "one of the greatest". As for Rooney's The History of Philosophy (2016), maybe I'll have better luck searching in the English language Goggle, instead of the Dutch. Martinevans123 (talk) 21:22, 14 February 2022 (UTC)
 * My mistake, it's on page 3, first sentence. And I agree, Wikipedia articles need not be consistently poor, but I still would very much like to know why this is such a problem for Heidegger and not for Wittgenstein... Cornelis Dopper (talk) 21:59, 14 February 2022 (UTC)

I've presented my arguments and cited reliable sources to back them up. It's open to you to dismiss them as "nonsense", but this is unlikely to progress the discussion. It's not clear how the contents of the article on Wittgenstein are relevant for this point. Heidegger is a philosopher, but when characterizing his influence, its extent should be specified to avoid WP:NPOV. Phlsph7 (talk) 06:09, 15 February 2022 (UTC)


 * Not sure why we are carrying on like this. To say the greatest is a value judgment, to say one of the most important (or influential) and original is a statement of fact, regardless of the quality of the individual or his philosophy.  So can we just agree the additional of "and was one of the most important & influential Philosophers of the 20th C" and leave it at that?   -Snowded TALK 07:45, 15 February 2022 (UTC)
 * I suggest that the following formulation be added at the end of the first paragraph: "It is widely acknowledged that Heidegger was one of the most influential 20th-century philosophers in the continental tradition." A justification of the different parts of this formulation is given here. I don't think it's very important whether it says important or influential and the term "20th-century" could also be removed. Phlsph7 (talk) 17:33, 15 February 2022 (UTC)
 * Agree with that but with deletion of "in the continental tradition" we don't make a limitation on others to a school unless their notability is restricted. The Analytical tradition, Religious Philosophy and others all had to respond to him -Snowded TALK 17:45, 15 February 2022 (UTC)
 * I have no problem with that (with the exception of the 'in the continental tradition' part which is ridiculous), although I can't agree with this if the characterization in question is applied to other philosophers. What I'm irritated about is the fact that users like Martinevans123 apparently have no problem with 'one of the greatest...' when applied to e.g. Ludwig Wittgenstein, but when it's applied to Heidegger - even with perfectly sound sources - it's all of a sudden a problem; which of course exposes his bias. In other words, I can't see any reason why my formulation was wrong when a. I provided perfectly legitimate sources, and b. the exact same formulation is used elsewhere... Cornelis Dopper (talk) 17:51, 15 February 2022 (UTC)
 * Cornelis Dopper, you need to stop the personal attacks on other editors; such as describing their suggestions as "ridiculous", or suggesting that their edits "expose bias." Kindly concentrate on the arguments and not on the editors. Martinevans123 (talk) 17:56, 15 February 2022 (UTC)

If we are otherwise in agreement, then we can restrict our discussion on the "continental"-part. The reason for adding this qualification is due to the following two sources: &. They state that Heidegger's influence on analytic philosophy has been minimal. But I think it's uncontroversial that his influence on continental philosophy is impressive. By adding this "continental"-qualification, we avoid NPOV. Another formulation that works for me would be "It is widely acknowledged that Heidegger was one of the most influential 20th-century continental philosophers." Phlsph7 (talk) 18:03, 15 February 2022 (UTC)
 * Martinevans123, this is quite hypocritical coming from the man who published my location for no reason whatsoever. Secondly, I simply gave my opinion about your arguments, which in my opinion are objectively ridiculous, since you're not consistent and constantly changing your demands. First you need, a source, then I gave you the source, then the formulation is not good, even if you're defending it at the Ludwig Wittgenstein page. I'm sorry, but the logical coherence is completely gone. Cornelis Dopper (talk) 18:09, 15 February 2022 (UTC)
 * Cornelis Dopper, you need to stop the personal attacks on other editors; such as calling them "hypocritical". As I've already explained, if you edit as an IP editor, your network and location are already fully "published" for all to see. It's quite reasonable to try and ascertain if two different IP addresses belong to the same editor, especially when the first one has been blocked for "disruptive editing". And you've just informed me here that "There is currently a discussion at Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved." But I don't see one. Martinevans123 (talk) 18:51, 15 February 2022 (UTC)


 * @Phlsph7, what you're doing is, apart from the fact that it's highly unusual to make such a distinction when talking about philosophy, simply own research. Apart from that, to use Lee Braver when basically formulating a strict division between analytic & continental is ironic if not flat-out wrong. Cornelis Dopper (talk) 18:09, 15 February 2022 (UTC)
 * @Phlsph7 To add to this, the suggestion originally was 'one of the most important and influential philosophers of the 20th century'. I can agree with this only if my original formulation is avoided on Ludwig Wittgenstein's page. Otherwise I see no reason why my original formulation is wrong, to repeat: that sentence is used on other pages and I've provided reliable sources. Cornelis Dopper (talk) 18:14, 15 February 2022 (UTC)

It is anything but unusual to restrict claims of influence to spheres of influence. All the formulation discussed here so far restrict it at least to "most influential philosopher" instead of the much wider formulations "most influential person" or "most influential human". The claim that Heidegger had little influence on analytic philosophy is not WP:OR, see the cited sources, for example "The prevailing attitude [of analytic philosophers towards Heidegger and his work] ... has - on those rare occasions when they are considered at all - been one of either suspicion or outright hostility". Phlsph7 (talk) 06:00, 16 February 2022 (UTC)
 * @Phlsph7, you're not listening to what I say. My point is that a distinction between influence exclusively for the analytical sphere or merely for the continental tradition is highly unusual and also highly debatable (as these philosophers in the course of the 20th century reacted in many ways on programs initiated by both traditions). Secondly, and this is the reason why it's also nonsense in my view: this hasn't been done in any other page of any philosopher. I already gave the example of Ludwig Wittgenstein. Another example Willard Van Orman Quine, first sentence: 'was an American philosopher and logician in the analytic tradition, recognized as "one of the most influential philosophers of the twentieth century".' Another example, David Lewis: 'was an American philosopher who is widely regarded as one of the most important philosophers of the 20th century'. You get my point? When it's Heidegger (or continental philosphy) it's merely influence on the continental tradition (which is nonsense in my opinion, but okay...), when it's analytic philosophers, it's suddenly the entire domain of philosophy. This is also the reason why I'm not going to agree with 'most important and influential philosopher...' if no-one thinks it's problematic that Ludwig Wittgenstein is referred to as 'one of the greatest...'. Cornelis Dopper (talk) 10:48, 16 February 2022 (UTC)
 * Ludwig Wittgenstein is no longer referred to as 'one of the greatest...' in the lead section, is he? You changed it (for a second time) here yesterday? Martinevans123 (talk) 11:20, 16 February 2022 (UTC)
 * To repeat: the logic of your behavior here is completely gone. You argued against the use of 'one of the greatest...', yet when I changed it at Ludwig Wittgenstein's page you reverted my edit and called it a problem.
 * It's constantly the same pattern: every time changing your demands and finding other objections. On the Heidegger page you demanded sources that literally said 'one of the greatest...', I gave them, and you proceeded looking for other objections. Same for the Wittgenstein page: you demanded a text in the article itself, I wrote a text in the article itself and you still reverted it. This is what I mean when I'm talking about having a bias... Cornelis Dopper (talk) 13:51, 16 February 2022 (UTC)
 * Kindly desist (yet again) with the personal attacks. All of my edits have been based on Wikipedia policy, not personal whim. Regards. Martinevans123 (talk) 14:09, 16 February 2022 (UTC)
 * @Martinevans123, instead of crying once more about the alleged personal attacks, of which there are precisely none, it would be a better idea to account for your completely illogical behavior (i.e. account for the matter I described here above). Then perhaps we're getting somewhere. Cornelis Dopper (talk) 15:08, 16 February 2022 (UTC)
 * Could you also kindly stop edit warring. Thanks. Martinevans123 (talk) 15:16, 16 February 2022 (UTC)
 * Stop accusing me of things you're doing yourself. You're the one with the personal attacks, sarcasm and edit warring. Stop twisting truth please. Cornelis Dopper (talk) 15:27, 16 February 2022 (UTC)
 * If you have any examples of any personal attacks, sarcasm or "edit warring", that I have made, please show them here, or take them to the appropriate venue for Admin review. Martinevans123 (talk) 15:58, 16 February 2022 (UTC)
 * Edit summaries such as "This schizophrenic behavior is getting weirder and weirder." are not particularly helpful and suggest a WP:BATTLEGROUND approach. Martinevans123 (talk) 16:16, 16 February 2022 (UTC)

We would have to check the sphere of influence of the philosophers of the cherry-picked articles you mention. If there are similar sources for each of them that explicitly deny their influence on continental philosophy, then the same argument could be made there as well. If not then these claims are not NPOV in their case. But we are talking here about Heidegger, not about them.

Currently it seems that I'm the only one defending the restriction to continental philosophy. I'm not sure if its worth our time and energy to keep fighting over this detail. If there are other people that agree with me on this issue, then we might have to go to another stage of conflict resolution. If you don't mind, I would ask you to wait for a day or two in case someone feels so compelled, otherwise I would back down and we could put the formulation "It is widely acknowledged that Heidegger was one of the most influential 20th-century philosophers", to which you and Snowded agreed earlier. Phlsph7 (talk) 15:36, 16 February 2022 (UTC)
 * @Phlsph7, No, I agreed with Snowden's formulation: 'who is regarded as one of the most important and influential philosophers of the 20th century'. I have no problem with that, unless 'one of the greatest...' is being used on the pages of other philosophers (which Martinevan123 is apparently not against), then I see no reason why this formulation should not apply to Heidegger. Cornelis Dopper (talk) 17:28, 16 February 2022 (UTC)
 * You agreed with it here. But I don't see an important difference between it and the formulation "...is regarded as one of the most important and influential philosophers of the 20th century". You may go ahead with the change since I am in the minority on this point. Phlsph7 (talk) 06:18, 18 February 2022 (UTC)
 * You don't have to like Wagner's music in order to admit that Wagner was a great composer. Same applies to Heidegger as great philosopher. tgeorgescu (talk) 08:09, 18 February 2022 (UTC)
 * I was thinking about Wagner all the time during this discussion. Though I would speak in terms of the man Wagner (i.e. the antisemite, which he was) in contrast to the great composer Wagner (which he also was). The same applies to Heidegger I would say. In the words of Toscanini: 'For Richard Strauss the composer I put my hat off, for Richard Strauss the man I put it on again.' Can't we just separate the person & what he achieved during his life? I think the current formulation is fine btw. Cornelis Dopper (talk) 23:18, 20 February 2022 (UTC)
 * You don't have to describe Heidegger as "One of the greatest philosophers..." to understand his work or just take an interest in it. Martinevans123 (talk) 12:30, 22 February 2022 (UTC)

Of key importance
Changing "key" to "among most important" generated the relatively vast discussion above. It was ME who introduced "key," when I re-wrote this article's lede (perhaps a year ago). I continue to prefer "key," but the question is neither "key" nor "important" to the quality of this article. It's a trivial matter.

You'll see on this talk page that in August 2021, I made detailed and extensive proposals for improvements, including my reasoning. In a telling contrast with the "key vs. important" debate above, this generated almost no discussion beyond "no thanks." A couple of editors here (two) seem to believe it's nearly impossible to improve on this article's present (somewhat dismal) state.

This is flattering, because I myself wrote most of its current "Philosophy" section as well as its present lede. Apparently, it's nearly perfect! Separately, I'm also responsible for nearly the entirety of the current Being and Time and Introduction to Metaphysics. This represents lots of work on my part, and resulted in significant improvements to all three three articles. The material is well-sourced, but far from perfection. Fortunately, perhaps, the other two articles don't presently have the eagle eyes lording over them. It's evident that further efforts to improve THIS article would be unsuccessful and/or not worth the Wikipedia battle. 35.10.217.21 (talk) 22:03, 26 February 2022 (UTC)


 * I assume you mean Introduction to Metaphysics (1953). The so-called "relatively vast discussion" above is about whether or not there should be a superlative statement in the lead section and, if so, how it should be supported by WP:RS sources, if at all. Thanks. Martinevans123 (talk) 22:43, 26 February 2022 (UTC)


 * Yes that's a correct assumption. Also Being and Time, and the present Martin Heidegger lede and Philosophy sections.


 * Although I haven't actually read your "so-called relatively vast discussion" above, I do understand the issue. Both the content and sourcing questions are trivial. According to Wikipedia style, a lede ordinarily shouldn't include footnotes or citations. In general, a lede should summarize material in the body of the article, which is (naturally) adequately sourced and cited. The disputed term "important" currently has a relevant citation (number six). I assume this has been pointed out in the discussion above.


 * No need to re-state my point.
 * 35.10.217.21 (talk) 23:02, 26 February 2022 (UTC)


 * I take no credit for writing or improving anything on Wikipedia, as it's a collaborative joint exercise. Yes, such superlative comparative statements are a bit trivial, possibly worthless. But if editors insist on adding them, they must be sourced in some way. Citations are permitted in a lead section (additional to also appearing in the article main body) if a claim is contentious or likely to be challenged. It's not good enough to provide a citation, just in the main body, just for one of the words in a disputed phrase or sentence. Thanks. Martinevans123 (talk) 23:12, 26 February 2022 (UTC)


 * I added a "citation needed" tag to the phrase in the lead, as I was unable to find the same phrase or any source(s) that support(s) it in the article main body. Martinevans123 (talk) 11:39, 28 February 2022 (UTC)


 * The source of that quote has now been provided. But I'm not sure why it is located under "Influence and reception in France", when Włodzimierz Julian Korab-Karpowicz does not qualify it in that way. Martinevans123 (talk) 13:52, 28 February 2022 (UTC)


 * I have tried to add the correct attribution to this statement, but this has been erroneously reverted to read as a general, unattributed, statement. And I have been accused of "edit warring". Martinevans123 (talk) 14:15, 28 February 2022 (UTC)

"one of the most important and influential"
The lead section now says: "He is regarded as one of the most important and influential philosophers of the 20th century." Where are the statements, with suitable sources, in the main body of the article, which support this claim? Or is it assumed that none are needed? Thanks. Martinevans123 (talk) 20:06, 19 February 2022 (UTC)
 * First of all these claims are merely there to illustrate the importance/significance of a person in a certain field. There is virtually in every philosophy textbooks a similar claim with regard to Heidegger's importance. In some cases those formations become so obvious that I really wonder why they need a literal citation in the text (or are we going to discuss if J.S. Bach was important for Western music? or Albert Einstein for modern science?). Secondly, is the text you are referring to not already, if not semantically, in the text: 'Heidegger is "widely acknowledged to be one of the most original and important philosophers of the 20th century while remaining one of the most controversial." His ideas have penetrated into many areas, but in France there is a very long and particular history of reading and interpreting his work which in itself resulted in deepening the impact of his thought in Continental Philosophy. He influenced Jean Beaufret, François Fédier, Dominique Janicaud, Jean-Luc Marion, Jean-François Courtine, Jean Paul Sartre, Jacques Derrida, Michel Foucault and others.'? Same goes for Wittgenstein. Cornelis Dopper (talk) 23:18, 20 February 2022 (UTC)
 * The lead section should summarise the entire article. Whatever is in the article should be fully sourced. That's the policy. Martinevans123 (talk) 23:21, 20 February 2022 (UTC)
 * The text "widely acknowledged to be one of the most original and important philosophers of the 20th century while remaining one of the most controversial." is nested under the section "Influence and reception in France." Martinevans123 (talk) 08:57, 21 February 2022 (UTC)
 * It summarises the article, it doesn't repeat it :-) -Snowded TALK 11:01, 21 February 2022 (UTC)
 * We can agree that something should not be added just because it's held, in the opinion of one or more editors, to be "common knowledge" about the subject. But I have these reservations: 1. I don't think a large part of the article is devoted to demonstrating this claim. 2. The phrase "most important and influential" does not appear anywhere in the article, nor do the component words, in the same context. 3. I had always understood that such claims needed to be supported by evidence, from multiple WP:RS sources, given by subject matter experts. 4. The claim is now wholly unsourced, not just from SMEs. 5. The long-standing previous version of this article saw no need for any such superlatives. Martinevans123 (talk) 11:18, 21 February 2022 (UTC)
 * 1. Is this a. even necessary? And b. isn't this implicitly the case when a certain influential figure is being described in any article? For instance, when people talk about Albert Einstein he is referred to as 'widely acknowledged to be one of the greatest physicists of all time'. The article that follows is largely about his innovations in 20th century physics (annus miribalis etc.), which is de facto referring to the claim made about his importance in the lead section. The same goes for Heidegger I would say.
 * 2. I already said that I simply disagree with you. I think it is also objectively not true. The article already stated: 'widely acknowledged to be one of the most original and important philosophers of the 20th century'. How can you say in that case that 'the component words' do not appear in the article? I'm clearly seeing 'most important' and '20th century philosophy'...
 * 3. I already gave you the sources. And also, you can find evidence for this in virtually every textbook on the history of (20th century) philosophy.
 * 4. The fact that the claim is unsourced is not because of my doing, it's because you wanted it as a direct reference to the main body of the text (where it is in fact sourced). Not in the least, you kept deleting my sources where Heidegger was in fact referred to as 'one of the greatest philosophers of the 20th century'.
 * 5. This is the reason why I made this edit in the first place. There previously was a lead section of this article that reflected his importance and many other features of his philosophy much better than the version before the current one. This has in my opinion to do with an overemphasize on Heidegger's support for the NSDAP (and possibly an analytic bias against Heidegger). At some point in the edit history of this article, it seemed people started only talking about his Nazi past, rather than his achievements as a philosopher in the phenomenological tradition. This is at the moment still slightly the case in the article. For instance if you look at the emphasize of his Nazi-past, it is an extremely long section. Now, I have no problem with that, because it is a serious matter that deserves critical attention. However, the case is now that there's next to nothing in this article about die Kehre, next to nothing about his work after Sein und Zeit and next to nothing about his works on Hölderlin. You can already see this in the lead section of this article: it is merely about Sein und Zeit and then about his Nazi past (this is really ridiculous!). Again, Heidegger was a convinced Nazi and of course a scumbag, but this shouldn't prevent people from neglecting his philosophy and downplaying his importance to 20th century philosophy. And to repeat, I also suspect this has something to do with an analytical bias towards continental philosophy in general, but I let that rest for the sake of the discussion. Cornelis Dopper (talk) 13:49, 21 February 2022 (UTC)
 * "... you wanted it as a direct reference to the main body of the text (where it is in fact sourced)." Where? Martinevans123 (talk) 13:59, 21 February 2022 (UTC)
 * "... I'm clearly seeing 'most important' and '20th century philosophy'.... In the context of "Heidegger was the .... "? Martinevans123 (talk) 14:10, 21 February 2022 (UTC) (I was actually searching for "most original" or "most important"; I think "20th century" can be assumed as undisputable)
 * I'm very sympathetic to an earlier version - what did you have in mind? -Snowded</b> <small style="color: #708090; font-family: Baskerville;">TALK 15:10, 21 February 2022 (UTC)
 * I had no problem with the version changed here on 2 February. But then someone suggested that the first sentence there was "very weird". Martinevans123 (talk) 15:45, 21 February 2022 (UTC)
 * Once again, what I think is important is consistency with regard to other articles (especially those about philosophers). That means that when Heidegger is referred to as 'a key German philosopher', that is a. weird, because it doesn't happen with any other philosopher in this project; and b. it's ambiguous (was he a key philosopher for German philosophy or a key philosopher who happens to be German?) and therefore grammatically contestable. The version that I'm referring to had something like 'a seminal philosopher in the continental tradition'. Which is always better than 'a key German philosopher', but also problematic because again: it doesn't happen with the majority of articles on philosophers. E.g. take Willard Van Orman Quine, the influence of Quine on the continental tradition is very limited, same goes for David Lewis. Yet I completely agree with the qualifications about these philosophers made in the lead section. And secondly, it is also debatable whether this is actually true. Although Heidegger (and many other continental philosophers) didn't influence them directly, the entire project of analytic philosophy was of course highly influenced (albeit in a negative way) by the program certain philosophers on (especially the continent) pursued in the course of the 20th century (and of course vice versa).
 * @Martin, I really don't understand your question. How isn't the entire section 'Influence and reception in France' and specifically the (sourced) sentence 'Heidegger is "widely acknowledged to be one of the most original and important philosophers of the 20th century while remaining one of the most controversial."' reflecting the sentence we're talking about in the lead? Cornelis Dopper (talk) 19:46, 21 February 2022 (UTC)
 * That sentence would support a claim that he was e.g. "one of the most important and influential philosophers for France in the 20th century." Martinevans123 (talk) 21:09, 21 February 2022 (UTC)
 * This article is about Heidegger, not about e.g. "20th-century philosophers". Ambiguity doesn't necessarily make a sentence "very weird"; any ambiguity can be addressed. So which version had "a seminal philosopher in the continental tradition"? Martinevans123 (talk) 21:09, 21 February 2022 (UTC)
 * Martin, you seem to have a problem with looking up things yourself. I don't feel the urge to do that now, because I'm satisfied with the current formulation for reasons that I've addressed here above; e.g. because I value consistency, since these matters are all related. That also goes for 'a key German philosopher' which isn't used anywhere (and also for that reason weird). It's perfectly fine with me if you like ambiguity in an encyclopedic article, though a suspect not too many people will agree with you. Cornelis Dopper (talk) 21:43, 21 February 2022 (UTC)
 * Why do you think I "like ambiguity" in an encyclopaedia article? Do you understand what I mean by "any ambiguity can be addressed"? Kindly don't start again by telling me what "problems" I have. To construct a correct lead section, one need not "look up" anything apart from the contents of the entire article. Martinevans123 (talk) 22:10, 21 February 2022 (UTC)
 * I have the feeling that we are talking in circles, so this is going to be my final response. I do think you have a problem when you think other contributors should look things up for you, even when they have provided perfectly legitimate arguments or sources. With regard to the matter of ambiguity, you wrote: 'Ambiguity doesn't necessarily make a sentence "very weird"'. If you think this is unproblematic, then again, I have very little to say. I do think this is a problem (and because of that: 'very weird' (especially for an encyclopedia)) and therefore I want to change it, not in the least because it is not consistent with other articles. Last but not least, the debated sentence is semantically already in the article, I have quoted it many times by now. Look it up! Cornelis Dopper (talk) 23:22, 21 February 2022 (UTC)
 * Yet again, I said "any ambiguity can be addressed". If the phrase "key German" is not liked, it could be changed or replaced. There's no point in me "looking up" the words for that lead section phrase in the article main body, as they do not exist in the main body. The onus is to any editor who adds something to provide some source(s). From reading the article, or from a general knowledge of Heidegger in the academic literature, I may personally think that he was indeed "one of the most important and influential". But, as far as Wikipedia is concerned, my opinion does not matter. And neither does yours. What matters are assessments by subject matter experts in WP:RS sources. Until such sources are provided, that phrase should be marked with a "citation needed" tag. Re: "talking in circles" - I am just reiterating what I understand to be Wikipedia policy. If your understanding of policy is different, I would welcome your explanation of that. Martinevans123 (talk) 11:38, 22 February 2022 (UTC)

@Martin, it is a good idea, and it would be a good custom in your case, to stop changing things in the lead section of the article without consensus here. And once again there isn't any logic in the way you are behaving. Earlier you said it wasn't necessary to source sentences in the lead article, because it's a reflection of the main body of the text, now all of a sudden you demand a reference? Even though the reference is in the main body of the text? Even though the article on Wittgenstein has exactly the same source? I think it would be a good idea for you to behave and find some coherent arguments for what you're doing. Cornelis Dopper (talk) 11:32, 28 February 2022 (UTC)
 * Would you care to identify yourself? I am certainly not on first name terms with you. Martinevans123 (talk) 11:29, 28 February 2022 (UTC)
 * Big mouth again? You should refrain from making edits on the article without discussion here. And you certainly don't have approval from me, Martin! Cornelis Dopper (talk) 11:32, 28 February 2022 (UTC)
 * Would you kindly explain what you mean by the first three words of your comment above? Martinevans123 (talk) 11:53, 28 February 2022 (UTC)
 * What do you mean by "I think it would be a good idea for you to behave"? Martinevans123 (talk) 12:49, 28 February 2022 (UTC)
 * @Martin, if there's one thing this discussion showed, it's your lack of understanding how a basic discussion works. You're only thinking about your own positions, almost never react on the arguments of others, and now you're just ignoring the entire discussion and proceed to make changes to the lead of the article. Very nasty behavior, once again. I don't think I have to explain myself any further. Cornelis Dopper (talk) 14:08, 28 February 2022 (UTC)
 * Once again please stop with your personal attacks. Kindly explain your comments above. Martinevans123 (talk) 14:11, 28 February 2022 (UTC)
 * The only thing you're trying to do here is to escalate things. You're instigating an edit war, and what you're doing goes against the entire principle of Wikipedia; namely consensus & discussion. You haven't discussed the matters you're changing in the lead section here at all! And you know very well that what you're doing is ridiculous. Very nasty behavior, that is bordering vandalism. You know what you're changing here is completely ridiculous. I seriously don't know what's wrong with you. Cornelis Dopper (talk) 14:25, 28 February 2022 (UTC)
 * @Martin, stop bullshitting! You KNOW you're edits are ridiculous to the point that they're just a provocation. You also know that it goes against the very principle of Wikipedia to change things without discussing it first. So stop lying and act as if you acting in good faith, because you're not! Cornelis Dopper (talk) 14:27, 28 February 2022 (UTC)
 * I have politely asked you clarify what appear to be uncivil personal attacks, above. Please explain what you mean or strike out those comments. Martinevans123 (talk) 16:00, 28 February 2022 (UTC)
 * I said what I've said, I'm not speaking Chinese, now am I? Instead of complaining about me, you should consider your own behavior: changing things in the article, things of which we just had a discussion with an agreement. And then you're changing it without even bringing it up here. You're completely untrustworthy in these discussions! Cornelis Dopper (talk) 18:23, 28 February 2022 (UTC)
 * The last edit to the lead section was by you, reverting, here. My last edit to the article was this, correcting punctuation and adding a "citation needed" tag, as it's unclear where the quote comes from. This has not previously been discussed. Martinevans123 (talk) 19:03, 28 February 2022 (UTC)
 * This also has been remarked on the talk page by another user, but once again: you're not reading statements made by other users. A lead section should REFLECT, not quote the main body in the text; we have been over this a million times! Cornelis Dopper (talk) 21:21, 28 February 2022 (UTC)
 * I think your basic arithmetic may leave something to be desired. Martinevans123 (talk) 21:40, 28 February 2022 (UTC)

Influence and reception
The article has sections for "Influence and reception in France" and for "Criticism", but seems to be lacking a section for "Influence and reception" in general. Martinevans123 (talk) 12:04, 28 February 2022 (UTC)
 * Instead of complaining you can also CONSULT the literature yourself! And WRITE the section yourself. If you were to do that, you would find quickly enough what the consensus of Heidegger's importance and influence is. If I may ask: why are you even here, writing on philosophy, when you evidently don't know what you're talking about? Cornelis Dopper (talk) 14:40, 28 February 2022 (UTC)
 * One again, please stop with your personal attacks. As I just asked in the thread above, why is the quote "widely acknowledged to be one of the most original and important philosophers of the 20th century while remaining one of the most controversial", from Włodzimierz Julian Korab-Karpowicz, located under "Influence and reception in France", when Korab-Karpowicz himself does not qualify it in that way? And I still have no idea how or why this quote is transformed into "He is among the most important and influential philosophers of the 20th century", for use in the lead section. Martinevans123 (talk) 15:02, 28 February 2022 (UTC)
 * A Polish philosopher can't talk about the influence of Heidegger on French philosophy? Seriously what are you talking about?! And again: I'm not attacking you personally I'm always REACTING on your STATEMENTS! Cornelis Dopper (talk) 15:46, 28 February 2022 (UTC)
 * The source is this. Where exactly does Korab-Karpowicz mention "France" or "French"? Martinevans123 (talk) 15:58, 28 February 2022 (UTC)
 * My friend, before I go into this in, I really don't understand your behavior here. You're changing things in the article, things of which you know they are contested, and on top of that, of which we just had a discussion with an agreement. And now you're changing it without even bringing it up here. I really don't like that behavior.
 * Again, I don't know what you know or what you don't know about philosophy. But to make a few things clear. First of all, that source was already there before I started editing here. Secondly, I can agree to any source, because the claim is so obvious that it's almost common knowledge. Thirdly, Heidegger's influence on 20th century philosophy begins probably in Germany, but to a large extent in France (that's where he had his biggest impact on 20th century philosophy). It was Sartre and the other existentialists, and afterwards the post-structuralists (mostly also French), who acknowledged his insights and who adapted his ideas in their own philosophy. I suspect the author of that section is thinking about those matters, hence he mentioned France specifically. So, when you talk about Heidegger's influence on 20th century philosophy, yes, then you talk about French philosophy, because the majority of innovations in philosophy (in the continental tradition) simply came in the second half of the 20th century from France (e.g. Lyotard, Barthes, Deleuze, Derrida etc.). I really don't understand why you make such a fuss about this. Also, at an earlier stage you said you thought this source wasn't encyclopedic; now you're defending it with tooth and nail. Also: this source is exactly the same at Ludwig Wittgenstein, why only complain here (again...)? Cornelis Dopper (talk) 18:18, 28 February 2022 (UTC)
 * Content at Wikipedia is meant to follow sources, not depend on WP:Original Research. Where exactly does Korab-Karpowicz mention "France" or "French"? Martinevans123 (talk) 18:59, 28 February 2022 (UTC)
 * Again: I didn't write the section. I just explained the writer probably used France because that's the country that produced the most influential & important philosophers from the second half of the 20th century and also the country where Heidegger proved to be most influential. Btw, I have no problem to change that. Make it a general statement (which would be better). My issue is what you did with the formulation in the lead. I think that's incorrect and out of order because we just had a discussion on that, plus an agreement. Cornelis Dopper (talk) 20:29, 28 February 2022 (UTC)
 * I'm very sorry, but I'm not prepared to waste any more time discussing this with you. Martinevans123 (talk) 21:39, 28 February 2022 (UTC)
 * When you don't understand the content anymore, and you don't know what you're talking about, you can always stop the discussion. Very convenient! Cornelis Dopper (talk) 21:45, 28 February 2022 (UTC)

Requests for comments with regard to the lead section
Apart from the fact that during the above discussion an agreement had been reached (right at this point: 'But I don't see an important difference between it and the formulation "...is regarded as one of the most important and influential philosophers of the 20th century". You may go ahead with the change since I am in the minority on this point. Phlsph7 (talk) 06:18, 18 February 2022 (UTC)'), user Martinevans123 still wants to change the formulation in the lead section of the article.

Instead of the agreed sentence, which is currently in the lead section: He is among the most important and influential philosophers of the 20th century. He edited a few hours ago the following sentence: Polish philosopher Włodzimierz Julian Korab-Karpowicz has said he is "widely acknowledged to be one of the most original and important philosophers of the 20th century, while remaining one of the most controversial.". The second formulation is - apart from the fact that it's highly unusual - in my opinion undesirable since it appears as if it's merely the opinion of one individual, rather than the majority opinion in for instance philosophy textbooks or the curricula at universities. The first formulation is referring to the general view on Heidegger (which is more adequate in my view) and is also more in accordance to other articles (e.g. Willard van Orman Quine, David Lewis, Ludwig Wittgenstein etc.). Not one article mentions the name of a single author and then provides the claim.

To add to this, I think consistency with regard to other articles (especially of the same field) is very important. If I'm seeing e.g. that Ludwig Wittgenstein has the exact same formulation, even derived from the same source (the Internet Encyclopedia of Philosophy), then I really don't understand why this is such a problem on this page. Cornelis Dopper (talk) 21:59, 28 February 2022 (UTC)
 * See other stuff exists. It seems there are a very large number of philosophers who have garnered the honour of being "widely regarded as one of the most important philosophers of the 20th century", so many that it has no real meaning and adds little to our understanding of them. My personal preference is always to say according to "x" "Y' is widely regarded etc. We should not use Wikipedia's voice to make claims like this. Theroadislong (talk) 22:48, 28 February 2022 (UTC)


 * Malformed RfC, and the OP has been indef blocked. --Tryptofish (talk) 23:41, 28 February 2022 (UTC)

Plagiarism
Whatever Zhuangzi and Edith Stein might have thought about Being, they weren't the father or mother of postmodernism. I don't deny that Heidegger took over ideas from other people, but his writings are original. The concept of Being was hardly new in European philosophy.

Same as people who accuse Einstein of plagiarism don't understand that while the formulas were already there, Einstein's vision was wholly original. tgeorgescu (talk) 11:14, 23 May 2022 (UTC)

What the encyclopaedias and university press books say
"Heidegger is the most prominent and controversial figure in European philosophy in the 20th century." "Heidegger has exterted an enormous influence on contemporary thinking, extending beyond the realm of philosophy proper to embrace [&hellip;]. Heidegger's philosophy has proved both contentious and controversial. He has been denounced by some as a mystificatory wizard of wordplay and hailed by others as the most original thinker of the century. (Hanna Arendt described him as the 'secret king of thought' and George Steiner as the 'great master of astonishment'.) Either way, however, Heidegger is acknowledged by ally and adversary alike as a pivotal figure in the history of philosophy, [&hellip;]." "Martin Heidegger is beyond doubt the most influential German philosopher of the twentieth century. He is also the most controversial." "German philosopher with a profound impact on [&hellip;] and many other fields. Heidegger is without doubt one of the most important figures in all of continental philosophy." "Heidegger is without doubt the most powerfully original and influential philosopher of the century in the Continental tradition." "Within the CONTINENTAL tradition, Heidegger is without doubt the most powerfully original and influential philosopher of the twentieth century." Attributing this view to a single Polish philosopher seems to be &hellip; very misleading as to how widely it is held. And now we know how others qualify and balance it. Uncle G (talk) 23:39, 28 February 2022 (UTC)
 * At last, some intelligent discussion. With real sources, from such notable authors as Richard Kearney and David Farrell Krell. Thank you! Martinevans123 (talk) 23:45, 28 February 2022 (UTC)

Add another one from the go-to online source for philosophy, the Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy: "His ideas have exerted a seminal influence on the development of contemporary European philosophy. They have also had an impact far beyond philosophy, for example in architectural theory (see e.g., Sharr 2007), literary criticism (see e.g., Ziarek 1989), theology (see e.g., Caputo 1993), psychotherapy (see e.g., Binswanger 1943/1964, Guignon 1993) and cognitive science (see e.g., Dreyfus 1992, 2008; Wheeler 2005; Kiverstein and Wheeler 2012)." So yeah, we definitely need a broader 'Influence and reception' section, and no, we shouldn't attribute the statement that he was widely influential to just one author. Note though how many sources also call him controversial in their first characterization. This is not only because he joined the Nazi party: the substance of his philosophical ideas (which generally are unrelated to Nazism) has also been rather controversial. It would be good to indicate this too in the lead, though it will probably be a no-brainer once the influence & reception section is rewritten. ☿ Apaugasma  ( talk  ☉) 00:27, 1 March 2022 (UTC)
 * For what it's worth, I've only tried to get the discussion here over the hump where it was stuck. As such, I specifically targeted encyclopaedias and works about philosophy in general.  If one instead looks to the (truckloads of) books specifically about Heidegger alone, one finds pointers to the way to go on that score.  Just one introduction as an example: "Martin Heidegger [&hellip;] was probably the most influential philosopher of the twentieth century; certainly he remains the most controversial. This enduring controversy stems not only from Heidegger's undeniably horrendous politics, legendarily difficult prose, and profoundly challenging views, but also from the fact that a list of the major thinkers inspired by the works that he wrote after Being and Time [&hellip;] reads like the required table of contents for any good anthology of 'contemporary continental philosophy': [&hellip;]"  So it should be easy to source that the controversy isn't solely the politics (which at least one encyclopaedia entry on Heidegger by Beatrice Skordili in the Encyclopedia of Postmodernism, which I didn't cite because I thought the above was sufficient, stated didn't even really begin until the book by Farias in 1987) but is also about the nature of the writing and the philosophical views.  It's definitely a threefold thing. "horrendous" is of course editorialization that M. Thomson may do that we should not do; so these introductions are indicators and guidelines for how to approach this subject, not things to be slavishly followed.  (We can describe them as Nazi-supporting, for example, and let readers supply their own feelings.) But you are right, Apaugasma, that both breadth of influence and manifold controversy are core items to be mentioned in introducing Heidegger.  Many other people do that. And yes, if we can source an introduction to where others have similarly condensed or introduced the subject, there's nothing wrong with citing sources in an introduction, as long as we do not end up with "[1][2][3][4][5][6][7][8][9][10][11][12][13][14]" horrors. Uncle G (talk) 10:36, 1 March 2022 (UTC)

Here is lead from Britannica on Heidegger: "Martin Heidegger, (born September 26, 1889, Messkirch, Schwarzwald, Germany—died May 26, 1976, Messkirch, West Germany), German philosopher, counted among the main exponents of existentialism. His groundbreaking work in ontology (the philosophical study of being, or existence) and metaphysics determined the course of 20th-century philosophy on the European continent and exerted an enormous influence on virtually every other humanistic discipline, including literary criticism, hermeneutics, psychology, and theology." sbelknap (talk) 22:27, 11 March 2022 (UTC)

Here is Britannica on the Nazism of Heidegger: "In the months after the appointment of Adolf Hitler as chancellor of Germany in January 1933, German universities came under increasing pressure to support the “national revolution” and to eliminate Jewish scholars and the teaching of “Jewish” doctrines, such as the theory of relativity. In April 1933 Heidegger was elected rector of Freiburg by the university’s teaching staff. One month later he became a member of the Nazi Party; until he resigned as rector in April 1934, he helped to institute Nazi educational and cultural programs at Freiburg and vigorously promoted the domestic and foreign policies of the Nazi regime. Already during the late 1920s he had criticized the dissolute nature of the German university system, where specialization and the ideology of academic freedom precluded the attainment of a higher unity. In a letter of 1929 he bemoaned the progressive “Jewification” (Verjudung) of the German spirit. In his inaugural address, “Die Selbstbehauptung der deutschen Universität” (“The Self-Assertion of the German University”), he called for reorganizing the university along the lines of the Nazi Führerprinzip, or leadership principle, and celebrated the fact that university life would thereafter be merged with the state and the needs of the German Volk. During the first month of his rectorship, he sent a telegram to Hitler urging him to postpone an upcoming meeting of university rectors until Gleichschaltung—the Nazi euphemism for the elimination of political opponents—had been completed. In the fall of 1933 Heidegger began a speaking tour on behalf of Hitler’s national referendum to withdraw Germany from the League of Nations. As he proclaimed in one speech: “Let not doctrines and ideas be your guide. The Führer is Germany’s only reality and law.” Heidegger continued to support Hitler in the years after his rectorship, though with somewhat less enthusiasm than he had shown in 1933–34." sbelknap (talk) 22:31, 11 March 2022 (UTC)

This wikipedia article continues to downplay Heidegger and his Nazism, shoving this off onto a (relatively unread) subsidiary article. sbelknap (talk) 22:31, 11 March 2022 (UTC)


 * It is unlikely that Wikipedia will adopt a solution which will satisfy all editors. While Heidegger was involved in Nazism (especially as an adept of Röhm), he did not contribute to the Holocaust, he did not contribute to the war effort (WW2), and he did not toe the line of official Nazi ideology. Yup, he had antisemitic prejudices, but it might be argued that he was culture-ist rather than racist. Same as traditional Christian antisemitism had no objections to Jews that got baptized, Heidegger had no objections to Jews who were integrated in the conservative German culture. By "Jewish spirit" he meant individualists, liberals, progressives, cosmopolitans, and all that industrial-financial complex which ended the life style based upon small peasants and artisans. tgeorgescu (talk) 14:02, 23 May 2022 (UTC)
 * Ah, right, that Jewish spirit. Not Zubrowka Bison Grass Vodka. Martinevans123 (talk) 14:16, 23 May 2022 (UTC)

Ontological difference etc
During December & January, I expanded this segment with various sourced material. A certain bit, (quoted below in current form) fell to the bottom of the segment during my editing. I was (and remain) uncomfortable with this material as written and sourced.

My discomfort is because (caused by) its lack of a cogent explanation of WHY its various assertions are correct. If "Dasein's pre-ontological understanding of being" causes (as in "because") the efficacy of the study of Dasein as a method of "ontological inquiry," it's entirely unexplained & offers little or no insight or useful information about Heidegger's theories.

Optimally, this article can be more than a string of isolated assertions by Heidegger or his analysts, offered without context or explanation.

Also, regarding the final sentence, NEITHER of the current sources establish any explicit connection between the described "implicit understanding" as such, and "phenomenology... using hermeneutics"

Copy of current graf for reference: One way for engaging in this inquiry is by studying the human being, or Dasein, according to Heidegger.[93] This method works because of Dasein's pre-ontological understanding of being that shapes experience. This implicit understanding can be made explicit through phenomenology and its methods, but these must be employed using hermeneutics in order to avoid distortions by the forgetfulness of being, according to one interpretation of Heidegger.[85][94] — Preceding unsigned comment added by 32.221.212.116 (talk) 20:30, 1 July 2022 (UTC)


 * Thanks for your efforts at improving this section. I think the information in the paragraph you mentioned is correct and well-sourced. But I'm open to reformulations or added explanations to make it better understandable. One difficulty for this undertaking is that, on the one hand, this topic is very important for Heidegger while, on the other hand, it's one of the most obscure topics in his work. One way to go about this would be to expand the paragraph by better explaining its different concepts, like "pre-ontological understanding of being" and "forgetfulness of being". Phlsph7 (talk) 04:56, 2 July 2022 (UTC)

Although the citations (or at least one, anyway) seem to discuss combining phenomenology and hermeneutics in an analysis of Dasein to avoid "forgetfulness," I don't see where either note 85 or 94 refer explicitly to "pre-ontological understanding" or "implicit understanding" or any reasonably similar concept. Now, I understand it MAY be implied (?) that what is forgotten is this "implicit understanding," but can't, offhand, offer any citation or source for this, and might be simply wrong.

So the material may be (still) inadequately sourced. The root of the problem could be that original editor first wanted to make a point -- and then looked for a source. It often works more smoothly in reverse. Find a source and use its structure, rather than grafting it on to an editor's construct.

Also (just me) I like to know (directly from text!) who is making the point: "Trump won the election (source)" vs. "Trump said he won the election (source)" Or "Heidegger never defined 'Being' (source)" vs "Simon Critchley wrote that H. never defined 'Being' (source)."

"Heidegger never defined 'Being'" is a statement with fine sourcing (Critchley), yet is undesirable to simply throw in this statement in with a footnote. One hears editors say that given reliable source, anything goes. It's not always reasonable POV.

a32.221.212.116 (talk) 15:10, 2 July 2022 (UTC) 32.221.212.116 (talk) 15:10, 2 July 2022 (UTC)


 * I restored the material and added additional sources/quotations. They show both the relation to pre-ontological understanding and that this understanding is "implicit". This paragraph, consisting of only 3 sentences, is more than well-sourced. I don't think there is much value to insisting on a source where every single word is mentioned explicitly. Another approach may be better suited: if there is a good reason to believe that there are still some false claims then I suggest you explain why they are false, for example, by quoting a text that explicitly contradicts them. I agree with you that attribution is necessary in cases where there are significant disagreements in the academic literature. Phlsph7 (talk) 05:18, 3 July 2022 (UTC)

Some problems with sourcing
Note 93: is dead link. Note 94: used to support "meta-ontology" comment. I've searched book (Inwood, Heidegger Dictionary) & term "Meta-ontology" apparently isn't there anywhere (certainly not in the cited entry). Note 95: I've searched this article (Inwagen, Peter Van (1998). "Meta-Ontology". Erkenntnis. 48 (2–3): 233–50) & there is no mention of Heidegger. (Seems to concern some analytic philosophers).

I'll delete the "meta-ontology" material as unsourced, & further evaluate other sources.

32.221.212.116 (talk) 19:26, 3 July 2022 (UTC)

While many elements of Heidegger's thought are (I believe) connected, none of the sources used here respecting "pre-ontological understanding" link this concept to "Fundamental Ontology" (see current notes 85,92,93). Thus the "sourced" material amounts to an editor's "original research."

Edit warring is pointless -- but based on the citations' actual content, my point is factually correct.

32.221.212.116 (talk) 19:54, 3 July 2022 (UTC)


 * The book "Inwood, Heidegger Dictionary" contains the following phrase in the section "Ontology and fundamental ontology": Fundamental ontology is meta-ontology. This is exactly what our sentence says. Looking up these sources is a time-consuming process. Please make sure you take the time to familiarize yourself with the sources before removing a sourced passage based on the claim that it lacks a source. The German term in the quotations corresponding to "pre-ontological understanding" is "Seinsverständnis". The link between it and fundamental ontology is also made in the cited entry in Inwood's dicitonary. This is not WP:OR. The links you mentioned ( and ) work for me. Phlsph7 (talk) 04:47, 4 July 2022 (UTC)
 * ====sorry====
 * Yes, regarding the "meta-ontology" source, I apologize  for an initially maladroit use of a word-search function.
 * Stambaugh's lexicon for "understanding of being" (her translation of "Seinsverstandnis") includes dozens of entries, many of which don't directly correlate (neither explicitly nor in their immediate context) to "pre-ontological understanding" (though probably some do, -- & sure, there is an important link et cetera). However, let's certainly leave aside primary sources.
 * Regarding:
 * "This method works because of Dasein's pre-ontological understanding of being that shapes experience. This implicit understanding can be made explicit through phenomenology and its methods, but these must be employed using hermeneutics in order to avoid distortions by the forgetfulness of being, according to interpretations of Heidegger." (notes 85,92,93)
 * Notes 92 & 93 are inappropriate -- not least because they're explicitly relevant to only parts of the text (but not, among other things, the topic sentence: "This method [study of Dasein] works because...")
 * One must think here of "Synthesis" -- rather than legitimate sourcing.
 * Note 85 might work if readers could discern what, exactly, in Wheeler's throw-in-the-kitchen-sink encyclopedia entry, is actually being cited here to support the graf.
 * The solution is to find one source (or more) that says, explicitly and completely (and simply) whatever the editor is looking for in those two sentences. Maybe quote source in the text.
 * Seems possible. If not, find something close and change sentences to fit the source(s). Simplest is to delete the two sentences or trim parts of content to fit available citations.


 * Specifically, notes 92 & 93 establish that among Heideggerian concepts, there is a "pre-ontological understanding of being," and that "phenomenological hermeneutics" is a thing & that "forgetfulness of being" is a thing. But that these elements are related to "fundamental ontology" is unsupported by these sources. They don't support (explicitly) that pre-ontological understanding "shapes experience." They don't support that this understanding "can be made explicit through phenomenology that "must be employed using hermeneutics..."
 * They don't support that phenomenology, if/when practiced without hermeneutics, invites "forgetfulness of being."

Moreover, the text doesn't define several of these terms.
 * 32.221.212.116 (talk) 21:17, 4 July 2022 (UTC)
 * No problem, such overlooks can happen. I think note 85 by itself is not sufficient. Note 92 is important for the relation to hermeneutics and pre-ontological understanding. Note 93 was mainly added because you doubted that the understanding is "implicit". It could be pruned if that is not an issue anymore. The relation between the terms you mentioned and "fundamental ontology" is made in Inwood's dictionary. We could replace note 93 with it to solve the problem. However, term "fundamental ontology" is not mentioned in our paragraph so I'm not sure that this is necessary.
 * From here: "In Sein und Zeit 'pre-ontological understanding' seems to be a condition for any further empirical relation to objects of experience." I think this is close enough to "shaping experience", but, if you like, we can reformulate it in terms of condition of experience to more closely fit this source. The sources support that phenomenology is Heidegger's method and hermeneutics is used as some form of corrective. The later point is mentioned in Grondin's source and refers to the "destructive" or negative side of hermeneutics by removing false aspects of the pre-understanding. As I said before, I am opposed to the information being removed, but I'm open to reformulations and further explanation if there are suggestions. Concerning the "made explicit through phenomenology": Grondin speaks in this context of an "Explikation" in the source cited. Or from here: "Hermeneutic phenomenology makes explicit the implicit clues that organize understanding...". I think that's close enough again. Phlsph7 (talk) 04:23, 5 July 2022 (UTC)
 * My suggestion:
 * Do not combine material from multiple sources to reach or imply a conclusion not explicitly stated by any source. --WP:SYNTH.
 * Generally, the more directly this article follows from its sources, the more successfull is the Gestell of clear and useful material.
 * If as you say, "note 85 is not sufficient" then find a different source. Same treatment applies to ANY source notes (see especially notes 92, 93).
 * 32.221.212.116 (talk) 16:01, 5 July 2022 (UTC)
 * WP:SYNTH prohibits introducing new statements not supported by the individual sources. I think our paragraphs follows this policy, as I've tried to demonstrate in my last replies. But SYNTH does not require that all the information found in one paragraph is supported by one single source, as your last reply seems to suggest. If that was the case, many parts of the article would be SYNTH. I agree: it would be better to have such a comprehensive single source. If I come across such a source, I'll add it. But finding sources is a time-consuming process. I think we are on the same page about what would be ideal. But, as I see it, the current sources are sufficient for WP:RELIABILITY. Phlsph7 (talk) 04:37, 6 July 2022 (UTC)
 * Me again here (on different computer) -- it's clearly implied (though could be more plainly stated) that graf-in-question's content is relevant to "Fundamental Ontology," the central idea of entire subsection.
 * A citation that narrowly links this content to FM is required for sourcing clarity. Lacking this, the entire basis for graf's Existenz is unsourced; groundless and without horizon. This may leave readers with Anxiety.... although it would be very far from uncanny.
 * 32.221.212.116 (talk) 03:13, 11 July 2022 (UTC)
 * As has been pointed out before: the link to fundamental ontology is made, for example, in the cited entry of Inwood's dictionary with the title "Ontology and fundamental ontology". This entry discusses, among other things, how the analytic of Dasein is used as a method of fundamental ontology. I'll go ahead and add this reference to the article, as was proposed before. The link to the ontological difference, which is also in the title of our section, is made in the article cited by Grondin. Phlsph7 (talk) 05:11, 11 July 2022 (UTC)
 * I'm the editor who earlier raised "synth" and other issues. Apparently all non-registered users of T-Moble internet service (like me) are banned by Wikipedia. Presently, I care far less than previously about this article. In retrospect, I concede my approach was (only) a bit strong and wrong. Moreover, it appears coherence isn't really achievable via random "collaborations." This entire procedure is contrary to my limited understanding of how to produce "good" or even acceptable "writing."  I say this having added dozens of sources across several articles concerning MH. Invariably this work was more difficult, and/or impossible, where others were involved in "collaboration."
 * As t-mobile user, I am perhaps fortunately, not presently involved.
 * 35.8.218.249 (talk) 22:10, 23 October 2022 (UTC)
 * Thanks for your feedback and I'm sorry to hear about your difficulties in editing Wikipedia using T-Mobile. I think with Heidegger, you picked a particularly difficult topic. His philosophy is complex and obscure while this article has many monthly views and watchers. As an extra factor, Heidegger is a quite controversial figure so the opinions in academic literature often diverge a lot from each other, making it even more of a challenge to write a balanced article. Phlsph7 (talk) 19:00, 24 October 2022 (UTC)
 * For writers, balance and coherence are separate values. A third, largely separate value is Wikipedia's editing "culture" (including rules & procedures). The conflict among these values can vary, from slight to extreme.
 * 35.8.218.251 (talk) 21:19, 24 October 2022 (UTC)
 * 35.8.218.251 (talk) 21:19, 24 October 2022 (UTC)

Denied he was an existentialist
Why is this article placed in the category "Existentialiss" and has an opening sentence syaing that Heidegger is known for his contributions to existentialism? Heidegger denied that he was an existentialist, because he saw his quest to understand human being part of his study of Being in general. YTKJ (talk) 13:16, 8 April 2022 (UTC)
 * Does the article say he denied that he was an existentialist? Thanks. Martinevans123 (talk) 13:33, 8 April 2022 (UTC)
 * YRKJ: One does not have to delve very far into Being and Time to find numerous references. Examples:
 * Part IV, Division One, IV 25: ''An approach to the existential question of the"who" of Dasein
 * Part IV, Division One, V 28.A: The existential Constitution of the "there"
 * and a dozen more in the table of contents alone.
 * As suggested by Martinevans above, if he denied he was an existentialist, please provide a source. Kablammo (talk) 17:47, 8 April 2022 (UTC)

I first read that he denied he was an existentialist in the Macmillan one-volume encyclopedia. The website www.plato.edu/existentialism says he repudiated the term "existentialism". YTKJ (talk) 21:23, 8 April 2022 (UTC)
 * I assume you mean Macmillan Publishers. Which publication was that? Your link to www.plato.edu/existentialism doesn't work. Martinevans123 (talk) 21:51, 8 April 2022 (UTC)
 * I think the important point is not what Heidegger thought or said, but how he is described in the academic discourse more generally: this article is about Heidegger, not about Heidegger's opinion of Heidegger. For example, Heidegger is treated as an existentialist in the reliable sources here and here. Phlsph7 (talk) 05:43, 9 April 2022 (UTC)
 * This is possibly the intended link. The article is not about Heidegger's opinion of Heidegger, but his opinion counts for something, and the fact that he specifically repudiated the label is at least an argument against "contributions to existentialism". In its opening sentence the Stanford article on Heidegger says he is "associated" with existentialism but then says his thinking should only be identified as such with extreme care and qualification. Harold the Sheep (talk) 07:29, 9 April 2022 (UTC)

Thank you for the above comments. The website page I should have given you was:

https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/existentialism. I think that one of the above contributors have worked out the link. YTKJ (talk) 08:51, 9 April 2022 (UTC)
 * The sentence in question is "Among the major philosophers identified as existentialists (many of whom—for instance Camus and Heidegger—repudiated the label) were Karl Jaspers, Martin Heidegger, and Martin Buber...". And it's not an article about Heidegger. Although Steven Crowell is a notable philosopher, I'd be reluctant to add such a bold statement to the article on the basis of just those three words "repudiated the label". Martinevans123 (talk) 10:27, 9 April 2022 (UTC)
 * For another reliable source justifying this categorization besides the ones mentioned so far, see here (...The principal representatives of German existentialism in the 20th century were Martin Heidegger and Karl Jaspers;...). Phlsph7 (talk) 10:31, 9 April 2022 (UTC)
 * Oh look! An encyclopaedia you can really trust! Martinevans123 (talk) 10:40, 9 April 2022 (UTC)
 * Apologies for resurrecting what appears to be a long-dead conversation, but I stumbled across this debate and can't help jumping in. Heidegger does indeed deny that he is an existentialist. As the Wiki article for that text itself notes, the Letter on Humanism explicitly criticises Sartrean existentialism as a fundamental misreading of Heidegger's own work and project. (The letter was a response to and rebuttal of Sartre's Existentialism is a Humanism, where Sartre called Heidegger an existentialist.) The june frost (talk) 13:40, 22 November 2022 (UTC)