Talk:Martin Heidegger/Archive 7

New Section for Later Philosopher's critique of Heidegger's philosophy
I propose adding this to the Critique section: Herman Philipse conducts a comprehensive, detailed analysis of Heidegger's Philosophy of Being, and identifies a distinction between theoretical and applicative interpretation, arguing that Heidegger's applicative concept of interpretation is fatally flawed because it is a type of projection (Entwurf), suffers from a performative contradiction, and is thereby formally self-defeating and intellectually incoherent.


 * If such a new section makes sense (and I doubt its utility) then we need a balanced set of comments and we also need to establish the significance of the person commenting. There are a lot of contemporary philosophers who have commented on Heidegger - what makes Philipse special? -Snowded TALK 16:19, 7 July 2019 (UTC)
 * We are missing a quarter-century of scholarship on Heidegger's philosophy. I would expect that this section would (eventually) include content with citations from about 30 philosophers or intellectuals. From one of the many reviews: "This scrupulously researched and rigorously argued book is the first to interpret and evaluate the central topic of Martin Heidegger's philosophy--his celebrated" Question of Being"--in the context of the full range of Heidegger's thought." Philipse's book and analysis is notable for its comprehensiveness and careful analysis, so I added it first to this proposed new subsection. I believe it remains the best analysis, although it was written more than 2 decades ago. There have been more than 250 academic articles and books that have cited this book.Sbelknap (talk) 17:08, 7 July 2019 (UTC)


 * - Philipse has detractors as well: "Herman Philipse's Heidegger's Philosophy of Being is an attempt to interpret, analyze, and ultimately discredit the whole of Heidegger's thought. But Philipse's reading of the texts is uncharitable, and the ideas he presents and criticizes often bear little resemblance to Heidegger's views. Philipse relies on a crude distinction between "theoretical" and "applicative" interpretations in arguing that Heidegger's conception of interpretation as a kind of projection (Entwurf) is, like the liar's paradox, formally self-defeating. But even granting the distinction, the charge of reflective incoherence is fallacious and question-begging. Finally, Philipse advances the astonishing "interpretive hypothesis" that the seemingly morbid existential themes in Being and Time were part of a deliberate "Pascalian strategy" to win converts to Heidegger's own idiosyncratic "postmonotheist worship of Being." In short, notwithstanding its nearly comprehensive coverage of Heidegger's works, the book does not represent a sufficiently serious effort to understand the complexities and obscurities of Heidegger's thinking." - Abstract: On Making Sense (And Nonsense) of Heidegger by Taylor Carman, Philosophy and Phenomenological Research Vol. 63, No. 3 (Nov., 2001), pp. 561-572 - Epinoia (talk) 18:01, 7 July 2019 (UTC)
 * There is a range of opinion about Heidegger. It is a tautology that people with different opinions do not agree with each other. This proposed addition is in the "Criticism" section. Thus, it is unsurprising that Philipse's analysis would be critical. How could one reasonably add content to the "Criticism" section and exclude Herman Philipse's book? Sbelknap (talk) 18:40, 7 July 2019 (UTC)
 * Although there are sections titled 'criticism' in wikipedia its not normal and the idea woud be to incirporate specific criticisms in the appropriate sections. If we are creating a section then we need to start with list of significant commentators and then check we have balance,  We don't start by putting one comment up.  A third party source establishing Philipse's signifcance (not just how many times he has been cited) would be important  -Snowded TALK 19:00, 7 July 2019 (UTC)
 * The criticism section of the Martin Heidegger wikipedia article has existed for a long time. Sbelknap (talk) 19:29, 7 July 2019 (UTC)
 * I know, but there is as much a case for moving the material into other sections as there is for expanding it. Whatever the point applies - not sure a new section within it is needed and we need to establish notability of any proposed additions -Snowded TALK 19:35, 7 July 2019 (UTC)
 * - to say, "Heidegger's applicative concept of interpretation" is incorrect as Heidegger did not write about an applicative concept of interpretation - criticisms of Heidegger should address what he actually wrote - this is an overview article and not the place to introduce abstruse concepts - I feel that we need to clarify the problems with Heidegger's philosophy and Philipse's analysis clouds the issue - I don't feel the addition of Philipse, at least the way it is worded in the proposed edit, will help a general reader to understand Heidegger or the criticisms of his work - Epinoia (talk) 19:48, 7 July 2019 (UTC)
 * I agree with you that readers may be confused by tautology. Fortunately, the proposed sentence is not in any way a tautology and is completely different than your description. Perhaps it will be clearer in block quote form:

"Herman Philipse conducts a comprehensive, detailed analysis of Heidegger's Philosophy of Being, and identifies a distinction between theoretical and applicative interpretation, arguing that Heidegger's applicative concept of interpretation is fatally flawed because it is a type of projection (Entwurf), suffers from a performative contradiction, and is thereby formally self-defeating and intellectually incoherent."


 * Sbelknap (talk) 21:10, 7 July 2019 (UTC)


 * Sure, you like that source. Now where is the evidence of notability of the author?  Where are the balancing quotes? -Snowded TALK 03:55, 8 July 2019 (UTC)
 * Herman Philipse's book, 'Heidegger's Philosophy of Being: A Critical Interpretation' is included in the "further reading" section of this article. It is cited in the article in support of the assertion that Heidegger enjoyed outdoor pursuits and was especially proficient at skiing. It is also cited as a source for Heidegger's use of the phrase, "Language speaks." Yet, the more important aspects of Philipse's analysis of Heideger's Philosophy of Being, the actual subject of Philipse's book, are ignored. Why is that? Sbelknap (talk) 19:53, 8 July 2019 (UTC)
 * Yup, Philipse is considered a VIP in the Netherlands, but this still begs the question if he understood Heidegger correctly. Heidegger is notorious for his obscurantist style. I don't disagree about "postmonotheist worship of Being." Tgeorgescu (talk) 04:57, 8 July 2019 (UTC)
 * Whether or not Philipse undestood Heidegger correctly, he is an academic philosopher who published an important book about Heidegger's work. The publisher was Princeton University Press. There are many reviews of this Philipse's book that compliment the books comprehensiveness and detailed analysis. Surely, Philipse's work warrants inclusion in this article. Sbelknap (talk) 19:53, 8 July 2019 (UTC)
 * Lots of academic philosophers have published and with reputable publishers on the subject of Heidegger, we can't list them all. You think he's important cool.  But if we are going to do something we need evidence of notability and additional material to balance.  We already have two quotations from people who think he is unintelligble so why add a third? -Snowded TALK 20:35, 8 July 2019 (UTC)
 * Philipse's book does not conclude that Heidegger is unintelligible. To the contrary, he deciphers Heidegger's meaning with a painstakingly careful analysis and concludes that Heidegger's Philosophy of Being is intellectually incoherent. That is rather a different thing. Sbelknap (talk) 21:23, 8 July 2019 (UTC)
 * I really couldn't care less. Either come up with some evidence he is notable, not just someone you like and a balanced proposal for content in your proposed section or stop wasting our time. -Snowded</b> <small style="color: #708090; font-family: Baskerville;">TALK 22:32, 8 July 2019 (UTC)
 * Here is a review of Philipse's book: Sbelknap (talk) 01:46, 9 July 2019 (UTC)
 * This section is the criticism section. The "balancing quotes" are contained in the hagiography which comprises most of this article. Sbelknap (talk) 01:46, 9 July 2019 (UTC)
 * Stating that Heidegger was one of the foremost philosophers of the 20th century isn't "hagiography". It is rather a statement of fact, regardless of whether we agree with him or not. There are of course lots of philosophers prepared to explain you that if it is continental philosophy, it's bunk. Tgeorgescu (talk) 09:50, 9 July 2019 (UTC)
 * Scholarly opinion varies on Heidegger. The wikipedia article could be improved by better reflecting this variation in opinion. Currently, in my view, there is a WP:NPOV issue with this article. Adding a sentence describing the analysis of Herman Philipse to the 'Criticism' section would help to move us back to a NPOV. Sbelknap (talk) 12:14, 9 July 2019 (UTC)
 * We all know that is your view but you have not gained support for it on the talk page. You have not made a case for including Philipse as an isolated edit and giving us one review is not evidence of notability. On the talk page you simply repeat the same arguments without responding to other editors.  I repeat, without proper engagement, you are simply wasting other editors time. -<b style="color: #801818; font-family: Papyrus;">Snowded</b> <small style="color: #708090; font-family: Baskerville;">TALK 08:30, 10 July 2019 (UTC)
 * I have responded to each point made by other editors. When asked for evidence of notability, I provided a review from a prestigious philosophy journal. I see no need for additional evidence of notability. Perhaps other editors will weigh in. Sbelknap (talk) 11:42, 10 July 2019 (UTC)
 * A review does not establish notability as representative of overall views, its a review; this is 101 WIkipedia. You have not responded on the wider issue of balanced entries.  -<b style="color: #801818; font-family: Papyrus;">Snowded</b> <small style="color: #708090; font-family: Baskerville;">TALK 16:03, 10 July 2019 (UTC)
 * In my opinion, a positive review in a prestigious philosophy journal of a book about Heidegger's philosophy *does* establish that the major conclusion(s) of that book warrant inclusion in the wikipedia Martin Heidegger article. I *have* responded to the wider issue of balanced entries. This proposed edit would be included in the "Criticisms" section of the article. Thus, the desired balance would be (and has been) achieved in the rest of the article. Currently, this article violates WP:NPOV. Sbelknap (talk) 16:44, 10 July 2019 (UTC)

POV assertion by Sbelknap
As per discussion here, I've added a POV tag to this article. I am proposing to add this text to the "Criticisms" section of this article: Herman Philipse conducts a comprehensive, detailed analysis of Heidegger's Philosophy of Being, and identifies a distinction between theoretical and applicative interpretation, arguing that Heidegger's applicative concept of interpretation is fatally flawed because it is a type of projection (Entwurf), suffers from a performative contradiction, and is thereby formally self-defeating and intellectually incoherent. Sbelknap (talk) 16:50, 10 July 2019 (UTC)


 * Removed - you have had zero support on this and zero support for your earlier POV claims. Drive by tagging based on one editors ideosyncratic position is not acceptable behjaviour -<b style="color: #801818; font-family: Papyrus;">Snowded</b> <small style="color: #708090; font-family: Baskerville;">TALK 16:52, 10 July 2019 (UTC)
 * I have reversed this removal of the POV tag. This is not drive by tagging - I have been engaged in this discussion and have responded in a timely fashion to other editors comments. I have also made multiple edits that have improved this article. There is a difference of opinion as to the neutrality of the article. That is precisely what the POV tag is for. Let us see what other editors have to say on the matter. Sbelknap (talk) 16:58, 10 July 2019 (UTC)


 * ANd NO ONE HAS SUPPORTED YOU, so you leave it or do an RfC, you don't tag something when consensus is that there is nothing wrong -<b style="color: #801818; font-family: Papyrus;">Snowded</b> <small style="color: #708090; font-family: Baskerville;">TALK 17:01, 10 July 2019 (UTC)
 * The current version of this article is highly-sympathetic to Heidegger and unduly positive about the value of his philosophical project. The article simply does not reflect scholarly opinion. This is clear from reading secondary and tertiary sources. There is a serious NPOV problem. According to WP:NPOV: "A neutral point of view neither sympathizes with nor disparages its subject (or what reliable sources say about the subject), although this must sometimes be balanced against clarity. Present opinions and conflicting findings in a disinterested tone. Do not editorialize. When editorial bias towards one particular point of view can be detected the article needs to be fixed." Sbelknap (talk) 19:13, 10 July 2019 (UTC)
 * - we have had this discussion before and no one felt there was a POV problem with the article - as per WP:NPOVD, "Simply being of the opinion that a page is not neutral is not sufficient to justify the addition of the tag" - there is a need to point to "specific issues that are actionable within the content policies" - Epinoia (talk) 20:32, 10 July 2019 (UTC)
 * We have not had *this* discussion before. w/r/t the previous discussions, there *were* some editors who agreed (and eventually we all agreed) to make some edits to this article that reflected my concerns. In this current discussion, it is not simply "being of the opinion" that a page is not neutral. Rather, it is that there is a large volume of peer-reviewed published work that is not represented in this article. The POV tag is intended precisely as a tool to address such disagreements. I fail to see what the big rush is to remove the POV tag. Where is the harm in letting other engaged editors opine? Sbelknap (talk) 21:31, 10 July 2019 (UTC)
 * - specifics required - can you point to a paragraph or sentence in the article that is highly-sympathetic to Heidegger or unduly positive about the value of his philosophical project? - Epinoia (talk) 21:39, 10 July 2019 (UTC)
 * There are numerous instances. Starting with the lede, we have this:

"Martin Heidegger is widely acknowledged to be one of the most original and important philosophers of the 20th century."


 * Unfortunately, this quote omits the final clause of the sentence in the original source (the IEP), doing violence to the intended meaning of the author(s) of that sentence. Here is the sentence in the source:

"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."


 * According to this: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Quotations we have "NPOV requires that editors do not slant content in a different direction than the original source, neither by censorship, omission, neutralization/neutering, nor by overemphasis." This is egregious. Sbelknap (talk) 22:49, 10 July 2019 (UTC)


 * You need to read up on policy. Firstly we use a reference to support a statement and the source supports it.  The article does state he was controversial and makes the nature of that controversy clear.  Secondly this has been discussed before the the talk page has endless posts from you asserting the same point time and time again ignoring other editors. It may be that this is a subject on which you have too strong an opinion to be an effective editor, you a clearly finding it very difficult to work with others -<b style="color: #801818; font-family: Papyrus;">Snowded</b> <small style="color: #708090; font-family: Baskerville;">TALK 23:51, 10 July 2019 (UTC)
 * Again, Snowded misstates wikipedia policy and makes false assertions about me. It is simply not the case that wikipedia policy permits omitting a portion of a quote when such omission changes the meaning of a quote. Mentioning the contents of the omitted portion of the quote elsewhere in the article does not make it OK to misquote in the first place. This is not something that is specific to wikipedia, this same principle applies broadly in any endeavor where quotation is used. w/r/t this issue under discussion, I was challenged to provide examples where the article is highly-sympathetic to Heidegger or unduly positive about the value of his philosophical project. I provided one; there are many others. It is not the case that I have strong opinions on the subject of Heidegger. I have nowhere given a strong opinion on Heidegger nor his philosophy but instead have provided facts, supported by high-quality secondary and tertiary sources, that clearly ought to be included in this article. In fact, I do not have a settled opinion on these matters. I have been reading his work and books and articles about him out of curiosity, stemming from my interest in postmodernism. (I have made extensive contributions to the postmodernism wikipedia article.) When I happened to read Heidegger's wikipedia page, I was appalled at how biased the article was, and how out-of-step it was with scholarly work about the man. As I have previously noted, there is a phenomenon of Heidegger apologetics that began after WW2 and long preceded the existence of wikipedia. It is my contention that the bias in the Heidegger article reflects this long tradition of Heidegger apologetics. It seems to me that folks who are attracted to Heidegger's philosophy are sometimes compelled to minimize his personal and political foibles for whatever reason. People are complex, lives are not so simple, and we can endeavor to reflect this in biographies we write. Sbelknap (talk) 11:54, 11 July 2019 (UTC)

Heidegger and architecture
This 2010 source by Martin Woessner might be of use in support of material recently removed as uncited. Martinevans123 (talk) 14:47, 14 July 2019 (UTC)
 * Thanks, I'll take a look… Sbelknap (talk) 22:43, 15 July 2019 (UTC)
 * Yes, agree that this is worthy of inclusion in this article. There does seem to be some genuine influence of Heidegger on (mostly postmodern) architecture. I made some edits to the architecture section of the postmodernism article with some quality citations of sources. Would you care to take a stab at a new and improved architecture section for the Heidegger article? I have no objection and would be happy to contribute. Sbelknap (talk) 18:56, 17 July 2019 (UTC)
 * And what about:
 * Nader El-Bizri, "Being at Home Among Things: Heidegger's Reflections on Dwelling", Environment, Space, Place Vol. 3 (2011) pp. 47–71
 * Nader El-Bizri, "On Dwelling: Heideggerian Allusions to Architectural Phenomenology", Studia UBB Philosophia 60 (2015)pp. 5–30
 * Nader El-Bizri, "Phenomenology of Place and Space in our Epoch: Thinking along Heideggerian Pathways", in The Phenomenology of Real and Virtual Places, ed. E. Champion (London: Routledge, 2018), pp. 123-143
 * Thanks. Martinevans123 (talk) 20:40, 17 July 2019 (UTC)
 * I have no objection to an architecture section. (I wrote a similar section in the postmodernism article) The only reason this section was deleted was because there were *no* citations and the content was shallow. Sbelknap (talk) 22:07, 18 July 2019 (UTC)
 * You'd agree these three sources are all relevant and useful? Martinevans123 (talk) 12:04, 21 July 2019 (UTC)
 * The first one looks good. I don't have access at the moment to the second or third. I skimmed through this e-book by Sharr, "Heidegger for architects", and it seems useful and relevant. Sbelknap (talk) 16:24, 22 July 2019 (UTC)

For Sbelknap to complete to make his accusations concrete so we can deal with them
I'd suggest if you have already raised a specific point you simply link to that section.. So lets get some concrete examples and if you are not happy then there are plenty of ways to involve other editors and I have pinged the main notice board -<b style="color: #801818; font-family: Papyrus;">Snowded</b> <small style="color: #708090; font-family: Baskerville;">TALK 11:54, 21 July 2019 (UTC)

Deliberate misquotation

 * 1) He is "widely acknowledged to be one of the most original and important philosophers of the 20th century." – end quote.

impenetrable content (often without supporting citation)

 * 1) Heidegger thought the presence of things for us is not their being, but merely them interpreted as equipment according to a particular system of meaning and purpose. For instance, when a hammer is efficiently used to knock in nails, we cease to be aware of it. This is termed "ready to hand", and Heidegger considers it an authentic mode, saying that the given ("past") has presence in an oversimplified way when reduced to possible future usefulness to us.
 * 2) Dasein, then, is not intended as a way of conducting a philosophical anthropology, but is rather understood by Heidegger to be the condition of possibility for anything like a philosophical anthropology. [Footnote: Jacques Derrida describes this in the following terms: "We can see then that Dasein, though not man, is nevertheless nothing other than man."] Dasein, according to Heidegger, is care. In the course of his existential analytic, Heidegger argues that Dasein, who finds itself thrown into the world (Geworfenheit), a matrix not chosen, but at the same time not utterly binding or deterministic, is thrown into its possibilities, including the possibility and inevitability of one's own mortality. The need for Dasein to assume these possibilities, that is, the need to be responsible for one's own existence, is the basis of Heidegger's notions of authenticity and resoluteness—that is, of those specific possibilities for Dasein which depend on escaping the "vulgar" temporality of calculation and of public life. The marriage of these two observations depends on the fact that each of them is essentially concerned with time.
 * 3) ...that the existential analytic was left behind in the course of Heidegger's subsequent writings on the history of being, might be interpreted as a failure to conjugate his account of individual experience with his account of the vicissitudes of the collective human adventure that he understands the Western philosophical tradition to be. And this would in turn raise the question of whether this failure is due to a flaw in Heidegger's account of temporality, that is, of whether Heidegger was correct to oppose vulgar and authentic time.

exclusion of the perspective of most legitimate scholars

 * 1)  Herman Philipse's book is cited in this article only to confirm Heidegger's proficiency on skis. Which (effectively) excludes his perspective in any meaningful way. Sbelknap (talk) 18:50, 22 July 2019 (UTC)

decontextualization of negative information

 * 1) The negative information about Heidegger's Nazism is relegated to an entirely separate article. Yet, this article is a biographical article, despite attempts to elevate it to the clouds and the tips of ivory towers. Sbelknap (talk) 18:54, 22 July 2019 (UTC)

bizarrely non-neutral POV editing.

 * 1) Example 1

What do these passages mean?
Since apparently the following is comprehensible and necessary for the article, someone must be able to explain them in plain English. If they are not comprehensible, what purpose do they serve for Wikipedia readers?


 * Heidegger thought the presence of things for us is not their being, but merely them interpreted as equipment according to a particular system of meaning and purpose. For instance, when a hammer is efficiently used to knock in nails, we cease to be aware of it. This is termed "ready to hand", and Heidegger considers it an authentic mode, saying that the given ("past") has presence in an oversimplified way when reduced to possible future usefulness to us.

I have to say, I mean, I'm only a hobby DIY carpenter, but I don't cease to be aware of my hammer when I'm using it efficiently. What, exactly, is being "termed 'ready to hand'"?

Why is it an "authentic mode"? Authenticated how?

What does it mean to "have presence in an oversimplified way"?

How is the past "reduced to possible future usefulness to us"? —if "the past" is in fact the subject of that sentence, which it looks like it should be but I'm not sure I trust my own reading skills by this point.


 * Dasein, then, is not intended as a way of conducting a philosophical anthropology, but is rather understood by Heidegger to be the condition of possibility for anything like a philosophical anthropology. [Footnote: Jacques Derrida describes this in the following terms: "We can see then that Dasein, though not man, is nevertheless nothing other than man."] Dasein, according to Heidegger, is care. In the course of his existential analytic, Heidegger argues that Dasein, who finds itself thrown into the world (Geworfenheit), a matrix not chosen, but at the same time not utterly binding or deterministic, is thrown into its possibilities, including the possibility and inevitability of one's own mortality. The need for Dasein to assume these possibilities, that is, the need to be responsible for one's own existence, is the basis of Heidegger's notions of authenticity and resoluteness—that is, of those specific possibilities for Dasein which depend on escaping the "vulgar" temporality of calculation and of public life. The marriage of these two observations depends on the fact that each of them is essentially concerned with time.

Derrida's "description" is a direct self-contradiction. If that's the point here, if Heidegger's philosophy was self-contradictory, why confuse the reader by pretending to paraphrase it, instead of simply quoting it and demonstrating its contradictions for all to see?

How can Dasein be both "nothing other than man" and also "care"?

The metaphor of "thrownness" illuminates nothing to me; what reality is it supposed to stand for?

How was the most recently added phrase, "a matrix not chosen but at the same time not utterly binding or deterministic", supposed to be anything other than mystifying?

In the phrase "thrown into its possibilities", what "it" does "its" refer to?

Why is "assuming these possibilities" the same thing as "being responsible for one's own existence"? (And how can one be "responsible for one's own existence" in any case?)

What do "authenticity" and "resoluteness" mean? Why are they "the specific possibilities for Dasein which depend on escaping the vulgar temporality of calculation and of public life"?

Why are "calculation and public life", of all things, the exemplars of "vulgar temporality" that need to be "escaped"? What "two observations" are we talking about, and how are they "essentially concerned with time"?


 * ...that the existential analytic was left behind in the course of Heidegger's subsequent writings on the history of being, might be interpreted as a failure to conjugate his account of individual experience with his account of the vicissitudes of the collective human adventure that he understands the Western philosophical tradition to be. And this would in turn raise the question of whether this failure is due to a flaw in Heidegger's account of temporality, that is, of whether Heidegger was correct to oppose vulgar and authentic time.

Would it? Why? Of all the questions that arise after reading this verbiage, how is "Is this failure due to a flaw in Heidegger's account of temporality?" more urgent than, say, "Does any of this actually mean anything?"

And if there is "a flaw in Heidegger's account of temporality", how does anyone pin that flaw to his being incorrect "to oppose vulgar and authentic time"?

It is my duty to report that when I took an undergraduate course in metaphysical philosophy, our professor picked out Heidegger as the most egregious example of a philosopher fooling himself into thinking that nonsense was meaningful; he contrasted him with a lucid passage from Alice in Wonderland in which someone marvels at Alice's ability to "see Nobody on the road".

An encyclopaedia is supposed to explain things to people so that they can grasp the basic concepts. This entire section is an abject failure in that regard, and the recent changes have only made it worse. If there is no basic concept to grasp, then it is the duty of an encyclopaedist to make this clear, rather than cloaking the mummery in further important-sounding verbiage. Heidegger may have thought it was important not to explain things clearly, but I don't see that we have any duty to follow him.

If on the other hand there is a basic concept behind these paragraphs, then each of the questions I have just asked should have an answer that can be laid out in plain English. I don't mind if it's somewhat lengthier English, as long as it is coherent and explains what it purports to explain. We can work on succinctness once the meaning is clear.

—VeryRarelyStable (talk) 10:40, 13 July 2019 (UTC)


 * - two suggestions. 1) request expert help (WP:EXHELP) - hopefully there is a philosophy professor or graduate student Wikipedia editor out there who can help with the explanation of Heidegger's philosophy. 2) find a source with a clearer explanation and get permission to use or paraphrase their copyright material and use it to replace the information some find confusing in the current article - perhaps something like the Heidegger article at the Internet Encyclopedia of Philososphy or the Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy (these are just two examples, there may be better or simpler sources available) - Epinoia (talk) 15:54, 13 July 2019 (UTC)
 * The account of Heidegger's Dasein in this article are more difficult to understand than that in Heidegger's own Sein und Zeit. That is quite an accomplishment. Before we send editors scurrying off to consult philosophy professors, let us more carefully assess what is missing or wrong in this article. Heidegger relies on wordplay in German to convey some of the meaning of his concept of experience. This is completely ignored in this article. One of my colleagues is a native German speaker, and he was able to convince himself that he had acquired some understanding of Heidegger's meaning but he first had to translate the text from Heideggerian gibberish into German! Much of the text of this wikipedia article is not linked to any citation of an authoritative secondary source, which makes it extraordinarily difficult to resolve confusions one might have. The text in this article appears to be a mishmash of rephrased text from the IEP or the Stanford Encylopedia of Philosophy or other sources, (mostly) without attribution. One can see this by selecting strikingly phrased excerpts from the article, then using google to find where it (maybe) came from. I found Herman Philipse's "Heidegger's philosophy of being : a critical interpretation." to be helpful, although it can not be read like a novel, its more like reading a series of math theorems in a bespoke dialect of English, designed to express Heideggerian ideas. It seems possible to me that there is some value in Heidegger's ideas, though the process of identifying what is valuable is akin to picking through shit, looking for the swallowed nickels and dimes. Sbelknap (talk) 17:39, 13 July 2019 (UTC)


 * Well, if it takes expert help to untangle the present state of the article, then the "Incomprehensible" tag should not have been removed and I'm going to put it back. —VeryRarelyStable (talk) 01:20, 14 July 2019 (UTC)


 * If you are experiencing difficulty in understanding Heidegger, it may be because you are approaching him analytically and rationally. That's like trying to understand Jackson Pollock using the artistic concepts of Classicists like Ingres or Jacques-Louis David. Understanding Pollock requires a whole different point of view on how to approach Art. Or like trying to repair a washing machine with a saw and hammer and other carpentry tools, they're good tools, just the wrong tools for the job.
 * One of the difficulties with Heidegger is his terminology; he invents a number of terms and uses other terms in special senses. Heidegger does not give precise definitions, but rather fields of meaning. For example, a cylinder viewed from the side is a rectangle, a cylinder viewed from the end is a circle. The form depends on the point of view. If Heidegger used the term "cylinder," it would encompass a field of meaning that included both circles and rectangles. Rather like Cubism in Art which presented several different viewpoints at once. So if someone encountered Heidegger using 'cylinder' in reference to a circle and said, "Ha! That's nonsense! A cylinder is tubular!" they would be judging from outside the field. Part of the difficulty with Heidegger is grasping when he is using which term in which sense, from which point of view, from where he is standing in the field. For Heidegger, it doesn't matter because the terms are wholes, contexts, like the space we live in, from the personal space around us to the far reaches of outer space, it is all the continuum of space; so when referring to personal space in a Heideggerian sense, it includes all space at once as our context.
 * Heidegger's fuzzy terms are part of his fuzzy logic. In traditional formal logic, if 'a' and 'b' then 'c'. But in Heidegger, the indistinct field of 'a' in association with the indistinct field of 'b' points towards the indistinct field of 'c'. His logic is much more fluid and intuitive than formal logic, which makes it appear imprecise, but you need to approach his work prepared to encounter a different kind of logic, a less rigid logic, but logical none the less. I suppose you could call it a logic of Being, or a logic of the Absurd, rather than a logic of Rationality. A fitting together rather than a tearing apart. If you expect it to make sense in a traditional way, it never will. I prefer wearing blue to brown; there is no logic to this, it is irrational, absurd, but it is part of the logic, the truth, the context, of who I am. This is all counter to the analytic approach.
 * Heidegger had a special sense of language, which was integral to his philosophy, and it may not be possible to translate it effectively into simple terms (although I don’t know how much was lost translating it into English). Shakespeare wrote, "when Phoebe doth behold her silver visage in the watery glass," and someone might ask, "Why doesn’t he just say 'when the moon is shining on the water'? Why doesn’t he say what he means?" It’s because Shakespeare was using language in a metaphorical way and that special way of using language was integral to his dramatic vision; he wouldn’t be Shakespeare without it.
 * This may seem like more gibberish. I studied Heidegger under Hans-Georg Gadamer, but do not feel this gives me any particular authority on the subject. (ps, I am neither an advocate or apologist for, nor detractor of Heidegger, but I would like to see the article give a fair representation, which is why I recommended inviting someone familiar with his work to contribute to the article.) To appreciate Jackson Pollock or Cubism, they must be understood within the context of the artistic culture of the time. Similarly with Heidegger, he must be understood as part of the philosophical tradition, he didn't just pop into Being (see what I did there?), he was part of a context. - Epinoia (talk) 01:54, 14 July 2019 (UTC)


 * I'm not complaining of having trouble understanding Heidegger; I'm complaining of having trouble understanding an encyclopaedia article about Heidegger. One would not expect an encyclopaedia portrait of Pollock to be a Pollock painting, nor an encyclopaedia article on Shakespeare to be written in Shakespearean poetry.  If Heidegger is free-associating rather than expounding, and using technical-sounding language to obfuscate the fact that that's what he's doing, his encyclopaedia article should not follow him down that path. —VeryRarelyStable (talk) 04:53, 14 July 2019 (UTC)
 * I agree with this: Heidegger may be impenetrably abstruse but this article needn't be. Also, much of the text in this article about Heidegger's philosophy is unsupported by citations and appears to be (in part) original research. I've given several examples where the text in this article is either flat-out wrong or where the meaning of the source is misrepresented in the article. Why does this article contain original research? Why is misquotation tolerated? Why is this article so biased? Sbelknap (talk) 14:19, 14 July 2019 (UTC)
 * Also, there is a formally-defined multi-value logic called fuzzy logic which is in no way related to Heidegger's wordplay! Sbelknap (talk) 14:38, 14 July 2019 (UTC)


 * Well, absent any answers to the questions I've posed, I'm going to mark those sections "incomprehensible" again, until such time as someone clarifies. (Until someone clarifies, not until someone produces another excuse for not clarifying.) —VeryRarelyStable (talk) 05:58, 16 July 2019 (UTC)


 * The issue of how do you make continental philosophers 'clear' to people from an Anglo-Saxon tradition is an issue. A good example is the work de Landa has done to explain Deleuze in the language of the Anglo-Saxon tradition.  Personally, I think it's impressive, but for many, it's still 'unclear' and commentators see it as obscure. At the same time, many scholars of Deleuze think that his take on assemblage theory compromises the original work.  There are limits on translation between very different traditions. If you look at some of the articles here on maths and physics, while their introductions are clear the body of the text requires some knowledge or familiarity with the field and the same is true here.  If Sbelknap and VeryRarelyStable would like to take one of those paragraphs and suggest ways in which it could be made clearer, without compromising meaning that would be a better response than drive-by tagging. -<b style="color: #801818; font-family: Papyrus;">Snowded</b> <small style="color: #708090; font-family: Baskerville;">TALK 07:11, 16 July 2019 (UTC)


 * Drive-by tagging? The "incomprehensible" tag was there for months; then somebody added a little flourish of further incomprehensibility and took the tag away.  That, I would suggest, was drive-by un-tagging.
 * With the maths and physics articles it is possible to pick through carefully, phrase by phrase, search for unfamiliar terms, and eventually arrive at a point where the paragraphs make sense. So far my efforts to replicate that process here are not meeting with similar success.
 * As for suggestions for how the paragraphs could be made clearer, how about some answers to the questions I posed at the top of this section? —VeryRarelyStable (talk) 08:00, 16 July 2019 (UTC)
 * Really? I've got a degree in physics and philosophy and I wouldn't be prepared to be that confident in my ability.  In respect of your second point - I refer you to my above answer and the earlier one by Epinoia (The Jackson Pollock example which is good).  Explaining continental philosophy to people trained in the Anglo-Saxon tradition is not easy -<b style="color: #801818; font-family: Papyrus;">Snowded</b> <small style="color: #708090; font-family: Baskerville;">TALK 14:31, 16 July 2019 (UTC)


 * And I repeat my answers to those answers. An encyclopaedia article is a place for plain English.  An encyclopaedia portrait of Jackson Pollock should not itself be a Pollock painting.  I believe  was also the editor who, a few days ago, added the opaque phrase a matrix not chosen but at the same time not utterly binding or deterministic with an edit summary saying it was "for clarity".  I'm approaching that edit in good faith and assuming it was, in fact, intended to mean something and be understood, and to make the paragraph easier to understand.  It is my duty to report that, at least for me, it was not successful.
 * Yes, really. Anything that is not nonsense can be made sense of.  Any "if-then" proposition that doesn't contradict itself can be rendered logical by inserting the missing premises.  My own degree is in cultural anthropology, which involves a lot of exposure to postmodern and postmodern-aligned theorizing, and I still can't make head or tail of it.
 * I may say that as I now work in a job which takes me to undergraduate lectures in different subjects across the academe, I now rather regret my choice of field and feel that cultural anthropology is one of the few bad-apple disciplines (along with sociology, economics, and finance) that are politically rather than epistemically driven. I felt when I was studying, and I feel much more strongly now that I'm in a position to make direct comparisons, that postmodern "philosophy" and its offshoots are motivated in their entirety as evasions of rigorous scrutiny.  However, I'm trying to be charitable and give any passing Heidegger scholars the chance to demonstrate that I am mistaken in his case. —VeryRarelyStable (talk) 00:41, 17 July 2019 (UTC)
 * You want something from one tradition described in the common language of that which it opposes - problematic to say the least.  Even within your field, I'm not sure the ontological turn could be described without some basic knowledge of the field from which it arose. I'm not sure of the post-modernist label on Heidegger by the way but that maybe a personal eccentricity.  To understand the deatiled sections of this article needs some knowledge, the lede and introduction should be at the "made simple" level.  Your 'avoiding rigorous' scrutiny is the key phrase here.  Its that need which Epinoia picked up, it comes out of the analytic tradition which has its own assumptions of'epistemic' query and its opposite is not 'political'  -<b style="color: #801818; font-family: Papyrus;">Snowded</b> <small style="color: #708090; font-family: Baskerville;">TALK 08:44, 17 July 2019 (UTC)


 * My impression continues to solidify into a conviction, that there is no meaning to be understood here. Heidegger himself I would comfortably dismiss as a mountebank, if it weren't for the fact that a number of apparently honest Wikipedia editors appear convinced that he had something to say that was worth trying to understand in some measure.
 * What's difficult about describing one tradition in the language of another? That was the one worthwhile thing I thought I did get out of anthropology.  I've seen Christianity described in Buddhist terms and atheist terms and Jewish terms, mostly civilly, and vice versa in each case also moderately civilly.  I've many times now had to write down university lecturers' descriptions of Maori culture in terms that non-Maori students will understand.  If you understand what you're describing and you speak the language you're describing it in, it's not as difficult as all that.
 * If "postmodern" doesn't fit Heidegger – what, do words have sharply delineated meanings after all? – then pick a (near-)synonym: poststructuralist, Continental, cultural-studies, semiotic, whatever you please. I can think of others which I won't repeat.
 * But speaking of words, I confess my opposition of "epistemic" and "political" is of my own devising. It expresses a distinction I find between different academic disciplines.  At my university, at least, the sciences, law, literature, history, mathematics, philosophy, even computer science and marketing, are trying to discover and convey truths; sometimes truths about the external world, sometimes truths about the way people think, but truths nevertheless.  The key thing is that they are open to the possibility of disconfirmation.  There's a portion of each lecture along the lines of "and we think this because..."  That's what I mean by calling them "epistemically motivated".
 * These I have to contrast with economics and finance, where the basic theory is beyond scrutiny and if it doesn't match the real world then it's the real world that's at fault, and it's just a pity most people are too stupid to understand that and keep voting in governments that do things like levy taxes and spend money on social welfare. But I also have to contrast them with sociology and (I say to my shame) cultural anthropology, where the basic theory is beyond scrutiny because if you challenge the theory on the basis that it doesn't fit the facts well my theory challenges your concept of having to fit facts nyar nyar so there.  They are closed to the possibility of disconfirmation, because when challenged they just reiterate their basic assertions or, in the second camp, retreat into impenetrable language.  There are no new truths to find, only opponents to defeat.  These are what I call "politically motivated" fields.
 * Now if a philosopher or a school of philosophy is closed to new truths, how can they have gathered any truths worth conveying or listening to? Is "The nothing annihilates itself" any more profound than my belief, aged seven, that zero minus zero had to be an extra and specially zero-y zero because even the zero you started with got taken away?
 * (I have just been reminded that I have early morning work tomorrow and it's getting late in my time-zone. I promise this was going somewhere cogent and I may come back to it.) —VeryRarelyStable (talk) 11:28, 17 July 2019 (UTC)
 * It's an interesting discussion but it doesn't really relate to Wikipedia rules of editing!  Māori-Pākehā translation (if we ignore the Waitangi translation) is achievable, but I'm not sure I have ever seen any successful translation of dream time (or many other concepts over the Tasman).  The biological end of anthropology is easier than the sociological end of anthropology to get shared meeting but translation is difficult.   I reference my earlier point on the problems de Landa had with Deleuze.   Regardess of what any of us think about Heidegger he has to be understood in terms of what is in third party sources - and they are often as 'obscure' as the original.  Our test is not if someone in the tradition of Wittgenstein is comfortable - in general all such consider him obscurantist - but how his work is summarised within his tradition  At the moment the article manages that -<b style="color: #801818; font-family: Papyrus;">Snowded</b> <small style="color: #708090; font-family: Baskerville;">TALK 13:58, 17 July 2019 (UTC)

No, it doesn't relate to Wikipedia rules of editing, because I had to leave before I got to that point.

Just because Heidegger was obscure, just because other people writing about Heidegger are obscure, doesn't mean an encyclopaedia article about Heidegger needs to be or should be allowed to be obscure. Let Heidegger's obscurity pass. I admit Heidegger is obscure. I'm not querying whether Heidegger is obscure. I'm querying why that means this article – not its primary or secondary or tertiary sources, this article itself – needs to be obscure.

Granted that it would take away some of whatever Heidegger wanted the reader to experience by trying to puzzle out his abstruse phrases, whatever that experience is is not what an encyclopaedia is for. An encyclopaedia is for presenting information that people can understand and use. If that is incompatible with Heidegger's philosophy or continental philosophy, then Heidegger's philosophy or continental philosophy are at odds with the concept of an encyclopaedia. That doesn't alter the fact that Wikipedia is an encyclopaedia.

In the opposition between epistemic and political academia that I laid out before, an encyclopaedia sits squarely on the epistemic side. It presents facts that are open to disconfirmation. If one's statements are not open to disconfirmation, then there are no new truths to find, only opponents to defeat. That's how I defined the political side of academia before. But more than that; if one's statements are made to defeat opponents, then by definition they cannot come from a neutral point of view.

So unless I get some clear answers pretty soon, I'm not just going to put the "incomprehensible" tag back, I'm also seriously considering supporting 's campaign to get this page marked non-neutral.

Yes, I've had occasion to ask experts for clarification on Wikipedia pages before – most recently on the error function in mathematics, I believe. You know what the response was? They directed me to resources which helped me understand. Nobody's doing that here.

Let me come at this from a different angle. Heidegger is about that which is "irrational" and "absurd", it's been said here. So let me take those passages I'm inquiring about:


 * Heidegger thought the presence of things for us is not their being, but merely them interpreted as equipment according to a particular system of meaning and purpose. For instance, when a hammer is efficiently used to knock in nails, we cease to be aware of it. This is termed "ready to hand", and Heidegger considers it an authentic mode, saying that the given ("past") has presence in an oversimplified way when reduced to possible future usefulness to us.


 * Dasein, then, is not intended as a way of conducting a philosophical anthropology, but is rather understood by Heidegger to be the condition of possibility for anything like a philosophical anthropology. [Footnote: Jacques Derrida describes this in the following terms: "We can see then that Dasein, though not man, is nevertheless nothing other than man."] Dasein, according to Heidegger, is care. In the course of his existential analytic, Heidegger argues that Dasein, who finds itself thrown into the world (Geworfenheit), a matrix not chosen, but at the same time not utterly binding or deterministic, is thrown into its possibilities, including the possibility and inevitability of one's own mortality. The need for Dasein to assume these possibilities, that is, the need to be responsible for one's own existence, is the basis of Heidegger's notions of authenticity and resoluteness—that is, of those specific possibilities for Dasein which depend on escaping the "vulgar" temporality of calculation and of public life. The marriage of these two observations depends on the fact that each of them is essentially concerned with time.


 * ...that the existential analytic was left behind in the course of Heidegger's subsequent writings on the history of being, might be interpreted as a failure to conjugate his account of individual experience with his account of the vicissitudes of the collective human adventure that he understands the Western philosophical tradition to be. And this would in turn raise the question of whether this failure is due to a flaw in Heidegger's account of temporality, that is, of whether Heidegger was correct to oppose vulgar and authentic time.

—and let me alter them to the following:


 * Heidegger thought the presence of things for us is their being, interpreted as equipment according to a vague, unsystematic sense of meaning and purpose. For instance, when a hammer is efficiently used to knock in nails, it fills our consciousness such that we are aware of nothing else. This is termed "ready to hand", and Heidegger considers it an inauthentic mode, saying that the given ("present") has presence in an over-elaborated way when expanded to possible future usefulness to us.


 * Dasein, then, is intended as a way of conducting a philosophical anthropology. Dasein, according to Heidegger, is care. In the course of his existential analytic, Heidegger argues that Dasein, who finds itself thrown into the world (Geworfenheit), a matrix freely chosen yet at the same time utterly binding and deterministic, is thrown into its inevitabilities, including the inevitability of one's own mortality. The impossibility for Dasein to account for these inevitabilities, that is, the impossibility of being responsible for one's own existence, is the basis of Heidegger's notions of authenticity and resoluteness—that is, of those conditions for Dasein which depend on submitting to the "vulgar" temporality of calculation and of public life. The marriage of these two observations depends on the fact that each of them is essentially independent of time.


 * ...that the existential analytic was left behind in the course of Heidegger's subsequent writings on the history of being, might indicate that he felt he had succeeded in conjugating his account of communal experience with his account of the rigours of the individualized human adventure that he understands the Western philosophical tradition to be. And this would in turn raise the question of whether this success is due to an excellence in Heidegger's account of temporality, that is, of whether Heidegger was correct to unite vulgar and authentic time.

You see I've reversed the (apparent) meaning of multiple propositions in those three paragraphs. Is it now a worse representation of Heidegger's thought? If so, in what specifics does it err? What does it get wrong and how? —VeryRarelyStable (talk) 00:19, 18 July 2019 (UTC)


 * I'll leave it to others to comment on the accuracy of your alternative (at least until I can find time to check a couple of textbooks) but on a quick read, it is not more clear than the original. Otherwise, you seem to be taking an ideological position on how truth is determined which comes from a different philosophical tradition that the subject of our article; coupled with an assertion that Wikipedia should favour your position!  I've given three examples to illustrate the problem and you haven't responded to any of them. I'd add a fourth - try and describe Lacan (who knew Heidegger) in language familiar to the Anglo-Saxon tradition and you have great difficulty.  If you want a resource to understand more then The Oxford Companion (much as I dislike Honderich) has an extensive entry which you could read. I also skimmed 'Heidegger: A Very Short Introduction' in the MIT bookstore the other day and while that might help (I didn't buy it) it doesn't read a lot easier than this article which should tell us something.  The PoV question was resolved by consensus some time ago - you can of course always re-open it.  We may have to resolve the 'incomprehensible' issue the same way.  -<b style="color: #801818; font-family: Papyrus;">Snowded</b> <small style="color: #708090; font-family: Baskerville;">TALK 08:12, 18 July 2019 (UTC)


 * You've given me more than three explanations, I think, why I shouldn't expect the article to be comprehensible. I quite agree, the article is not comprehensible.  That's why I tagged it incomprehensible.  I appreciate it may take a great deal of work to make it comprehensible, but that doesn't mean it already is comprehensible.  And until it is comprehensible, it should keep the "incomprehensible" tag.
 * I see I have given the impression that my remarks about encyclopaedia style and content are my own idea, so let me quote Wikipedia's style manual (my emphasis):
 * Some topics are intrinsically technical, but editors should try to make them understandable to as many readers as possible. Minimize jargon, or at least explain it or tag it using or for other editors to fix. For unavoidably technical articles, a separate introductory article (like Introduction to general relativity) may be the best solution. Avoid excessive wikilinking (linking within Wikipedia) as a substitute for parenthetic explanations such as the one in this sentence. Do not introduce new and specialized words simply to teach them to the reader when more common alternatives will do. When the notions named by jargon are too complex to explain concisely in a few parenthetical words, write one level down. For example, consider adding a brief background section with  tags pointing to the full treatment article(s) of the prerequisite notions; this approach is practical only when the prerequisite concepts are central to the exposition of the article's main topic and when such prerequisites are not too numerous.
 * This is elaborated upon in their advice on writing better articles:
 * Encyclopedic writing has a fairly academic approach, while remaining clear and understandable. Formal tone means that the article should not be written using argot, slang, colloquialisms, doublespeak, legalese, or jargon that is unintelligible to an average reader; it means that the English language should be used in a businesslike manner.
 * The article linked to at "doublespeak" explains it with reference to George Orwell's description of political speech: "euphemism, question-begging and sheer cloudy vagueness". The link at "argot" defines it as "a secret language used by various groups to prevent outsiders from understanding their conversations", but adds that it "is also used to refer to the informal specialized vocabulary from a particular field of study, occupation, or hobby".  The language in this article qualifies under both headings and is certainly unintelligible to an average reader.
 * The link at "write one level down" in the Manual of Style takes you to a guide to making technical articles understandable, which says
 * A general technique for increasing accessibility is to consider the typical level where the topic is studied (for example, secondary, undergraduate, or postgraduate) and write the article for readers who are at the previous level. Thus articles on undergraduate topics can be aimed at a reader with a secondary school background, and articles on postgraduate topics can be aimed at readers with some undergraduate background. The lead section should be particularly understandable, but the advice to write one level down can be applied to the entire article, increasing the overall accessibility.
 * No allowance is made anywhere I can find in any of Wikipedia's guides for subjects that are just too ethereal to be pinned down to vulgar rationalism, or that come from a tradition opposed to the idea of writing to be understood.
 * A different philosophical tradition, you say? I distinguish between epistemically and politically motivated discourse on one ground and one only; I've called it "openness to disconfirmation", which maybe sounds technical, but all it means is taking seriously the possibility of one day having to say "You're right, I was wrong."  I'm not touting Popper here.  I don't care, at this level of discussion, whether the disconfirmation comes through pure logic, mathematics, observation, experiment, or focused empathy.  It's not something idiosyncratic and local; it's the standard among !Kung game trackers and Polynesian navigators, and I think you'll find their philosophical schools diverged from the Anglo-Saxons somewhat earlier than the Continentals did.
 * I can't help marvelling: in my previous entry I reversed the meaning of most of the sentences (for Pete's sake, I changed "Dasein is not intended as a way of conducting a philosophical anthropology" to "Dasein is intended as a way of conducting a philosophical anthropology"), and – well, you've already testified to how much difference it made to the information conveyed to you by the paragraphs.
 * As far as I can see, the "consensus" on the neutrality issue consists basically of about three editors collaborating to shut down one other editor. Three against two might be harder to maintain.
 * —VeryRarelyStable (talk) 11:15, 18 July 2019 (UTC)
 * There are plenty of mechanisms to involve other editors in Wikipedia. You are taking a position (what you call it is up to you although you are in effect touting Popper) and we can't define Wikipedia from one editor's perspective. Interestingly if you look at the use of 'coherence' in the philosophy of science it doesn't involve the 'one day you were right and I was wrong' type stance.  It recognises that some theories such as evolution are coherent to the facts, but probably wrong in some way while young-earth creationism is incoherent to the facts and not worth exploring other than as an anthropological curiosity. In Philosophy it is even more difficult to take a right/wrong appraoch.   It's more than open to suggest improvements but as I have said several times in the various attempts to popularise Heidegger you can't get away from the different uses of language and different traditions.  And I've given other examples you have not responded to. I think there is a clear obligation on you to suggest ways it could be simplified or made clearer - everyone is open to that but simply tagging something and leaving it to other editors is problematic. -<b style="color: #801818; font-family: Papyrus;">Snowded</b> <small style="color: #708090; font-family: Baskerville;">TALK 11:27, 18 July 2019 (UTC)
 * - I think simplifying the language of the article where possible is a good idea to make it more accessible to the general reader. As noted above, part of the problem is that many of the sources are as difficult as Heidegger. Perhaps some guidance can be found in general articles such as "Heidegger made simple" or "Heidegger's philosophy summary". Although, as with any philosophy, the reader is expected to bring something to the table; for example, the problematic phrase a matrix not chosen but at the same time not utterly binding or deterministic, what does that mean? Well, we can work towards a meaning. The world in which we find ourselves is a matrix, an environment in which we develop, our surrounding medium or structure. We did not choose to be born into this world, it is a given and seems to work deterministically, like a mechanism - things always fall down, night follows day, past follows present, etc. But within that deterministic structure, we have personal freedom, our actions are not determined, so we are not completely bound by the determinism of the mechanistic world. Part of the problem with understanding Heidegger is that he does not present a systematic explanation, his philosophy is one of process rather than the development of a logical system; it is based in the processes of the mind rather than strict mechanistic rationalism, and because of this philosophy of process it requires the engagement and participation of the reader. But that does not mean that the basics of Heidegger's philosophy cannot be presented in simpler language, even if it means some of the subtleties will be lost. - Epinoia (talk) 16:39, 18 July 2019 (UTC)
 * A different philosophical tradition, you say? I distinguish between epistemically and politically motivated discourse on one ground and one only; I've called it "openness to disconfirmation", which maybe sounds technical, but all it means is taking seriously the possibility of one day having to say "You're right, I was wrong."  I'm not touting Popper here.  I don't care, at this level of discussion, whether the disconfirmation comes through pure logic, mathematics, observation, experiment, or focused empathy.  It's not something idiosyncratic and local; it's the standard among !Kung game trackers and Polynesian navigators, and I think you'll find their philosophical schools diverged from the Anglo-Saxons somewhat earlier than the Continentals did.
 * I can't help marvelling: in my previous entry I reversed the meaning of most of the sentences (for Pete's sake, I changed "Dasein is not intended as a way of conducting a philosophical anthropology" to "Dasein is intended as a way of conducting a philosophical anthropology"), and – well, you've already testified to how much difference it made to the information conveyed to you by the paragraphs.
 * As far as I can see, the "consensus" on the neutrality issue consists basically of about three editors collaborating to shut down one other editor. Three against two might be harder to maintain.
 * —VeryRarelyStable (talk) 11:15, 18 July 2019 (UTC)
 * There are plenty of mechanisms to involve other editors in Wikipedia. You are taking a position (what you call it is up to you although you are in effect touting Popper) and we can't define Wikipedia from one editor's perspective. Interestingly if you look at the use of 'coherence' in the philosophy of science it doesn't involve the 'one day you were right and I was wrong' type stance.  It recognises that some theories such as evolution are coherent to the facts, but probably wrong in some way while young-earth creationism is incoherent to the facts and not worth exploring other than as an anthropological curiosity. In Philosophy it is even more difficult to take a right/wrong appraoch.   It's more than open to suggest improvements but as I have said several times in the various attempts to popularise Heidegger you can't get away from the different uses of language and different traditions.  And I've given other examples you have not responded to. I think there is a clear obligation on you to suggest ways it could be simplified or made clearer - everyone is open to that but simply tagging something and leaving it to other editors is problematic. -<b style="color: #801818; font-family: Papyrus;">Snowded</b> <small style="color: #708090; font-family: Baskerville;">TALK 11:27, 18 July 2019 (UTC)
 * - I think simplifying the language of the article where possible is a good idea to make it more accessible to the general reader. As noted above, part of the problem is that many of the sources are as difficult as Heidegger. Perhaps some guidance can be found in general articles such as "Heidegger made simple" or "Heidegger's philosophy summary". Although, as with any philosophy, the reader is expected to bring something to the table; for example, the problematic phrase a matrix not chosen but at the same time not utterly binding or deterministic, what does that mean? Well, we can work towards a meaning. The world in which we find ourselves is a matrix, an environment in which we develop, our surrounding medium or structure. We did not choose to be born into this world, it is a given and seems to work deterministically, like a mechanism - things always fall down, night follows day, past follows present, etc. But within that deterministic structure, we have personal freedom, our actions are not determined, so we are not completely bound by the determinism of the mechanistic world. Part of the problem with understanding Heidegger is that he does not present a systematic explanation, his philosophy is one of process rather than the development of a logical system; it is based in the processes of the mind rather than strict mechanistic rationalism, and because of this philosophy of process it requires the engagement and participation of the reader. But that does not mean that the basics of Heidegger's philosophy cannot be presented in simpler language, even if it means some of the subtleties will be lost. - Epinoia (talk) 16:39, 18 July 2019 (UTC)
 * There are plenty of mechanisms to involve other editors in Wikipedia. You are taking a position (what you call it is up to you although you are in effect touting Popper) and we can't define Wikipedia from one editor's perspective. Interestingly if you look at the use of 'coherence' in the philosophy of science it doesn't involve the 'one day you were right and I was wrong' type stance.  It recognises that some theories such as evolution are coherent to the facts, but probably wrong in some way while young-earth creationism is incoherent to the facts and not worth exploring other than as an anthropological curiosity. In Philosophy it is even more difficult to take a right/wrong appraoch.   It's more than open to suggest improvements but as I have said several times in the various attempts to popularise Heidegger you can't get away from the different uses of language and different traditions.  And I've given other examples you have not responded to. I think there is a clear obligation on you to suggest ways it could be simplified or made clearer - everyone is open to that but simply tagging something and leaving it to other editors is problematic. -<b style="color: #801818; font-family: Papyrus;">Snowded</b> <small style="color: #708090; font-family: Baskerville;">TALK 11:27, 18 July 2019 (UTC)
 * - I think simplifying the language of the article where possible is a good idea to make it more accessible to the general reader. As noted above, part of the problem is that many of the sources are as difficult as Heidegger. Perhaps some guidance can be found in general articles such as "Heidegger made simple" or "Heidegger's philosophy summary". Although, as with any philosophy, the reader is expected to bring something to the table; for example, the problematic phrase a matrix not chosen but at the same time not utterly binding or deterministic, what does that mean? Well, we can work towards a meaning. The world in which we find ourselves is a matrix, an environment in which we develop, our surrounding medium or structure. We did not choose to be born into this world, it is a given and seems to work deterministically, like a mechanism - things always fall down, night follows day, past follows present, etc. But within that deterministic structure, we have personal freedom, our actions are not determined, so we are not completely bound by the determinism of the mechanistic world. Part of the problem with understanding Heidegger is that he does not present a systematic explanation, his philosophy is one of process rather than the development of a logical system; it is based in the processes of the mind rather than strict mechanistic rationalism, and because of this philosophy of process it requires the engagement and participation of the reader. But that does not mean that the basics of Heidegger's philosophy cannot be presented in simpler language, even if it means some of the subtleties will be lost. - Epinoia (talk) 16:39, 18 July 2019 (UTC)


 * Thank you, . At last we're getting somewhere.
 * How about we change the sentence
 * In the course of his existential analytic, Heidegger argues that Dasein, who finds itself thrown into the world (Geworfenheit), a matrix not chosen, but at the same time not utterly binding or deterministic, is thrown into its possibilities, including the possibility and inevitability of one's own mortality.
 * to something like
 * The world confronts every sentient being (represented by Dasein) with possibilities. It is not completely deterministic; Dasein has choices. But Dasein cannot choose not to face the possibilities presented by the world, including the inevitability of its own mortality.  Heidegger refers to this condition as being "thrown into the world", or "thrownness" (Geworfenheit).
 * One confusing sentence down, half a dozen or so to go.
 * , in practice science is more Bayesian than Popperian. That is, once you've got past the exploratory phase it's unlikely that the hypotheses you come up with will be so off-base as to be falsified at one stroke; rather, disconfirmation takes the form of adjusting probabilities in light of incoming data, and accepting the highest-probability hypothesis (tentatively, of course) as the best explanation.  And Popper would surely turn in his grave to hear logic, mathematics, and what I've called "focused empathy" being listed alongside observation and experiment as legitimate means of falsifying a hypothesis.  But openness to disconfirmation remains the fundamental principle.
 * —VeryRarelyStable (talk) 01:02, 19 July 2019 (UTC)
 * , in practice science is more Bayesian than Popperian. That is, once you've got past the exploratory phase it's unlikely that the hypotheses you come up with will be so off-base as to be falsified at one stroke; rather, disconfirmation takes the form of adjusting probabilities in light of incoming data, and accepting the highest-probability hypothesis (tentatively, of course) as the best explanation.  And Popper would surely turn in his grave to hear logic, mathematics, and what I've called "focused empathy" being listed alongside observation and experiment as legitimate means of falsifying a hypothesis.  But openness to disconfirmation remains the fundamental principle.
 * —VeryRarelyStable (talk) 01:02, 19 July 2019 (UTC)
 * —VeryRarelyStable (talk) 01:02, 19 July 2019 (UTC)
 * —VeryRarelyStable (talk) 01:02, 19 July 2019 (UTC)


 * I think you are rather missing the point I was making on the epistemological approach you were taking - but it's peripheral to dealing with issues on the article; I've tried and failed to make a point :-) (although hazarding a guess as to your location I am in New Zealand in a couple of weeks time if you want to take it up over a dring) The request has always been for you to come up with improvements rather than just tag them so its good to see one above.  In respect of the above, I think there is a loss of meaning by dropping 'binding' (which is not the same thing as deterministic) and 'matrix'


 * I only managed to make that suggestion because I had one of the incomprehensible sentences explained to me so that it was no longer incomprehensible. I'm not pretending to be unable to understand the rest – I really can't.  What Epinoia just did answered about three of the many questions I asked above, the ones relating to that particular sentence.  If someone could see their way to an explanation of the rest of the problematic passages, I can have a go at distilling the explanation down to a few short sentences.  But I can't do that with something I don't understand. —VeryRarelyStable (talk) 09:16, 19 July 2019 (UTC)


 * Involving other editors might help improve this article. Deliberate misquotation, impenetrable content (often without supporting citation), exclusion of the perspective of most legitimate scholars, decontextualization of negative information, bizarrely non-neutral POV editing. The editing of this page is badly broken. Sbelknap (talk) 23:23, 20 July 2019 (UTC)


 * Yet more inuendo and personal attacks I see Sbelknap - you have been warned about that before in another context. If you really think that then raise it at the NPOV notice board with examples linked to the various accusations above. -<b style="color: #801818; font-family: Papyrus;">Snowded</b> <small style="color: #708090; font-family: Baskerville;">TALK 11:46, 21 July 2019 (UTC)
 * You have expressed your points. Perhaps the perspective of editors who are not you (and are not currently engaged) will prove useful. Sbelknap (talk) 17:24, 21 July 2019 (UTC)
 * And I will make them more formally if you don't stop -<b style="color: #801818; font-family: Papyrus;">Snowded</b> <small style="color: #708090; font-family: Baskerville;">TALK 11:29, 22 July 2019 (UTC)
 * Please review WP:HA Sbelknap (talk) 19:28, 22 July 2019 (UTC)
 * And I repeat, if you carry on making sweeping statements that impute the motives of other editors then this will become formal. Its in your own hands -<b style="color: #801818; font-family: Papyrus;">Snowded</b> <small style="color: #708090; font-family: Baskerville;">TALK 23:45, 22 July 2019 (UTC)
 * What are you talking about? You continue to make these assertions. AFAIK, these assertions are false. I find it intimidating. Please stop. Sbelknap (talk) 00:52, 23 July 2019 (UTC)


 * Care to explain what this lost meaning is, that's so important? —VeryRarelyStable (talk) 11:19, 22 July 2019 (UTC)
 * Well I already explained the binding/detrministic issue.  I did try and see if I could work "matrix not chosen" into your rephrasing as from my reading its not the same thing.   I didn' bring a book with me to Singapore to try and find some third party rehrasing we could use - but its too late at night to try and find it now -<b style="color: #801818; font-family: Papyrus;">Snowded</b> <small style="color: #708090; font-family: Baskerville;">TALK 11:29, 22 July 2019 (UTC)


 * No you didn't. You said "binding" and "deterministic" aren't the same thing.  You didn't say what, in that case, "binding" does mean. —VeryRarelyStable (talk) 11:35, 22 July 2019 (UTC)

Look Dasein is already explained earlier in the article so you are adding verbiage here, your phrasing does not place it in the context of his 'existential analytic' and only using 'deterministic' could be misunderstood. The only difficult phrase in the current wording is the matrix one where I think there is a case for change - and I'm trying to think of one (other suggestions welcome) but I don't see your proposed amendment as in any way making things clearer -<b style="color: #801818; font-family: Papyrus;">Snowded</b> <small style="color: #708090; font-family: Baskerville;">TALK 23:41, 22 July 2019 (UTC)


 * What do you understand the word "incomprehensible" to mean? How does it not apply to the present state of the article?
 * The History page records that the "incomprehensible" tags were placed on the article in September 2018. They were briefly removed and restored in March 2019.  Then they were removed again a week and a half ago when the phrase a matrix not chosen, but at the same time not utterly binding or deterministic was added.  The justification given for the removal was not "The passage has now been clarified" but, and I quote, "That's as clear as Heidegger ever gets".
 * The "explanation" of Dasein is another of the incomprehensible passages.
 * The "explanation" of what an "existential analytic" is is another. Hence, placing something in the "context" of it adds no information.
 * How could only using "deterministic" be misunderstood? What meaning is missing when "binding" is omitted?  What does "binding" mean in this context as distinct from "deterministic"?  You haven't explained.
 * "The only difficult phrase is the 'matrix' one" – well, if the rest of the passage isn't "difficult", you should have no trouble answering the questions I asked right up at the top of this section then (instead of telling me yet again why I shouldn't expect an answer).
 * You didn't seem to think it was without difficulty when you said, a week and a half ago, in your edit summary, that "That's as clear as Heidegger ever gets".
 * Which is it? Is it comprehensible and I'm just missing something?  In that case you should be able to answer my questions.  Or is it incomprehensible and that's as clear as Heidegger ever gets?  In that case the "incomprehensible" tags should stay.
 * Looking back through the History page, you guys do realize, don't you, that consensus is not actually necessary for any and all substantive edits to an article? Citing reliable sources is enough.  (And the sources themselves don't have to be notable, only reliable.)  You only need to reach consensus when there's a dispute in progress.  If someone adds in something that is well-sourced but poorly worded, you don't revert it, you re-word it.
 * Otherwise, all you'd need to protect an article from ever being updated or corrected would be, well, a little cabal of three or four editors who hang tight, revert all substantive edits, and call themselves a "consensus". (Purely hypothetically, of course.)  And that's not what Wikipedia is about. —VeryRarelyStable (talk) 02:13, 23 July 2019 (UTC)
 * That's not quite all you'd need. You would also need at least one editor to harass those making substantive edits. (Again, purely hypothetically…) Sbelknap (talk) 19:46, 24 July 2019 (UTC)
 * You didn't seem to think it was without difficulty when you said, a week and a half ago, in your edit summary, that "That's as clear as Heidegger ever gets".
 * Which is it? Is it comprehensible and I'm just missing something?  In that case you should be able to answer my questions.  Or is it incomprehensible and that's as clear as Heidegger ever gets?  In that case the "incomprehensible" tags should stay.
 * Looking back through the History page, you guys do realize, don't you, that consensus is not actually necessary for any and all substantive edits to an article? Citing reliable sources is enough.  (And the sources themselves don't have to be notable, only reliable.)  You only need to reach consensus when there's a dispute in progress.  If someone adds in something that is well-sourced but poorly worded, you don't revert it, you re-word it.
 * Otherwise, all you'd need to protect an article from ever being updated or corrected would be, well, a little cabal of three or four editors who hang tight, revert all substantive edits, and call themselves a "consensus". (Purely hypothetically, of course.)  And that's not what Wikipedia is about. —VeryRarelyStable (talk) 02:13, 23 July 2019 (UTC)
 * That's not quite all you'd need. You would also need at least one editor to harass those making substantive edits. (Again, purely hypothetically…) Sbelknap (talk) 19:46, 24 July 2019 (UTC)
 * Looking back through the History page, you guys do realize, don't you, that consensus is not actually necessary for any and all substantive edits to an article? Citing reliable sources is enough.  (And the sources themselves don't have to be notable, only reliable.)  You only need to reach consensus when there's a dispute in progress.  If someone adds in something that is well-sourced but poorly worded, you don't revert it, you re-word it.
 * Otherwise, all you'd need to protect an article from ever being updated or corrected would be, well, a little cabal of three or four editors who hang tight, revert all substantive edits, and call themselves a "consensus". (Purely hypothetically, of course.)  And that's not what Wikipedia is about. —VeryRarelyStable (talk) 02:13, 23 July 2019 (UTC)
 * That's not quite all you'd need. You would also need at least one editor to harass those making substantive edits. (Again, purely hypothetically…) Sbelknap (talk) 19:46, 24 July 2019 (UTC)
 * That's not quite all you'd need. You would also need at least one editor to harass those making substantive edits. (Again, purely hypothetically…) Sbelknap (talk) 19:46, 24 July 2019 (UTC)


 * You do need consensus for any changes and that includes agreement on what is incomprehensible or not. Also, you can't just insert because the material is cited; there are a whole range of tests such as WP:WEIGHT which have to be applied. Innuendo against the motivations of other editors breaks WP:NPA and its not harassment to point that out. We do need some other editors involved which is why I made the request on the Philosophy notice board -<b style="color: #801818; font-family: Papyrus;">Snowded</b> <small style="color: #708090; font-family: Baskerville;">TALK 02:21, 25 July 2019 (UTC)


 * Well, every other page I frequent has been doing it wrong, then. Citing the Wikipedia guideline where it says "no changes without consensus" would help. —VeryRarelyStable (talk) 03:38, 25 July 2019 (UTC)


 * You'd have to give me an example but it is very basic in wikipedia - just because you show something is cited it doesn't mean that it is relevant or appropriate - we would get massive bloat if it was. Being referenced is necessary but not sufficient for entry.  If something is disputed its discussed and if consensus provies impossible pull in other editors (I've tried to do that) or initiate a dispute resolution process or similar. -<b style="color: #801818; font-family: Papyrus;">Snowded</b> <small style="color: #708090; font-family: Baskerville;">TALK 09:34, 25 July 2019 (UTC)


 * At The Chronicles of Narnia, I added a paragraph to the section on Michael Ward's "Planet Narnia" theory, pointing out that a quantitative study had been done (by a small, not very notable magazine) which provided partial support for, but also some criticism of, Ward's thesis. That was in April last year and it's still there.  I didn't ask anyone on the talk page if I could first.  I did ask first before expanding the main character list, but went ahead when there was no response; over half that list is my work.  No-one reverted any of it saying "You didn't get consensus first."
 * At Phoenix (mythology), I added the Exeter Book passage plus translation and explanatory text. No prior consultation, no subsequent reversion.
 * At Nude beach, I inserted what's now the first sentence of the "History" section. No prior consultation, no subsequent reversion.
 * At Potato, I put in the bit about the word "spud" being first recorded in New Zealand English. No prior consultation, no subsequent reversion.
 * At Naturism, I restored a section on Croatia which had been commented out. No prior consultation, no subsequent reversion.
 * At Jurassic World: Fallen Kingdom and Captain Marvel (film), I made some sweeping changes to the "Plot" sections to make them more accurate and easier to read. With those there was debate over my changes, but only one or two of them got flat-out reverted; mostly what happened was a succession of smaller and smaller tweaks to wording until we reached something we could all live with.  That's what consensus is supposed to mean, I'm pretty sure.  The Talk page is for when the tweaks aren't getting smaller.
 * Nowhere but here have I gone down the history page of an article and found reverts summarized as "Get consensus before making changes", with no sign of a pre-existing controversy. Nor a demand that sources, as well as topics, be notable before they can be used.
 * —VeryRarelyStable (talk) 11:58, 25 July 2019 (UTC)
 * How long have you been edited wikipedia? If there is "no subsequent reversion" then other editors have accepted it.  If there is reversion then you need to gain consensus before a change.  Read up on WP:BRD where it is all clearly laid out -<b style="color: #801818; font-family: Papyrus;">Snowded</b> <small style="color: #708090; font-family: Baskerville;">TALK 14:37, 25 July 2019 (UTC)


 * Well obviously if someone reverts me they haven't accepted the change. But only on this page, and nowhere else, have I seen substantive edits reverted and no reason given but "You didn't get consensus first."  Elsewhere, when I've made a change like I did with the passage under contention here, what people did was make changes to my wording, not just revert the whole thing.
 * WP:BRD, you say? Let's have a look.
 * The BOLD, revert, discuss cycle (BRD) is an optional method of reaching consensus. This process is not mandated by Wikipedia policy, but it can be useful for identifying objections, keeping discussion moving forward and helping to break deadlocks. In other situations, you may have better success with alternatives to this approach. Care and diplomacy should be exercised. Some editors will see any reversion as a challenge, so be considerate and patient.
 * Bold editing is a fundamental principle of Wikipedia. All editors are welcome to make positive contributions. It's how new information is added to Wikipedia. When in doubt, edit! Similarly, if you advance a potential contribution on the article's talk page, and no response is received after a reasonable amount of time, go ahead and make your contribution. Sometimes other editors are busy, or nobody is watching the article. Either the edit will get the attention of interested editors, or you will simply improve the article. Either is a good outcome. If a bold edit might be controversial, consider adding "(revert if inappropriate)" or similar to the edit summary to alert others.
 * Revert an edit if it is not an improvement, and it cannot be immediately fixed by refinement. Consider reverting only when necessary. BRD does not encourage reverting, but recognizes that reversions happen. When reverting, be specific about your reasons in the edit summary and use links if needed. Look at the article's history and its talk page to see if a discussion has begun. If not, you may begin one. (See Wikipedia:Wikipedia abbreviations for a glossary of common abbreviations you might see.)
 * That supports my approach to Wikipedia, not yours. I'm not going to make insinuations about your motives, because frankly they're irrelevant.  You are inappropriately exerting a stranglehold over edits to this article that is not supported by Wikipedia policy or guidelines. —VeryRarelyStable (talk) 23:20, 25 July 2019 (UTC)
 * I agree with this. snowded is inappropriately reverting good-faith, high-quality edits with source citations, and making threats and false accusations. snowded has repeatedly stated as policy things that are not policy. This is ridiculous. Sbelknap (talk) 20:39, 26 July 2019 (UTC)
 * Continuing to read down WP:BRD, I find
 * When an article is deemed frozen by a group of editors, it creates an impression that the article is complete and no further edits are needed. This is not how Wikipedia works. Local consensus to freeze editing cannot override Editing policy.
 * BRD is not a valid excuse for reverting good-faith efforts to improve a page simply because you don't like the changes.
 * Before reverting, first consider whether the original text could have been better improved in a different way or if part of the edit can be fixed to preserve some of the edit, and whether you would like to make that bold edit instead. The other disputant may respond with another bold edit, or with a refinement on your improvement. The "Bold–refine" process is the ideal collaborative editing cycle. Improving pages through collaborative editing is ideal. However, if you find yourself making reversions or near-reversions, then stop editing and move to the next stage, "Discuss".
 * Before reverting a change to an article in the absence of explicit consensus, be sure you actually have a disagreement with the content of the bold edit (and can express that disagreement), not merely a concern that someone else might disagree with the edit. A revert needs to present a path forward, either by expressing a concern with the content of the edit itself, or pointing to a previous discussion that did.
 * And in the list of links at the bottom, there's one called Don't revert solely due to "no consensus".
 * —VeryRarelyStable (talk) 00:44, 26 July 2019 (UTC)
 * And if you think the local consensus is overriding Wikipedia policy then there are dispute resolution and other processes you can go through. WP:BRD is advisory but WP:3rr is not, that says you can't simply say that you are going to insert something because you believe you are right.  WP:WEIGHT and other policies make it clear that sourcing is necessary but not sufficient for inclusion.   Other editors have engaged with you on the talk page in respect of the issues you raise and the edit summary of 'non consensus' refers to those discussions.  -<b style="color: #801818; font-family: Papyrus;">Snowded</b> <small style="color: #708090; font-family: Baskerville;">TALK 03:27, 26 July 2019 (UTC)
 * Why are you citing WP:3rr as somehow relevant here? Please provide examples in the Martin Heidegger history where an editor violated WP:3rr. Please stop asserting your idiosyncratic views as official wikipedia policy. Sbelknap (talk) 20:46, 26 July 2019 (UTC)

One editor was civil enough to engage with a small subset of the questions I raised. I proposed an edit in line with that editor's explanation. Some dissatisfaction was expressed with the proposed edit but no concrete suggestions for further improvement, so I made the proposed edit in the assumption that those dissatisfied with it would make further improvements on their own initiative, as I'm accustomed to seeing happen in similar situations on other articles. Instead my edit was reverted (with an edit summary making the points of dissatisfaction out to be much more contentious than had previously been communicated).

Then I restored the "incomprehensible" tags instead, recalling that they had been there for months, and two editors undertook to revert those, claiming that they were a novel addition. Either these editors didn't read the history page and verify the truth of the matter or they assumed I wouldn't. I did, and as well as confirming that the "incomprehensible" tags had, indeed, been there for months, I also found that other substantive edits had been made in the past and reverted without excuse beyond "no consensus", by those same two editors.

Apart from the one editor mentioned, the response to the questions I have asked has alternated between "The topic is inherently obscure and should stay obscure" and "The article is perfectly intelligible as-is", as convenient.

I've even seen editors make claims about this very discussion that can be shown to be false simply by scrolling up (e.g. claiming to have already explained the distinction between "deterministic" and "binding").

I repeat my assertion: this is an inappropriate attempt to freeze the article in its present form. —VeryRarelyStable (talk) 03:55, 26 July 2019 (UTC)

Simplification
Taking a stab at simplifying one of the passages from the article considered incomprehensible:

Heidegger thought the presence of things for us is not their being, but merely them interpreted as equipment according to a particular system of meaning and purpose. = we define things by their utility.

For instance, when a hammer is efficiently used to knock in nails, we cease to be aware of it. This is termed "ready to hand", and Heidegger considers it an authentic mode, saying that the given ("past") has presence in an oversimplified way when reduced to possible future usefulness to us. = when we use a hammer we don’t think, “I am using a hammer,” we only think of achieving the end (future) result, knocking in the nail.

This was a proposed revision:

Heidegger thought the presence of things for us is their being, interpreted as equipment according to a vague, unsystematic sense of meaning and purpose. For instance, when a hammer is efficiently used to knock in nails, it fills our consciousness such that we are aware of nothing else. This is termed "ready to hand", and Heidegger considers it an inauthentic mode, saying that the given ("present") has presence in an over-elaborated way when expanded to possible future usefulness to us.

I would like to propose the following simpler version:

Heidegger thought the presence of things for us is not their being, but in their utility. For instance, when a hammer is used to knock in a nail, we aren’t aware of the hammer itself, but only as a "ready to hand" extension of ourselves to achieve a future result: the knocking in of the nail. The past, the existing (or 'given') hammer, is reduced to a future usefulness, the driven nail. Heidegger considers this an authentic mode.

Not sure this is still Heidegger, but I think it may capture the intent of his meaning and make it more accessible to a general reader. - cheers - Epinoia (talk) 02:46, 27 July 2019 (UTC)


 * Thanks for this, it's very helpful – although it's still not clear to me what's meant by "an authentic mode".
 * (I should note, though, that the alternative text I wrote wasn't intended as a revision; it was a reversal of the meaning of the existing text, written in the hope that someone having trouble explaining the original, might find it easier to explain why the reversal was wrong.) —VeryRarelyStable (talk) 03:47, 27 July 2019 (UTC)


 * - to clarify modes:
 * Heidegger thought the presence of things for us is not their being, but in their utility. For instance, when a hammer is used to knock in a nail, we aren’t aware of the hammer itself, but only as a "ready to hand" extension of ourselves to achieve a future result: the knocking in of the nail. The past, the existing (or 'given') hammer, is reduced to a future usefulness, the driven nail. Readiness-to-hand, in which the distinction between subject and object is blurred, is one of three modes of Being Heidegger identified, the others being presence-at-hand, for things that are there but we don't interact with, and Dasein, human existence. - Epinoia (talk) 17:17, 29 July 2019 (UTC)

Inappropriate edits
Wolfdog made this inappropriate edit. The edit summary used ("lead clarifications, maybe") is enough to show that it is inappropriate. "Maybe" amounts to an effective admission by Wolfdog that he does not know whether his changes actually make the article describe Heidegger's ideas more accurately. Wolfdog, unless you are absolutely certain that your changes are accurate, you should not be making them - or expecting other editors to accept them. Freeknowledgecreator (talk) 23:20, 10 October 2019 (UTC)
 * Hi, . It's good to see you're willing to bring this to a talk page. Hey, look: so am I! So, once again: let's discuss please! Can you specify what exactly you feel was inaccurate so that we can make the lead more reader-friendly? I used the word "maybe" to suggest that it's still hard to get things perfect with Heidegger's notoriously dense/difficult philosophy and to invite others to continue to tweak the wording further, yet IMHO this was clearer than the previous edit, which otherwise remains, as ever, unreadable. Again: anyone can revert, but discussion is what's appreciated. Thanks! Wolfdog (talk) 01:44, 11 October 2019 (UTC)
 * If you wish to alter established content in the article the burden is on you to show that your change is accurate. You have so far not done this. Freeknowledgecreator (talk) 01:45, 11 October 2019 (UTC)
 * No, that doesn't make any sense. That means we assume currently unsourced content is perfectly correct and that any edits made afterwards require sourcing. This is neither true nor typical. WP:BURDEN says "The burden to demonstrate verifiability lies with the editor who adds or restores material." I've added and you've restored, so the burden lies on both of us equally. If I have some time to look deeply into this for sources, now that you are requesting them (I assume that's what you mean by "show that your change is accurate"), I will do so, but that'll obviously take some time and effort. I've admittedly provided unsourced content, but it is just as unsourced at the moment -- and yet worst of all: unreadable. You don't seem to have any response my unreadability argument. It's overly abstractly written and requires attention. Do you disagree with this? Wolfdog (talk) 19:48, 11 October 2019 (UTC)
 * Would you be opposed to me adding a "clarify" template to the sentence that makes the least sense? That would be helpful in inviting other editors, perhaps with more expertise in the content or wording, to improve the sentence. Wolfdog (talk) 19:53, 11 October 2019 (UTC)
 * It makes perfect sense. It is absolutely up to you to show that your changes are accurate. You have provided no evidence that the content already in the article is uncited. Also, it pays to remember that the article is about Heidegger and his ideas, so it shouldn't be at all surprising if it is unreadable. Providing an accurate discussion of Heidegger's ideas that is readable for most readers may actually be impossible. Freeknowledgecreator (talk) 01:19, 12 October 2019 (UTC)
 * I wouldn't be opposed to a proposal to make the paragraph easier to read, but I don't think it justifies the template - this is Heidegger afterall. Anyone who could do the work will already be watching the talk page any way -<b style="color: #801818; font-family: Papyrus;">Snowded</b> <small style="color: #708090; font-family: Baskerville;">TALK 04:27, 13 October 2019 (UTC)
 * Any ideas how we can help that sentence/paragraph then? Wolfdog (talk) 15:25, 13 October 2019 (UTC)
 * Providing an accurate discussion of Heidegger's ideas that is readable for most readers may actually be impossible. This again?  Really?  As I had many occasions to point out in our previous discussion, that may be what Heidegger would have liked, but it's not what Wikipedia is.  If it is literally true – if there is no way, no matter how lengthy, to explicate Heidegger's philosophy in comprehensible terms – then that amounts to the claim that Heidegger's "philosophy" is mere nonsense.  But Wikipedia articles are not allowed to be nonsense.
 * And as I also had occasion to point out many times, there is no Wikipedia standard that says you must get consensus for every single edit. (Consensus is for when there's a dispute.  You don't raise a dispute on the grounds that there isn't consensus.)  Nor is it appropriate to hold every edit to an unreachable standard of certainty before allowing it.  Reliable sources are all that are needed.
 * , so you know, there are three or four editors on this page who have behaved in the past as if they thought they owned it and had copyright over its content. If that kind of situation is about to arise again, I want to be clear from the start that they do not represent a consensus in the accepted sense of that term.
 * —VeryRarelyStable (talk) 07:59, 15 October 2019 (UTC)
 * Thanks, . I, too, was finding it odd that my attempts to be helpful were being reverted for not get the wording perfectly accurate while being simultaneously told a perfectly accurate wording of Heidegger's ideas is impossible. Honestly, I just was going to avoid engaging with that kind of paradoxical argumentation. I think you said it perfectly that Wikipedia articles are not allowed to be nonsense. For the paragraph in question, I'm politely hoping to get the attention of other editors who share our more productive attitude. Wolfdog (talk) 13:49, 15 October 2019 (UTC)
 * Excuse me, but no one said that "a perfectly accurate wording of Heidegger's ideas is impossible." What I suggested was that an accurate description of Heidegger's ideas that is readable for most people may be impossible. Freeknowledgecreator (talk) 00:49, 16 October 2019 (UTC)
 * OK, then exactly what I said plus "readability for most people": a goal that we all already understand as Wikipedia editors., this is making just as unacceptable an implication. Imagine yourself in my place: Imagine editing an article on an admittedly difficult concept, then another editor reverts it, providing no specific grievances or disagreements except for a generic call that you must be absolutely certain that your changes are accurate and answering a direct request for such specific grievances and a desire to invite other editors to contribute clearer writing by instead focusing on who should have the burden to show accuracy. What? The problem was clarity of language, not accuracy of ideas. You and the other editor could be engaging in a productive conversation about what does and doesn't need to be clarified, but instead the other editor has simply shut you down by regarding your edits as inaccurate -- again, with no specifics provided. And, as if to really make sure you stay shut down, the other editor concludes that an accurate description of [the article's] ideas that is readable for most people may be impossible. So, I guess we should just give up on ever improving the page at all?? See how that attitude makes no sense here on Wikipedia, and is even more frustrating? We don't just give up editing because wording ideas accurately can be difficult. Wolfdog (talk) 20:37, 16 October 2019 (UTC)

Clarification needed
At a user's request, I'm putting the sentence needing clarification here. In fact, here's the whole paragraph for context, with the especially odd sentence bolded:

His first and best known book, Being and Time (1927) is one of the central philosophical works of the 20th century. In its first part, Heidegger attempted to turn away from "ontic" questions about beings to ontological questions about Being, and recover the most fundamental philosophical question: the question of Being, of what it means for something to be. Heidegger approached the question through an inquiry into the being that has an understanding of Being, and asks the question about it, namely, Human being, which he called Dasein ("being-there"). Heidegger argued that Dasein is defined by care, its practically engaged and concernful mode of being-in-the-world, in opposition to such Rationalist thinkers as René Descartes who located the essence of man in his thinking abilities.

Here are the primary confusions with this sentence: What does the word "being" (lowercase) mean here -- does it mean "existing" or "creature" (or something else entirely different from those ordinary senses)? Why does the word "Being" in the previous sentence have a capital "B" and then it doesn't in this sentence until it does again, later on in the sentence -- is there some special or unusual usage we should be aware of? What exactly is the antecedent of the word "it" in this sentence? How is the noun phrase "Human being" a "question"? Why does the phrase "Human being" have a capital "H" but not a capital "B" here -- is there some special or unusual usage that distinguishes "Human" from "human"? Would breaking up this sentence into multiple, syntactically easier sentences be helpful for understanding? Thanks. Wolfdog (talk) 22:12, 16 October 2019 (UTC)


 * Here's a potential rewrite of the paragraph (with change bolded):


 * His first and best known book, Being and Time (1927) is one of the central philosophical works of the 20th century. In its first part, Heidegger attempted to turn away from "ontic" questions about beings to ontological questions about the idea of Being itself, and recover the most fundamental philosophical question: the question of Being, of what it means for something to be. Heidegger approached this question through an inquiry into the being (the living human creature) that has an understanding of Being, and asks the question about that creature itself. He called the human experience of Being Dasein ("being-there"). Heidegger argued that Dasein is defined by care: a human's practically engaged and concernful mode of being-in-the-world, in opposition to such Rationalist thinkers as René Descartes who defined human existence by a human's ability to think.


 * Thanks. Wolfdog (talk) 14:20, 21 October 2019 (UTC)
 * This seems like an improvement to me. Sbelknap (talk) 19:47, 22 October 2019 (UTC)
 * Me too. —VeryRarelyStable (talk) 05:59, 23 October 2019 (UTC)
 * I'm happy too. Good to see an editor contributing rather than reverting! Thanks Wolfdog.