@clossington most short histories seem normie, just the nature of the style. If you do keep reading it let me know how he covers the continentals, I've been told he struggles making sense of Hegel and Heidegger.

I don’t think he goes over Heidegger in my book

>goes over modern philosophy
>doesn't cover one of the greatest German thinkers
very homogay

Scruton isn’t particularly great on modern philosophy

But he wasn’t supposed to be

he knows Kant quite well

Didn’t he subscribe to most of Kant’s ethos?

<:GWaobloChildPepeShrug:407618817569718272> I read his introduction to Kant and liked it

thats about as far as i went

In his Why Beauty Matters documentary, he gushed over Kant

yes

still if one talks about a history of modern philosophy Heidegger is a big name and not covering him shows you as inept to some degree

Heidegger goes over natural beauty and natural order very thoroughly iirc

It’s a shame Scruton probably never read it

iirc Scruton made a comment something like "If Heidegger is saying something it is brilliant however if he is merely rambling about nonsense then it means very little, and it can be hard to tell which is it"

don't quote me on it tho

>Heidegger goes over natural beauty and natural order very thoroughly iirc
he goes over poetry and by extension beauty extensively in his later work, normally going back to the oldest Greeks for inspiration

Didn’t Heidegger hate aesthetics or aestheticism?

Something like that

I barely understand Heidegger most of the time

he hated modern aesthetics

thought they were just a follow on from subjectivism established by the subject/object spilt

Fair enough

you have to understand that Heidegger is trying to bring back a pre-Socratic understanding of truth

Descartes is a disliked figure to say the least

There’s something about uprooting 2200 years of philosophy and reconstructing a new one from the ground up that’s a little pretentious, especially if you have to create a thousand new words to go along with it and Heidegger is a difficult writer

ree
he didn't create a thousand new words he just correctly translated them

but yes he did understand the gravity of his position

he was never overly disrespectful to the thinkers that came before him

Heidegger is a very difficult writer to understand, but it isn't for his word usage but the subjects he is trying to speak on

It would have helped if he used the correct terms for things

?

what things and what terms

also
@clossington in Heidegger's own view his project was not to establish a "new" philosophy from the ground up, he saw it more in line with reviving the pre-socratic traditional, trying to understand it and get back to it thus escaping the pitfalls he saw in the western tradition since Plato

Help me understand the pre-Socratic tradition

He rejected idealism and forms in favor of something like thrown-ness and essentialism

I really don’t know or understand Heidegger

That was just a joke riffing on your reeee I know very little about Heidegger but saying he is trying to revive a pre Socratic tradition makes him seem like the kind of guy who would build a trireme to fight an aircraft carrier

Pull a Civ 4 spearman vs tank

@clossington Thrownness really belongs to being-there as a state-of-being-in-the-world, it is a phenomenological description of a state of being, so it doesn't really directly relate to idealism as a polar opposite. Safe to say Heidegger's relationship with idealism wouldn't be as simple as saying that he outright rejects it.

As to giving you a rundown on Heidegger's view of the pre-socratic tradition, or lack thereof since it was a very loose unity of thinkers, that would take more time and space then I should probably put in this channel.