heidegger

Have you been reading a lot of Heidegger or was this an independent decision?

I thought the Heidegger == 'The existentialist datapoint interesting for my internal map of everything.

But most of the valuable ideas he had to express had already been explored by Heidegger in a more complete way, or by Wittgenstein in an uncannily clear, concise and orderly way.

Examples include: -John Lennon (wife-beater) -Tim Hunt (sexist) -James Watson (racist) -Luc Montagnier (anti-vaccer) -Knut Hamsun and Martin Heidegger (known and argued nazi sympathizers, respectively) -Steve Jobs (asshole), arguably Some of these are Nobel laureates.

Unfortunately I'm not smart enough to condense an explanation to this comment box— but my disagreement stems from philosophers such as Hubert Dreyfuss (What Computers Can't Do) who are working off of Heidegger and phenomenology.

But I'm not fit to give a full explanation here— thinkers such as Hubert Dreyfuss (What Computers Can't Do) do a much better job of explaining the critique (Dreyfuss is working off of Heidegger and other phenomenalist).

Similar ideas about the historical role of Germany, of the German people, etc, including anti-semitism were held by many German people even before Hitler became known, including prominent philosophers like Heidegger and Carl Smitt, artists and so on.

In colleges we educate on philosophy but to most students that are brought into the classical philosophers, they haven't had the kind of living experience for philosophy to make sense to them, and those that stick with it find themselves in a world that is fundamentally separate and distinct, from the ones that Locke, Hegel and Heidegger wrote about (or not, but it's different enough to make you a little kooky).

Strauss studied with Heidegger, corporations are waging warfare on American citizens, dividing media into "corporate media" and "democratic media." I had to quit reading because the arguments were so poor.

The existentialists (well, at least the one that matters, Heidegger) would say that to be human means that one never forgets a deep "uncanniness" or an emptiness, and that part of the drive to succeed (or do drugs or find god or stay busy driving the kids to soccer practice) is a desire to fill up this fundamental emptiness.

The only "authentic" (Heidegger's term) way forward is to just embrace the "uncanniness", and quit wasting time worrying about how you can't "just enjoy life" or "live always in the moment".

At the same time, one thing that's notable about human intelligence is that, in comparison to source code, the learning and the skills gained in one context can be much very easily mobilized for use other contexts (see Winograd and Flores' use of Martin Heidegger's term "ready at hand" in their critique of AGI, etc).

Heidegger, an amazing existentialist, laid out a lot of problems that AI was going to have in the 50s.

Might be better understood by reading Csikszentmihalyi (or Heidegger, for that matter) 3.

Or, one could also say that Nietszche, Heidegger, and Kierkegaard just had A LOT of bad days and wrote some books about it...