Talk:Dasein

Dasein, blood and soil, and Nazism

I've added a couple of quotes, taken from Martin Heidegger and Nazism. One where Heidegger discusses the relationship between Dasein and "blood and soil", and another where he invokes the concept in support of the Nazi election campaign. It seems to me that these quotes are pretty clear evidence that Heidegger's philosophy and politics were closely intertwined. However, adding the claim would be WP:OR. Conversely, so would commentary seeking to disentangle them, unless based on WP:RS analysis of the quotes in question JQ (talk) 06:25, 31 December 2022 (UTC)

Those quotes aren't a strong demonstration of the point you're trying to make.

Heidegger's philosophy and Nazi sympathies were intertwined because the same person held and expressed them.

This does not mean that Nazism is the necessary conclusion of his approach to philosophy, or of what he's trying to point to with his use of the word Dasein.

The point of Heidegger's approach to philosophy is essentially that he's thinking in real time. He's not putting forth a doctrine; he's exploring an idea or, perhaps more justly, a mode of being. This is amply documented.

Along the way he does establish some concepts (for lack of a better word). Dasein is a tool, not a belief.

For a while, Heidegger thinks Hitler and the NDSAP are the solution to Germany's problems, such as he perceives them. He then made various pro-Nazi speeches in 1933-1934, as part of his rectorate.

While Heidegger never publicly addressed this catastrophic "prise de position", he did talk about it privately. When his friend Frédéric de Towarnicki asked him how he could do such a thing, Heidegger simply responded "Dumbheit", i.e. stupidity.

Heidegger's stupidity here is not in his "concept" of the Dasein (which isn't really a concept, but that is another topic).

Heidegger's stupidity is in not seeing just how incompatible Nazism was not only to his own "philosophy", but to philosophy in general, as he describes it (for instance in the introduction to Sein und Zeit).

The quotes you provide do not prove that Heidegger's use of Dasein, and consequently his entire approach to phenomenology, are inherently "bad", i.e. "racist", "reactionary". "Nazi", etc.

What they do prove is that at that time, he was being stupid. Cmaltais (talk) 18:57, 28 January 2025 (UTC)

The second quote actually does seem quite damning. Michael E. Zimmerman, for instance, has argued that Heidegger's Nazism is partially a consequence of his illegitimate transposition of his account of authenticity from individual Dasein to the German Volk as a whole.

Since this section relies entirely on WP:PRIMARY sources, you would be justified deleting it as WP:ORIGINALRESEARCH. I'd advise against this though. As a new editor, you don't want it to look like you're here to whitewash supporters of the Nazi Party.

The best solution would be to find a WP:SECONDARY source reporting on the scholarly disagreement in neutral terms.

I'll remove part of the section on grounds of being weak original research, but I would advise you leave the rest alone until you have something well-sourced to replace it.

Oh, and thanks for checking in on the talk page before making a potentially controversial edit!

Cheers, Patrick (talk) 20:32, 28 January 2025 (UTC)

Hi Patrick, and thanks for your reply.

While I agree that the second quote is terrible, I still think it is a grave mistake to draw conclusions from it about Heidegger's entire system, if one can call it that.

To explain why, sadly, is a bit ambitious for a Wikipedia discussion. This is more suited to a 40 page essay.

It is in part for this reason that I don't plan to edit the page any time soon. (You're very welcome, by the way.)

The gist of my point is this:

1. There is no question that Heidegger's Nazi engagement is intellectually and morally wrong.

1a. This, I ascribe to stupidity (as H. did himself later on).

2. However, the quotes we use to condemn H.'s philosophy are taken out of context.

2a. What exactly this context is, how it resembles our own (which shapes our comprehension of the matter), and if/how it differs, are some of the crucial matters to be elucidated.

2b. Why our contexts differ, and why this matters, are what would require an essay to demonstrate.

3. Even in context, the quotes are horrendous and indefensible. However, they are not awful for the reasons that appear obvious to us. Not exactly, anyway. We're missing something crucial, and at the same time we're projecting our own issues on the past. Our view is askew.

4. Heidegger's view was also askew.

5. This should give us pause to think about our own certainties, and the perils thereof.

The goal of my comment is to point this out.

Best,

C. Cmaltais (talk) 21:20, 28 January 2025 (UTC)

Excellent judgment. Should you be interested in contributing to Wikipedia's coverage of Heidegger, know there is a lot of room for improvement. Most conspicuously, the main Martin Heidegger article has major gaps, especially post-SZ. If you're interested in doing something like this, feel free to tag me or post to my talk page if I might be able to help. Patrick (talk) 21:35, 28 January 2025 (UTC)

Thanks! I'm honoured.

I'll have a look at the main Heidegger page, and get back to you on your talk page.

Best,

C. Cmaltais (talk) 21:53, 28 January 2025 (UTC)

Template:!)

Our sources about the subject mention Hegel not at all, so he should be mentioned in the article not at all.

WP:OR:

Template:(! class="cquote pullquote" role="presentation" style="margin:auto; border-collapse: collapse; border: none; width: auto;"

Template:!)Remsense ‥ 诉 08:21, 19 August 2024 (UTC)

So far, I have not made any assertion that contradicts WP policy, apparently. -- HLachman (talk) 08:35, 19 August 2024 (UTC)

Template:Xt contradicts the above. Remsense ‥ 诉 08:39, 19 August 2024 (UTC)

OK, let's start at the very beginning, with the wording quoted at the top of this section: "The word Dasein was used by several philosophers before Heiddeger" (sic). This is easily sourced (e.g., the citation removed on 27 Aug 2023). Please quote a WP policy that unambiguously confirms that "Template:!xt". -- HLachman (talk) 09:35, 19 August 2024 (UTC)

Because that's not mentioned by any sources that are actually about the topic, so it's undue weight to present it in the article, as it's giving a connection with 0 representation in sources >0 representation in the article. Remsense ‥ 诉 09:38, 19 August 2024 (UTC)

Again: please quote the actual WP policy (i.e., the relevant statement in that policy) that confirms that the above is prohibited (as opposed to your own personal interpretation of the policy). -- HLachman (talk) 09:50, 19 August 2024 (UTC)

It is essentially the full length of the NPOV quote directly above. If I'm not going to be allowed to make logical deductions or use my own words at all, I will not be participating any further, as that would be an extremely infantilizing restriction that I will not have imposed on me. Remsense ‥ 诉 09:51, 19 August 2024 (UTC)

Responding to your comment, I'm in favor of freedom of speech. I was just trying to determine whether the prohibition in question is present in WP policy by itself, or only in combination with additional interpretation. I apologize if my way of trying to ask for that was off-putting.

Regarding the cited NPOV quote, I see that it doesn't create the prohibition in question (the one I highlighted in red, above). Therefore, to the best of my understanding, the green text (your quote of my assertion) is true, and the red text is unsupported by WP policy as-is. -- HLachman (talk) 10:24, 19 August 2024 (UTC)

Template:Talk quote

Any Template:!xt is a non-aspect of the subject, as it has received no Template:Xt. The due weight for it would be zero, with a nonzero treatment of it being undue weight. Remsense ‥ 诉 10:29, 19 August 2024 (UTC)

I get that you disagree with my opinion. -- HLachman (talk) 10:31, 19 August 2024 (UTC)

Are sources that aren't about the subject (like those being cited for the Hegel quote) being counted as sources about the subject because we personally find them to be interesting, or? These are statements with truth values and I don't understand your insistence that they're not. Remsense ‥ 诉 10:34, 19 August 2024 (UTC)

As far as I can tell, the prohibition in question does not exist in WP policy. I get that you disagree, and I don't see how your commentary on the policy leads to some other conclusion. -- HLachman (talk) 10:39, 19 August 2024 (UTC)

Due weight means 0% is due 0%, just like 5% is due 5%, and 100% is due 100%. Space is not free, as Template:Xt You do not get to opt out of this when you feel like it, or else the concept is meaningless. Remsense ‥ 诉 10:41, 19 August 2024 (UTC)

I already said multiple times, I don't think the wording in question violated WP:DUE (starting with #8 in my original post, above). This is the 4th time I've said it. I seem to be repeating myself. I need to take a break from this discussion, as I have limited time available. Perhaps it would be a good idea to get opinions from other editors. -- HLachman (talk) 10:51, 19 August 2024 (UTC)

I have an inkling you have continued assuming the scope of this article is "philosophical use, more broadly construed". Otherwise, if you accept the scope is "Heideggerean use", then your #8 is not defensible. Remsense ‥ 诉 10:55, 19 August 2024 (UTC)

Template:Outdent

I agree with Remsense that your objections depend upon an interpretation of the topic of this article as being about philosophical usage of the word Dasein in general (which is not an encyclopedic topic), rather than Heidegger's influential but idiosyncratic use of the word as a technical term. In an effort to bring this thread to an end, I did the research for you and provided the text of a source by a scholar of both Hegel and Heidegger that explicitly contrasts Heidegger's use of the word with that of previous German philosophers. My intention was that you would use it to support a reworded version of your claim. Since you instead continue to argue for a version that is WP:OR, I have reintroduced the point myself with Inwood (1992) as the supporting citation. Patrick (talk) 19:28, 19 August 2024 (UTC)

My proposal in this Talk section is only that the deleted content be restored (which includes the removals listed at the top of this section, and by extension, the removals that have occurred during this conversation, including the section title "Heidegger's reinterpretation" and the Jaspers material), and that it not be removed unless consensus is reached in favor of it's removal (as recommended by WP:E, which suggests improving or at least tagging the content being objected to). I am not volunteering to compose new wording for the article. Also, I've pointed out several instances of fallacies in the application of WP policy, and those points are repeatedly ignored, I just get told I'm "wrong" without my points being addressed. Also, saying that my suggestions constitute WP:OR is false, yet I accept that you hold that opinion. Conversely, it's my opinion that the apparent "Heidegger monopoly" premise is false and/or WP:OR (i.e., that "Template:!xt"). This appears to be a POV, and possibly OR, that's operative in your and Remsense's argumentation (especially considering the lack of any RS explicitly confirming that premise), and raises the question of whether there's an attempt at censorship. You said that you agree with Remsense, and that's fine, people are entitled to their opinions. I, on the other hand, agree with @NONIS STEFANO and @Velho, who expressed a preference for retaining the removed wording. I looked up Dasein in the German Wikipedia, and it appears to be a more well-written article than this one overall, in my opinion. At the very least, they're obviously not hung up on the aforementioned "Heidegger monopoly" premise. Maybe we can learn something from them. -- HLachman (talk) 00:24, 20 August 2024 (UTC)

Well of course the German article is different. In English the term is rarely used outside of writings on Heidegger. In German it's a normal word that refers to an encyclopedic topic similar to existence in English.

Also, are you actually saying that you're not here to improve the article, but just to enforce your individual rights? Patrick (talk) 01:16, 20 August 2024 (UTC)

Could you please stop accusing me of improper intentions? It does nothing to support your views, and it also does nothing to respond to the points I've made. WP:DR, WP:TALK and WP:BRD suggest coming to the Talk page to share ideas and opinions on how to improve the article. In this case, my opinion is that the article was better before the removal of the wording in question. As far as I can tell, proposing to make the article better by going back to a previous version is allowed under WP policy. Proposing to revert an edit (the deletion) does not require me to volunteer to craft new wording, especially when I find the old wording to be satisfactory. Furthermore, making me defend my intentions, and continuing to do that repeatedly, causes a waste of time, space and effort (like me having to write this defense of myself... again).

While I object to being attacked, I have nothing against my ideas being challenged -- but as I pointed out already, so far, nobody has been able to point out any false statement I've made, only register their opinion that they disagree with my opinions, which is fine by me, everyone is entitled to an opinion. If you can show how something I said is false, then quote what it was and prove it. And if you have a different opinion, then just say it.

Once again -- let's get back to discussing the article. This is about the article, not me, thank you.

I'm not convinced of the "normal word" argument. I have not seen an RS confirming your apparent premise that Template:!xt (this is just a variation on the above-mentioned "Heidegger monopoloy" premise). I have not seen an RS or WP policy that specifies the "right" way to make such a determination. In the absence of that, it's just an opinion. Maybe you should find an RS that actually says this, rather than just assuming it to be true.

Where that leaves us is that the original removal of the wording in question appears to depend on at least three premises around which no consensus has been established, all three being highlighted in red, above (the first one being a dubious premise about WP policy, and the other two being dubious premises about the subject matter). Maybe you could try to get WP:CONSENSUS around the red premises, but I wouldn't be optimistic. -- HLachman (talk) 03:18, 20 August 2024 (UTC)

When people use the word Dasein in English, what do they mean? How can the aforementioned question not be the starting point? Let's circumambulate quoting policy for the moment—can you articulate another approach that is logically plausible?Remsense ‥ 论 03:27, 20 August 2024 (UTC)

To answer your question (as I usually do -- sometimes I ask a question and don't get an answer)... I can't claim to know what other people mean, as different people can mean different things (for example, some might include Hegel's concepts and some might not). Regarding the 2nd question, one can just recognize that the assumptions in red don't have consensus. Regarding the 3rd question, once one refrains from making the red assumptions, then restoring the removed wording does not cause any problem. Or that's one way to deal with it, and it's the way I suggest. Thanks for asking.

However, as I mentioned several times, my time may be limited in the coming days. If there's further discussion and I don't respond, please assume that my opinions remain as stated. I think I've already expressed them clearly, and exhaustively (both literally and figuratively). -- HLachman (talk) 04:08, 20 August 2024 (UTC)

Genuine apologies, as I have asked a lot while skipping over your own. I'll try here. I'm going to assume the questions about which policies I've read were rhetorical (which is fine by me, to be clear). The only other one I see is about me dismissing comparisons to other pages out of hand. Would you still want me to answer that, or are there others I've looked over once more? Remsense ‥ 论 04:16, 20 August 2024 (UTC)

Hegel's use of Dasein is already covered at Science_of_Logic#Determinate_Being_(Quality). There is a large enough literature to support the creation of a redirect to this section, although probably not enough to justify an independent article, with a title such as Template:Tq. (I'm not going to do this, however, because it would be very difficult to interpret as anything other than an ex post facto justification of my proposal to rename this article.) Patrick (talk) 18:52, 20 August 2024 (UTC)

The problem is that you're not providing reasons to explain the superiority of your preferred version. If I could see how it was superior, I would not even care that it's probably OR/SNTH.

It should be possible to do this in a few short paragraphs that probably don't even need to mention Wikipedia policy at all. Patrick (talk) 18:41, 20 August 2024 (UTC)

For readers who somehow made it this far down in the thread and are perhaps still confused, I believe that the proposal on the table is to replace the current version of the article with this one[1]. @HLachman will please correct me if I am wrong, but I believe the primary point of contention is the section title and first paragraph of the first section of the article.

Cheers, Patrick (talk) 16:40, 21 August 2024 (UTC)

Without prejudice to the fact that the best proposal among those under discussion, in my opinion, is that of @HLachman: "My proposal in this Talk section is only that the deleted content be restored (which includes the removals listed at the top of this section, and by extension, the removals that have occurred during this conversation, including the section title 'Heidegger's reinterpretation' and the Jaspers material), and that it not be removed unless consensus is reached in favor of its removal", I believe that, at this point, the latest proposal by @Patrick Welsh([2]) may be acceptable. NONIS STEFANO (talk) 16:40, 22 August 2024 (UTC)

That's the exact opposite of what site policy says to do—per WP:ONUS, Template:Xt Remsense ‥ 论 20:32, 22 August 2024 (UTC)

I vote for keeping the wording until 2023. Velho (talk) 17:44, 16 August 2024 (UTC)

Welcome to the discussion. Would you mind explaining your rationale? Wikipedia is WP:NOTDEMOCRACY, and disagreements are not resolved by vote. Patrick (talk) 18:05, 16 August 2024 (UTC)

(meta-discussion)

For the information of other participants: @NONIS STEFANO and @Velho are here in response to solicitations [3] and [4] by @HLachman in violation of the guideline against WP:Canvassing. I am still entirely willing to consider any arguments they put forward. But, please, a little more effort engaging on the issues, okay? Thank you, Patrick (talk) 22:57, 16 August 2024 (UTC)

It certainly borders on votestacking, so it's nice to be made aware. Remsense ‥ 诉 23:10, 16 August 2024 (UTC)

If I may respond to the accusation against me ("violation of the guideline against WP:Canvassing"): I disagree that the guideline was violated. Per policy WP:RUCD and guideline WP:TALK#NOMETA, I address this concern more fully in the User-talk space (here). I respectfully request that we honor those policies and guidelines, along with WP:ASSUMEGOODFAITH. Thank you. -- HLachman (talk) 04:02, 17 August 2024 (UTC)

I'm sure everyone involved would be very happy for us all to just focus upon together improving the article. That's what I take myself to have been doing, but maybe we would have better results if you kicked things off. Please, have a go! Patrick (talk) 05:35, 17 August 2024 (UTC)

I trust that I've adequately addressed your meta-topic in the user-talk space. For now, I've added a "meta-discussion" subsection header, in order to separate it from the discussion about article content. Regarding article content, I've pretty much said what I have to say about it already, but will add a response to your latest comment above. -- HLachman (talk) 06:39, 17 August 2024 (UTC)

EXCESSIVELY LONG DEBATE ABOUT TRIVIAL "OR" SINCE CORRECTED
Removal of wording about earlier usage Some wording that was present in the article for many years was removed. I suggest that the wording be retained. Timeline of additions and removals: 15 Feb 2008: added "The word Dasein was used by several philosophers before Heiddeger, ..." 01 Nov 2009: added "most notably Ludwig Feuerbach, ..." 08 Jul 2012: changed "Ludwig Feuerbach" to "Georg Wilhelm Friedrich Hegel" (who was earlier) 05 May 2020: added additional details (including citation to G.W.F. Hegel) 27 Aug 2023: removal of the above 13 Aug 2024: re-added the above 13 Aug 2024: re-removal of the above Reasons to retain the content in question: The content did not clearly violate any Wikipedia policy. The content was sourced. The content was in the article for over a decade (and the original wording for 15 years), with apparently no controversy. The section title "Heidegger's reinterpretation" clearly indicates that it's about a reinterpretation on the part of Heidegger, and this title (or similar) was also in the article for many years. The longevity of that title and supporting content establishes it as relevant, as hundreds of editors have seen it and not removed it. Removing information about previous interpretations of "Dasein" in philosophical contexts negates that section's obvious and established meaning and purpose. Suppression of any information that the word "Dasein" was used in philosophical contexts prior to Heidegger gives the false impression that Heidegger was the first to do so. The article title is "Dasein", not "Dasein (Heidegger concept)", which means the article is not required to contain only Heidegger-specific information. While there may be subjective preference for one philosopher over another (WP:POV), no objective reason has been given why only one preferred philosopher's interpretation should be covered and some other philosopher's excluded. Even readers interested only in the Heidegger-specific information may still need to know the overall history, that the term was used by other philosophers (not to provide a dictionary, just historical accuracy). If other philosophers' usages of "Dasein" are less commonly known, WP:DUE suggests giving those usages less coverage. This was already the case before the removal. Removing long-standing and sourced content, on the basis of one editor's opinion that certain things are not relevant, seems to run counter to various Wikipedia policies, including WP:POV ("Generally, do not remove sourced information from the encyclopedia solely because it seems biased") and WP:E ("Rather than remove imperfect content outright, fix problems if you can, tag or excise them if you can't"). In short: for the above reasons, it's unclear that long-standing content (over a decade) that has potential value and relevance should be removed. I propose that it be retained, or at least restored and then tagged as needed (as suggested by WP:E). -- HLachman (talk) 03:00, 14 August 2024 (UTC) Hi @HLachman, Thanks for using the talk page! Article history does not carry any weight on Wikipedia, so I'll respond just in terms of the current version and current policy/guidelines. As best I can see, the only use of the German term "Dasein" that meets the notability criteria for inclusion on English Wikipedia is Heidegger's use, which is such a departure from the normal meaning of the word (whether in ordinary conversation or in academic philosophy) that translators just threw up their hands. By contrast, all of the English translations of Hegel's work translate his use of "Daseyn", although they do so in different ways. Put differently, I deleted the mention of Hegel because Heidegger is not developing Hegel's concept; he is starting a new conversation about something else. If mentioning Hegel helped to clarify Heidegger's meaning, I would have no objections. As far as I can see, however, it only introduces unnecessary complications. I don't think it's worth changing the title of the article, but maybe it would be appropriate to add a hatnote to clarify the topic and perhaps also to link out to German Wiktionary and the English article existence? In any event, I'm going to go ahead right now and change the section header "Heidegger's reinterpretation" to "Meaning". Its opening sentence already clarifies that the meaning under discussion is non-standard. Cheers, Patrick (talk) 17:43, 14 August 2024 (UTC) @Patrick Welsh: I reverted your edit to the section header, because it was done unilaterally while the material in question is being discussed (here), and seems to have been done without regard for the reasons why that title was chosen in the first place. This exacerbates the problem I raised rather than solving it. Now, I'll respond to your individual points: "Article history does not carry any weight on Wikipedia". Longevity, by itself, was not my point. It's that many editors saw the text over that period, and saw nothing controversial in it. I'm questioning whether, in that situation, the opinion of one editor warrants removing the text (rather than, say, improving or tagging it), while also considering that multiple other editors apparently support including it (i.e., those editors who added or modified that text, plus myself). You referenced WP:NOTABILITY. That policy says, "The notability guideline does not determine the content of articles, but only whether the topic may have its own article." Therefore, it's not relevant to this discussion. "I deleted the mention of Hegel because Heidegger is not developing Hegel's concept". That, by itself, doesn't justify removing the content. If it did, one might edit the Google article to remove mention of "googol", or edit the Engelbert Humperdinck (singer) article to remove mention of the German composer, or edit the Operation Warp Speed article to remove mention of Star Trek, or edit the Computer article to remove mention of the earlier meaning, "a person who carried out calculations or computations"... all on the basis of the later thing being separate from the earlier thing. But nobody is doing that, or even suggesting it. "it only introduces unnecessary complications". It didn't. But if you think the meaning wasn't clear, you could improve the wording to clarify it. "I don't think it's worth changing the title of the article". Nobody suggested doing so. "maybe it would be appropriate to add a hatnote to clarify the topic". Probably not. It was pretty clear before. In short, I've addressed all of your points. You haven't addressed all of mine (there were 9 of them). Therefore, for the reasons I gave in my original post above, I'm still in favor of retaining the deleted text. -- HLachman (talk) 01:39, 16 August 2024 (UTC) Template:Talk quote Yes, this is merely the standard argument from longevity. It's considered lacking because this is the strongest possible interpretation of events: it's equally if not more plausible that editors do not notice, or notice and do not spend their time correcting, specific flaws. It's simply not an argument worth making in any case, see WP:BEENHERE. Template:Talk quote It's fairly common (and fairly harmless) for editors to conflate notability with the related intra-article content policies of due weight and balance, as was likely intended here. The point being made is the prominence afforded to this statement in the article does not reflect its prominence in the sources. Template:Talk quote Similarly, it's not the most illuminating to make arguments merely based on what errors other articles may or may not contain, see WP:OTHERCONTENT. Patrick's core point is that the article is not about the German word , it's about the concept as formulated in our sources—i.e. predominantly a Heideggerean concept. If secondary analysis does not make note of possible connections to the work of others, we shouldn't either just because the same string of letters happened to appear. This could result in claims constituting original research if we insist that two distinct things should be related without any sources having done so first. Patrick has articulated multiple points that indicate Hegel's use is simply irrelevant to the article's subject—what is understood to be a specifically Heideggerean concept. Remsense ‥ 诉 02:01, 16 August 2024 (UTC) Responding: "Patrick's core point is that the article is not about the German word Dasein". Actually, I wasn't suggesting that the article should be about the German word, only that it provide the reader with information about how "Dasein" has been used as a philosophical term. "editors do not notice, or notice and do not spend their time correcting, specific flaws". I agree that we don't know their opinions about this content. But some editors are apparently in favor of it (those who added or modified that content, plus myself). And some editors aren't. I'm not sure we have enough opinions to claim consensus on either side. "just because the same string of letters happened to appear". I never put that forth as a reason. I'm only concerned about readers who are interested to know how "Dasein" has been used as a philosophical term. "Hegel's use is simply irrelevant to the article's subject". I don't personally have a conclusion about how relevant or irrelevant the other authors are (e.g., Hegel and Feuerbach). Cited sources show them all discussing "being" (as a philosophical concept) in one way or another. "it's not the most illuminating to make arguments merely based on what errors other articles may or may not contain". I didn't mean to say or imply that those other articles are in error (and to say that they have errors seems to be an assumption). I'm just saying that it's fairly ordinary for an encyclopedia (Wikipedia or otherwise) to include information about prior usages of a given term, especially if it's within the same field. "intra-article content policies of due weight and balance". I was the first to reference that policy (see #8, above). Nobody responded to my point on that. Note that there are sources discussing prior usages of "Dasein" as a philosophical term, one is the Hegel citation that was deleted, and here are two others (from plato.stanford.edu and www.researchgate.net). While the prior usages may be far less known than Heidegger's, merely adding a single sentence about them (such as in the deleted text) would seem to be consistent with WP:DUE (in support of my point #8, also #5 and #7). Therefore, I'm still in favor of retaining the deleted text (while being open to other opinions). -- HLachman (talk) 04:02, 16 August 2024 (UTC) Hello. First of all I would like to point out that my old edit (2020) was caused by an error on the page: "The term has been used by several philosophers before Heidegger, most notably Georg Wilhelm Friedrich Hegel, with the meaning of human 'existence' or 'presence'". I had left the first part of the sentence, but I deleted the last part using the original source of Hegel, whose thought had been distorted. Therefore, what had been present on the page for years was at least misleading, and I tried to remedy the errors of others, without wanting to complicate things, but rather to clarify them. For the rest, I fully agree with the theses supported by @HLachman. NONIS STEFANO (talk) 06:35, 16 August 2024 (UTC) There's nothing I've seen in what you cited that connects Hegel's use of the term with the Heideggerean sense. You seem to be conflating Template:Xt with a mere parenthetical mention of the original term used by a text, which is all that each cited source does. This is because the uses are not particularly related, and thus not worth artificially fusing into one topic for an encyclopedia article. It's not one "philosophical term" separate from just Existence. The coherent scope of the topic is Heideggar's use specifically, as we are not a dictionary. Remsense ‥ 诉 06:52, 16 August 2024 (UTC) Wow! I hope all this attention to the article results in some broader improvements. Thanks all, for chiming in. The item we need to clearly establish before any further discussion is that the topic of the article is "Dasein" as a technical term in Heidegger's philosophy, and that it is Template:Em the German word Dasein or even Dasein as other German philosophers have used it. An article about the word would not survive an AfD, whereas Heidegger's term certainly would. Readers who (somehow) find themselves here looking when for the general meaning of existence should be directed to that article or to ontology. I'm am proceeding as if we do agree on this. Please speak up if you do not. It is certainly true that Hegel means something different by Daseyn (the old timey spelling is preserved in the critical editions, modernized to Dasein in most others) than what Heidegger means (and when Heidegger starts to use archaic spellings, he does intend for this to have philosophical significance). My objection is not even primarily about sourcing or other Wikipedia policy as such. It is about keeping the article on topic and, more specifically, avoid potentially misleading readers into thinking that Heidegger's analysis of Dasein was a response to Hegel specifically. It's just that citing policy is generally faster and easier for all editors involved. If Hegel is to be mentioned in this context, it should probably be just as one member of an incomplete list, and this should be sourced to the secondary literature on Heidegger. A better solution, however, would probably be explain that Heidegger considered the Template:Em to have lost its way. This includes people writing in Latin and French just as much as those writing in German. The problem is that, according to Heidegger, everyone since at least the Presocratics has misrepresented being as such as the present-at-hand being of entities or substance. They fail to recognize what Heidegger thematizes as ontological difference. His analysis of Dasein is introduced as a methodological starting point into a novel conception of fundamental ontology, that is, an inquiry into the meaning of being qua being. In short, there are a lot of ways the article could be improved with respect to historical contextualization, but pointing to one or two other German philosophers using the word in a more normal way does not, as far as I can see, provide such context. An analogy: If I wrote a book claiming that it is phenomenologically impermissible to speak of "the human being" or "the individual", but only of our activity of "exist-ing", it would not help to clarify this willfully idiosyncratic practice by pointing out that Russell uses "exist" and its cognates in different ways closer to the dictionary sense. Two other points: I initially left the Jaspers section because I have not read him and thought that there was at least a good chance that he was responding to Heidegger in a way that just wasn't clear in the body of the article. Looking at the talk history, however, I see the editor who added this section was working on the assumption the article was about just the word, and that Jaspers's concept has no relation to Heidegger. Unless someone steps up with a source to the contrary, it should be deleted. This discussion and the talk history indicate that this article does need at least a hatnote and maybe a title change. I will wait to act on these point, however, until this discussion reaches its conclusion. Cheers, Patrick (talk) 17:28, 16 August 2024 (UTC) If I understand your suggestion, we need to treat the following as distinct: (a) the German word Dasein, (b) Dasein as other German philosophers have used it, and (c) "Dasein" as a technical term in Heidegger's philosophy. I think that's fine. But, when you say "one or two other German philosophers using the word in a more normal way", it sounds like you're claiming that (b) is merely an instance of (a), but I don't know whether that's objectively true or WP:OR. The sources I mentioned previously (stanford, researchgate, and Hegel himself) seem to indicate that Hegel and Feuerbach used it as a technical term in their philosophical writings, so (b) appears to be distinct from (a). The premise being presented appears to be that if the article is about (c), and sufficient connection between (c) and (b) has not been demonstrated, then (b) should not be mentioned. That logic would seem to imply that (a) should not be mentioned either, yet it's still in the article, and I agree with (a) being there (and I don't think it violates any WP policy), so I would question that logic. Prior to the removal of the wording in question (mentioning Hegel, etc.), even though the article was primarily about (c), both (a) and (b) were also mentioned, and I did not see a problem in that. As I see it, the main advantage of retaining that wording is as stated in my original point #7 above (and I don't think #7, by itself, violates any WP policy). The main disadvantage of retaining that wording, according to the above posts, appears to be the potential for confusion. I didn't find the wording to be confusing at all. Therefore, in my opinion, the advantage of retaining the wording outweighs the disadvantage, and my suggestion is to retain the removed wording. If someone thinks it's confusing, they can word it in a clearer way. HLachman (talk) 23:00, 17 August 2024 (UTC) The article as written is about Heidegger's usage, as has been reified in reliable sources. Any mention of the work of other philosophers as related requires that connection to be made in a reliable source as well. Remsense ‥ 诉 23:09, 17 August 2024 (UTC) Then why is (a) (the ordinary German word) mentioned in the article? Is there a WP:RS that connects Heidegger's usage to the ordinary German word? Or is it the "string of letters" argument (which you earlier claimed to be invalid)? -- HLachman (talk) 00:03, 18 August 2024 (UTC) Template:Talk quote Yes. Remsense ‥ 诉 01:40, 18 August 2024 (UTC) There are hundreds. Two appear already to have been given, although the Dreyfus needs a page number and I haven't checked the dictionary. Patrick (talk) 02:06, 18 August 2024 (UTC) I've provided a source below. The Hegel connection, however, is so attenuated that I do not see it meriting more than a footnote, if that. No one who knows the German terms for Hegel's logical thought-determinations needs to be told that his usage is not connected to Heidegger's, and mentioning him and/or Feuerbach seems to me most likely to confuse, rather than enlighten. Patrick (talk) 02:22, 18 August 2024 (UTC) Regarding the comment ("Any mention of the work of other philosophers as related requires that connection to be made in a reliable source as well"): As far as I've seen, there's no WP policy prohibiting an article about a specific usage of a term from mentioning that there have been other usages of the same term in the same field, or that if it were mentioned, then there must be an RS explaining the relationship between usages A and B. In fact, there are many examples that such mention is common practice. In the music field, there's the one I mentioned above (Engelbert Humperdinck -- the response I got referred to this as "errors other articles may or may not contain", but it's not an error). In the computing field, the article on "computer file" briefly mentions a more obscure IBM-specific meaning of "file", referring to an entire disk drive, without citing an RS connecting it to the common usage. And the article on "Internet" briefly mentions the term being applied in radio in the 1940s, again, without citing an RS connecting it to the common usage. So, it appears that WP policy neither prohibits nor requires inclusion of the wording in question, and many articles contain similar kinds of mentions, so apparently it's up to editor opinion. My opinion is to include the removed wording, because I thought it was useful and not confusing. If the specific mention of other philosophers (like Hegel) is the issue, then I wonder if you're OK with the original edit (15 Feb 2008), which didn't name any, or if your opinion is that the mere mention that other usages even existed at all should be suppressed from public view (which sounds draconian to me). My opinion is that it's not only OK to mention, but also informative, and also common practice in WP, and not violating any policies. My suggestion is to restore the original wording, including the Hegel mention, and also including the Jaspers material (which I now see has just been removed). My suggestion is that if some editors think there's some confusion, then they should add clarifying wording rather that eliminate the content wholesale, and this suggestion is supported by WP:E, as I already noted above (and I might not post much more on this matter, as I have limited time available, and I think I've expressed my views fully already). -- HLachman (talk) 23:59, 18 August 2024 (UTC) Template:Talkquote It's a rather fundamental one, called Undue weight. Template:Talkquote It's a rather fundamental one, called No original research. We reflect what the sources say and do not insert our own commentary on what we personally find important about a subject.Remsense ‥ 诉 00:02, 19 August 2024 (UTC) Perhaps you misunderstood my points. To respond to your objections more specifically: "No original research". All the cases I mentioned (Humperdinck, computer file, Internet, and in this article, the Hegel and Jaspers content) were examples of a lesser-known usage of a term being mentioned in an article about the more widely-known usage. And in all cases, there are RS confirming that those lesser-known usages did, in fact, exist (including in the deletions from this article). The fact that they're all sourced means it's not OR. I agree with your observation that, in each of those cases, there was no RS showing the relationship between usage A (the more widely-known) and usage B (the lesser-known). That's not an "error" (as you previously claimed), because none of those articles made any assertion specifying a relationship between usages A and B. If your meaning is that when there's an assertion specifying a relationship between usages A and B, that assertion should be sourced, then of course I agree with you. But that's moot, because none of the cases I cited (either involving this article or elsewhere) actually made that assertion, and were therefore not OR. You seem to be claiming that an assertion that's not even being made needs to be sourced. Obviously, there's no WP policy requiring that. And that's why all the examples I gave (in other articles) continue to exist. "Undue weight". This is exactly the reason why those instances in the examples I gave are allowed. In all of those cases, the vast majority of the article is about the more widely-known usage of the term, and the lesser-known usage is given a brief mention. The above are the specific reasons why inclusion of the removed wording (including the Hegel wording as well as the Jaspers wording) violate neither WP:DUE nor WP:NOR. In short: the actual assertions that were made were sourced. -- HLachman (talk) 01:16, 19 August 2024 (UTC) The only reason other uses would be mentioned is because you think they are relevant to the article topic (Heideggar's sense); this is not a perspective that is reflected in the sources. Including any mention would be undue, and explicitly stating any connection would additionally be OR. Remsense ‥ 诉 02:45, 19 August 2024 (UTC) "Undue" according to you, not WP policy. If it were WP policy, then the other articles I mentioned (Humperdinck, computer file, and Internet) would be in violation of WP policy, and they're not. As I said already, WP policy neither requires nor prohibits that type of content, leaving it up to editor opinion. My opinion is clear, and so is yours. -- HLachman (talk) 03:26, 19 August 2024 (UTC) Did you read the policies in question? Moreover, what errors other articles may or may not have are totally irrelevant to the question of whether the contents of this article violate policy. (See WP:OTHERCONTENT.) If the situation in those articles is similar (I am not looking, since it does not matter) then they violate policy too, yes. Many articles do. Remsense ‥ 诉 03:32, 19 August 2024 (UTC) First, to answer your question, yes. Did you? Second, nobody established that there are any errors of the kind you mention (in fact, there aren't any), so I don't know why you keep referring to them as errors. Third, WP:OTHERCONTENT is an essay, not a policy or guideline. Fourth, even if we were to regard WP:OTHERCONTENT as operative, one might note that it says: "comparative statements should not be dismissed out of hand unless they lack any deeper reasoning", which is exactly what you're doing. Did you read it? If so, why are you not following its advice? My points stand on their own as valid, even without referencing the other articles, and are not indicative of any WP policy violation. I get that you have a different opinion from mine (concerning both article content and policy interpretation). Really, I get it. Last but not least: having offered my input, I was hoping to not have a long, drawn-out debate on this talk-page, but I'll respond in order to clear up misunderstandings as needed, if they arise, and if I have time (and I might not). -- HLachman (talk) 07:21, 19 August 2024 (UTC) It's an essay meant to provide extra verbiage and insight for what is a basic logical conclusion as to how editing works. You have no citations connecting Hegel's terminology to the subject of this article, so it isn't going to be a relevant addition. This is not meaningfully a statement of opinion, if we trust language to have any agreed meaning whatsoever. There's no getting around that you're just wrong here, and I do not know how to make this clearer. That Wikipedia's policies "neither requires nor prohibits that type of content, leaving it up to editor opinion" is simply false: we are not given license by NPOV as to what irrelevant tangents we feel like subjecting readers to. We reflect what sources say about a subject, and for this subject they don't say a damn thing about Hegel. That's all I have. I have attempted to link where policies say as such, and I have attempted to couch it in different ways here.Remsense ‥ 诉 07:24, 19 August 2024 (UTC) First, I prefer to go with what WP policy actually says rather than your interpretation of it. Second, I answered the question you asked me, but you didn't answer the 3 questions I just asked you. Third, I gave actual, meaningful reasons why I disagree with you, and nobody has pointed out how any specific assertion I made was a false statement. Fourth, as I already said, I get it that you disagree with me. Really, I get it. It's not necessary to keep saying I'm wrong over and over again. This is getting repetitive, and I might not respond unless there's something new and meaningful added to the conversation. -- HLachman (talk) 08:04, 19 August 2024 (UTC) Template:Outdent WP:NPOV: Template:(! class="cquote pullquote" role="presentation" style="margin:auto; border-collapse: collapse; border: none; width: auto;"	“	Template:Trim quotes	”
“	Template:Trim quotes	”

Removing italics from "Dasein" in article and title

Per discussion above, "Dasein" has been imported into the English-language scholarship as a technical term, not a German word. I checked the M&R and Stambaugh (1st ed. & revision) translations of SZ, and both render the term in roman, as does at least what secondary literature I have on my shelf. Unless anyone is aware of a recent and widespread change in practice, I will bring the article into compliance.

If the title is going to be changed, as I am now convinced it should be, I would propose adding the paranthetical Template:Tq in addition to removing the italics.

Does anyone object to this or have any alternatives for us to consider? Patrick (talk) 23:38, 16 August 2024 (UTC)

As far as I've seen, parentheticals are recommended only when needed to avoid multiple articles having the same title. As a parallel example, Synchronicity is about the Jungian concept, with no disambiguation suffix like "(Jungian concept)". -- HLachman (talk) 00:39, 18 August 2024 (UTC)

In this case there is a history of confusion. I would be surprised if anyone objected on grounds of Wikipedia style.

If, however, you or anyone else has any objections on the basis of content, please share now so that we can discuss before I make the request. Patrick (talk) 02:25, 18 August 2024 (UTC)

I don't think the parenthetical is needed here, but I wouldn't mind either way if others feel differently. As for italics, I think roman style would be justified for the reasons given: I was originally going to object based on rough parallels with literature about Chinese philosophy, but if it's regularly rendered in Roman in the literature here it seems good to me. Remsense ‥ 诉 02:45, 18 August 2024 (UTC)

Just did it as you were responding! It's not something I feel strongly about though if there are good reasons to revert.

As to the title, I would not have included the parenthetical if I were writing this from scratch. But there is a history of understandable confusion, and getting Heidegger into the title is the best way I can think to avoid future editorial conflicts about the matter. Patrick (talk) 02:58, 18 August 2024 (UTC)

I'd lean toward no parenthetical, if only because of policy WP:PARENDIS ("Adding a disambiguating term in parentheses after the ambiguous name is Wikipedia's standard disambiguation technique when none of the other solutions lead to an optimal article title."). Also, I'm not sure there's any precedent for using a parenthetical when there's no other article with a title that would otherwise collide. Regarding a history of confusion, it's not clear that there's been one. Even if Heidegger were in a parenthetical, I'd still have the same opinion as I expressed above (that it would be OK to include a brief mention that other authors used the same word as a philosophical term before). I'll elaborate further in the above section. -- HLachman (talk) 23:02, 18 August 2024 (UTC)

Template:Talk quote

There's at least a few linked near that section, e.g. Wiegenlied, D 498 (Schubert) Remsense ‥ 诉 23:07, 18 August 2024 (UTC)

Requested move 19 August 2024

The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review after discussing it on the closer's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

The result of the move request was: not moved. (closed by non-admin page mover) BilledMammal (talk) 13:33, 27 August 2024 (UTC)

---

Dasein → Dasein (Heideggerian term)Dasein (Heideggerian term) – The topic of this article is Heidegger's use of "Dasein" as a technical term. This usage clearly meets WP:NOTABILITY. Historically, however, there has been considerable confusion over its scope that would expand it to cover any usage of this ordinary German word in a philosophical context. This violates WP:NOTADICTIONARY and would fail a WP:AfD.

For examples of this confusion, see, for instance this post (Template:Tq) or this one immediately following it, both from 17 or more years ago. For a recent example, see this (very long) thread that is currently active. I introduced this proposal on the talk page yesterday with no clear consensus so far emerging either way.

Please note that this is a request to both removal the italics currently on "Dasein" in order to accord with the practice of English translators and scholars, as well as adding the parenthetical to specify the topic in a way that will help to clarify it for readers and to prevent future confusion among editors. Patrick (talk) 19:52, 19 August 2024 (UTC)

• Oppose. Parentheticals on Wikipedia are used only for disambiguation. No indication that this should be a WP:NOPRIMARY situation. 162 etc. (talk) 22:03, 19 August 2024 (UTC)
• Oppose. The issue here cannot be fixed by adding baggage to the title. Srnec (talk) 01:01, 20 August 2024 (UTC)

Comment from nom: Thank you both for coming by to look this and weigh in! I have little experience dealing with this process.

Two independent points, however, in response:

No. 1: If there is a good response to @162 etc. in defense of the parenthetical, and I do not know whether there is, I believe it would be the following:

Although there are not currently other articles on Dasein, there are other philosophical concepts that meet Wikipedia nobility criteria, but which do not yet exist. This section of the article about one of Hegel's books would be entirely suitable for a redirect from Template:Tq, about which there is a large literature (but which is almost always presented in the context of Hegel's larger project, as just makes sense). Inwood (1992) mentions three other philosophical usages, and an editor here has produced two high-quality sources on the word in the philosophy of Feuerbach.

If this is not relevant, however, I've no interest in arguing against policy.

No. 2: Would you consider supporting just the removal of foreign language italics currently put on "Dasein"? It is contrary to the general practice of Heidegger's translators and scholars.

Cheers, Patrick (talk) 01:52, 20 August 2024 (UTC)

The italics, I believe, are as per MOS:WORDSASWORDS, or perhaps MOS:FOREIGNITALICS. 162 etc. (talk) 16:25, 20 August 2024 (UTC)

The weird thing here is that English translators and scholars most often treat the word as if it has been incorporated into English and so do not use italics as one normally would. This is the case in both translations of the central text on Dasein, Being and Time. I checked their translators' introductions, however, and neither explains this non-standard practice.

In any case, because of the confusion around the issue, it seems like changing the font style is probably not going to be helpful to readers or editors without also adding the parenthetical, for which there is currently only clear statements of opposition.

I think I will leave this proposal open for the full period anyway, just to see if anyone drops by with more expert knowledge on Heidegger and the issues with translating his work such as might shed a new light on the matter. If not, I'll just go back to the talk page and attempt to find some other way to address the ongoing lack of clarity about the topic of the article.

Cheers, Patrick (talk) 16:35, 21 August 2024 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.