Talk:Martin Heidegger

Hi @Patrick Welsh and @Rzvas, both of you have removed the clause "who is considered a leading figure of twentieth-century continental philosophy.^[1]", cited to the first sentence of the corresponding article on the Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy. As far as I'm concerned this is a significantly more authoritative source than any single editor's editorial viewpoint. See the first sentence of our article on Jean-Paul Sartre - I use Sartre as an example here because he is known for having conducted an extensive philosophical dialogue with Heidegger over some of the central questions of 20th-century philosophy, see Sartre's Existentialism is a Humanism and Heidegger's reply. The Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy is not publishing "puffery" by describing Heidegger as being "a central figure in the development of twentieth-century European Philosophy".

Additionally, I would like to understand the justification for restoring the Bannon bit. I don't understand why praise by "an American media executive, political strategist, pundit and former investment banker" is a due inclusion in a section on Heidegger's influence. As far as I'm aware, Heidegger is still one of the most commonly-cited continental philosophers of the 20th century; I don't believe that Bannon has been published in the field. DiodotusNicator (talk) 05:33, 3 March 2026 (UTC)

"considered a leading figure of twentieth-century continental philosophy" is POV given his general reception is negative.

Do you have any scholarly sources that support these compliments about him? Rzvas (talk) 12:24, 3 March 2026 (UTC)

"general reception is negative" Huh? The lead is supposed to summarize the body, have you read the Influence section in the body?

Additionally, you're telling me the Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy is "complimenting him" by describing his factual significance? The SEP is a rather authoritative scholarly source for our purpose as an internet encyclopedia, and I find your claim that their first sentence "is POV" confusing to say the least.DiodotusNicator (talk) 12:30, 3 March 2026 (UTC)

Removal of content pertaining to his refusal to condemn Nazism from the lead is problematic. Zalaraz (talk) 12:37, 3 March 2026 (UTC)

Excuse me? You're calling this diff "removal of content"?

• "His refusal to publicly repudiate his involvement or express remorse in unambiguous terms has continued to trouble interpreters of his work"
• "The nature and extent of his commitment to Nazism, and the question of whether his philosophy is inherently connected to his political choices, remain subjects of significant scholarly controversy."

These sentences are obviously saying the same thing, and calling my removal of the less specific sentence (trouble which interpreters?) in order to replace it with more specific final sentence linking directly to the scholarly controversy regarding his association and continued engagement with Nazism "problematic" is a very confusing aspersion. DiodotusNicator (talk) 12:44, 3 March 2026 (UTC)

The second statement does not describe his post-war refusal to condemn Nazism at all. That statement you support as replacement is very ambiguous, so they are not the same thing. Zalaraz (talk) 12:48, 3 March 2026 (UTC)

Do you think ""His refusal to publicly repudiate his involvement or express remorse in unambiguous terms has continued to trouble interpreters of his work" isn't also an ambiguous statement? I don't have any strong opinion on this, as I thought this edit simply reduced the redundancy of the paragraph, but why not replace both of these with a better sentence which directly mentions the publication and reception of the Black Notebooks, if the issue is ambiguity, then? DiodotusNicator (talk) 12:53, 3 March 2026 (UTC)

And because WP:LEADFOLLOWSBODY was linked, the first paragraph of our Reception section opens as follows:

• "Heidegger is often considered to be among the most important and influential philosophers of the 20th century by many observers. American Philosopher Richard Rorty has ranked Heidegger as among the most important philosophers along with John Dewey and Ludwig Wittgenstein. Simon Critchley has praised Heidegger as the "most important and influential philosopher in the continental tradition in the 20th century"."

DiodotusNicator (talk) 13:05, 3 March 2026 (UTC)

In the entire section, Steve Bannon seems to be the only non-philosopher mentioned. DiodotusNicator (talk) 13:09, 3 March 2026 (UTC)

Thanks for using talk! The lead reads more strongly and has a more encyclopedic tone without the puffery. This is a general WP style guideline, not a historical assessment of Heidegger. I have a lot of high-profile philosophers on my watchlist, and this sort of language is added and promptly removed on a regular basis.

Regards, Patrick 🐈‍⬛ (talk) 13:28, 3 March 2026 (UTC)

@Patrick Welsh I still strongly disagree that paraphrasing the SEP is puffery, and you haven't really addressed this. "Martin Heidegger was a German philosopher." seems like a very limp sentence about one of the most-cited scholars of the 20th century. Compare to "Sartre was a French philosopher, playwright, novelist, screenwriter, political activist, biographer, and literary critic, considered a leading figure in 20th-century French philosophy and Marxism" - should that be pared down to "Sartre was a French philosopher"? That seems strange. There have been a lot of German philosophers as I'm sure you're well aware. DiodotusNicator (talk) 13:44, 3 March 2026 (UTC)

I made a minor edit to address what I agree is a weak sentence. I remain, however, opposed to superlatives—even though I will not have time to continue to debate the matter here. Patrick 🐈‍⬛ (talk) 13:50, 3 March 2026 (UTC)

It's a straightforward fact that Heidegger is "a central figure in the development of twentieth-century European Philosophy." SEP is not using a "superlative" when they write that sentence, as that implies some normative content that is just not present in "central figure". DiodotusNicator (talk) 14:00, 3 March 2026 (UTC)

Pinging @Tgeorgescu as you seem to be active + participated in what looks like the most recent discussion on this topic in the last archive. Having had professors who devoted significant parts of their career to Heidegger scholarship, I find it very confusing that editors are labeling the standard scholarly consensus as "puffery." DiodotusNicator (talk) 02:11, 4 March 2026 (UTC)

Yup, he was one of the greatest 20th century philosophers. And, no, one does not have to agree with him in order to recognize that. tgeorgescu (talk) 12:49, 4 March 2026 (UTC)

"Former Trump chief strategist Steve Bannon has expressed admiration for Heidegger and has praised his philosophy.[167][168]"

Making a new section for this since nobody has engaged with this above: This sentence comes in the middle of a section that is entirely about the reception of Heidegger's work by various philosophers, including many highly notable contemporary academic philosophers. Why is Bannon placed in this section as if a vague statement of praise is at all notable compared to the reception of academic philosophers? The worst part of this sentence is going into the sources and finding that the relevant material is just the following passage in an interview with Bannon:

• "We sit down at the dining room table and he picks up a book, a biography of the philosopher Martin Heidegger. "That's my guy," Bannon says. Heidegger, he says, had some good ideas on the subject of being, which fascinates him. This is what conversations with him are like: He jumps from the depths of politics to the heights of philosophy, from the swamp to Heidegger in five seconds. What sets us apart from animals or rocks, Bannon asks? What does it mean to be human? How far should digital progress go?"

Maybe someone out there thinks this is riveting stuff but it reads as strongly undue in the sea of actual philosophers to me. DiodotusNicator (talk) 14:14, 3 March 2026 (UTC)

I don't see why evidence that Heidegger is influential beyond the narrow circle of philosophers is less notable- quite the reverse it is a reason that people who aren't especially interested in philosophy should not ignore him. Indeed that section needs expanding to other non philosophers to cover his influence on the Green movement.Dejvid (talk) 18:02, 1 April 2026 (UTC)

This doesn't really address my argument on the specific material here. The "influence" being described by the cite I removed was just "That's my guy," Bannon says. DiodotusNicator (talk) 21:25, 1 April 2026 (UTC)

There might be a case for putting it in a subsection devoted to influence beyond academia.Dejvid (talk) 18:07, 1 April 2026 (UTC)

I am not an authority of any sort on Heidegger, but May 1, 1933 is a bit of a red flag for Nazi party membership. It is the day after applications were put on hold and not acted upon for several years. As a courtesy, those who were wait-listed got May 1 1933 membership dates, but next to none of them showed up at party headquarters that day with their application fee. ~2026-32401-84 (talk) 19:01, 31 May 2026 (UTC)