Talk:Heidegger Gesamtausgabe

This article is within the scope of WikiProject Philosophy, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of content related to philosophy on Wikipedia. If you would like to support the project, please visit the project page, where you can get more details on how you can help, and where you can join the general discussion about philosophy content on Wikipedia.PhilosophyWikipedia:WikiProject PhilosophyTemplate:WikiProject PhilosophyPhilosophy

Low

This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Associated task forces:
/
	Philosophical literature

Germany Mid‑importance

	Germany portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Germany, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Germany on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.GermanyWikipedia:WikiProject GermanyTemplate:WikiProject GermanyGermany
Mid	This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.

Ways not works

What is meant by controversially dictated that the principle of editing should be "ways not works."? This need explanation - I don't understand why this should be controversially... -- Tischbeinahe (talk) φιλο 22:11, 25 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Name

This article clearly needs to be renamed Heidegger Gesamtausgabe, or similar, as per the various (unfortunately scattered) discussions on the Heidegger page here. Simply put, as the article admits, "Gesamtausgabe" is simply not an unambiguous name, or even much of a name at all. I have no problem with it redirecting here for the time being, but at least the name much change. Eebster the Great (talk) 22:40, 23 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

100% agree. I amended the first sentence of the existing article as a temporary fix, but the name is ridiculous.KD Tries Again (talk) 19:02, 2 March 2009 (UTC)KD Tries Again[reply]

So how do we actually change the title?KD Tries Again (talk) 14:50, 16 March 2009 (UTC)KD Tries Again[reply]

Thanks, I think that solution is good enough.KD Tries Again (talk) 15:06, 24 March 2009 (UTC)KD Tries Again[reply]

Title should be in italics, as well. -The Gnome (talk) 00:42, 5 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Controversy

It has been suggested that academic institutions should refrain from purchasing the GA until full access is provided philosophers, biographers and historians to the Marbach materials.

This was particularly an issue at the time that Hugo Ott was working on his biography of the political Heidegger.

That some passages have been elided in the Gesamtausgabe has been very very serious issue for many philosophers critical of Heidegger as being an obscurantist Volk-fanatic or Germano-supremist or worse: someone lied, either Heidegger or Loewith. Most philosphers and historians believe that Heidegger lied: he was a devote Nazi as late as 1936 and an SA apologist even far later. Substantiating materials have been suppressed by Hermann Heidegger in the past.

No discussion of the collected writings of any other former pretender to being the philosopher of National Socialism (Rosenberg, Baeumler*, Kriek) could be so banally presented: Heidegger repeatedly refers to "heute" - today - in his discussions of any matter bearing on Europe and European thought and culture. He was through and through political in a very "fundamental" sense: not the polis, but the people (whatever that may mean - who afterall is a "true" German-speaker?)

Yet I see no mention of controversy here at this article. Not even concerning Klosterman. The profits of Klosterman should have all gone to rebuild the synagogue at Marburg as a memorial to the Jews of Marburg never mentioned by Heidegger.

When did the GA cease to be under the control of Hermann Heidegger?

Baeumler was Heidegger's candidate for Marburg! (Erich Frank who got the post, only to be expelled, did not live to regain his post, dying en route in 1945 in Holland - and I last saw no memorial to him in Marburg.)

G. Robert Shiplett 01:20, 21 April 2010 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Grshiplett (talk • contribs)

Work underway

I have just started some major re-writing of the article, and much is yet to be done. So far the major change is to create several new sections and start moving blocks of text into those sections. One day soon this thing might warrant a "Stub" rating. Dinkenfunkle 06:40, 11 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Sooo ... I have done a lot more copy-editing. Most of it involved removing unsourced, sometimes irrelevant and/or conjectural and/or apparently original research material. I'm guessing some of it might be ... contested. To avoid finding that it is all or mostly reverted and I'm thus wasting my time, I'm going to let it sit for a while. Dinkenfunkle 23:39, 13 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]