Chuck Swindoll vs Heidegger

[PKJ]

According to Heidegger, humans have two choices:

1) Be mediocre. Hate yourself. Follow silly goals to cover up for your sorrow, then become even more mediocre. Repeat.

2) Follow your dreams, be yourself, reach for the top of Maslow's pyramid, be happy.

We all choose something in between, but usually more around #1. Now, there's that book from Chuck Swindoll: http://www.amazon.co.uk/exec/obidos/ASIN/0849931770/infoline0f-21/203-7474922-8823954

[blog style]
I read that a couple years ago. Well, is it just me or is that book some kind of wierd subliminal-reverse-psychology? When I was a christian I was totally #1-type. I was unhappy, and thought serving Christ more would make me a better person. But it just made me even more self-hating and lousy.

Someday I decided to be ME. I felt happier. I moved from my fundie home, got a nice room in Montreal, started to study philosophy (what I always dreamed to do). That made me even more happy, in fact so happy I strated to help other people to get from #1-type to #2-type. I used to be in my little God-bubble and didn't really care about others and suddenly felt the urge to help everyone.

I guess all there is to do now is to actually find out how.

Anyway.
[/blog style]

Here's my debate point:

Chuck Swindoll vs Heidegger.

Swindoll (christian writer): Christians are eagles, atheists are chickens that only care for their own little seeds.

Heidegger (philosopher, founder of the secular humanist movement): Religious people are mediocre people. Their point of view about life is not adapted to true human beings.

Ding ding ding!

 

[Patzak]

I don't think Heidegger's position is quite so simple. He does of course acknowledge the fact that we are to be what we make of ourselves and you can parse it into the two alternatives you describe, but these are only the two extremes - and they're not that clear-cut anyway. It's not just a matter of choosing to be yourself - after all, who wouldn't choose this over hating themselves? The problem is that no matter how strongly you choose the first option, you're still not being yourself to the full extent.

Now, I'd be the first to argue that shaking off an overly dogmatic religious belief that puts itself in control of your life is definitely a good thing. But in doing so, it's quite easy to take on a new outlook that's still not completely authentic. After all, aren't "be yourself", "seize the day" and similar often made into catch-phrases that you take upon yourself just because "everybody says so", without really thinking about them?

I think Heidegger's point isn't so much "be youself", but more the Greek "know thyself" - or rather, that you can be yourself only by finding out why you want to be yourself, by knowing when you are really being yourself and when you are merely following a different social imperative. Note: you don't have to forcibly cut off any such influences, just realize and acknowledge them as such when you find them. That, at least, is what I get out of Heidegger.


I've never heard of the Swindoll character before, so I can't really comment on his position, but from the link you gave there doesn't seem to be much substance to him.

I wouldn't say Heidegger considered the religious people to be mediocre by default, though. Again, as long as one realizes their religion to be just that, a religion, a belief that one holds which may or may not be true, not letting it take control of their entire lives, I don't think he'd have anything against it (Heidegger himself was, at least nominally, a Catholic). It's not immediatelly clear though, whether such a religion can still rightfully be considered a religion.

 

[PKJ]

Good analysis. I indeed made it very reductive for the sake of the topic. I'm doing an end-term paper on Heidegger's "atheism of principle" and will discuss this for 10 pages or so. So I guess it's "to be continued..."