/lit/ - Literature

>>16590209
Foucault's body language is kino

Another kino lecturer was Heidegger, he literally made his students pass out in class

Who are the great /manly/-core authors? Who understands what being a man in the modern world is like, without being cuckolded by the shame imposed upon them by political correctness and feminism? Which authors are most likely to be read by men and least likely to be properly understood or appreciated by women? Who gets the usual knee-jerk accusations of misogyny just because they don't write or behave like women? Which authors of past ages should inspire men?

I'm thinking:

John Updike
John Cheever
Raymond Chandler
Thomas Pynchon
Herman Melville
David Mamet

>>6659452
he relies on the excluded third far too much to be relevant

>>6646719
relativist, not caring about anything

>>6644410
I will begin a promotion of /lit/ on th eother boards to put this one to death.

>>6640386
>In this book, Ellul argues that we create technology for technology's sake. Society is not under the control of mankind anymore, but it a slave to efficiency and the demands of technology.
So he's a poor man's Heidegger who can't handle the word Enframing?

I've been seeing lots of threads and posts asking how to into Heidegger lately. I found Hubert Dreyfus' lectures (audio version) earlier and thought it would be useful to many of you.

卐 Heil Hitler! 卐

https://archive.org/details/Philosophy_185_Fall_2007_UC_Berkeley

>>4589919
>The arguments that she makes are inherently destructive in that they necessarily lead to a rejection of progress when taken to their basic logical conclusions
Pointless argument without real substance.
> If we can't know anything, how would it be possible to better ourselves, and why try?

Nobody said that we can't know anything, we can know a lot actually, however modern science is pulling a wool over our eyes by hiding modes of revealing from us.

>You'll notice that even Heidegger backpedaled on your position and accepted that this progress outweighed the disadvantages.

Are you claiming that you can not tone down the disadvantages of modern technology ?

>The entire concept of the standing reserve that you use to condemn rationality is merely masked Luddism.

No it's not, technology holds within itself something beautiful, which Heidegger calls Ereignis. If humans will continue to blindly place technology and use it simply as a mode of revealing itself as Standing-Reserve then yes, we should be luddite against this, but not against he idea of Technology and Modern Science itself.

>Your philosophy would have us sitting in the dark wet cave, with our dying wheezes to be used only to point out that the rock you shaped to rest your head on was only unnecessary technological enframing.

My philosophy would have us all owning homes to dwell, growing our own food an making our own technology (for example home made shovels) for the "simple" tasks such as farming and gardening that would allow us to live with the land in harmony and let the Dasein taste authentic existence rooted in home and tradition and keep the standing-reserve mode of revealing there but not for as much use at it is now.

Fug I need to go to bed now, be back tomorrow

>>4538596
Because sadly most modern scientists and technologists are fucking dumb and so they use their perverse methods to conceal much more truths that they unravel.

I guess this is because of the shitty capitalist higher education system where it basically just trains you to become a "Fachidiot". Universities should require 2 years of relatively intense literature, poetry and philosophy courses no matter what the major.

Now you have people going around who think that the real is "what is measurable" taking their beloved field of natural science and putting it on a throne, making it basically a religion.

>>4525946
He is a mere standing reserve for the machinery in his laboratory, ready to instantly operate on its behalf to produce his "tengable results"

Absolutely disgusting, STEMtrash are barely humans (that is to say thinking beings)

Hey /lit/ I study control engineering/automation and I am kinda scared now that I got exposed to some of Heidegger's works.

Can modern technology really only "enframe" the world and lead us against the grain of "revealing" or can it be used for good as well ?

What would Heidegger tell someone from a technical field he should ponder about / do ?