/lit/ - Literature

>>4732085
I approve of this message

Such self-congradulatory, inauthentic garblegoo...

>129 [...] Three levels here, as elsewhere: on the first, and lower level, the subhumans, who maintain a set of utterly contradictory beliefs, precisely because they themselves are contradictory beings: not bothering at all with being consistent or investigating anything and simply adopting any claim that seems to advance their interests at any given moment. On the second, higher level the pre-Nietzschean thinkers: who, having not yet drawn the ultimate conclusions from perspectivism and the flux, believed that a system could be found, and strove valiantly to find it. And on the third, final level Nietzsche and I (and Heraclitus too, actually, if you know how to read between his long-lost lines), who have elevated consistency to the point of total inconsistency, closing the circle at the high point, and therefore the most powerful.

I love reading Heidegger, I think he is one of the most lucid, systematic and consistent thinkers out there. However, there is one thing I really do not get: what the fuck is up with his techo-phobia? Anyone care toe xplain?

OP, you say that you do believe in prophecies. What are your favorite examples? What do you think are the best examples?

I know the favorites of most Christians are Psalm 22 and Isaiah 53 foretelling the story of Jesus.

I think most skeptics think that the stories were simply appropriated to be in line with the old vague Jewish prophecies etc.


Specific question that I don't necessarily expect you to answer, I guess unless you're familiar with heidegger: Also, how do you feel about modern hermeneutics? Essentially that we're stuck in the hermeneutic circle?

>>2524082
I think we can define god as: the ultimate meaning to the universe. (this can be yahweh, jesus, acquiring money, any single thing).

monotheists think that there is an ultimate meaning (outside of ourselves) to the universe.

atheists think that there is no ultimate meaning (outside of ourselves) to the universe.

I think too often when people (theistic and scientific) argue about god they are arguing a 5 year olds definition of god, i.e. how the universe began, father in the sky, etc. But there are more mature definitions of the ontology of god(s).

Let's talk about abortion.

Conservatives think that abortion is wrong because a human being is a human being from conception. Liberals think otherwise, that it is a fetus until a certain time later, i.e. that it's not a human being, just a collection of cells that will one day turn into a human being.

So what the conflict is about is human beings. Those who believe humans have souls are more likely to believe abortion is wrong and those who believe humans do not have souls (i.e. that they are solely their bodies) will believe abortion should be permitted.

Both sides are wrong. Human beings are not souls, nor are can they be understood atomically as the collection of their parts (i.e. bodies).

The essence of human beings is existence. What human beings do as human beings is exist as the openness or location where being unfolds and reveals itself as a world.

A human being isn't a being until it has a world. At first this a process. This is why we say that human beings develop themselves, they aren't imminent from the beginning.

Fetuses are at the dawn of developing a world. They can hear their mothers voices, noises, etc. But they aren't humans, and according to our Constitution, they do not have rights, and thus abortion should be legal until such rights are given.

Of course the next question would be do they deserve to have rights.

>pic related. heidegger is a saving power.

>>2443100
>>2443100
>>2443100
>>2443100
>>2443100

>mein Gesicht wenn this thread only mentions heidegger once when speaking of worlds, and no one but one even acknowledges.

i think what roody-poo op is trying to say is that some people don't see logic and science as Truth.

well, you're right OP. the greeks for example: aletheia (truth) can be literally translated as unconcealment or unforgetfulness. truth isn't correspondence. unconcealment (truth) reveals itself as unconcealment (truth).


mein heiddeger tells me so.

>2012
>thinking i'm in 2009

with heidegger

my university application is due tomorrow. give me some good smart words for my essay.

>>1586244
trolled but dubs, so we're even

>>1507004
heidegger's polytheism comes next after nietzsche's period of nihilism after the death of god.

heidegger's polytheism isn't based on absolutes. the 'gods' are just a way of understanding being.

Prof. Dreyfus describes Sartre as follows:

>read Being and Time by Heidegger
>is french and so managed to take a piece of work that was completely against the Descartes tradition and turn it Cartesian
>Heidegger himself said to Dreyfus, holding up one of Sartre's works, "You think I would read this crap!"

obvs troll is obvs dat jaypeg

unless you wanna: timestamp, list of previous work, license etc

Heidegger is not an existentialist, he is a phenomenological ontologist.

whatsgoingoninthisthread-ohlawdy.jpg