/lit/ - Literature

>>11903842
You know there are libraries around you can investigate?
The central problem of Heidegger’s philosophy is the “problem of Being.” In his early work the investigation of Being is inseparably tied to Edmund Husserl’s phenomenology, though the differences between teacher and student were sufficient to cause uncomfortable friction between them. In his later work the problem of Being, although never openly theological, becomes increasingly tied to traditional religious themes. It is the earler work, particularly Being and Time, that influenced Sartre, Merleau-Ponty, and other existentialists. There, the investigation of Being begins with the study of “human Being”— “Da-sein,” or “Being-in-the-world.” Unlike Sartre, Heidegger does not begin his investigation with human consciousness, and the hyphenated “Being-in-the-world” is intended to warn us against “detaching” Da-sein from the world in which it finds itself. Neither does Heidegger have sympathy for the Cartesian Ego and the Cartesian separation of subject and object. The Ego, he argues, is “a merely formal indicator,” and the dualism of subject-object wrongly supposes that our “commerce” with the world is first of all to know it rather than to live in it. Accordingly, the identity of each Dasein (“the ‘who’ of Da-sein”) is to be found in a collective “they” (das Man) engaged in joint endeavors in the world rather than in the solipsistic Cartesian cogito. Da-sein consists of both its facticity (its being “thrown” into the world at this place at this tine) and Existenz (possibilities for personal choice). Da-sein can be authentic insofar as it breaks away from the “they” to seek its own possibilities, of which the most necessary is death. In in-authenticity, Da-sein falls back to the “they,” identifies itself with its facticity and ignores the possibility of its own death.In inauthenticity or fallenness, the search for authentic understanding becomes mere curiosity; philosophical discourse, mere die talk; thinking, mere calculation. Heidegger often insists that authenticity and inauthenticity are not ethical notions. (They are “ontological” or “descriptive”.) Yet Heidegger also insists that there is an intimate connection between how we describe ourselves (our ontology) and who we are (our ontic character). He say, for example, “Granted that we cannot do anything with philosophy, but might not philosophy . . . do something with us?’Heidegger has indeed avoided both ethical and political involvement, his apparent excursions into either as much a product of interpretation as intention."

>>11884151
>>11884191
>>11884198
>>11884185
>>11884225
>>11884236
>>11884279
>>11884286
>>11884298
>>11884309

Why do you fragile faggots make any dialectic so difficult to talk about without the need of a reference point consisting of multiple layers of irony? The vanity is incredible, it's like you need it to coddle you to the point that you can feel safe posting your opinions using memes as a self-defense. OP's post is horrible, it's an effortless half-thought letting it's gut hang out.
>technology
>overuse of ideological symbols in capitalist society
>control
>paranoia/responsibility
>necessity/purpose
There I made it easier for you. please just try and generate content based off these points following as clearly as possible if that's even possible without your sorrowful recourse to deconstruct everything at any level without any personal ideas following.

>lol you first
This thread is mega-gay, so no.