/lit/ - Literature

>>22123394
Read Heidegger. The West is historical, transformative in its orientation to being, has subject-philosophy as one stage and such like. Without subject-philosophy modernity and the technological world dominion would never have come.

>A building, a Greek temple ... stands there in the middle of the rock-cleft valley. The building ecloses the figure of a god, and this concealment lets it stand out into the holy precinct through the open portico. By means of the temple, the god is present in the temple. This presence of the god is in itself the extension and delimitation of the precinct as a holy precicnt. The temple and its precinct, however, do not fade away into the indefinite. It is the temple work that first fits together and at the same time gathers around itself the unity of those paths and relations in which birth, death, disaster and blessing, victory and disgrace, endurance and decline aquire the shape of destiny for human being. The all-governing expanse of this open relational context is the world of this historical people. Only from and in this expanse does the people (Volk) first return to itself for the fulfilment of its vocation. ... The temple in its standing there, first gives to things their look and to men their outlook on themselves.

>>18185939

>>17351430
Based indeed. Here's him talking directly after this scene:

https://youtu.be/dC6a2SPvSh4?t=471

It's a great documentary on the whole, full of old Germans reminiscing, and I encourage you to watch it all on another time.

>>16804912
>returns to Catholicism and God in his old age
Was he based?

>>16804912
>returns to Catholicism and the God in his old age
Was he based?

What's it like? Do you have any writing ability yourself?

>https://youtu.be/rXEgyKlYsTk?t=5002

>>16509798
Fantastic, but where did he write this?

Also I know a lot of these moral and traditional conceptions were transmuted into Heidegger's "system", but did he ever explicitly speak with the words good and evil?

Also a related quote by Heidegger on Schelling's Freedom essay.

>"God lets the oppositional will of the ground operate in order that might be which love unifies and subordinates itself to for the glorification of the Absolute. The will of love stands about the will of the ground and this predominance, this eternal decidedness, the love for itself as the essence of being in general, this decidedness is the innermost core of absolute freedom."

And now quite a good quite by Evola.

>“Many of the most bizarre features of [Heidegger’s] ontology appear to have been lifted right out of the occult aether wherein Schelling developed them: [such as] the historical destiny of the artist-scholars of a coming apocalyptic generation to build a new world whose architectonic is established by singing together their own epic poem.”

And some other related statements by Heidegger:

>"Philosophy will not be able to effect an immediate transformation of the present condition of the world. This is not only true of philosophy, but of all merely human thought and endeavor. Only a god can save us. The sole possibility that is left for us is to prepare a sort of readiness, through thinking and poeticizing, for the appearance of the god or for the absence of the god in the time of foundering [Untergang] for in the face of the god who is absent, we founder. Only a God Can Save Us."
>"For us contemporaries the greatness of what is to be thought is too great. Perhaps we might bring ourselves to build a narrow and not far reaching footpath as a passageway."
>"God has always been with me."
>“There is a thinking more rigorous than the conceptual”
>“...the most extreme sharpness and depth of thought belongs to genuine and great mysticism”
~Martin Heidegger

>>16431890
>>16431991
Either you entirely agree with Heidegger's end philosophical goal, or you do not and you are a crass materialist.

>>16414541

It's now Heidi posting. Post your best.

>"God lets the oppositional will of the ground operate in order that might be which love unifies and subordinates itself to for the glorification of the Absolute. The will of love stands about the will of the ground and this predominance, this eternal decidedness, the love for itself as the essence of being in general, this decidedness is the innermost core of absolute freedom."
>"Philosophy will not be able to effect an immediate transformation of the present condition of the world. This is not only true of philosophy, but of all merely human thought and endeavor. Only a god can save us. The sole possibility that is left for us is to prepare a sort of readiness, through thinking and poeticizing, for the appearance of the god or for the absence of the god in the time of foundering [Untergang] for in the face of the god who is absent, we founder. Only a God Can Save Us."
>"For us contemporaries the greatness of what is to be thought is too great. Perhaps we might bring ourselves to build a narrow and not far reaching footpath as a passageway."
>"God has always been with me."
>“There is a thinking more rigorous than the conceptual”
>“...the most extreme sharpness and depth of thought belongs to genuine and great mysticism”
~Martin Heidegger

How do modern neoliberal/secular Heideggerians handle this? It's quite correct to say he never ceased to be a Catholic in many ways. His brother exemplified a knowledge in the theological greater than Martin, whom Heidegger would often turn to for questions on the subject.

Is he the greatest thinker ever? Will someone else actually take up the question of being, is there anything unique about modernity, or will we continue by repetition of the past?

>>16321917
He was one of the greatest, both as a thinker, and as a human being, and as they stand necessarily upon the other. He did nothing wrong, almost nothing wrong in his life.

>"God lets the oppositional will of the ground operate in order that might be which love unifies and subordinates itself to for the glorification of the Absolute. The will of love stands about the will of the ground and this predominance, this eternal decidedness, the love for itself as the essence of being in general, this decidedness is the innermost core of absolute freedom."
>"Philosophy will not be able to effect an immediate transformation of the present condition of the world. This is not only true of philosophy, but of all merely human thought and endeavor. Only a god can save us. The sole possibility that is left for us is to prepare a sort of readiness, through thinking and poeticizing, for the appearance of the god or for the absence of the god in the time of foundering [Untergang] for in the face of the god who is absent, we founder. Only a God Can Save Us."
>"For us contemporaries the greatness of what is to be thought is too great. Perhaps we might bring ourselves to build a narrow and not far reaching footpath as a passageway."
>"God has always been with me."
>“There is a thinking more rigorous than the conceptual”
>“...the most extreme sharpness and depth of thought belongs to genuine and great mysticism”
~Martin Heidegger

>>16309608
The philosophy of being, and its grandness in relating to all of history, such as specifically to the Greeks; and the mission to reveal what was special to them.

Whether you want to say it was more important or just sounded more important, at least towards the end of Heidegger's life he became the greater, and arguably the greatest thinker ever, at least after Kant.

>>16259327
But Heraclitus is also stating something about that change anon, hence why Heidegger interpreted Heraclitus as an elucidation of Logos.

>In the 1944 lecture course, Heidegger turned his attention to Heraclitus's "teaching" (not "doctrine") on "logos," and his overarching concern was to affirm the primacy of being as "the primordial Logos" (Heidegger used the capital lamda when referring to being) in "relation" to the logos (legein) of the human being. Being as the primordial Logos is the temporal "laying out" and "fore-gathering" of all things that is always prior to and exceeds any distinctively human "gathering" in language or art. Heidegger is explicit and emphatic that being as "the primordial Logos" is "indeed a kind of saying and word" and also "a kind of speech and voice" -- but certainly not "any kind of activity of human saying or stating." The primordial Logos is "expressly not the voice of a human being," he maintains. Our human task is to "hearken" in humble silence to what the primordial Logos "says" and respond in word and art, and this is the teaching of Heraclitus on the unique homologein, or "correspondence" (Entsprechung), of human beings in relation to the Logos.

If reality is flame, then it is not change alone. Regardless of whether Heraclitus believed the foregrounding structure was such, or more so a potential, he nevertheless defines (the "logos" of) being insofar as it does have definable traits to him. Destroys, recreates, resurfaces, opposites, harmony, one, one and the same. If he were saying something so simple as "everything is change" as so many claim he is saying in contrast to an also reductive conception of Parmenides being as static, then Heraclitus would have had no need to write a book. And as we can see, from his linguistic use to the content of what he says, no genius such as Heraclitus would write it for no reason.

>For Heidegger, the eternal return happens in life and is an affirmation against death and weakness, whereas for Deleuze the eternal return cannot be subjected to identity and the same but is the repetition of difference.
>Nietzsche, the man who dedicated his life to fighting nihilism, becomes, for Heidegger, the biggest nihilist of them all, because he thinks of the Will not only psychologically but also metaphysically. Heidegger turns against Nietzsche's metaphysics of the will-to-power, and, against his own phenomenology of the Will.

Is this correct?

>>16124821
He was so cute.

>>16079954