/lit/ - Literature

>Amongst Heidegger’s Nachlass (the papers left behind after his death) a handwritten note has been found in which the philosopher quotes a passage from Friedrich Bauer’s 1935 German translation of Revolt Against the Modern World (Erhebung wider die moderne Welt). Here is the passage as Heidegger copied it out:

>Wenn eine Rasse die Berührung mit dem, was allein Beständigkeit hat und geben kann — mit der Welt des Seyns — verloren hat, dann sinken die von ihr gebildeten kollektiven Organismen, welches immer ihre Größe und Macht sei, schicksalhaft in die Welt der Zufälligkeit herab.

>And here is a translation:

>When a race has lost contact with what alone has and can give it permanence [or “stability,” Beständigkeit] — with the world of Beyng [Seyns] then the collective organisms formed by it, whatever be their greatness and power, are destined to sink down into the world of contingency.

>We immediately notice two things when Heidegger’s handwritten version is compared to the original. First, Heidegger has rendered Sein as Seyn. [17] Second, Heidegger replaces a colon with a period and omits the last part of the sentence entirely. The part after the colon can be translated as follows: “[to] become prey to the irrational, the changeable, the ‘historical,’ of what is conditioned from below and from the outside.” Why did Heidegger make these changes? Fully answering this question will allow us to see that Heidegger actually rejects Evola’s Traditionalism in the most fundamental terms possible.

Heidegger also believed in this Tradition, but in a living one and in the Instance, Urphänomen, Beyng.. and the God-Man Jesus Christ because he was a closet believing Catholic his entire life. For there is the necessary differentiation for images in the (and often understood as the whole) Tradition and the actual experience of the Tradition itself.

>>17134255
Plato's Parmenides. Which for all its abstractness, ultimately shows the most human and perfectly in-touch character with the regular and everyday.

It is an extremely brilliant, beautiful and complex dialogue, a work of philosophy and literature as Plato always is, and not some meaning devoid logic test, as it is often portrayed. The story of Antiphon is fit for a painting!

>The third passage of the Parmenides is the most profound point to which Occidental metaphysics has ever advanced. It is the most radical advance into the problem of Being and time—an advance which afterwards was not caught up with [aufgefangen] but instead intercepted [abgefangen] (by Aristotle)
- Heidegger
>If the second half of his [Plato’s] Parmenides would be performed anew with today’s methods (and not Neoplatonically), then all bad metaphysics would be overcome, and the space would be open for a pure hearing of the language of Being.
- Karl Jaspers in a letter to Heidegger:

>Let this therefore be said, and let us also say the following, as it seems appropriate. Whether or not there is a unity, the unity itself and the manifold otherness, both in relation to themselves as well as to each other—all this, in every way, both is and is not, appears [phainetai] and does not appear. —This is most true [alēthestata].
- Final passage of the Parmenides

>Maximal truth has been attained when appearance and Non-being have been included within truth and Being. The dialogue literally leads to Nothing [Nichts]. . . . Thereby the question of Being has been transformed, everything is now otherwise. The on is both hen and polla, and it is hen, insofar as it is polla and vice versa. The One and the Many are only insofar as they are in themselves negative [nichtig].
- Heidegger's conclusion of his seminar on the Parmenides

>>17081709
Reminder that Joyce was heavily influenced by Hegel through reading Wagner, and then Hegel himself. Anyone can see the remarkable similarity of the focus in Joyce to Hegel.

Hegel, Wagner and Joyce are an unsaid trio of artistic brilliance.

>>16714747
Highly based, I'll explain this time of nihilism as best I can with a quote by Heidegger from the infamous Der Spiegel interview, save the first which comes from his lecture on Schelling.

>"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 deep truth in beauty, always contemplate it. Plato was right.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=z45xGGTo3J0
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DHy1iKBtTq4
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dHIyKUHeixQ
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5kY57A4DYO8

>>16606711
I absolutely agree with you Op, most misunderstand this. But I also think he's definitely saying something very specific about change, it's not just change, it's flame; Why would he -- a thinker of quite a lot of intelligence -- be limited by an artificial naming of the time, where his very description of flame makes it obvious he was not.

His use of the word change is a meaning in physis, the grand cycle of the universe, fire.

>>16475171
Ground = the World, Existence, Being, yada yada.

You must understand these things intuitively, he's saying that the freedom of the world, essentially as he is talking about it, from God, is necessary for the greatness of being to be known which can be understood most clearly in the manifestations of beauty for most. It's nothing to do with physics anon. Innermost intimate, and sacred moments, which make life worth living-- in that supreme comprehension. These conceptions, as Bowden said, stand as averse to the modern existentialist worldview as possible, and the nihilist philosophies of a Sartre are taught laughably a-prior in universities so as to remove as soon, as hopefully as possible these naturalistic, prior and what would be considered totalitarian, conceptions and structures of the world from the peripheral of the students philosophy. It is, might as well be, the vampiric intentual corruption of the youth, as it stands as an intentual removal of unlikeable concepts to them, their perverted natures.

Take that in writing this, and my remembering of these concepts I had a sudden transcendent vision as it were, the room began spinning and I remembered my mission. And it gives one the drink on the lips to persevere and know(recognise) what one is walking forward, away from other things, for. Good luck with it anon.

>>16475145
It's impressing to the furthest extents of mans symbolical understanding, and one can begin to understand why Heidegger began to focus on a sameness of understanding between poetry and philosophy, in fact resorting to poetry and art in general, in his later philosophy.

>>16445632
From what I know about Heidegger, he seemed to refer to Beyng in a much more primordial and essential sense to being, rather than just a mode, though it is not entirely disconnected from the mode man is in. For example it is something ontologically grounded and as it were a central revelation of being(if you will allow that geometrical metaphor), but it as with Heidegger is not disconnected from its own manifestation in the individual and is not quite a consuming or "all-everything" as the arbitrated or essentially metaphysical concept being is. I think I even remember Heidegger comparing or speaking of beauty in its strict relation or revelation of "beyng".

Comparable to Plato's "Instance" in Parmenides, and his general late philosophy, if you're aware of that.

>>16442193
It's esoteric knowledge anon, except Plato said it himself and its not revisionistic modernism. There's so much more to Plato than most people are even able of comprehending and will ever do in reading him(as great as that basic knowledge of his is, however). This is all specifically in his later dialogues, both his greater philosophical and poetic genius come out in their perfectly refined ability. Essentially, to put it in crude terms, Plato is rooting the Forms in the Instance, temporality. Such a crass critique as Nietzsche's of "life-denial" or abstraction away from the senses, completely misses the entire re-starting of a philosophy in Plato's late dialogues, and specifically the Parmenides(which most take as a negative culmination of logic, or knowledge, or refuting of misconceptions, is in fact a positively revealing and affirming work of Plato's philosophy, and life on a whole).

>"The third passage of the Parmenides is the most profound point to which Occidental metaphysics has ever advanced. It is the most radical advance into the problem of Being and time—an advance which afterwards was not caught up with [aufgefangen] but instead intercepted [abgefangen] (by Aristotle)
Though he is by far exaggerating here, the point remains. And here by Karl Jaspers in a letter to Heidegger:
> If the second half of his [Plato’s] Parmenides would be performed anew with today’s methods (and not Neoplatonically), then all bad metaphysics would be overcome, and the space would be open for a pure hearing of the language of Being.

>>16353953
What a LARP, at least be honest with yourself and accept Nietzsche's "will of the strong" is nothing but eternally equal to that of Plato's, or by his own standards of achievement far weaker. Plato's and the Christian standard must it not be the most powerful the world has ever scene, and the very greatest with its dominance? Nietzsche's is but a fly, I can see his bitterness and resentment for Wagner.

In Nietzsche's philosophy, what you must focus on here with such matters is as far as truth stands independent of will. Heidegger eventually called Nietzsche a nihilist for how even though he dedicated his life to fighting the prior, he did so ultimately through the philosophy of the will, but it was also a beautiful thing, "he who , but Nietzsche chose the will alone for philosophy and it denied truth as you even say. "He who truly knows what is, knows what he wills to do in the midst of what is."-- Heidegger, and a quote I think is reflective of that beauty.

My point is, be honest enough that you can focus on other forms, a valiant effort, which is not just "Nietzsche". Not just idle philosophic self-masturbation, which I think Nietzsche undoubtedly fell into, the likes of his boasting and joyfully crying letters that he is not like the masses-- that is a sad sight. The traditionalists have a point in saying Nietzsche was a nihilist because he rejected prior hierarchy, which is a traditional conception. Quite a strong point, for how simple they can be. That is what Nietzsche discussions between a Christian and himself rest on. You are not him as a figure, every man is his own self(something Nietzsche all too eagerly recognised and wanted you to recognise, he would rather you distrust Zarathustra as he says himself than take him plainly-- and alas here again is the fallibility of common Nietzsche) just look to someone like Bowden how Nietzscheanism is expressed in its highest intellectuality and honesty.

>>16353953
What a LARP, at least be honest with yourself and accept Nietzsche's "will of the strong" is nothing but eternally equal to that of Plato's, or by his own standards of achievement far weaker. Plato's and the Christian standard must it not be the most powerful the world has ever scene, and the very greatest with its dominance? Nietzsche's is but a fly, I can see his bitterness and resentment for Wagner.

In Nietzsche's philosophy, what you must focus on here with such matters is as far as truth stands independent of will. Heidegger eventually called Nietzsche a nihilist for how even though he dedicated his life to fighting the prior, he did so ultimately through the philosophy of the will, but it was also a beautiful thing, "he who , but Nietzsche chose the will alone for philosophy and it denied truth as you even say. "He who truly knows what is, knows what he wills to do in the midst of what is."-- Heidegger, and a quote I think is reflective of that beauty.

My point is, be honest enough that you can focus on other forms, a valiant effort, which is not just "Nietzsche". Not just idle philosophic self-masturbation, which I think Nietzsche undoubtedly fell into, the likes of his boasting and joyfully crying letters that he is not like the masses-- that is a sad sight. The traditionalists have a point in saying Nietzsche was a nihilist because he rejected prior hierarchy, which is a traditional conception. A rather strong point, for how simple they can be. That is what Nietzsche discussions between a Christian and himself rest on. You are not him as a figure, just look to someone like Bowden how Nietzscheanism is expressed in its highest intellectuality and honesty.

>>16355399
>>16353953
What a LARP, at least be honest with yourself and accept Nietzsche's "will of the strong" is nothing but eternally equal to that of Plato's, or by his own standards of achievement far weaker. Plato's and the Christian standard must it not be the most powerful the world has ever scene, and the very greatest with its dominance? Nietzsche's is but a fly, I can see his bitterness and resentment for Wagner.

In Nietzsche's philosophy, what you must focus on here with such matters is as far as truth stands independent of will. Heidegger eventually called Nietzsche a nihilist for how even though he dedicated his life to fighting the prior, he did so ultimately through the philosophy of the will, but it was also a beautiful thing, "he who , but Nietzsche chose the will alone for philosophy and it denied truth as you even say. "He who truly knows what is, knows what he wills to do in the midst of what is."-- Heidegger, and a quote I think is reflective of that beauty.

My point is, be honest enough that you can focus on other forms, a valiant effort, which is not just "Nietzsche". Not just idle philosophic self-masturbation, which I think Nietzsche undoubtedly fell into, the likes of his boasting and joyfully crying letters that he is not like the masses-- that is a sad sight.

Why do so many people misunderstand the river metaphor? The waters change, and you in them(though not denying identity), but the river stays. The foregrounding, being, is what Heraclitus is elucidating. Hence why Heidegger despised Nietzsche's reading of the Presocratics.

>>16173491
>"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

>Wisdom is one thing: to know the will that steers all things through all.
>This world-order, the same of all, no god nor man did create, but it ever was and is and will be: everlasting fire, kindling in measures and being quenched in measures.
>The invisible structure is greater than the visible.
~Heraclitus

>"And for these reasons, and out of such elements which are in number four, the body of the world was created, and it was harmonised by proportion, and therefore has the spirit of friendship; and having been reconciled to itself, it was indissoluble by the hand of any other than the framer."
~Plato

>24 Then said Jesus unto his disciples, If any man will come after me, let him deny himself, and take up his cross, and follow me.
>25 For whosoever will save his life shall lose it: and whosoever will lose his life for my sake shall find it.
>26 For what is a man profited, if he shall gain the whole world, and lose his own soul? or what shall a man give in exchange for his soul?
~ Jesus

>“The Tao is beyond is and is not. How do I know this? I look inside myself and see.”
~Lao Tzu

Hopefully you will be able to appreciate these quotes by ruminating on them and their respective thinkers, I wish I could explain more but this is enough. Enjoy some relaxing music:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=z45xGGTo3J0
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DHy1iKBtTq4
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dHIyKUHeixQ
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5kY57A4DYO8

Who is better?

>>15835688
>"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."
>“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

>Wisdom is one thing: to know the will that steers all things through all.
>This world-order, the same of all, no god nor man did create, but it ever was and is and will be: everlasting fire, kindling in measures and being quenched in measures.
>The invisible structure is greater than the visible.
~Heraclitus

>"And for these reasons, and out of such elements which are in number four, the body of the world was created, and it was harmonised by proportion, and therefore has the spirit of friendship; and having been reconciled to itself, it was indissoluble by the hand of any other than the framer."
~Plato

>“The Tao is beyond is and is not. How do I know this? I look inside myself and see.”
~Lao Tzu

>>15794786
>"Let me tell you then why the creator made this world of generation. He was good, and the good can never have any jealousy of anything. And being free from jealousy, he desired that all things should be as like himself as they could be. This is in the truest sense the origin of creation and of the world, as we shall do well in believing on the testimony of wise men: God desired that all things should be good and nothing bad, so far as this was attainable. Wherefore also finding the whole visible sphere not at rest, but moving in an irregular and disorderly fashion, out of disorder he brought order, considering that this was in every way better than the other. Now the deeds of the best could never be or have been other than the fairest; and the creator, reflecting on the things which are by nature visible, found that no unintelligent creature taken as a whole was fairer than the intelligent taken as a whole; and that intelligence could not be present in anything which was devoid of soul. For which reason, when he was framing the universe, he put intelligence in soul, and soul in body, that he might be the creator of a work which was by nature fairest and best. Wherefore, using the language of probability, we may say that the world became a living creature truly endowed with soul and intelligence by the providence of God."
~Plato

Plato obviously makes a divergence from these previous thinkers in his abstraction, an ignorance for suffering, and in his focus on the rational intellect, but nevertheless I still believe is fundamentally getting at the same nature of being.

>>15777234
>"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."

- Heidegger

As Plato said, being exists through friendship with itself. Just read the Timaeus bro, one of the most profound and inspiring works of philosophy ever written.

>>15776541
>"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."

As Plato said, being exists by friendship with itself.

>>15613742
Where does one find adulthood? Please tell me, I am on my journey.

>>15134738
Object/subject is a false split, the moral ethical system of "large hearted" Arthur Schopenhauer begs no god to its aid, only the world-overcomer Christ, in the attempt to turn the misguided will and and redeem the world thereof of all its sins and sufferings. For will and world are one.

Though I admit there is a certain creative mysticality which arises through a logical(which means in so far as it makes sense; withstanding from rationality to irrationality, the conclusion of the experience to the belief is the logicality) recognition of a definitive divine "substance" if you will, though Heidegger would disagree with this point, a substance in thought at least. Furthermore, if we take into ourselves a Heideggerian, Eriguenaean understanding of such an imminence like so many have concluded in a personal spiritual development such as Ezra Pound's, then the question remains of a deistic or theistic sense of that presence. I will leave that question to a statement by Heidegger:

>"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."

Rather Platonic isn't it. No doubt, however, one must recognise the untouched suffering which has always persisted, whether God watches over us or he does not!

>>15038022
Only the comfiest chink around.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=z45xGGTo3J0
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DHy1iKBtTq4
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dHIyKUHeixQ
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5kY57A4DYO8

Though I agree it shouldn't be held in the realm of high art, but merely entertainment and sustenance.

>“There is a thinking more rigorous than the conceptual”
~Martin Heidegger

>“The Tao is beyond is and is not. How do I know this? I look inside myself and see.”
~Lao Tzu

>“...the most extreme sharpness and depth of thought belongs to genuine and great mysticism”
~Martin Heidegger

It is something unconscious, or as many have preferred to know it, supraconscious- because it is something higher, deeper and greater. Conscious definitions imposed by an ego terminology are merely constructions to it, whether rational or irrational here or there as absolutes. This is exemplified by Heidegger's "there-ness"; and naturally this all follows from a realisation of the dominance of experience over typical thought, a mystical experience. One must really see the unconscious as an absolute base for all experience, and so something more than which can be "engaged with" but is always engaged and always somewhat "there"- what follows is a realisation of it. It is just that for many the "mind" is confused with or interchangeable for the conscious experience, and hence comes the term "beyond the mind". Or rather is it "underneath the mind":

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3MCtPhoRcIw

Irrefutably the unconscious must be held as the deepest relation to Being, or being in Being in Being?

>"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."

Being is nothing but sacred.

>>15016707
>Nag Hammadi scriptures
I've wanted to read those, how will I do? Tell me, what is the innermost spirit of that religion, or philosophy or mystic or whatnot in your opinion?

Even though its very emphasis is on the suffering of the world, I cannot help but feel that it is pseudo-relational if taken in this way- contrasting a Schopenhaurianism, perhaps. That suffering is something much more incidental to a technical truth of, or reason for revelation. That is, the escaping of the world to something sublime and of that specific cultural character(which is of course more than the age it was made in, though that is the predominating factor) which one recognises prior and before -being able to- stating.

Of course I haven't read those texts as I mentioned, and when I speak of Gnosticism I mean the specific texts of a demiurge and such and not the academic subsuming term which includes Hermeticism- from that definition of course Gnosticism could just be taken somewhat as a simple definition of spiritual transcendence which in some way contrasts the normally perceived matter. Some of these things are present in traditional Christianity of course, but its very heart is much more of or almost synonymous withthe Schopenhauerian comparison I made earlier. That is the true emphasis on the suffering of the world and recognition of a moral meaning of the world therefrom, in aesthetic truth by way of the image of Christ- but that I mean literally the image and idea, not the actual figure(historic or not) which goes in so many too things to state.