/lit/ - Literature

how different is he from pic related?

> DUDE LET ME JUST REDUCE AN ENTIRE SCHOOL OF THOUGHT INTO A SINGLE SHITPOST

>>11037128
you surely haven't learned anything during these 6 years.

>>11037128

>>11037188
>>11037246
>DUDE YOU JUST DONT GET IT LMAO
how about an actual retort for a change?

>>11037128
He's literally correct

/lit/ is a christian anarcho primitivist board, get with the times dude

>DUDE LOGOCENTRIC METAPHYSICS IS ALREADY CONTAMINATED WITH THE MACHINE

>>11037530
>le copy a nazi and get away with it because I am a jew
What a fraud

>>11037542
>copy
>doesn't have own ontology

>>11037247
who is this guy in the pic?

>>11037561
rami malek

>>11037561
My Uncle Ted, he's a diy expert

>>11037128
I am assuming you are talking about the Question Concerning Technology, in which case I think you have misread the work. Technology brings no nearness, it brings no deeper phenomenological engagement with being. What it can do, however, is enframe the way which we approach the question of being. That’s why technology is dangerous, it tends to obscure our enframing. Technology should only be a means to beings ends, not beings ends in themselves.

>>11037565
I'm serious who is this cocksucker it definitely isn't rami

>>11037568
>if it doesn't follow my philosophy it's bad
thanks heidy

>>11037577
Do you expect philosophers positions on things to be heretical to their philosophy? Do you think Plato would write a dialog where it turns out the good isn’t all that important and you might as well just pursue base impulses?

>AYO HOL UP

>>11037577
>if it doesn't follow my philosophy it's bad
Name a philosopher who's all like "aw yeh famalam this shit that contradicts my philosophy is a good thing"

>>11037173
My learned friend loves Ellul and describes him as very similar to Heidegger (sometimes even affectionately as a bootleg Heidegger) but less abstruse

I would say, personally, that the main difference is that Ellul allows you to instrumentalize his ideas without diving into his architectonic and utterly committing to it, whereas Heidegger wants you to "think with him" not just through the question of technology, but through everything else he thinks, all in mutual scaffolding until you are a "Heideggerian."

Both have upsides and downsides. Most people simply can't read Heidegger at all, for example. But even among people who can read Heidegger, or appear to be readers of Heidegger, truly insightful readers have to be unique. Basically initiates, by definition. Another downside is that becoming an initiate of something in this way doesn't necessarily guarantee that the thing is good, or that it won't trap you inside it once you are inside. Being a Heideggerian isn't a great thing if you end up as an epigone who does less with the information than a guy who read and digested Ellul in a day, and moved on to bigger and better praxis.

So the alternative is that you can take Ellul's ideas on technology and start thinking with him much earlier. But the downside of that is that it might not initiate you into anything at all, and then you will just be some guy with a meaningless, raw particulars, quotes and soundbites and thematic elements drawn from Ellul's work, with no in-eins-bildung into a true "perspective."

For example, I know lots of people who think Ellul is insightful and has lots of neat things to say, but few of them really UNDERSTAND, in a deeper and soulful way, what anti-gestell praxis would look like, though they might do a lot of good things in service of the latter by virtue of being steered slightly in that direction by becoming gleichgesinnte with Ellul. Whereas I know a lot of Heideggerians who are worthless morons who have wasted years memorising jargon by rote, and fewer but still fairly numerous Heideggerians who have truly internalised Heidegger but to no purpose. But I also know one or two Heideggerians who can truly see the gestalt of the problem of technology in a way the Ellul guys never will.

I would maybe recommend Ellul as propaedeutic to Heidegger, but only if you understand the latter as something to be read seriously and dangerously or not at all.

>>11037481
How about you list a real set of complaints then?

>>11037568
>Technology brings no nearness, it brings no deeper phenomenological engagement with being. What it can do, however, is enframe the way which we approach the question of being.
People who read Heidegger really ought to read Nietzsche.

>>11037542
>still uses the word "nazi" unironically
Jew or human product of jewish brainwashing confirmed

>>11037577
low energy post

>>11038437
try harder on the bait

>>11038468
Get lost, schlomo, we don't want you hanging around here anymore.

>>11038388
He complained that technology was evil and that we should live in the country.

>>11038388
Heidegger was wrong when he claimed that technology conceals truth, and was wrong with his idea of a primal truth. Technology allows the more intelligent truths to succeed; that is all.

>>11038737
Living in the country is a very European ideal but even more so a Germanic one. This shouldn't be surprising.

>>11038787
Well he was right and wrong
the truth is now more accessible to the b]public, but is drowned out by corporate advertising

>>11038823
>the truth is now more accessible to the public
Your idea of truth, like Heidegger's, is wrong. Each perspective has its own objective truth — "the truth" is found in yourself.

>>11038363
i want to buy you a beer and punch you in the balls simultaneously pedantic faggot anon
>>11038787
it very obviously does obscure truth as it encourages psychotic behavior in the scientific elite and the public. people are inventing ways to ignore basic truths like techne correlates with fertility depression, techne correlates with rampant dysgenic breeding, techne correlates with parasitic fin-tech dialectic, techne causes major firms to hedge humanities future against endless profit from extraction, techne causes maths and physics nerds to pontificate about uploading minds and the singularity against the common sense truth that minds can’t be transferred or simulated and AI is physically impossible, and then the countless instances where techne causes illiteracy, impoverishes discourse, encourages infidelity, dispels the basic tacit understanding of social contracts, simplified and mortifies sociality, plagues the public with insecurity and inculcates narcissism, techne overwhelms humans with information, techne lends itself to breeding itself which engenders solutions to problems which bring forth worse problems and still more solutions which again encumber us with even more negative externalities until monocultures cause desertification, population explosions in unsustainable climes and high mutational load, until techne murders all life on Earth, until techne replaces the inner world (regardless of its ontological status or physical reality) with a hollow, schizogenic, rote existence of mostly externalist oriented robopaths, where techne bridges capitalist opportunism and the dual-tongued doxic litigious socery of the bureaucratic/technocratic elite (EU, MIT, GE, HP, DARPA, RAND, Brookings, CFR, Google, UN ad infinitum), where techne lays waste to artistry, where techne makes hives out of citadels, where techne levels access to memetically radioactive misinformation, where techne throws sensory ratios out of all proportion, where techne degrades the virility and vitality of the male population, where techne manufactures erotomania, where techne leads to the genesis of weaponry which can annihilate the species and permanently render life on earth unsustainable, where techne pushes despots and oligarchic cliques to fight shadow wars through digitized markets, where kybernetic control systems mulch human interests, where the arts, and where culture lay their heads in its maw to be spirited to its viscera and reformatted, spread like spores in cubical atomic units, implanted in the souls of every organism, a monoculture born from convenience and opportunity.

Its completely harmless im sure,
that’s why its already exterminated hundreds of millions of humans, thats why all major keystone species are in decline, that’s why there is a monumental garbage dump in the pacific ocean and that’s why the globe continues to heat and carbon continues to accrue inside the atmosphere and why we find psychotropics in the marine life.

>>11038846
Heidegger's philosophy is a politically charged one. By truth he means things such as "is this product good for you" and if a study says no an ad will say "Look it spins" or some shit
You might be thinking of a more metaphysical truth

>>11038860
>it very obviously does obscure truth as it encourages psychotic behavior in the scientific elite and the public. people are inventing ways to ignore basic truths like techne correlates with fertility depression, techne correlates with rampant dysgenic breeding, techne correlates with parasitic fin-tech dialectic, techne causes major firms to hedge humanities future against endless profit from extraction, techne causes maths and physics nerds to pontificate about uploading minds and the singularity against the common sense truth that minds can’t be transferred or simulated and AI is physically impossible, and then the countless instances where techne causes illiteracy, impoverishes discourse, encourages infidelity, dispels the basic tacit understanding of social contracts, simplified and mortifies sociality, plagues the public with insecurity and inculcates narcissism, techne overwhelms humans with information, techne lends itself to breeding itself which engenders solutions to problems which bring forth worse problems and still more solutions which again encumber us with even more negative externalities until monocultures cause desertification, population explosions in unsustainable climes and high mutational load, until techne murders all life on Earth, until techne replaces the inner world (regardless of its ontological status or physical reality) with a hollow, schizogenic, rote existence of mostly externalist oriented robopaths, where techne bridges capitalist opportunism and the dual-tongued doxic litigious socery of the bureaucratic/technocratic elite (EU, MIT, GE, HP, DARPA, RAND, Brookings, CFR, Google, UN ad infinitum), where techne lays waste to artistry, where techne makes hives out of citadels, where techne levels access to memetically radioactive misinformation, where techne throws sensory ratios out of all proportion, where techne degrades the virility and vitality of the male population, where techne manufactures erotomania, where techne leads to the genesis of weaponry which can annihilate the species and permanently render life on earth unsustainable, where techne pushes despots and oligarchic cliques to fight shadow wars through digitized markets, where kybernetic control systems mulch human interests, where the arts, and where culture lay their heads in its maw to be spirited to its viscera and reformatted, spread like spores in cubical atomic units, implanted in the souls of every organism, a monoculture born from convenience and opportunity.
(And that's a good thing)

>>11037566
He is the combination of /lit/ and /diy/

>>11038846
That's a very jewish perspective. It's silly to deny the subjective element in any particular thing generally, but European philosophy strives and should strive for truth and meaning. Only jews try to pervert this notion by claiming otherwise, in a Derridean or postmodern sense. Many have, unfortunately, imbibed this latter jewish notion as a result of indoctrination.

>>11038883
>That's a very jewish perspective.
Maybe, but it was also Nietzsche's philosophy. This is also not a proper rebuttal.

>>11038883
you have not read enough philosophy, and thus should be ignored. we do not judge by racial composition, only by beauty and faithfulness to the pursuit of sophia. please remove yourself from this discourse or make use of the means laid before you to construct a coherent line of thought, rhetorical, poetic, doxical or sophic. Regardless you are a blister in the mouth of the Logos and appeals to race will not shield you from hails of poison arrows let loose by higher spirits

>>11038866
>You might be thinking of a more metaphysical truth
No, I'm thinking of truth.

>>11037481
Man you must have the worst reading comprehension if thats what you got out of anon's post and Heidegger.

>>11038908
Then what is truth?

>>11038895
That's where it comes from.

>>11038899
I have certainly read a lot more philosophy than you. Philosophy has everything to do with race, which is why all of the major philosophers are Europeans, and why the jews who have tried to insert themselves in get their motives sniffed out fast by anyone who knows about jewish nature.

>>11038917
Yeah, it was a bit off. But post-60s jewish postmodernism is ultimately derived from people like Nietzsche and Heidegger. The worst aspects of their thought, that is.

>>11038928
Dude, i don't know if you're LARPing as a /po/ poster or are just plain stupid but could you please stop. The way you respond you might as well have a tripcode because you always post the same rhetoric.

>>11038928
Plato, Pythagoras, Plotinus never once discuss the relevance of race to discovering the One or the nature of Sophia

Christ, the Buddha and the Daoist sages never bring this issue to the fore of their discussion of metaphysics or epistemology

Kant, Schelling and Hegel do not discuss race in their major works on epistemology and metaphysics

Nietzsche’s discussion of race never at any point strays into assigning perceptual capabilities to whole races, denying a type or affirming a type as being more capable of understanding the Will, only relating each as an effect of willfulness and going so far as to lacerate, indict and abandon the German philosophical and British philosophical traditions (while simultaneously making paradoxical statements about their intellectual capacities)

You have nothing but lunatic sophistry from the early 20th century.

Even Heidegger never explicitly suggests that race determines contact with Being or with the World. Its an effect, not a cause.

Your whole idea of World is predicated on Physis, you confuse the packaging with the product, your body and nervous activity is an EFFECT not a cause. Geist, Will and Nature are the Cause and precede all self-referential binary logical assignment. They are absolute negations and absolute unities, without necessity for particulars or discriminatory consciousness which is the realm of effects.

You do not think, i charge you with abdicating the most sacred of burdens which you were perfectly willing to consent to by taking up the pursuit of knowledge as a child.

Shameful

>>11038919
What makes sense to you.

>>11038919
A consequence of metaphysical nature of the language.

>>11038953
What you said isn't true, but even if we grant you the basic ideas there, why do you think that was? Because all of the people you mentioned either didn't come into contact with races of people who were vastly different, were unthreatened by them in their polities, or lived in places that were far away from alien races.

If you cannot distinguish the simple historical context from 21st century understandings of race (which you clearly don't understand), then you should not be in this discussion. Everything revolves around race, even, and especially, philosophy.

>>11038988
The greeksand roman did have contact with outside races though
Buddha was Indian and is now mainly associated with china
Hell even modern day philosophers don't talk about race
You're really dumb

>>11038928
>That's where it comes from.
It doesn't matter where it comes from.

>>11038928
>It takes a very high IQ to appreciate the flaws in Heidegger's primitivism, ect. ect.
Who has the motive to low-effort psuedb8 this badly (it's not '/pol/sters')

>>11038999
Indians speak an Indo-European language to this day. The higher castes were and still are Aryans who bred into brown, retard.

>>11039001
It certainly does, especially if one wishes to understand jewish postmodernism.

>>11039024
This is a really bad shitpost anon
I don't think you understand what board you're on, see in /lit/ we actually try to pretend we're smart to the point where we've read a few books
this isn't /pol/ where you can say blatant stupid shit and get away with it

>>11039040
Two points:
1) I've never posted on pol
2) Stop positing unless you have an argument

>>11039061
Don't say something retarded unless you have actual proof

>>11037572
Nick Land's father.

>>11038787
Cool.

>tfw no gf

>>11038866
>Heidegger is this pathetic
I think we're going to need a quote for this.

>>11039119
>grrr why aren't they staring blankly into space I hate tecknowlogy

>>11039135

>>11039119
*tips*

>>11039146
good reply. I feel btfo'd but I don't know the reason why.

>>11038883
I'm >>11038895 and just wanted to add:

>It's silly to deny the subjective element in any particular thing generally
Nietzsche was done with the subject vs. object dichotomy after having thoroughly refuted the concept, and Baudrillard, who read Nietzsche, proceeded in going beyond it.

>but European philosophy strives and should strive for truth and meaning.
Did you read Nietzsche? He already brought us to the conclusion of that striving, and exposed what was at the bottom of that striving.

>Only jews try to pervert this notion by claiming otherwise
This isn't a perversion. You are just not well read enough or aren't smart enough to grasp what Nietzsche wrote. European philosophy was not broken and fragmented by Nietzsche's perspectivism. The European mind can continue to coalesce in the light of such a philosophy — hell, Nietzsche himself did it by granting us a goal much higher than any goal that was posited before: the Overman.

>>11038881
/pol/ and /sci/ too

>>11039250

>the last man defending technology
really makes you think

if such a thing a universal truth exist then it will come out no matter what.

>>11039250
Lot of bullshit here. I recommend not thinking of philosophy as some lifestyle model where each level is inherently more right and indicative of greater progress. It doesn't work like that, and is best understood as a dualistic mode of thought rooted in nature and distinguished by the conflict between European thought and semitic perversions of European thought. Nietzsche understood this and the jewish ideas that perverted western values through jewish Christianity, but he came before the next iteration of jewish perversion led us to the dreadful state we find ourselves in now, though he imbibed the early toxins of it.

>>11038860
Good stuff here anon. How is the farm coming along?

>>11037128
>he doesn't realise that Western civilisation is fundamentally flawed and that it was eventually collapse to be replaced by something closer to God

>>11038988
> Everything revolves around race, even, and especially, philosophy.
t. american

>>11038860
>dysgenic breeding

>>11038953
While I agree that anon's arguments vis a vis race and philosophy are narrowly conceived, to imply that Physis has nothing to do with the population groups that furnished minds capable of pursuing the Good is a bit naive too, isn't it?

Point me towards the great Sub-Saharan minds that advanced the dialectic of logos and I'll give up the idea that dysgenically flooding Europe with Africa threatens to bury Sophia.

>>11038999
And how different genetically were the outside races the Greeks and Romans had contact with? Were these societies wholesale importing low quality thirds worlder's and dysgenically preventing any improvement of these races (modernism, welfare state, etc.)?

>>11038416
People that read Heidegger have read Neitszche. People that read Neitzsche fetishize lobsters and clean their room

>>11039775
>People that read Neitzsche fetishize lobsters and clean their room
*People that read overviews of his books on Amazon

>>11039403
You didn't actually reply to any of the points in that post, just threw your own crap into the mix. "Lot of bullshit here."

>Nietzsche understood this
He also understood things you very clearly don't. Like, for example, what the limits of "subject and object" are.

>>11039659
that was one of the only objectively true things he listed

>>11038881
More like /diy/, /out/, and /sci/
>>11039317
He would have despised /pol/. Anti-technology and primitivist sentiments are rarely expressed there

>>11039784
I have a friend who's a huge Pet*rson fan and all he reads and cites in his poli sci classes is Neitzsche. It makes me cringe so bad when he tries to say N is as difficult as Hegel, Heidegger, Spinoza, ect. without actually engaging with them.

>>11039135
you ever just take a moment between the producing and consuming to just, like, reflect a little?

>>11039119
>>11039135
>>11039146
>>11040617
always relevant

lol

But technology is evil, farms are awesome, go to a petting zoo, way more fun than farmville

>>11037527
/lit/ is all plebs and some inconsequential fence sitters

>>11040640
casting your net a little wide there, queequeg

>>11038860
t. didn't read marx

>>11040699
yes what does marx have to say on the subject please elaborate

>>11040707
technology should be liberating humanity from its submission to nature, the only reason it becomes alienating is because of the fucked up surplus extraction systems that have a life of their own and subjugate us. Status-quo philosophers are trapped within this without realizing it and perpetuate falsehoods. Heidegger isn't exempt from this. Especially not naziboy ultracon reactionary Heidegger

>>11040725
what does the unification of free, socialist man with technology look like?

>>11040729
that can't be answered faithfully from within capitalist society. only ongoing praxis can carve out that path.

>>11040725
>Labor theory of value

>>11040736
that's convenient for the marxist, to not have to develop any concrete plan, and simply bide their time until--
what? the engine of history turns over?

>>11040743
marx did talk about praxis, like in critique of the gotha program, he just didn't talk extensively about what the "end-goal"/"utopian" communist society would be like. that kind of idle theorizing is not what leads to change, says marx. material conditions do.

there's also other marxists who talked and practiced later on, although basically they all disagree with each other much like interpreters of any other foundational text of any school of thought

>>11040752
okay.
what is 'praxis'?

>>11040753
>Praxis (from Ancient Greek: πρᾶξις, translit. praxis) is the process by which a theory, lesson, or skill is enacted, embodied, or realized. "Praxis" may also refer to the act of engaging, applying, exercising, realizing, or practicing ideas.
i'm pretty sure heidegger himself has an idea of praxis within his project

>>11040765
i know what the word means
i meant what is praxis for marx/marxists

>>11040743
just believe bro haha
capitalism is obviously going to end itself if we practice marxism hard enough

>>11037128

Heidegger is more like Hegel's retarded brother and Hegel is the true last boss of philosophy.

>>11040770
the same thing it is for any other thinker? fucking plato and aristotle talked about praxis in these terms. it's not a complicated word

or are you asking about specific practices by specific marxists? that shit is too long to write about, any one of them could say different things. critique of the gotha program is one text where marx talks about this, there's also the french workers' programme where he talks about minimum programme, that being immediate political/economical demands like raising wages etc.

heidegger talks about abandoning the technological pursuit as an end in itself, about authenticity in terms of being-towards-death and other shit. it's the same thing, doing things derived from your core ideas that are supposed to actualize the practicer (or, in marxism's case, society)

>>11040799
but in marx ideas themselves are the product of material ie productive forces
what does it mean to 'put into practice' an idea that is extraneous to the supposed 'agent'? what is agency in this situation?
how does the worker recognize which ideas that have been forced into his head through the forces of production are ideological, and so detrimental to his being, and so should be abandoned, and which are placed there by the 'spirit of revolution'? how could these ideas even enter his head, if consciousness itself is merely the outgrowth of the activities of production and reproduction?

>>11040725
>technology should be liberating humanity from its submission to nature
It does this while simultaneously enslaving someone else. No form of technology comes with one and not the other.

>>11037128
You came so far only to be broken by the last guardian? Pathetic.

>>11040812
>>11040799
>how could these ideas even enter his head, if consciousness itself is merely the outgrowth of the activities of production and reproduction?
considering, as you have said, he is subjugated by a fucked up surplus extraction system which, again, and according to marx, determines his consciousness.

>>11040812
marx doesn't talk much about subject, you're right about that. but he considers the culture shaped by dominant social relations of production to be hegemonic, not totalizing. that is, not every single thing inside capitalism is capitalist. that's why he emphasizes the role of critique and why his major work is billed as a "critique of political economy". what to practice and how derives from this act of critique, it's not borne out of mere rejection nor does it come from thin air.

I don't think marx claimed that everything in the consciousness of a subject, or a class, is utterly determined by the workings of the system. it is shaped by it in a dialectical relationship, which means there's also an influence in the other direction. obviously he didn't think technology could develop itself

>>11037128

/lit/ is the most hated board on 4chan already. Acting like a massiv sperg only makes it worse.

I get it you want to boast after reading philosophy for dummies, but don't pretend you have read something you have not.

>>11040830
>It is not the consciousness of men that determines their being, but, on the contrary, their social being that determines their consciousness.
this seems pretty straight-forward
if your social being is 'tiny cog in the capitalist machine', your consciousness is a reflection
likewise, if your social being is 'bourgeois-bohemian flunkie journalist and amateur historian', then your consciousness will be a reflection of such

>>11040830
>>11040845
i also recall hegemony being a gramscian concept, and not one that marx was familiar with. for marx, the mode of production always tended towards 'totality', until its 'inner contradictions' forced it to be superseded/overcome by the next big thang

>>11040830
here's lukacs interpreting engels:
>In his celebrated account of historical materialism [1] Engels proceeds from the assumption that although the essence of history consists in the fact that “nothing happens without a conscious purpose or an intended aim”, to understand history it is necessary to go further than this. For on the one hand, “the many individual wills active in history for the most part produce results quite other than those intended – often quite the opposite; their motives, therefore, in relation to the total result are likewise of only secondary importance. On the other hand, the further question arises: what driving forces in turn stand behind these motives? What are the historical causes which transform themselves into these motives in the brain of the actors?” He goes on to argue that these driving forces ought themselves to be determined in particular those which “set in motion great masses, whole peoples and again whole classes of the people; and which create. a lasting action resulting in a great transformation.” The essence of scientific Marxism consists, then, in the realisation that the real motor forces of history are independent of man’s (psychological) consciousness of them.
so here it doesn't even seem like there's any room for any kind of 'praxis', or application of ideas to practice. the real force of history is already there, acting behind the backs of the very people that are supposed to realize their historical destiny in the revolution of the productive forces.

>>11040845
but when marx talks about determination, he doesn't mean the same kind of linear, causal, inescapable determination that is meant in for example physics. the analogy of the cog in the machine makes the idea too strong.

i'm not sure if marx used the term hegemony, but i don't think gramsci's usage is too different a concept from what was already in marx. gramsci's deviation is more that he applies it to cultural analysis and reproduction, to how culture in power maintains itself in power.

>>11040725
>labor theory of value
>not getting the difference between technology and technics
>complain about status quo philosophers when philo-marxism is part of the status quo
You're quite the stereotype.

>>11040812
>>11040845
>>11040862
>>11040871
Third thesis on Feuerbach
>The materialist doctrine concerning the changing of circumstances and upbringing forgets that circumstances are changed by men and that it is essential to educate the educator himself. This doctrine must, therefore, divide society into two parts, one of which is superior to society. The coincidence of the changing of circumstances and of human activity or self-changing can be conceived and rationally understood only as revolutionary practice.

>>11037128
Not what he said though. He just said that technology isn't value-free, which means that it will not only change society, but change what humanity is.

>>11040946
marx does not say 'the consciousness of man stands in a dialectical relation with his social being'; he says 'their social being determines their consciousness'
so what does 'determine' mean here, if not something synonymous with 'cause'?

>>11041080
Engels' letter to J. Bloch, September 21, 1890
>According to the materialistic conception of history, the production and reproduction of real life constitutes in the last instance the determining factor of history. Neither Marx nor I ever maintained more. Now when someone comes along and distorts this to mean that the economic factor is the sole determining factor, he is converting the former proposition into a meaningless, abstract and absurd phrase. The economic situation is the basis but the various factors of the superstructure – the political forms of the class struggles and its results – constitutions, etc., established by victorious classes after hard-won battles – legal forms, and even the reflexes of all these real struggles in the brain of the participants, political, jural, philosophical theories, religious conceptions and their further development into systematic dogmas – all these exercize an influence upon the course of historical struggles, and in many cases determine for the most part their form. There is a reciprocity between all these factors in which, finally, through the endless array of contingencies (i.e., of things and events whose inner connection with one another is so remote, or so incapable of proof, that we may neglect it, regarding it as nonexistent) the economic movement asserts itself as necessary. Were this not the case, the application of the history to any given historical period would be easier than the solution of a simple equation of the first degree.
>We ourselves make our own history, but, first of all, under very definite presuppositions and conditions. Among these are the economic, which are finally decisive.
This is all really basic stuff.

>>11041060
this doesn't explain anything
the question of how the educator educates himself remains, as he, the educator, he consciousness, is presumably also a mere product of his material circumstances
'circumstances are changed by men'. but men, insofar as they are 'conscious', are determined by their social being, so any change in the circumstance they effect will be a consequence of their social being. but if there social being is that of a worker drone, how do they attain 'revolutionary consciousness'?
if the answer is, 'they are educated about their real, not ideologically determined, circumstances, and so arrive at a 'class consciousness'', there is still the question of how the 'educator' was able to arrive at his education, and what distinguishes his consciousness from 'false consciousness as, again, his circumstances cannot be, in the grand scheme of things, so very different form the worker, given they both live within a society based on the same 'mode of production', which again is the ultimate determinant of consciousness, being the 'material circumstance' of their lives.
each statement in that 'thesis' is begging the question at each instance.

>>11037552
The man himself would probably laugh at that. One of the central ideas of deconstructionism is that every text makes ontological assumptions. Derrida's are no exception.

>>11041093
>'these are the economic--which are finally decisive'
that is the rock upon which the whole terrible vessel is foundered
we know that men make their own history, their own lives, through their own thoughts and actions
that is trivial
but if that is exactly what marx and engels et al actually believe, and NOT that it is actually the material/economic/productive/whatever forces that determine men's thoughts and actions, it's really not clear what is new or interesting or non-trivial in their 'theory' of history

thread supposed to be around heidegger

>marxists hijack it because they're filthy materialist brainlets

dissapointed but not suprised

>>11041118
thread is about technology being evil, according to op.

>>11041099
>>11041105
Do none of you have any sense of nuance? Stop concentrating on the word "determine" so hard, it is only a translation anyways. You can easily posit that material conditions form the circumstances under which ideas are formed without falling into vulgar determinism or tautologies.

>>11041118
>Someone actually starts a discussion in a low-effort "reduce a philosopher to one ridiculous statement" kind of thread by bringing up a critique of Heidegger's view on technology
>/pol/aks come crawling out of the woodwork and start crying about unrelated Marxist concepts they have no grasp on

>>11040640
>nihilist standards of communication

>>11039250
NEETchposting should require sources or get banned to the void.

>>11041132
Lmao, anybody can that the polacks you mention are falseflagging marxist types, even polacks are not as stupid to constantly revert to their catchphrases

nice try though, my original point still stands, another thread derailed by marxist inserting their unwanted and destructive ideology in every, in this case admittedly low effort debate

please stop doing this

>>11041156
>it's a falseflag!!!1!!1!
>i bet da joooos are behind this!1!1!111

>>11040538
True power is difficult in its will. The difficult morality is but slave will.

>>11041171
nice argument friend, but you should be doing better than that.

Granted i cant be sure that they arent polacks but for me it is just to convenient that these apperent brainlets start raving about marxism. Of course yourself and other enlightened persons of intellect can always correct their statements by chance.

nowhere did i mention the j-word

>>11040729

>>11040736
>>11040752
The lack of work on praxis is why all attempts at implementing marxism failed. The idea that the masses will spontaneously, magically make communism happen is a cop out.

>>11040729
gay robot space luxury communism

>>11040799
In marxism praxis is focused on changing society. Ideas are pointless unless they change the world, so it is effectively an overdetermination to act.

>>11041198
i don't think any marxist ever said the masses will spontaneously bring forth communism. almost every place where a "communist revolution" happened, the leaders of those revolutions had extensive work on praxis which they utilised in their actions. lenin, castro, mao, etc; other marxists have also talked about praxis, like gramsci, the frankfurters, rosa luxemburgo, etc.

>>11041198
>The idea that the masses will spontaneously, magically make communism happen is a cop out.
From one misunderstanding to the next. Honestly you all should just read the man, unless you're just strawmanning on purpose.

>>11040830
>he didn't think technology could develop itself
I don't know that this is true. Insofar as capital is value in process are the machines not also caught up in it, and thus take on organic form through valorisation and devalorisation? As capital progresses labour value is circulated within machines themselves, and with the tendency of profits to fall (I'm not sure if Marx explicityl lays this out or not) there would also be a tendency of valorisation towards machinic or second-order labour (third-order?).
>But, once adopted into the production process of capital, the means of labour passes through different metamorphoses, whose culmination is the machine, or rather, an automatic system of machinery (system of machinery: the automatic one is merely its most complete, most adequate form, and alone transforms machinery into a system), set in motion by an automaton, a moving power that moves itself; this automaton consisting of numerous mechanical and intellectual organs, so that the workers themselves are cast merely as its conscious linkages. In the machine, and even more in machinery as an automatic system, the use value, i.e. the material quality of the means of labour, is transformed into an existence adequate to fixed capital and to capital as such; and the form in which it was adopted into the production process of capital, the direct means of labour, is superseded by a form posited by capital itself and corresponding to it. In no way does the machine appear as the individual worker’s means of labour. Its distinguishing characteristic is not in the least, as with the means of labour, to transmit the worker’s activity to the object; this activity, rather, is posited in such a way that it merely transmits the machine’s work, the machine’s action, on to the raw material – supervises it and guards against interruptions. Not as with the instrument, which the worker animates and makes into his organ with his skill and strength, and whose handling therefore depends on his virtuosity. Rather, it is the machine which possesses skill and strength in place of the worker, is itself the virtuoso, with a soul of its own in the mechanical laws acting through it; and it consumes coal, oil etc. (matières instrumentales), just as the worker consumes food, to keep up its perpetual motion. The worker’s activity, reduced to a mere abstraction of activity, is determined and regulated on all sides by the movement of the machinery, and not the opposite. The science which compels the inanimate limbs of the machinery, by their construction, to act purposefully, as an automaton, does not exist in the worker’s consciousness, but rather acts upon him through the machine as an alien power, as the power of the machine itself.

>>11041255
And:
>The appropriation of living labour by objectified labour – of the power or activity which creates value by value existing for-itself – which lies in the concept of capital, is posited, in production resting on machinery, as the character of the production process itself, including its material elements and its material motion. The production process has ceased to be a labour process in the sense of a process dominated by labour as its governing unity. Labour appears, rather, merely as a conscious organ, scattered among the individual living workers at numerous points of the mechanical system; subsumed under the total process of the machinery itself, as itself only a link of the system, whose unity exists not in the living workers, but rather in the living (active) machinery, which confronts his individual, insignificant doings as a mighty organism. In machinery, objectified labour confronts living labour within the labour process itself as the power which rules it; a power which, as the appropriation of living labour, is the form of capital. The transformation of the means of labour into machinery, and of living labour into a mere living accessory of this machinery, as the means of its action, also posits the absorption of the labour process in its material character as a mere moment of the realization process of capital. The increase of the productive force of labour and the greatest possible negation of necessary labour is the necessary tendency of capital, as we have seen. The transformation of the means of labour into machinery is the realization of this tendency. In machinery, objectified labour materially confronts living labour as a ruling power and as an active subsumption of the latter under itself, not only by appropriating it, but in the real production process itself; the relation of capital as value which appropriates value-creating activity is, in fixed capital existing as machinery, posited at the same time as the relation of the use value of capital to the use value of labour capacity; further, the value objectified in machinery appears as a presupposition against which the value-creating power of the individual labour capacity is an infinitesimal, vanishing magnitude; the production in enormous mass quantities which is posited with machinery destroys every connection of the product with the direct need of the producer, and hence with direct use value; it is already posited in the form of the product’s production and in the relations in which it is produced that it is produced only as a conveyor of value, and its use value only as condition to that end. In machinery, objectified labour itself appears not only in the form of product or of the product employed as means of labour, but in the form of the force of production itself.

>>11041255
>>11041278
Eerie shit. Is that from the infamous "fragment on machines"?

>>11040832
>/lit/ is the most hated board on 4chan already

Saying it doesn't make it true. /pol/ is probably the most hated board and it's not even close

>>11041333
Even people who have never posted on pol but talk about the jewish problem and therefore get accused of being from there, hate pol.

>>11041155
What do you need a source on from that?