/lit/ - Literature

You fuckers never actually explain why you think what you think, yet expect everyone else to explain themselves for your benefit.

>>11880828
https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=6UIRFycQ9Nk
enjoy

>>11880826
Zhuangzi was the last philosopher that mattered.

Everything onwards is just academic mental masturbation. Prove me wrong.

You can't.

>>11880833>>11880826

any rationalist is a retard

>>11880828
Okay, I'll briefly explain why Heidegger was the last philosopher that mattered.

Heidegger was the last one to speak about things that mattered to people everyday: purpose and the lack thereof, religion, science, language, the role and decline of the humanities and arts, poetry, politics, and the way all these were intertwined.

Sartre and Camus were basically recycling his thought for the masses.

Afterwards, philosophy took a turn towards stagnation and irrelevance. Ever since the 1960s, popular opinion is dominated by entry-level Foucault-ian postmodernist philosophy (SJWs, minority rights, power structures, equality of cultures), with a recent resurgence in conservative/nationalist thought by the New Right.

I actually have to correct myself: I think Foucault is important as well.

>>11880848
Holy fuck you are dumb

>>11880872
I'm sorry you're upset, anon.

>>11880826
Economics anul fucked all. It anul fucked philosophy so hard that people don't even remember it being a philosphy at first. It created it's own science. It reigns supreme. It's proven reliability and predictably is what set it apart from the rest. Such so the elites laugh at your nonsense. Let the plebs discuss Nietzsche and Kant bs while we attack their animal instincts to force them to consume and herd them like cattle with economics. Waste your time slave waste your time

>>11880879
What is anul?

>>11880848
what did Heidegger say about those things and why they mattered? would you mind sharing his arguments, maybe a few excerpts and your thoughts on them and why they mattered? It would help us to better understand why you feel you’re right, im ready to be convinced.

>>11880833
correction
Zhuangzi was the only philosopher that mattered

>>11880826
> Heidegger was the last philosopher that mattered.
Heidegger is another meaningless semantic manipulator. Read Daniel Dennett or Nick Bostrom.

>>11880924
>meaningless semantic manipulator

Only in his later phase, when he went full linguistics autism.

>>11880826
He was BTFO by Adorno.

>>11880848
I guess you haven't read Deleuze.

my diary desu

>>11880848
>Camus were basically recycling his thought for the masses.
And Heidegger was ripping off Kierkegaard

>>11881250
yes and no. he added lots of stuff.

so did camus and sartre, but they impoverished heideggers work instead of improving it.

>>11880826
Singer matters more. Animal rights, and effective altruism are much more important than your favorite Nazi philosopher.

>>11880826
For you

>>11880884
maybe u should try reading a book

>>11881250
There's a big difference between ripping off and continuing on. Continuing on from previous questions is generally what we should do, and we generally have to continue on in some way (considering all that has been written).

>>11880884
>spoonfeed me, daddy!

>>11880884
He was mostly concerned with the question of being in its classical sense. A good quote is, "Language is the house of the truth of Being." But that may not say a lot unless you get some grasp of his thought.
He's not really easy to sum up. Technology was probably his second most important question, and this is almost entirely in relation to its being. This makes it hard to distinguish what he is saying unless you understand his thought on being.

>>11880826
What would it take for a modern man to become a philosopher in your opinion OP?

>>11881281
Ehm no, animal rights are an absolutely niche topics in an age of mass meat consumption

>>11881352
animals have no rights

>>11881369
That’s what I mean, basically

We abuse more animals than ever before today

>>11881376
Let me rephrase: animals have no essential essence and should not have rights, period.

>>11881305
>I have no idea what I'm doing here

>>11881388
>essential essence

whats that supposed to be, and why do humans have it, then?

>>11881281
What about pavement rights?

>>11881295
He didn't give Kierkegaard credit while almost quoting him verbatim. This isn't debatable it is well known.

>>11881420
Mans nature.
"A fundamental error, then, of the advocates of “animal rights” is their failure to identify—or even to attempt to identify—the specific nature of the species man, and hence the differences between human beings and other species. Failing to think in such terms, they fall back on the shifting sands of subjective feelings."

>>11880848
>Heidegger
>Science
Primary reason why I'm not to hyped to read hiedegger is because he is a science hater.

>>11881541
The scientific revolution and its consequences have been a catastrophe for the human race.

>>11881560
it's the reason you can shitpost from a warm building, with a fridge full of food and your physical safety guaranteed, instead planting crops 12h/day, fearing bandit raids, illness and bad weather

Nowadays science is a 2nd religion.
How about Michel Foucault?

>>11881590
nah, religion is completely different in that it doesn't require empirical validation.

>>11881597
Go validate any axiom

>>11881657
>you have to prove A = A before knowing anything

>>11881752
Knowledge is conditional. Worst of all you just can't refuse to know anything. Accept that neither evil nor sick means neither bad nor wrong, simply dangerous like the knowladge itself.

>>11881541
He's not a science hater, he only hated soulless physicists acting as philosophers and spreading their post war Anglo analytical crap everywhere.

>>11881575
It's also the reason why that kind of lifestyle will gradually destroy human society through pollution and overpopulation

Why are people discussing Heidegger? Most don't even get Zizek.

>>11880826
How the fuck can you think this when Baudrillard existed?

What about Zubiri, Ricouer, Lonergan, Voegelin, Girard, Hadot?

>>11881462
>the specific nature of the species man
literally the shiftingiest sands of subjective feeling

>>11882077
I keep seeing this bullshit about soulless bugmen science and so on. The truth is that you're the one who is unable to appreciate the infinitely complicated poetry that these scientists do in order to understand the world that we live in.

>>11881560
The ones who it has been a catastrophe for are not human.

>>11882211

>>11882211
Prototype NPCs need to be permabanned.

>>11882221
>t. nubermensch

>>11882224
>>11882230
Literally preferring ignorance due to aesthetics of the knowledge. Yeah, it's rough for your smooth brains. But, just get out of the way and let us "NPCs" do the work for you guys so that you can bitch about it on /lit/.

>>11882250
You call quitting philosophy forever to become a poet when you realize actually you aren't cut out for this whole analysis thing doing the work?

>>11882250
t. STEMlord

>>11880833
You're right, we cant, because he didnt actually say anything.

>>11882211
Soulless bugmen science is a fact. Philosophy was a respected field before WW2 and post modernism. And the rest was completely destroyed by assholes who can't even grasp the metaphysics and other basic notions of philosophy like Popper or Kuhn. Hedegger knew and saw it all but he couldn't do anything because he was branded as a Nazi by the new Anglo centered materialist "philosophy" and other leftist warhogs. Now all we could do is to discuss whether robots can have feelings or promoting faggots like Peter Singer.

>>11882242
The sooner you stop resenting yourself, the sooner you'll stop resenting the world around you and will be able to pull out of the shit.

>>11882263
What? I disagree with Heidegger's perspective. I think that the science is the grandest poetry, and that Heidegger didn't even get it.

>>11882279
Heidegger was a bumbling tree hugger who misunderstood Nietzsche and modernism.

>>11880833
Is that why China built their society around Taoism and never read Marx?

>>11882279
>Heidegger was trying to save us from postmodernism

>>11882279
Metaphysics was not destroyed, but transformed and uplifted by the increasing amount of knowledge. Like I said, you're unable to appreciate the aesthetics of the knowledge, so you're criticizing it based on "soullessness", when it is actually the most enriching and complicated poetry to grasp.

>>11882250
>HAHA WE'RE ALL GOING TO DIE!
>AND I'M GOING TO GET A MEDAL!
BTFO me, I guess...

>>11880826
*Wittgenstein

>>11882280
>muh ressentiment
Damn, you really got me with that one.

>>11882279
Philosophy is losing ground because of a general sentiment of anti-intellectualism.

It's the humanities in general, and even many social sciences.

The reason people are proclaiming STEM and trying to turn all universities into business schools is because everyone has drank the capitalist kool-aid that university is job training and that the only scholarly activities worth doing are ones that generate profit.

Most people seem to have forgotten that truth and beauty have value in and of themselves depart from vulgar economic relations, and that we shouldn't decide what's worth studying and exploring via popularity contest.

>>11882308
Pathetic response, anon. That meme pic isn't even of Nietzsche.

>>11882283
You talk like you've seen too many documentaries with black science man.

>>11882313
>fallacies, especially reductio ad absurdum, have to be based in reality
Holy fuck this place is a brainlet fucking sinkhole. We are doomed.

>>11882311
Eh, kinda but not really. Ultimately, you only can obtain knowledge through brute force, and the capital (brutally) drives the direction of brute forcing. The problem is that humanities aren't even trying to gain knowledge, but rather restate and create a spectacle out of what other people've already said.

>>11880882

When put it in te bum

>>11882315
Yeah and?

>>11882320
>Holy fuck this place is a brainlet fucking sinkhole.
Do you realize what thread you're in? It should come at no surprise.

>>11882283
>science is the grandest poetry
You quantumtatively need to n-minus-1 to the rdtquandrantsector.

>>11882299
>you're unable to appreciate the aesthetics of the knowledge
Knowledge is a fluid concept bucko, not a cookie cutter idea. Oh wait, it means nothing for you because your "philosophy" resents grey spaces. Because the glorifiying a brand looks way better then analyzing through it's internals. You sound like a 19th century rationalist. It's both disgusting and sad at the same time because we're at the time where knowledge has the least value in everything.

>>11882329
Yeah, which is why I posted
>>11882095
There are probably 4 people who frequent this board who could make any sense of Heidegger.

>>11880884
Nah I agree with his general point. There’s been a glaring lack of philosophy as it relates to actual experience lately. A girl I know in a PHD program at NYU for philosophy was jerking off a couple days ago about how she met a dude that was prominent in philosophy and when I asked what he was about all she could say is that he publishes mathematic philosophy in journals that can only be understood by like 10 people.

I was left wondering what the fuck good that does anyone.

>>11882299
>you're unable to appreciate the aesthetics of the knowledge, so you're criticizing it based on "soullessness", when it is actually the most enriching and complicated poetry to grasp.
Just keep playing your bongos Feynman. Philosophy is obviously not for your kind.

>>11882339
There's even less who can make sense of Baudrillard, the better 20th century philosopher. Heidegger was the last gasp of a dying philosophical tradition, metaphysics, which was fatally wounded by Nietzsche the century prior.

>>11882357
t. not one of the 4

>>11882299
can we get some FUCKING BASED scientism aesthetics going on people

>>11882357
>Baudrillard, the better 20th century philosopher
You mean "le we live in a nightmare" dude?

>>11882352
>just keep being a genius
>ha that showed him

>>11882332
What? Science embraces the gray space. The knowledge is only good as it's represented in the correct context and so on. Knowledge is hard to obtain and even harder to make sense of. There's branding in sense of trying to convey the general meaning of a scientific idea. However, to truly appreciate the idea itself, you have to experience the poetry of it. You sound like the Starbucks barista who serves my coffee.

>>11882299
January 1946, Mojave Desert. Jack Parsons, a rocket scientist and Thelemite, performs a series of rituals with the intention of conjuring a vessel to carry and direct the force of Babalon, overseer of the Abyss, Sacred Whore, Scarlet Woman, Mother of Abominations. His goal is to bring about a transition from the masculine Aeon of Horus to a new age—an age presided over by qualities imputed to the female demon: fire, blood, the unconscious; a material, sexual drive and a paradoxical knowledge beyond sense … the wages of which are nothing less than the ego-identity of Man—the end, effectively, of “his” world. Her cipher in the Cult of Ma’at is 0, and she appears in the major arcana of the Thoth Tarot entangled with the Beast as Lust, to which is attributed the serpent’s letter ט, and thereby the number 9. In her guise as harlot, it is said that Babalon is bound to “yield herself up to everything that liveth,” but it is by means of this very yielding (“subduing the strength” of those with whom she lies via the prescribed passivity of this role) that her devastating power is activated: “[B]ecause she hath made her self the servant of each, therefore is she become the mistress of all. Not as yet canst thou comprehend her glory.”2 In his invocations Parsons would refer to her as the “flame of life, power of darkness,” she who “feeds upon the death of men … beautiful—horrible.”

>>11882361
>understanding Heidegger means you need to laud him as some great thinker
No.

>>11882325
I'm saying you're an npc that can't think critically for yourself and you take the words of a propped up false authority as fact.

>>11882367
>genius
>125 IQ
Guy couldn't even comprehend Spinoza.

>>11882357
In what way does Baudrillard outdo Heidegger? I don't really agree with Heidegger in a lot of ways, but he was clearly brilliant and asking many of the correct questions.
Most never even get to the right questions, which means it is impossible to ever get a right answer. Unless a god saves us.

>>11882382
Speak for yourself npc.

>>11882368
>There's branding in sense of trying to convey the general meaning of a scientific idea. However, to truly appreciate the idea itself, you have to experience the poetry of it.

>>11882306
>"Bro, everything's nonsense bro! I totally solved philosophy bro!"

More of a meme than Camus

>>11882386
>In what way does Baudrillard outdo Heidegger?
For one, he properly begins his work where Nietzsche left off, by immediately discarding the fallacious concept of an origin. After Nietzsche, there are no origins; metaphysics has no grounding. Heidegger entirely missed this point.

>>11882389
>N-no you

Great argument

>>11882390
Trying to describe a prostate cancer is not the same thing as extracting the tumor through some fat 50 years old guy's asshole. Hope that cleared things up.

>>11882407
Nope, you still sound like a faggot.

>>11882404
Lol, I bet you think that you're being charitable considering your previous posts. The mainstream though on lit is antiscienticism. Are you really not a npc?

>>11882368
>The knowledge is only good as it's represented in the correct context and so on. Knowledge is hard to obtain and even harder to make sense of. There's branding in sense of trying to convey the general meaning of a scientific idea. However, to truly appreciate the idea itself, you have to experience the poetry of it.
This was the most overly pretentious shit I've heard in this board since a long time. That's why I love these threads.

>>11882413
Is it? I don't remember the last time I've seen a thread where science is discussed directly.

>>11882383
>IQ meme
b-b-but I thought stemtards invented that

>>11882398
>After Nietzsche, there are no origins

>>11882299

>>11882447
lol
>>11882398
But I'm pretty sure power would be the origin. Although that probably means I just resent power and Nietzsche. And not to be a tough guy, but I'm willing to take that risk.

>>11882447
What's fedora about stating what a philosopher thought and argued towards?

>>11882480
Power is a non-origin for Nietzsche.

>>11882211
>the infinitely complicated poetry

>reading this thread
Jesus christ what happened to /lit/? Has it always been this bad?

>>11882492
>>11882308

>>11882622
Will to power does not function like a point of origin for Nietzsche. It is a term for his concept of an origin-less universe.

>>11880884
Cringe

>>11880826
>Heidegger was the last philosopher that mattered. Prove me wrong.

>>11880848
>Actually I am wrong let me explain why

>>11880848
>Heidegger was the last one to speak about things that mattered to people everyday
he literally focused on ontology and being, two very abstract subjects which most people never think about. Much more practical philosophers are around today. Also, Camus didn't appropriate Heidegger as much as he did Keirkegaard.

>>11882322
Knowledge does not require any type of force. You can gain knowledge based on pure conjecture.
You can learn something meaningful and important by manipulating symbols with a stick in the sand.

>>11880826
>t. facebook /MetaphysicalCatgirls/?eid=ARCWDOma0TnwyBQOqUeMOH1dOxZ7krO-NFNCpSYTVhOQdechTzSbW9jCHQNr0-82NP9bY6Eu8f6lwMNm

>>11882679
Cringe

>>11881541
>>11882211
Heidegger isn’t against science as such. He rather is against how scientific and technological ways of thinking (“calculative”) cover up a more primordial, direct way of engaging with the world. We forget that it is we ourselves subjectively assigning values and meanings to things, and come up with the idea that the only purpose of things and life is to describe, calculate, plan, measure everything. It’s basically the mindset of “Dude what’s the point of poetry and art lmao why don’t we just do science to help humanity and create more and more efficient and new inventions lol”. In this very process, we sort of “cover” more primordial and unscientific ways of engaging with the world; we lose a sort of authenticity.

If you think I’m saying something wrong about Heidegger, I probably am, please correct me, I’m not too far into Being and Time and not the best at understanding him in various parts.

>>11883358
What I'm saying is that, the science and techology has the poetry akin to the literature poetry. From what I've seen from some lit people, they use Heidegger to basically say that science is soulless and devoid of the mystical depths of creativity and so on. That's what I disagree with. I think that science has the same depth, just out of the reach for the laymen.

I haven't come to /lit/ for about six months. I don't remember Heidegger being as frequently discussed back then as he is now, or Hegel for that matter.

I wonder who the next philosopher of the month will be?

>>11883534
We will be back to talking about Zizek, unfortunately.

>>11880826
Yea because that's how philosophy works. Once you catch the most powerful legendary pokemon, level him up to lv100, you can defeat all other pokemon!

You can have a favorite anon, that's okay. But there's no intelligent person on this earth who would say anything like "Warhol was the last artist who mattered" or "Einstein was the last physicist who mattered."
It just makes you sound dumb. Don't do it in public if you wanna save yourself from embarassment.

>>11883534
Already a thread.

>>11883486
I see your point. People on /lit/ are really trigger-happy when it comes to attacking admiration of science as “scientism”. I’m not so scientifically or mathematically minded but I can see the beauty in Euler’s identity or general relativity (what’s not to be awed at in the idea of gravity warping light and spacetime and in measurements of space and time being relative to the observer?). What’s more at stake here is utilitarian and calculative forms of thinking potentially leading to a technocratic nihilism.

You can look at nature and admire its beauty, contemplate its purpose. You can also look at it inasmuch as it “ready-to-hand”, utilizable, capable of being used for resources, to create tools, equipment to do other things. Heidegger’s fear is that the latter viewpoint is increasingly covering over the former one, although, again, I am not a Heidegger expert and believe I may be simplifying it or making it sound overly poetic when I speak of “admiring its beauty” and “contemplating its purpose,” but it’s somewhat the gist. In this sense, admiring the beauty of Euler’s identity and of general relativity would not be the thing Heidegger is railing against. It may very well be in the line of his more ‘contemplative’ mode of thinking.

>>11883602
Yeah you're right, it is.

>>11883534
Luhmann

>>11880826
For the metaphysical tradition - yeah

But metaphysics became irrelevant by now.

>>11885297
what, literally all of modern philosophy (epistemology, dialectics etc.) is based in metaphysics

>>11883767
it's funny when analytics pretend their philosophy matters,
when it's neither philosophy
nor scientifically analytic

>>11885424
It's almost as funny as when bad writers and even worse psychologists try and fail to both radicalize people and create something of value by calling their word salad philosophy.

>>11880833
This

>>11880833
Basically anything on lit is a meme that no one understands anyway. Prove me wrong.
Pro tip: already shown to be true.

>>11885758
to truly appreciate the misunderstanding of meme itself, you have to experience the poetry of it.

It was probably Quine or Putnam, desu.

>>11882398
What? Are you unfamiliar with Heidegger's Abgrund? Oh let me guess, you think his questioning of Being results in something like ousia. Did you even pay attention to the ontological difference? How stupid are you?

>>11886036
Despite his intention with Ab-grund, it translates poorly into his work. It is a sloppier rephrasing of what Nietzsche already wrote. This has and will always put into question exactly how much of Nietzsche he really grasped; Ab-grund is not even a particularly accurate catch for the type of post-origin will Nietzsche had in mind, because it continues to perpetuate, even if its definition attempts to contradict this, a thing-in-itself.

>>11886036
Despite his intention with Ab-grund, it translates poorly into his work. It is a sloppier rephrasing of what Nietzsche already wrote. This has and will always put into question exactly how much of Nietzsche he really grasped; Ab-grund is not even a particularly accurate catch for the type of post-origin will Nietzsche had in mind, because it continues to perpetuate, even if its definition attempts to contradict this, a thing-in-itself.

Heidegger still writes and expresses his ideas as though he's still contending with the metaphysical concept of appearances; that concept was rendered null in Nietzsche's work, and has no place in reality as far as a post-origin will is concerned. And without the world of appearances, you can't have a thing-in-itself — the post-origin world is whole in itself. The thing-in-itself was an imagined thing because the world of appearances was an imagined thing. The problem with Heidegger is that his ideas are detached from the understanding of all this and he ends up simply being an outdated metaphysician.

>>11886110
>that concept was rendered null in Nietzsche's work

>>11886110
He's coming out of the phenomenological tradition, of course he is contending with appearances. But he isn't positing a noumena behind these appearances.

Almost everything you said is wrong. Claiming Nietzsche escaped Heidegger's criticisms is one thing (Heidegger said as much himself just before he died), but your analysis is poor. Read any of the works where Heidegger makes a distinction between a beginning and an origin, it's quite clear he is not concerned with some some substance to get back to and interrogate as the tradition has attempted (onto-theology). I just don't even understand how you can say the things you're saying. Read Schurmann's On Being And Acting. Read Derrida. Read Deleuze. Foucault. Any of these people coming out of a Nietzschean indebtedness will show you just how wrong you are. The solution Heidegger offers may not be aligned with Deleuze. But the claim that Heidegger is a thinker of representation and grounds is just so unbelievably wrong. Like... read the Question Concerning Technology. Literally any fucking thing the guy wrote is completely against everything you're claiming.

>>11886187
If he's contending with appearances, and perpetuating the existence of a world of appearances, then he is implicitly perpetuating the metaphysical premise of a thing-in-itself, because when the thing-in-itself disappears, so does the subject-in-itself, and consequently the object-in-itself, and consequently all forms of appearances; when you maintain a world of appearances, you maintain states of permanence in that world, which maintains objects of permanence upon which the states can be applied, which maintains subjects, which maintains things-in-themselves. I'm not concerned with the postmodernists because they all read Nietzsche as well and weren't solely working off of Heidegger as a foundation.

As long as Heidegger still contends with appearances, he's outdated and still stuck on "metaphysics," bottom line.

>>11882637
Damn, if the nazis had burned Nietzsche's books instead they may have had a chance.

>>11886036
Nietzscheans can't be stupid.
There is only power.
And stupid is as stupid does.
Which is power in itself.

>>11886219
You are so wrong. Why don't you read the guy instead of thinking because he discusses phenomena he is therefore the same as Kant.

Embarrassing. I hope you are an undergrad or an analytic.

>>11886250
I read Being and Time like 8 years ago, so I'm working off of that for the most part, but if I'm wrong, can you tell me what you get out of Heidegger that you can't get out of Nietzsche? The postmodernists miss a big part of Nietzsche's work, as they were focused primarily on the lack of an underlying structure that they perceived to be inherent in Nietzsche, which was wrong; anyone still on about truthfulness vs. untruthfulness or meaningfulness vs. meaninglessness (aka realities vs. appearances) after reading Nietzsche simply didn't understand him or his concept of the will.

He is irrelevant.
Mathematicians and physicist are the relevant philosophers of 20st Century, and currently it's Physical Chemists, Quantum Physicists and AI guys.

>>11880833
>despite all the material advances in civilization designed to accommodate us, you will NEVER be this comfy

>>11886290
You can only try

>>11886110
Anything I can read for more of this critique of Heidegger?

>>11882611
Yes. This is what happens when you open a forum about reading for people that don't actually read.

>>11886110
So two people argue how NUFFIN EXIST and they both agree NUFFIN EXIST while they argue that NOTHING EXIST proving that NOTHING EXISTS EXISTS ?

is this modern university social studies?

what a fucking waste holy shit
pull all funding

Have Amazon and McDonald's educate people.
Have Space X scout for people at high school.

Univerisities are communist shit.

>>11886438

>>11886438
its just germans being german

>>11886606
What is wrong with those people this is so stupid

>>11886402
>anything I can read for more ill-informed shitpost critique
you’re in the right place my man

>>11882283
The fact that you dont understand anona question is evident that you have a buckretarded view of philosophy. Science is literally braindead next to the rigor required to make serious philosophical inquiries. You’re just a whiney bitch who watches Cosmos to feel smart. You will die without having a single serious thought lmao

>>11886660
>Science is literally braindead next to the rigor required to make serious philosophical inquiries

>>11886650
It's not really ill-informed. It's a real debate as to whether Heidegger is right that Nietzsche's will to power is still metaphysics. And then you have Heideggerians like Derrida who argue Heidegger is still in metaphysics and then Hegelians (obviously) like Zizek who argue the same.

Do YOU even read?

>>11886402
That "critique" is not held by anyone. Derrida's work on Heidegger is showing ways in which Heidegger too fell into the tradition, or at the very least didn't push his project to the limits. Deleuze's reading of Nietzsche is attempting to show that Nietzsche escaped Heidegger's account (but the argument that Heidegger is a philosopher of representation or of ousia or something like this is not what Deleuze mantains). Kofman was a student of Derrida and likewise attempted to show that Heidegger's reading of Nietzsche was flawed.

It's pretty universally agreed that Heidegger's reading of Nietzsche does a certain violence to Nietzsche's thinking. But to argue that Heidegger promotes the same onto-theological tradition that he (along with Nietzsche) completely destroyed is wrong. Being and Time laid the foundations for this with the ontological difference. He explicitly states that Being is not a being. Levinas seemingly made this error until Derrida corrected him in "Violence and Metaphysics." But Heidegger goes much further than the ontological difference in his later work, and especially in the Beitrage.

>>11886822
>he (along with Nietzsche) completely destroyed
Heidegger shouldn't take credit for something already done by a predecessor simply because he presents it in a droller (and consequently less penetrating) format that is more suitable for less intuitive people, and he does no service to the ideas with his use of terminology.

>>11886679
These are the people who criticise memes that require thinking.

>>11886839
How are you not sick of yourself? Literally one of the greatest minds to have ever existed, and you cannot get over trying to knock him because your understanding of Nietzsche is so much more "intuitive" (as if that means any-fucking-thing at all) than a systematic philosopher who is able to continue on Nietzsche's project. How do you converse with people in real life? It's beyond pathetic.

Heidegger has an ego, sure. But we could same some more dumb bullshit (since you like doing that) and say that Spinoza already said what Nietzsche said. Or, perhaps, my intuitive sense while reading the fragments of Parmenides and Heraclitus is better than Nietzsche.

Please, please go read Plato. Relearn why you started reading this shit in the first place: because you maybe, MAYBE, don't know everything there is to know.

Anything that exist is a trolling. Knowladge is a misunderstood meme. Keep reasoning my friends

>>11886861
cringe...you writing a masters thesis on heidegger or something? you mad that he's destroying your entire pathetic emo world view?

>>11886861
>How do you converse with people in real life?
How do you, considering you sound bent over a discussion about philosophers?

I just don't see why Heidegger is relevant or should be when you can blame a good deal of the postmodernists' nonsense on his mishandling of Nietzsche's ideas. Outside of understanding that, he hardly contributed to the scene. He was not a milestone like Spinoza and certainly not like Nietzsche. Heidegger even almost admits the irrelevancy of his work in the beginning of Being and Time, where he states that he is reigniting a discussion that has ended and no one is still interested in:

>Do we in our time have an answer to the question of what we really mean by the word ‘being’? Not at all. So it is fitting that we should raise anew the question of the meaning of Being. But are we nowadays even perplexed at our inability to understand the expression ‘Being’? Not at all. So first of all we must reawaken an understanding for the meaning of this question.

Not that there was even any question of the sort after Nietzsche. He was basically trying to force a certain academic attitude towards philosophy back into relevancy.

>>11886290
>>11886293
putting this thread on my watch list only because I want to see if anyone posts a funny reply to this

>>11882288
>China built their society around Taoism
Lol no, they switched to neo-confucianism.

>>11880826
Gadamer and Habermas are pretty fucking great, and their fanboys are not bad at all. More importantly than their not being unbearable though is that a lot of their students go on to do things in human rights, politics etc. unlike fucking Heideggerians. Derrida is good along with Foucault, but fuck most continental/literary academia around them; those motherfuckers sit around preaching their bullshit to rich and lazy LA students. Not to say analytic philosophers don't do the same, only it smells different.

This is a literature board, so I'm sure you're all afraid of logic and resentful of the success of scientists. That being said, Putnam, Quine, and Chalmers are all very smart and very important for philosophy and cog science, even if I disagree with the latter two on pretty much everything they said.

>>11883767
This back and forth warms my heart.

>>11886940
Heidegger is relevant. Any conty must respond to him, and a lot of the better analytics nowadays read him. He has influenced widely different fields from cog science, to clinical psych, to literary theory/film studies etc. Why he's relevant, however, has nothing to do with answering the question of being, it's the fucking ideas he reveals along the way. His attack of Cartesianism, the temporal structure of care, the analysis of things in the world as being primarily ready-to-hand, his notion of gestell are very clearly influential and important ideas.

>>11886290

>>11887565
I forgot I can't be sarcastic on the internet

>>11886438
The adults are having a serious conversation about some philosophical ideas, just because you don’t understand doesn’t mean you need to come in with your “U CANT KNO NUFFIN” meme.

>>11887684
>Why he's relevant, however, has nothing to do with answering the question of being, it's the fucking ideas he reveals along the way.

This, we didn’t need to answer the question of Being, the real treasure was the friends we made along the way.

>>11885445
>it's word salad because I don't understand it!
Bah, I thought STEM majors took academia more seriously than continentals? I guess I was wrong.

>>11888326
Nowhere did I say I didn't understand what these self-proclaimed "public intellectuals" are saying.
Of course, like your idols I don't expect you to understand subtlety. It's almost a prerequisite in order confuse purposefully obscure and abstruse language for profundity.
Anything that can be said can be said clearly. Only mountebanks engage in magniloquence where precision and concision will suffice.

thread revived

>>11886940
>I just don't see why Heidegger is relevant
lmao neetchbabbies

>>11888326
It's word salad because it conveys absolutely nothing of importance while reading like a fucking sociology dictionary.

Get fucked

>>11888467
>Anything that can be said can be said clearly
prove it fag

>>11889793
Mathematics.
Go get fucked with your trans feminismi dog fuck intersection.

>>11881462
>A fundamental error

define error

The story of Dreyfus the American Heideggerian vs the turbo-fedoras in early AI research and how he tried to create "Heideggerian AI" - a monstrosity any way you slice it - is actually interesting, unlike every post in this thread so far.

>>11882279

>Hedegger knew and saw it all but he couldn't do anything because he was branded as a Nazi by the new Anglo centered materialist "philosophy" and other leftist warhogs

To me that is a very direct and accurate statement. If you are Heidegger reader, then what next?

>>11889573
Still waiting for an answer to my question here >>11886270

>>11889795

>>11889795
>thinks math has all the answers
>meanwhile math believes there is such a thing as a straight line or a perfect circle

>>11880826
Heidegger was an extremely intelligent man and one the most groundbreaking thinkers of all time but his philosophy is ultimately of no use. If you go deep into it it becomes impossible to deny that it leads to some sort of fascism, which may not be exactly what we have come to associate as such, but it is fascism nonetheless and therefor he's wrong. We need to find another path.

Bump

>>11880826

*reads a quote from Heidegger and makes this thread*

>>11881388
>double 88s
>doesn't know about Hitlerist environmentalism
fucking pleb

>>11881575
We shouldn't be able to do that. It's decadent as fuck and unsustainable. 7 years of feast, 7 years of famine etc.

>>11882250
>>11882211
>>11881541
Good goy.

>>11895506
I really hope you don't actually believe this.

>>11895515
Lol supporting one of the defining field of achievement of white europeans is now "good goy" behaviour, and you should farm instead.

HMMMMMMMM

Plato was the last philosopher that mattered.

Everything onwards is just academic mental masturbation. Prove me wrong.

>>11880831
>10 hours
>part 1 of 3

>>11892551
What the fuck does this even mean? I can only assume you're talking about early Heidegger. But what the fuck do you base this claim off of? Yes the existential part of the book (II.i II.ii) in particular the stuff on resoluteness is pretty nationalist, but how the fuck does it lead you to fascism? What Heidegger have you read that led you to this conclusion?

>>11887684
>>11888256
>This, we didn’t need to answer the question of Being, the real treasure was the friends we made along the way.
+1

>>11881427
>tfw your obscure moondog reference does not go unnoticed

>>11880826
You are right though.

>>11897111
If Nick Land is the last meaningful philosopher, which philosophers come after him and which before?

>>11899951
Nice bait, but no.

>>11897876
His phenomenology leads to a lack of universal and unifying values for the human race. His idea of authenticity as well while recognizes that you're a product of your conditions it isn't about disrupting them but to become an autonomous product of them. For Heidegger being authentic isn't about rebelling against the arbitrariness of your culture and trying to achieve a global human culture with objective standards of what means to be a human. Under his system such thing is downright impossible as every system can be further deconstructed. If you think like this then when a conflict arises between two groups with opposed views they will try to suppress the other. It's telling that what bothered Heidegger the most about the holocaust wasn't the killings but the mechanization of it.
He was wrong. His philosophy is wrong. He had some good ideas but they ultimately lead to something wrong. It's better to just take some of his concepts and scrap the rest. There's a reason why there's very little people in academia who engage with the deepest implications of Heidegger's philosophy. Even Derrida, who was very radical for today academia's standards, always walked on eggshells around Heidegger's fascism, and it was for the better.

>>11882279
>Now all we could do is to discuss whether robots have feeling

This is one of the most important questions there is and ties into a ton of other fundamental issues of philosophy. Think of the implications of this not being the case, for instance.

>>11882171
Exactly, and that's the whole point of animal rights. How could you possibly construe that as an argument against caring about animals?

>>11901034
I agree, that other anon is backwards and doesn't understand what the modern zeitgeist is really concerned about. That said, I think that question has an obvious answer: even if our understanding of the brain and its relationship to the body became so clear that we could program a convincing imitation, without the flesh and hormonal aspect, there is still no emotion involved as humans understand it, just a series of initiated responses based on conditions; so no, robots will never feel, and cyborgs won't either if they lack the necessary flesh for it. But the core of that discussion, which is whether humanity will maintain itself after having broken through the veil of the virtual, and whether we want it to or not, is still highly relevant to us.

As a Nietzschean, I would say: it depends on the purpose of the robot/cyborg. Do soldiers need anything more than pain and fear responders to be effective? What about cloning? If we can successfully clone a human some day, will we need anyone other than the most valuable individuals and the mob of the lowest dregs of society to stand in opposite of them in order to develop their individuality? Why would this not be desirable, given that life appears to have only one meaning: will to power?

>>11886273
fucking kill yourself please lmao

>>11897111
Plato was a nigger.