/lit/ - Literature

>dude its like philosophy but with swearing! its totally great!

Philosophy ended 2500 years ago with Parmenides
Heidegger just revived the ghosts of Heraclitus and Parmenides for the sake of his MySpace-tier feelposts

You shouldn't consider Heidegger's contribution as negative. Philosophy needs to end, but in the right way.

philosophy ended today, with me. I solved it.

>>15285416
Clever play of interpretation

>>15285437
How so?

abandon philosophy, embrace literature

>>15285402
We dare to think more anon, we never surrender

>>15285455
The end of philosophy we are seeing now is the progression of the forgetfulness of being, Philosophy should also end when being is remembered. But the results are not the same.

>>15285455
Its end is finding the truth.
If it is the correct path to truth, then it must eventually find truth and, therefore, end. But, naturally, only once finds it.

All they did was formalize the transcendental paradigm. Everything was already implicit in Kant, Kant just had a tiny bit of naivete left over with his categorical deduction, which was "solved" almost right away by further immanentizing the transcendental into a linguistic-cultural soup, with hermeneutics and historicism in the tradition of Herder and Hamann. They can't really be blamed for completing what was already there in Kant, and certainly already understood and said by Nietzsche and certain neo-Kantians. In fact, Heidegger was only reacting to the general feeling of a whole generation that post-Kantianism would have to be some kind of "existential," cultural-linguistic project that "dignifies the lived, experiential quality of knowledge" and all that bullshit. It's why Bergson made such a splash, he also touched on this basic drive toward existentialism and away from rationalism, even Kantian rationalism.

But you're right, it only lands us in nihilism. Kant himself is only formalized scepticism, and early modern scepticism is exactly the same as classical scepticism. The real crisis is one that was brought up almost immediately at the outset of philosophy, sometimes called the problem of the criterion but also just called the problem of scepticism or sceptical regress.

You might like Leo Strauss and particularly his disciple Stanley Rosen's diagnosis of the problem in Nihilism, but to save you a lot of time, neither of them have the answer either. Anywhere you look within the academy, I guarantee you that you will find on answers. Academics do indeed take liberal humanism for granted, which isn't so much "wrong" as it is unphilosophical because the point is not to take anything for granted, and they are split between "anti-rationalists" like Foucault et al. (which you correctly identify as just operationalized Heideggerians, really just operationalized Kantians/historicists) on the one hand and and "therapeutic" retards on the other (Wittgensteinians, neo-Stoics, etc., who view philosophy as a tool, AGAIN presuming the "for what?" of the tool, which is usually some limp-dicked utilitarian humanism yet again).

There are only five real answers:
- Give up. Scepticism (nihilism) wins. There was never any hope to begin with.
- Take for granted some gay utilitarian liberal question-dodging shit like "Heidegger can help us deconstruct power structures!" "Why bother?" "Uhhh, because people bein' free = people being happy and happy = good!" AKA crypto-nihilism.
- Hegelian absolute idealism. Good luck.
- A leap of faith into revealed religion, aka fideism, Pascal's solution to scepticism. Strauss' "other" option (of the two he sees being possible). Bad for obvious reasons.
- Scientism. Obviously retarded.
- Esoteric philosophy aimed at noetic knowledge that transcends the freely admitted shortcomings of discursive knowledge.

>>15285414
Nothing wrong with the OP.

Seems like my e-tranny won't send nudes today :/ I'm kind of sad

>implying it wasn't him who exposed the nihilism of transcendental philosophy
you're going to have to start believing in God again. I don't know how, or in what way, but you can't keep looking away forever.

>He throat stomped the history of western thought with Being and Time, and then left us in a fucking abyss of Being with Contribution to Philosophy.
How can you attribute that kind of effect to Heidegger when he ended up with a shitty knock-off daoism? It seems more to me like Kant being worked out than Heidegger being a gigagenius who truly comprehended by himself and then throat stomped the history of western thought as if he succeeded where Hegel didn't. As massive in his way as he might be I think we can't pretend to be his professorial or otherwise successor in a superfocused dialectic or development of german idealism. That doesn't mean we ignore what happened, in fact because of that development we no longer need to be as constrained as he was.

>>15285533
fuck how do you post so fast every time

>>15285544
Nietzsche merely finished what Heraclitus, Spinoza, and Hegel started. Heidegger elucidated it.

>>15285533
I'll take the last choice please

>>15285533
>There are only five real answers:
Which of the 6 answers you listed isn’t real?

>>15285533
>- A leap of faith into revealed religion, aka fideism, Pascal's solution to scepticism. Strauss' "other" option (of the two he sees being possible). Bad for obvious reasons.
Really is it bad though? Perhaps revelation is on its way.

>>15285533
Redpoll me on the last option

*gives you god*

>>15285564
I didn't know there was an alignment between Nietzsche and Hegel.

>ethics has no foundations
Wasn't Heidegger's final goal to find a foundation for everything?
Founding principle of foundation or something similar to that, I can't remember on the top of my head.
Guess he didn't succeed then.
I didn't finish reading it last summer, need to grab it from the bookshelf again.

>>15285533
Sorry I'm a newfag in philosophy. Could you explain what all of these men did or lead me in the right direction to know?

>>15285648
Not really the goal no.
>tfw no e-tranny nudes tonight

>>15285533
Have personally always felt that the only answer I could make to Heidegger is a return to the "labour of the negative" that Hegel described. I have even been fucking with teleological-humanist readings of early/late (Das Kapital) Marx.

I can't stand fidiesm and, perhaps you may have forgot to mention it, neo-thomism. A lot of Gilsonians claim be to be the answer to Heidegger by claiming a negative theology where Being is the "highest act" of God. But that just seems to me to take for granted Da-sein as temporalized through care. How can the "act" be where I have my Being when I am perfectly able to determine the disclosedness of being apart of from it being revealed or through natural reason?

Yeah, no doubt it was all there in Kant's Critical Philosophy. But what made Heidegger unique, apart from the German Idealist tradition, was find that Being is temporal and has a historicity. Even Schelling did not quite get here. Our forgetfulness to ask the question of Being is our very temporal horizon in relation to Being.

You humans really do get so caught up with your words.

>>15285756
look man, if you're going to suggest that we just stop thinking words, there's an indian fellow who figured that out about 2500 years ago.

>>15285683
>not really the goal no
What was it exactly then?
And yeah, I'm feeling you. All my e-tranny Twitter gfs are ignoring my DMs.
:(

>>15285568
>>15285585
I added scientism without remembering I had numbered them so it'd fuck up the list.

They're all just nihilism, except as >>15285565 says esotericism, which is at least still an option. We've exhausted discursive reason, at least any conception of discursive reason as self-grounding and self-sufficient. The one thing we haven't tried is scientific noesis. Husserl's phenomenological project, the resurrection of genuine depth psychology and psychology in a real, William James sense rather than retarded crypto-physicalist "psychology."

Discursive reason naturally points beyond itself, but it can't express the things it points to ("desires," for Plato) from within itself. My hunch is that discursive reason isn't just dumb or pointless, so that there's a dualism of worthless discursivity vs. pure noesis, but that this pointing beyond itself is by design, it sort of casts the outline or silhouette of what we know must be true, just without letting us see the positive content of it if we try to remain within discursivity. The hard problem of scepticism with regard to metaphysical knowledge naturally points to an inquiry into the real metaphysical grounds of the sceptical being. We're just frustrated because we don't know what such knowledge will look like until we have it, so we keep lapsing into more boring pseudo-solutions like materialism/scientism, humanism etc.

The problem is that all this bad shit, this frustration of being at a dead end and lapsing into dissatisfying pseudo-solutions for another generation until the pressure builds and we break out of it again, is now interwoven with REALLY bad shit. People think we're just living in a shitty society or a temporary slump in history, but it's way worse than that. The slump is because of the exhaustion of philosophy, the exhaustion of conceptual content to explore. All of the dead ends and antinomies are not just conceptual antinomies anymore, their negativity is manifesting "positively," as networks of institutions and cultural tendencies, basically as the whole character of a new age. The pseudo-solutions become more vigorous with each failed attempt to break out of them. The listless nihilism and "where do we go now?" feeling of the 20th century is going to become total disregard for metaphysics, and thus for the integrity of the metaphysical ground of the being that cares about metaphysics in the first place (i.e. us). You already see these anti-integral tendencies everywhere. People are so frustrated by the failures of transcendental philosophy that they actively seek to destroy the "Cartesian subject" (an imperfect formulation but no less metaphysically arbitrary than reifying some "process" cosmology that turns the subject, the one thing we actually have unmediated access to and can say is not epiphenomenal or illusory, into an epiphenomenon or illusion).

>>15285402
The only ones that have truly curb stomped any philosophical investigation are psychoanalysts but this board is too pleb to bother.

>>15285813
>continuing
So now it's not just a philosophical problem, it's the hardening up of the dialectic to the point that it will no longer have enough energy to break out again, the next time it gets locked into torpor. This time we won't just enslave ourselves under pessimism, or consumerism, we'll start picking apart the human genome, the brain, intervening in non-understood subjective experience with (necessarily, by extension) non-understood chemical interactions, etc.

People underestimate the levels of actual terror and despair people like Heidegger, Junger, Schmitt, Horkheimer/Adorno and others felt. They basically thought they were living in an anime where the good guys lose, and it was the last two episodes. We're now living in Episode 213 of the moe slice of life sequel to that bad ending, and we can't even recover the level of self-consciousness of the crisis that Heidegger et al. had, despite them writing it all down for us.

>>15285582
Even if we had revelation, would it be sufficient? Why wasn't it sufficient the first time? I'm inclined to think that natural religion does tend toward atheism, and that the Humean problem of advents/miracles/revelations isn't some empirical problem of "how can I REALLY trust you that you met Jesus and he really transformed the wine and fish?," but an inevitable logical paradox of how anything could ever have a reason-transcendent source but be understood BY reason.

That said, I do believe in benevolent divine agency. I just don't think it functions by a leap of faith, and I don't think it makes any sense that we were created just to remain creaturely. Why bother with creation then? Again, the whole scheme inherently points beyond itself. Why would a divine being make a container for non-divine beings to inhabit, forever bounded by it? Why create, if the creation didn't have its own value, (at least potentially) beyond what created it?

There are gnostic christologies that say Christ's move (and sacrifice) was to show others that it could be done.

>>15285558
Sorry. I agree with you though I think.

>>15285698
Agree, didn't even read this post until I wrote the above. For me Heidegger is really already there in Fichte but I know that's controversial to say. Fichte's son is also interesting.

Ultimately I think we will acquire absolute idealism only through a full recapturing of the romantic moment, not just its formulae but its actual phenomenological horizon.

We are not doomed.

/lit/'s top 100 GENERAL reading list from 2019 featured a PHILOSOPHICAL work that cracked the list for the first time.

Take a look at entry number 79 on the picture chart.

Don't worry. The Truth always finds its way to the surface.

>>15285830
Out.
Anon, get out right now.
It is time to leave.

>>15285854

From what podium do you speak to me from?

>>15285823
>Devastation is more unearthly than destruction. Destruction only sweeps aside all that has grown up or been built up so far; but devastation blocks all future growth. The devastation of the Earth can easily go hand in hand with a guaranteed supreme living standard for man and just as easily with the organized establishment of a uniform state of happiness for all men

I think this was my favorite quote when I started studying Heidegger.
And it accurately describes the situation we find ourselves in.

>>15285900
You just broke in through my window, ate my last tendies, took a shit on the floor and then have the audacity to question my authority over my personal lodgings?

>>15285823
>Even if we had revelation, would it be sufficient? Why wasn't it sufficient the first time
Beliefs have a lifespan I think. Consciousness has moments of clarity and self-assured faith, and moments of crisis and despair. We're merely in a crisis period; capitalism is entering a phase of self-financed hyperdebt, the US empire is in its twilight, humanist-atheist-scientism is exhausted and schizzing, ecological disaster still looms. It sounds like mundane christianity to say "jesus is coming back", but, revolutionary and foundational figures like Socrates, Buddha, Confucius, and Christ don't appear by random chance, they're born into a spiritual/philosophical/social/political vacuum and are practically sucked into it.

>>15285823
>They basically thought they were living in an anime where the good guys lose, and it was the last two episodes. We're now living in Episode 213 of the moe slice of life sequel to that bad ending
At last I truly see

>>15285668
Not really sure anon, I don't want to sperg out again but I will say that if you learn Greek philosophy, early modern philosophy (through to Kant) and the history of modern science, and modern continental philosophy (aka German idealism with the French shit being a subset), and you don't end up a crazy neoplatonist who thinks quietists are forsaking the world-spirit and metaphysical evil might be real, then either you didn't read deeply enough, or I'm schizo. Either is equally likely at this point, probably.

>>15285926
Wow, that's really good. I hadn't seen that before, thank you. Pretty much sums it up.

>>15285935

>Mr. "Ethics has no foundation"

Schopenhauer literally has two long essays devoted to Ethics, "On the Freedom of the Will" and "On the Basis of Morality", you fucking stupid scoop of ice cream.

Instead of complaining about why things aren't, find what is and evangelize it.

>>15285926
So suffering = good?

>>15286002
Wait, that wasn't me. I was replying to the OP , he was the one stating that (according to Wittgenstein at least) ethics have no foundations.
Please don't yell at me Anon, I was just curious if Heidegger had anything to say on ethics. Apparently he didn't.
Please, no, put the gun down Anon!
Ano...

>>15286002
What is the gist of his argument?

>>15285402
you guys write like faggots

>>15285813
>>15285823
this is >>15285558

I'm the guy who kept bringing up Rosen (and Strauss). I agree with pretty much everything you said and said well. The "once-again" character to me is important, the manifesting of this stuff right in our faces as well, and the picking apart and intervening. Revelation is a whole thing by itself. I have been wanting to bring together some kind of publication, a periodical loosely speaking because I feel an almost unbelievable lack, for some reason, of such a thing, of coordination among people who talk past each other or in ignorance of each other or into a void. I don't know if you'd be interested but it could provide some reason or focus towards something more than 4channel effortposting.

>>15286002

Continuing.

The issue you are overlooking is people with shitty characters such as yourself flail around like drowning kids trying to find something that explains their shitty reality. They are lost, just as one would be lost when one has been banished to the depths of hell.

Men with benevolent, noble characters experience suffering all around them, not just their own suffering but the misery inflicted in everyone around them, every day, non-stop. Their reality is completely different, but they perceive everything infinitely better, all the infinite subtleties that comprise their experience. The noble man realizes that hell isn't an afterlife; no. Hell is on earth, right now, and he lives it every waking moment.

>>15286006
Devastation I feel, describes more of a purgatory.

We used to create our fields by burning down large swathes of forests, the ashes fertilizing the earth and in this way destruction bringing forth growth.
But the fields wouldn't stay fertile for long, we had to find a new field to burn.
That is destruction.

>>15286037

1) There is no freedom of the will. Once you are born you are confined to your intelligible character. Every moment you are being influenced by various motives, and you act on these motives necessarily according to your character. Play the same situation over again with the same exact motives, and you will choose the same one every time. Your character reveals itself to you over time.

2) The basis of morality is compassion and loving-kindness that manifest factually inside us as positive pangs of consciousness when we do kind acts for our neighbors, but also can be inferred from the guilt we feel when we harm our neighbor or the more subtle guilt we experience as the victims of harmful acts. The deeper "ground" for this that Schopenhauer was unable to get into in his essay is the unity of the metaphysical will (Kant's thing in itself); in other words here in reality we appear multiplied, individual, and separate, but metaphysically we are all from the same source, we are all one. I am you, you are me.

>>15286162
I find some of this very similar to Heidegger, but it's hard for me to put it to words.
I'll try anyway.
I don't think Heidegger touched morality, but the idea that your character is in a way set in stone, fits with Heidegger's concept of "them" as in, you are most of the time the "them" in sentences like "Well, they say that you should do such and such". You will act accordingly to your surroundings, the people, the field you inhabit. You can only rise from this through authentic moments, which are brief revelations of your deepest character and they will fade away as quickly as they come. And these moments are both compassionate and harmful, they aren't moral descriptors exactly, just the deepest part of your self that reveal themselves every now and then.

If I made mistakes, please point them out (all of you that are familiar with Heidegger), I am trying to get back on my reading. And please post cute pics of Heidegger with his little cap on, I need to grow my collection.

>>15286024

Sorry.

Good. Wittgenstein rightfully ended philosophy -- though, it happened posthumously.

Heidegger is the crown of Western philosophy. Wittgenstein was just another crafty Jew in the history of crafty Jew tricks.

>>15286295
I'd do cross-reading of them, if I were you. They arrive to the same place, just through different methods.

>>15285823
Perhaps things point to something beyond but you can't distinguish that from ego. And if things point beyond you cant assume either creator or universality. N. was right about recurrence. We need to find the good that is best for ourselves. The manifestation of virtue in one place and time does not apply in each and every case.

>>15286248

I am the person you quoted.

I haven't read Heidegger, but what you say about the "them" sounds like he's just describing the psychological act of projecting. You apply your inner state of mind to what must be in everyone's state of mind, in the process disintegrating your mask and revealing your character.

I would differ from the rest of what you said slightly: Everything you do is authentically you. What is hidden is the expanse of knowledge you have about reality and the motives that present themselves to you each moment.

We act according to our surroundings because they are our surroundings. But we can also act according to concepts we hold in our mind that aren't related to the surroundings, it is simply that the surroundings are the occasion for who we are to emerge.

Characters can't change, only the knowledge available to the person can change. So don't waste your time trying to change someone by training them like a dog. Simple give information that provides a new perspective of life and see if this gives their character new motives to act upon. Their character now simply has more avenues to achieve what it wills most intensely. But it will still will what it wills, that cannot be altered.

>>15286162
Pretty good observations but my experience is different. Character is usually fixed but sometimes it can change / be reordered.
Free will is indeed a sham since we can't control what we desire.
Because of the above morality is the taming of our desire for the benefit of the others. A goody-good man whose desire is aligned with society's can't act morally. Only the sinner can be moral

>>15286412
Thank you for the reply.
I've had the fear of being unable to avoid myself for a long time. That I will never be able to escape the inevitable repeating of the same mistakes, that it will always be a part of me.
Heidegger gave me hope that there is an escape in authenticity, even if only for a brief moment.
I don't like the idea of characters themselves being unchanging, it leaves me feeling more willing to blame everyone else, most of my life I've been living out of guilt, regret and self-hatred.
I don't want to give in.

>>15286461

No, character is fixed. Being exposed to new motives means your character can divert through new channels, but this didn't mean your character changes, just the path it takes to achieve its aims. A diverted river is still the same river.

I agree with your morality statement, but I can't wrap my head around society thing you said. How can you ever define the precise morality of a society?

>>15286530

You're welcome.

Some of us are horrified at the character we find out we are. This paves the way for the possibility for redemption. This involves correcting our cognition of the scope of reality. Our character now has new knowledge regarding human nature, seeing ourselves all as one, and the ego of our character that once aimed to acquire happiness selfishly, inwardly, by appealing to its desire can now reroute its aim to acquire happiness selfessly, externally via compassion and loving-kindness to others around him.

>>15285402
>utterly raped classical metaphysics and philosophy
how so?

>>15286051
You're the really smart Rosen guy from that other thread recently?

It's heartening that you see these things too, and your idea sounds really interesting. I agree that it's a bizarre absence. The most frustrating thing is that nobody seems to be tackling (or even seeing) it all at once, it's always this piecemeal shit if anything, and you can tell people get so exhausted and overwhelmed by the lack of orientation that they inevitably give up and just burrow into one author/movement.

I'd be happy to contribute or help if you're setting something up. Honestly I'd kill for collegiality. That said, I'm autistic.

>>15285402
False. Sloterdijk does to space what Heidegger did for time.

>>15287729
I think I'm that guy haha
It's too easy to put things off. And get trapped in a gay routine. So yes, I have some ideas but it's the beginning. I'm glad you're not averse. anonymousyakherder@protonmail.com

Just drop a line there

Analytic philosophy can justify existence.

>>15287740

>>15287992
how?

>>15285558
>fuck how do you post so fast every time
It's because he is the OP. He does this all the time, he's also been caught posting his own screencaps. This guy spends 24/7 on this site for the last few years grinding the same ax over and over. It's surprising more people haven't caught onto this guy.

I enjoy reading these threads, like the Plato one from last week

shut the fuck up nerd

>>15286622
"Character" is what we perceive as the path of the river. The mountainstreams of pure desire/will where it all starts are not yet a river. That part is indeed fixed for each person biologically.

But, for me, a diverted river is a new river. When you have reordered your drive you are not the same person anymore.

>>15285463
abandon literature, embrace poetry

>>15285446
based. I would like to nominate anon as the greatest philosopher of all time

it's over
pessimist canon was right

>>15285402
read late heidegger. throw wittgenstein in the trash. late heidegger btfo's bitchgenstein

>>15285402
Cringe.

>>15288927
abandon poetry, embrace music

>>15288723
Could i have a link for that?

>>15285414
First post worst post

>>15285402
Check out Jorjani (Prometheus and Atlas) - his solution is to go into the spectral

>>15289315
Unironically correct

>>15285402
Thinking of God, I was thinking of what analytic methods to use on the bible

>>15286051
Very interested in a periodical. Check out Mumford's Myth of the Machine, might be largely redundant but could add some nuance to your views (ritual + society/community = meaning)

>>15289349
>correctly separating Heidegger into early and late while presenting Wittgenstein as a unified set of thought

>>15287967
Sent you an email. I'm guy who made his own philosophy for this shit.

Damascius ended philosophy over a thousand years ago

>>15289357

abandon music, embrace film

>>15290300
abandon film, embrace photography

actually richard rorty solved philosophy

>>15290337
abandon photography, embrace whores

>doesn't understand Derrida
no wonder you have such a flimsy and amateurish view of the end of metaphysics in Heidegger and Wittgenstein

>>15289538
Sophist thread I assume.

>>15290565
>mom look I made a post with no content again

>>15288720
I'm the guy he was replying to, and while I definitely sperg out in threads sometimes about this topic, I've never posted "my own screencaps" (of what?) or samefagged. I'm only one of the people in this thread. Who are you talking about? Don't amalgamate everyone interested in German idealism into the same dude.

>>15285402
Realize that Heidegger was never properly taught Aquinas and only attacked a straw-man. Read Etienne Gilson and realize that Aquinas alone understood the question of Being.

Ignore Germ*n philosophy. All they do is develop massive systems that are ultimately dead-ends and lead to hollowness in Europe.

Reminder that Wittgenstein's best student, Anscombe, was a Catholic Thomist.

>>15291419
Forgot to mention...at the end of his life Heidegger was in contact with a Catholic priest and received a Catholic funeral.

Heideggerians dismiss this as meaningless, but the reality is Heidegger increasingly saw the faults with his own hyper-Lutheran philosophy and returned to the church. Unfortunately he was still too proud to explicitly admit his philosophy was a mistake.

Just accept that Heidegger butchered Augustine and Aquinas, and Kant is shit. Germans were an incredible mistake. They can only destroy.

>>15291419
>>15291505
All this is ad hominem in the formal sense. What did Aquinas understand that makes the destruction of metaphysics incorrect?

>>15291419
>>15291505
retard

>>15290553
abandon sex, jerk off to a mirror

>>15288054
The joy of studying it makes you happy you are alive.

Why cannot a notion of being as "present at hand" be understood as immediately
abstracted from various things present at hand rather than projected upon them?

It is encumbent upon the Heideggerian to show here some incongruity between the instances and the notion that would make the abstractive account of the notion questionable. Success in that task would swing the account of the notion into the a priori domain. But I fail to see Heideggerians performing this task for the notion of being as present at hand. Nor do I see how the task could be performed. Being as present at hand is not yet Aquinas' ens commune
and as such it has no features that prohibit its abstractive derivation from real sensible existents.

>>15291656
Abandon jerking off to mirrors, jerk off to a minor

I don't really see how philosophy is even meaningful anymore. At this point it is just a nu-religion without any of the redeeming qualities of religion.

Nowadays people like Deleuze just outright admit they are not looking for anything regarding the truth and are perfectly happy to write in ways that are purposefully obscure, just for the sake of being obscure. Deleuze literally wrote that the purpose of philosophy is to sadden.

And then the people that consume the philosophy more often than not are just looking for something to pad their ego and cope with some sort of personal failing (i.e. "I don't have anger issues, I'm just a Nietzschean!" or "I'm not an incel, I'm just really like Schopenhauer!").

If one is going to partake in this sort of obscurantist, nigh-esoteric writing style and fail to actually establish something by the end of it, why not just become a monk or something instead of pining away in a university. I don't really get it.

>>15285402
I agree but I don't think their philosophies are the cause but rather the symptoms.

Wittgenstein & Heidegger didn't say anything new. Some dudes hanging out in a desert hundreds of years ago knew it, and guys before them knew it too. There's no new philosophy and all this is is just people resaying the same thing.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Desert_Fathers#Excerpts_from_The_Sayings_of_the_Desert_Fathers

>>15291505
>They can only destroy
The rationalist is inured to all dangers

>>15292495
>Wittgenstein & Heidegger didn't say anything new. Some dudes hanging out in a desert hundreds of years ago knew it, and guys before them knew it too
t. hasn’t read any of them

>>15285414

>Dude people should use language that doesn't come naturally when discussing academic subjects
>Swearing is bad, my schoolmaster said so

>>15285830
There are at least 5 philosophical works in that list, and previous editions featured philosophical works too

>>15292609
I know it intuitively. To read them would waste my time.

>>15291731
In Heidi's own words in B&T:
>What we "first" hear is never sounds or complexes of tones, but the creaking wagon, the motorcycle. One hears the column on the march, the north wind, the woodpecker tapping, the fire crackling. It requires a very artificial and complicated frame of mind to "hear" a "pure sound."
Anon, do you want me to believe you are so retarded that you talked yourself into thinking you're an oscilloscope?

Some really great posts ITT. This is why I come to /lit/. I consider even Land's horror-kitsch a desperate attempt to re-enchant what technology has sterilized.

I see history as the contraction of an aperture that Heidegger, et al. all keenly felt as the exhaustion of Western values. The system or movement that will save us will finally and successfully "re-potentiate" actuality. I don't know how, but I know it won't be done through a screen.

>>15285533
>- Hegelian absolute idealism. Good luck.
>- A leap of faith into revealed religion, aka fideism, Pascal's solution to scepticism. Strauss' "other" option (of the two he sees being possible). Bad for obvious reasons.
>- Scientism. Obviously retarded.
Notice: these three options are the same.

>>15290565
This. It’s really fucking ridiculous that people don’t read, like AT ALL

Did someone call?
https://youtu.be/FsaieZt5vjk

>>15292656
based retard

>>15292887
>mom look I made another one!

>>15292887
>>15290565
Who gives a fuck about some french queer theorists?

>>15291419
>>15291505
>>15291516
>tfw whenever a fucking neo-thomist tells me neo-thomism encompasses and solves the problem of the dialectic of enlightenment I ask him "how?" and he immediately vanishes into the fucking ether

EXPLAIN YOURSELF NOW THOMIST, NO FUCKING CLICHE CATHOLIC CONVERT ANECDOTES ABOUT WHO CONVERTED TO CATHOLICISM ON THEIR DEATHBED, EXPLAIN WHY YOU THINK ARISTOTELIAN METAPHYSICS IS STILL VIABLE RIGHT FUCKING NOW

>>15292999
Lmao the Church was the midwife to this hellscape it can burn with the rest

>>15285533
Why is fideism bad? Granted I'm a Catholic however I don't see how fideism is that much stronger of an assumption than anything else on that list really, and it does make a lot of things easier. "But how do I know I have the right faith?" Well, just try to be "close enough" I guess.

*rips huge bowl*

You see, Heidegger ended philosophy. No one can refute him. You think you can refute him? Retard!

>>15293188

>>15293188
Kek

>>15285987
Ladies and gentlemen, it's time to recognize our modern day foundational figure, Jordan B Peterson

>>15289264
you made me laugh when I read this post, also checked

>>15285455
nice digits

>>15285402
Absolute brainlet here. What about Jacques Derrida??? Didnt he destroy fucking everything???

>>15285402
>foucault and Derrida
It’s Bergson, not heidegger.

>>15293342
He saved everything

>>15293342
Formalized Heidegger and tried to do away with even his lingering remnant of a transcendental subject, to truly "decentre" language-languaging-itself as the nature of thought.

Everyone celebrates him for this because supposedly he moved us away from that final naivete, of presuming that we need a pre-contentful centre to ground the endless processive self-churning ("deferred reference") of language, or that we can/should become conscious of our identity with such a centre, as distinct from any its contents. It's true in a sort of limited sense, it's arguably a more formal and complete version of some aspects of what Heidegger did, but it's only ideal if you think it's the only (or the only important) thing Heidegger was doing, intentionally or no. Maybe there's a reason even Heidegger didn't make that final move to pointless language-worshiping nihilism, that he stopped short of it and instrumentalized language instead to serve "life" instead.

Derrida is a good philosopher in the systematic sense, and not full of shit, but he wrote too much, he was a cunt on a personal level, his philosophy dovetails mostly with post-national assumptions of vibrant multiplicity and plurivocity rather than organic nationalism (whose fundamental assumption is that meaningful multiplicity can't be brownian motion, only the result of cultivating unique things so that they differentiate into something capable of actual plurivocity with other things). And he spawned some of the worst postmodern intellectuals ever, the wannabe-French Derridean wave swept across American universities just like Derrida himself fled to America and pathetically tried to impose himself on its culture while also staying aloof from it.

>>15292940
holy shit....

Western intellectual history is stratified by epistemological cycles of about 300-350 years and we're due for a turn of the wheel.

>>15290018
thanks

>>15290240
received. I assume >>15287729 is a different poster. The invitation is open.

>>15291419
Gilson is not the end-all-be-all of thomism and thomism isn't the end-all-be-all of even what's interesting or convincing in christianity.

>>15292863
This Lifes dim Windows of the Soul
Distorts the Heavens from Pole to Pole
And leads you to Believe a Lie
When you see with not thro the Eye

>>15293482
Solid post.

>Maybe there's a reason even Heidegger didn't make that final move to pointless language-worshiping nihilism, that he stopped short of it and instrumentalized language instead to serve "life" instead.

Yes, but he allowed for that possibility and personally loved the work of Derrida and wished to meet him. Heidegger opened pandora's box.

>>15285414
>heidigger is philosophy but with swearing
i have no idea how to engage with this strange and fascinating take.

>>15293638
>Gilson is not the end-all-be-all of thomism and thomism isn't the end-all-be-all of even what's interesting or convincing in christianity.

Not him but good point. The high mark in Rene Girard's Things Hidden Since the Foundation of the World was his critique of Heidegger.

Always bet on irrationality and selfishness.

https://slatestarcodex.com/2014/07/30/meditations-on-moloch/

Basically that, but rest assured a superintelligence will not be created, as it is quite plainly the fever dream of technocrats.

>>15285823
At a time in my life where I have been experiencing a terrible crisis and despair of this kind, I pop back into /lit/ after years and you've put succinctly into words my own thoughts/research over these past years, months, that culminated and coalesced into a mini breakdown earlier today.
Thank you, I guess.

>>15285995
> quietists are forsaking the world-spirit

Pretty sure the world-spirit is the Devil though. I once had a psychosis where I visualized the world spirit as a trinity composed of the US, China, and Russia, and the only thing holding it together, MAD. An unholy trinity.

>>15286081
Suffering is a hallucination, and Heaven and Hell are the same place (here).

>>15293482
Thank you for answering my question anon.

>>15285813
Can you clarify
>genuine depth psychology
>why William James is legit

>>15285533
>Strauss' "other" option (of the two he sees being possible). Bad for obvious reasons
what are strauss' options?? also why is this bad? seems "least bad" among all the options, perhaps maybe esoteric. but revealed religion and escoterisim could overlap i guess

>>15285402
Derrida did indeed make 'real progress' beyond Heidegger, whatever that means.

>>15292068
Religion was a nu-philosophy, another 'ethical' metaphysics

What's the best intro to Heidegger?

>>15293202
Is that Jimmy Numale?

>>15294541
Strauss is hardcore on the reason/revelation, knowledge/belief, athens/jerusalem dichotomy, he doesn't want to lose that it's knowledge we're intending with philosophy, with following the greeks. This is a fair enough point as far as it goes, against various limp-wristed muddiers and conciliators. It does keep open the clarity of the problem of revelation as represented in 'orthodoxy', and he points out that "enlightenment" has not and cannot actually refute its claims, but it kind of leaves the "option" just hanging there and I'm not sure it's historically, anthropologically, 'phenomenologically' the most sensitive approach in the 21st century. Not that poster though.

>>15294504
>Pretty sure the world-spirit is the Devil though.

It most certainly is. The world-spirit is a blind and ravenous demon.

>>15294325
Indeed. Derrida makes me gag. I'll take my ataraxia over Parisian navel-gazing any day.

>>15293482
Derrida didn't 'do away' with a transcendental subject because, as he says, it is impossible. Metaphysics has to supply the tools for the very questioning of metaphysics. This, to my understanding, is not even 'language-languaging-itself' as language is only a small part of the greater economy of how metaphysics functions. And in this way it cannot lead to 'language-worshipping nihilism' either if it reformats this metaphysical economy so that the language, the humanism, the logos, etc. is not at position of centre, does not regulate the systems it supposedly puts into place. 'Decentering' in Derrida does not mean removing the grounds of meaning entirely.

>>15294517
Milk is the eternal nectar of the soul, and any man without his hat is surely doomed

>>15285813
>scientific noesis

Please go into more detail about this, you must be the tenth guy on here to propose William James as a path to the Way Out but I don't fucking know WHAT you mean by it. Great post tho

>>15285813
is this dead-end of philosophy intrinsically western phenomenon? when i look at indian and oriental history, it appears that they had good system going - they established the set of system - immovable, and without slippery slope like latin church, but just full stop. hinduism with its noetic esotericism, confucianism with its pseudo-scientism with pseudo-noeticism in a form of Li-Qi theory. if i am right, is it just a floodgate opened by augustin? but greeks were also very peculiar. maybe not being subject to reality - that is horse riding nomads for indians and orientals - makes you think weird things instead of sealing the system for inner perfection with enough physicality to protect from outsiders.

>>15294764
I think Western thought is obviously too much of a product of progressively densifying urban conditions to take it that seriously. If you can find me a Neoplatonist from 1910, who brims with that optimism for Being you can detect in Plotinus, I'll eat my shoe, but all I see traumatized urbanites.

>>15294716
That ain't milk bro, it's Brugmansia tea, and as for the hat, tell it to Jesus.

>>15285539
I'm a cool frogtwitter guy and I get a lot of tranny nudes, shit is so cash, here's how:
lurk this place and the politics board, add some incongruent blabber from bant, try to fit it in a oneliner and you're golden. Also larp as a easternboo, that helps.

>>15295215
Ah, many are the criticisms from the wallflower, yet it's beauty remains in the fact that it has so much to say

>>15289315
who the fuck is top right? he looks identical to one of my coworkers.

>>15295383
Mainländer

>>15286248
trash reading of Heidegger

>>15287740
Fuck. Should I read Critique of Cynical Reasoning?? (This is OP btw)

>>15285402
only god, or a revolution.

>>15286248
wtf

>>15294788
You are literally referring to Heidegger. Heidegger was an avid reader of Plotinus, and he would live and study in a log cabin in the mountains while writing and researching.

>>15285830
Take a look at entry number 53 on the picture chart.

>>15296209

That looks very veryyyy interesting. Purchasing.

>>15296200
There's no transcendence in Heidegger except our in-dwelling recognition of death,, and even then... you can feel that Mediterranean sun just beaming off the Neoplatonists, Heidegger was born and reared in Germanic melancholy

>>15285607
There really isn’t one, don’t know what this pseud is on about.

>>15294709
He "did away" with it in the sense that he revealed its non-originary origin, its groundless ground. He implicated us in "the game", and there's no going back after that.

>>15285533

The issue I have with people like you who write long, obtuse paragraphs full of abstractions and "isms" is the same issue I have with people who describe Schopenhauer's as "pessimism":

You just clearly have no fucking clue what you are talking about. You lose so much descriptive content by resorting to these hyper abstract concepts in order to string pretentious, aloof sentences together that what you are saying has no intuitive punch and anyone pretending to give you the light of day is the same archetype that tries to achieve enlightenment by freebasing Hegel while shoving their dick piercing in an electrical outlet.

>>15297462
>is the same issue I have with people who describe Schopenhauer's as "pessimism":
Based. I hate fags who reduce the great man's philosophy to "life sucks" and then say he therefore had nothing of value to say because he was "depressed"

>>15296153
Better than yours

>>15297477

The only people who do this are people who go no further in philosophy than reading Wikipedia summaries. So actually it's a lot of people.

And that's the impression I got from the person who wrote the comment that I replied to. Essentially it screams, "Look at me and my ability to find a way to describe these 15 paragraphs I read on Wikipedia this morning eating Mac n Chz."

>>15296160
If you want to read the book that Heidegger should have written read Spheres II, if you want to read in chronological order start with the Critique.

>>15293016
Explain this

>>15286162
> I am you, you are me.
Ew. I don't want to be you!

>>15296912
Back to metaphysics... from metaphysics?

>>15296200
He was an avid reader of Plotinus? I listened to a radio interview with Ernst Nolte, who studied under Heidegger, and he made a comment that sounded like Heidegger couldn't respond adequately to Plotinus when Nolte put the question to him.

>>15296700
This. You really can feel the sun shining reading Plotinus.

>>15296153
owned

>>15297462
He made a great post and yours was reddit. Haha dick go bzzt!!! XD

>>15297556
Nominalism was born in Jesuit monasteries, Don Scotus, Occam, etc. At least I think it was the Jesuits. In any case, the Church was an organ of power for the state and hardly a representative of the Kingdom to come.

>>15299573
and Heidegger followed those degenerate post-Aquinas scholastics like Scotus and Suarez. He never understood Aquinas.

>>15299573
They were franciscans, Jesuits didnt exist.

>>15300558
My bad, you're right. Still stands though.

>>15285402
Where did you read this? I wanna know

>>15297590

Metaphysically, of course.

>>15297525
>>15297477
>>15297462
I agree. There is nothing worse than these arbitrary scholarly words that say nothing. "Existentialism", like the Greeks weren't constantly talking about existence. How could you even do otherwise? "Analytic" philosophy, what philosophy isn't analysis? That is semantically the core aspect of philosophy. "Skepticism", but all philosophers are necessarily skeptic. You cannot be an unskeptical philosopher, since that would just be then your average man. The worst is when they use two different kinds of descriptors next to eachother. Some of these descriptors describe the place the philosophy grew, othes describe a person, others an aspect of the key idea. But then people use a common aspect of the people with the descripor itself and this will inadvertantly become it's new meaning, even though it makes no sense. So, a person might call American Ralph Waldo Emerson part of "continental philosophy" because he wrote essays similar to Montaigne, or a person might refer to themselves as "neo-stoics" because they shared ideas with those in a book written by someone who would frequent stoas to talk about philosophy. It is messy garbage adapted by people with similarly messy minds.

>>15285402
We must spend the rest of our days confined to creating a better state for humanity.

>>15285402
Whatever. Heidegger was a gnostic retrograde while Derrida was a Mephistophelean retrograde.

I think even Freud was a fuckall for that matter. It's not about who is right and who is wrong, it's about morality.

>>15285416
Lol this is the first time I've seen this opinion, I don't even have a problem with it I'm just curious as to what you mean if you care to elaborate

>>15302177

Correct.

Yes, philosophical discussions needs universal concepts/"isms" in order to classify things in human experience, but the fingerprint of laziness is someone who remains with these universal concepts when forming their 'complete' arguments. They don't bring any of these concepts back down to earth, back down into the particulars we find in our experience, so their arguments are these long-winded, broad strokes of abstract verbiage that put the impetus of deciphering an actual, meaningful interpretation from it on the reader, while the author hides behind air an intellectual superiority because the concepts he used theoretically contain a lot of knowledge that he theoretically supposed to know, but doesn't actually prove he understands any or all of the precise knowledge subsumed in under each concept.

I've found that pondering about the da-sein is very useful regarding the engagement of culture and art form, not only as a spectator but also as a creator. It both freed me but also gave me a different sense of responsibility, maybe because what I know I can do feels in closer reach, feels like I care more about it.

>>15302915
>Parmenides
You are probably looking at a Guenonposter

>>15285402
It's funny how for most people every step of philosophical learning is rushing to some new conclusion about what it all comes down to, instead of doing the more obvious philosophical thing and saying you just don't know.
Do you have any idea how much philosophy and all learning opens up once you start admitting you don't have the material for a clear conclusion and that you're still in a process of exploration?
And do you really think some kid on the internet knows where philosophy begins and ends better than the literal majority of the tradition? That's not an appeal to authority, it's a pragmatic point that you could take or leave.
I think people want to draw grand conclusions like this to elevate themselves, which means you're motivated by pride more than an interest in truth. Naturally, you'll find what you're motivated towards - you can come up with grand conclusions and feel proud of yourself, or you could come closer to truth (or whatever you want to call the object of pursuit, whatever that is it certainly isn't to sound smart on 4chan).

>>15302942
God damn it they're like fucking flies, if it weren't for them and their incessant self promotion I might've been interested in Guenom

>>15302888
>It's not about who is right and who is wrong, it's about morality.
Peak midwit; you’re exactly in the middle of the bell curve

>>15300027
What insight was he missing?

>>15303005
when it comes to gullibility and moral "screw you" syndrome in this community. You know, as in fuck those who don't agree with me.
That tells me that you have not been using the service regularly and/or you're an off topic troll.

>>15302981
Maybe you don't understand how a thing works or how they contribute to one another. But here's the thing: I've learned a lot of things and learned those things by being put in the exact situation in which I couldn't possibly be expected to know anything. I didn't need to be in that place. I have never had to wait to find out if I wasn't something else that had to be explained. When it comes to philosophy, those things are going to come to you through experience. You have to prepare yourself for a long time for that experience

>>15302981
>do you really think some kid on the internet knows where philosophy begins and ends better than the literal majority of the tradition?
Yes.

This has been a strange but interesting thread. Probably should go back to reading more philosophy; this was pretty elucidating.

>>15295252
Thanks for advice. I thought at that moment that my tranny was ignoring me, but she was at work. Anyway, she gives me a lot of attention when she can, I like it, I guess it's different from Twitter.

>>15303102
I find your post somewhat incoherent but I have a degree and I know some incredible minds, I don't find your story that compelling and I still think certainty is generally a symptom of delusion

Heidegger literally did not confront husserl’s transcendental phenomenology and there are plenty of people using his phenomenology and still refining it, even in neuroscience. As such there are metaphysicians who base their work upon his who are basically fine. Edith Stein, michel henry, nicolai Hartmann, not to mention people like deleuze and Whitehead are literally fine.

>>15302981

Beautifully spoken.

>>15302995
I actually read a few of his books in 2018 and found them mildly interesting, but how anyone could be really excited by him is beyond me. He's like the most boring version of that Tradtionalist/Esoteric stuff, even if you do like it.

>>15285533

>>15302942
>>15302995
Christ why are you so hung up about stupid shitposters on an Atlantean egg-merchant board? If you have an interest in Guenon, then read and talk about him. If you don't then don't. No need to whine about spamming retards on 4chins all day.

>>15304845
I'm not hung up and I don't whine about him all day
I just have a negative opinion of it all and I expressed as much, took me like 20 seconds and very little emotional energy

>>15304732
This, buddhism figured out how futile any kind of positive philosophy was ages ago.

>>15285402
Those philosophers you linked are garbage and absolute nonsense. This Indian guy some anon guy linked named U.G Krishnamuriti ended their philosophy. His ideas are much more practical too.

>>15285402
>All the analytics philosophy since Witty is nazel-gazing garbage.

*Quine and Davidson block your path.

>>15285463

>abandon philosophy, embrace literature

No U.

>>15302981
I think you are right.

>>15303103
Cringe

bump
Might be able to give some response to this tomorrow.

>>15286081
Okay. I have a shitty character. Is it possible for me to escape my situation or am I forever damned from beholding the truth

>>15305348
Cringe

>>15305879
bump for this anon

>>15305348
fuck off academia is corrupt.
i want can't wait for it's collapse.

>>15285402
I’m sorry but if you think that we should “develop” “new” “philosophical” “positions”, you didn’t really “get” Heidegger. Derrida and Foucault are much stronger thinkers than Rorty, that’s not even up to debate.

>>15285558
>he ended up with a shitty knock-off daoism

He didn’t you literal retard

>>15290769
Nah, you're a liar. And I'm trying to dig up proof of the screencap thing because I found it ages ago in the archives. Can't seem to find it at the moment but it's definitely you, and some anons convincingly busted you doing it. In the mean time see >>15307705 where once again you've been caught spreading bullshit.

>>15307732
good one, moron

>>15307343
based

>>15308221
Seething

>>15303676
books on this? ive heard many times that heidegger didnt truly get husserl

i feel husserl is overlooked in academic philosophy simply because heidegger was more edgy

>>15285463
cats are fags.

>>15305886

Yes it is possible.

Both shitty and good characters seek the same thing: happiness. The form is the same, the content is very different.

Shitty characters rely solely on happiness derived from external things. When external things aren't there, they aren't happy. They find happiness at the expense of other people's happiness.

Good characters rely on internal kindness towards others to derive happiness. Momentary unhappiness can be replenished at any moment because they only rely on themselves. They are their own source.

This is the foundation for the doctrine of redemption. It is the epiphany that both types of happiness are still the one and same form, so why on others when you can rely on yourself?

A philosophy that recognizes this distinction is on the right path. But you have to walk the walk in addition to simply knowing it in order to truly feel it as the truth.

Good luck anon

>>15309199
not even the people who still study husserl really appreciate him, they are subtly still undermined by the heidegger shit

phenomenology is a started but never carried out project

>>15311282
is it anti-semitism?

not gonna read

>>15309199
I’m sorry but Heidegger quite conclusively demonstrated that Husserl’s phenomenology is ultimately bound by the metaphysics of subjectivity.

>>15311918
>no one cares about this random early 20th century sperg
>oy vey it must be all that antisemitism that’s rampant in modern western universities
get over yourself Chaim

>>15312119
based

bump

What god will save us?

>>15285668
it’s very very difficult and time consuming to actually read and understand the literature up to this point from any sort of primary sources. unironically this is what college is for. That being said if you just want to be able to hang out with the cool kids on /lit/, read about Plato, read a bit of Aristotle, read Descartes meditations, learn what Utilitarianism is, hate it, read some Hume, and then google “German Idealism Canon” read whatever you can tolerate. finally, you’re finished. at this point you probably are already either:
-don’t understand and are acting like a pseud on /lit/
-have a published paper
-schizophrenic
-meditating and have realized the transcendence of perennial philosophy and eastern thought

>>15285823
I want to really be able to entrench myself in this discourse, but I am almost completely lost. I’m a philosophy student and my intro class was taught by a man who’s apparently one of the foremost Heideggerian commentators, but he seemed totally milquetoast compared to the apocryphal ravings I see about Heidegger online. am I missing something?

for reference, my readership is almost totally patchwork. pretty much just pic related plus some of the Marxist/neo-marxist tradition, the Greeks, Descartes/Hume, the preface to Phenomenology of the Spirit and a lot of second hand pseud-esque information about a lot of random subjects in theology.

>>15299573
An Organ of Power. Cool. I'm gonna use that one.Thanks.

>>15315578
>unironically this is what college is for.

>College is for reading....
>College is for reading philosophy

AHAHAH. Better off reading magic tree house dog. At least those kids aren't full of themselves and full of shit at the same time, because they're made of shit. Shit for brains people. Philosophers...

>Professional narcisssus
>professionally delusional
>fucking meatbags

Take the greenpill, you bunch of depressed materialist faggots. No leap of faith needed, proof of it being real readily available.

>>15286081
Would Lit Quarterly be a suitable venue such things?

>>15315630
You could use some scholasticism, first and foremost. You can never read too much of the Greeks, either. IIRC Heidegger was a huge Aristotle fan.

>>15285402
No one has gotten past Heidegger because philosophers are afraid his concept of Erbe leads to fascism, which it does, not necessarily in the sense of a totalitarian state with a secret police busting your house late at night for no reason, but to a compact society that cultivates its own values and traditions, which is enough to be labeled as fascist by contemporary liberalism, so these philosophers only engage with isolated bits of his project that aren't dangerous to society and that way they can keep getting sheltered in das Man, because lord's know it's okay to write a letter defending pedophilia, but being in favor of anything remotely close to "fascism" is a big no.

>>15309199
>because heidegger was more edgy
You're mistaken if you think Heidegger is some loved figure in academia. Academics have to accept his take because it's almost impossible to refute him if you accept his premise, which is also very reasonable and well argued. But Heidegger is not particularly well liked and even heideggerians often ignore parts of his project because they are problematic even if they are logical consequences of his framework. I've had professors in college whose entire outlook is based in Heidegger and yet they refuse to quote him or even mention him in their lectures and instead make gymnastic to explain his ideas using other, worse-suited thinkers.

>>15295350
The unlearned discovers the Dao, and roars into laughter,
Without the laughs, it would not be the Dao.

>>15315519
God is always working to save us. Read Meditations on Moloch, linked in this thread, realize the technocrats are panicking and hoping for a techno-salvation that will never come. The world will become mysterious once again.

>>15291505
You're portraying Heidegger relationship to religion as if he had a beef with it when he wrote Being and Time, which is not the case. You can perfectly be a heideggerian and be a christian. Heidegger himself told so to Rivera.

>>15315818
You should read the Grand Inquisitor too. All states are inherently satanic projects.

>>15315852
Everything requires a leap of faith at root.

>>15312119
>Deleuze
>tumblr
krinj

>>15315630
>the odyssey translated by emily wilson

>>15294745
Bump

>>15316447
Thanks for the rec, haven’t read it yet but is there anything else I can read along those lines? Is SSC worth following?

>>15316372
> Academics have to accept his take because it's almost impossible to refute him if you accept his premise

I think they accept him because Heidegger, like Derrida, are extremely easy to write about and apply to stupid bullshit. Foucault is also quite easy to generate papers with but post 9/11 he's too dangerous whereas Heidegger simply is not. Just look at the biggest Foucaultian today, Giorgio Agamben, who has argued that the coronavirus is a massive nothing burger promoted by neo-liberalism to extend the state of exception.

I don't think Heideggerians are dishonest or cowardly in not assuming the full consequences of Heidegger. Derrida managed to purify him and reveal that his philosophy as such is in perfect complicity with neo-liberal, or rather that its ultimately powerless to resist it. Heideggerians are simply ignoring what can be ignored by Heidegger, because he inserted a german provincialism into his philosophy that ultimately did not need to be there.

That and no one in academia wants to accept, as John Milbank has shown, that only theology saves metaphysics.

>>15316448
>ou can perfectly be a heideggerian and be a christian. Heidegger himself told so to Rivera.

Yeah, you can be perfectly Heideggerian, but not also perfectly Christian. Just look at goofs like John D. Caputo who consider themselves Heideggerian Christians. Christianity becomes a desperate LARP. You're somehow supposed to think there's a point to Christianity without assuming eternity is possible and that God doesn't interact with the world. Just be fucking Marxist at this point. It makes more sense.

That Heidegger told so and so that they shouldn't stop being a Christian means only that he thought it was quaint that some people could believe in it. You can't buy into Heidegger and seriously be a Christian, or a Jew or a Muslim for that matter.

>>15317290
>>15317338
(I assume I'm replying to the same person here)

Milbank is a dishonest clown and should be avoided for the most part. The other RadOx "theologians" are a mixed bag and should be taken with a grain of salt. Nevertheless they're correct in their rehabilitation of thinkers like Hamann and Berkeley. Any Christian who's interested in a linguistic critique of Kantianism and ontotheological metaphysics and wants to feel smart for reading obscurantist poetic lingo should ditch the pagan nihilist Heidegger and read the Magus of the North instead.

Then he should become Orthodox.

>>15317698
>Milbank is a dishonest clown and should be avoided for the most part.
>Then he should become Orthodox.


Are you triggered that he thinks the essence-energies distinction is retarded?

>>15285402
Bataille btfo both of them

>>15317760
Yes, but not only. He's dishonest in his approach to history and the thinkers he writes about in general.

>>15317760
Also he's an universalist fag and believes women (including his wife) should be priests. Radical Orthodoxy my ass.

>>15292865
They really are, aren't they?

>>15317788
>He's dishonest in his approach to history and the thinkers he writes about in general.

Go on...

antonio luis v.....

>>15317290
>Giorgio Agamben, who has argued that the coronavirus is a massive nothing burger promoted by neo-liberalism to extend the state of exception.
Based and, dare I say it, redpilled

>>15309199

Begin with Cartesian meditations. He lays out pretty clearly his views on consciousness and the Ego, Heidegger doesn’t specifically say Husserl is wrong, he thinks he overfixated on the transcendental ego and consciousness itself whereas Being itself and being in relation to others has primacy. He doesn’t actually give a good argument from phenomenological reduction to demonstrate this primacy. Husserl himself does not reject a intersubjective life-world, his project was based on the analysis of consciousness and the implications thereof. Meaning we don’t actually see Heidegger directly tackle husserl’s reductions and analysis and if you want to read up on this, Husserl wrote letters saying how Heidegger didn’t get him.

The problem arises because Husserl commits to viewing all metaphysical claims not backed by phenomenological claim to be naive and something one should take a neutral skeptical view of, and in his analysis he is able to demonstrate the absolute nature (absolute in the sense of being self filled and self arising ) nature of the transcendental ego. Every other object in consciousness can be divided into determinations, however the transcendental ego precisely because it is all pervading yet invisible, pervades the consciousness with actual truth which gets around the noumena problem, as the transcendental ego is the noumena which you, yourself, are. This is why he positions it between Being and non-being, these being metaphysically defined in relation to the transcendental Ego in its relation to objects and other subjects in a intersubjective Space.

Heidegger’s project is based on fixation on that intersubjective space as having primacy over the Subject which defines said Space. If however you were to annihilate all aspects of this world and replace it, or cast the individual into a void, the transcendental ego would still exist within itself and have primacy. Think of this as an extension of Hegel’s absolute idea but the absolute Idea is ones own transcendental Ego, thus it is not the intersubjective space of being/being in the world of Heidegger (since it is more primal than it) and not the reduction to object that analytics and OOO uses, for the determinate qualities of objects are always loaded with meaning and definition instantly via their relation to the transcendental ego which produces both object-perception and subjective identity as a dialectic.

Tldr, no one has tackled him head on.

>>15285402
What's a 'nazel'?

>tfw too smallbreained for this thread

>>15285402
enjoying first year then?

>>152859875
This chart is fucking bait right?
It has to be.
There's no reason to split up the Roman republican and empire periods. And that end date of 180 AD is the most outright retarded thing I've seen all day. Rome was the dominant world power untill at least the 7th century, and didn't truly fall until the 15th. You can say it entered a slow decline from 180 onward but that a ridiculous oversimplification. And that Ottoman end date makes even less sense. They didn't reach their territorial height untill 1683.

>>15317338
It’s like being a Nietzschean Christian. It doesn’t sound like it makes sense, but it can. There’s no law saying you can’t twist apparently conflicting philosophies to suit your own end. In fact, that’s how the history of philosophy works. For example, you could say that modern interpretations of Christianity are indeed corrupted by a twisted master morality vs. slave morality dialectic, ressentiment and all Nietzsche says about that, and that there’s a more primal interpretation of Christianity which doesn’t include ressentiment. In fact, this is what Nietzsche himself so much as says in the Anti-Christ, and was why he (paradoxically) respected Jesus. Only, as he bombastically said, “The last true Christian died on the cross.”

Of course, this doesn’t touch what Heideggerian Christianity could be like, but you could easily bullshit that too, somehow.

>>15318316
Most of the posters ITT don't even know what they don't know

>>15319431
stupid

>>15317933
I love how Continentals can't even make a valid formal argument, your post is just Muddleheaded word soup

>>15319498
retard

>>15319511
Nobody asked you to simp

>>15317933
>the transcendental ego is the noumena which you, yourself, are. T
sounds like Hinduism or something tbqh

>>15319534
>yaaay its axiological

faggot

>>15289315
Schopenhauer, Camus, Mainländer
?, ?, Cioran
Ligotti, Benetar (I know this because he was my thesis supervisor), Thacker

Anyone help me out on 4 and 5?

>>15285533
>>15285402
Merleau-Ponty is a direct improvement on Heidegger.

>>15319557

Husserl understood this and even wrote on Buddhism.

Heidegger was teleoplexically refuted by Capital aka Nick Land hyperpbuh.

>>15319598
Where does one begin with Husserl, is that first book about logic necessary? Is there secondary literature similar to the summary you gave in that post(good post btw)?

>>15285830
The fact Brave New World is lower than 1984 on the list is a tragedy.

>>15317773
based bataille poster

>>15317338
>without assuming eternity is possible
Heidegger never said anything against this. The idea of eternity is not in contradiction with Heidegger's conception of death because they are such different concepts that they don't even touch. If anything a christian could think of eternity as a way of solving the paradox of existential death.

>>15319658
zahavi + moran are good starting places

>>15319598
this is a metaphysical reading of husserl which is not good, in fact it's abandoning the best aspect of husserl and returning to ontic metaphysics of a super subject, and dissolving into quasi-heideggerianism anyway

read husserl as a transcendental philosopher not as a metaphysician paying lip service to the transcendental for the love of god

also recommend lonergan's insight

>>15319431
>There’s no law saying you can’t twist apparently conflicting philosophies to suit your own end
There's no conflict to begin with. When Heidegger talks about death he doesn't mean it as a factual event. He makes the distinction himself in section 48. The idea of eternity fulfills the same purpose as Heidegger's death. It takes away the Dasein from the world and it takes away his capacity to temporize himself and be projected. Now, I'm not saying Heidegger was some sort of christian thinker by any means. Just that there's nothing in his philosophy that conflicts with christianity, and anyone who has actually read him knows that much.

>>15286162
The golden rule isn't good enough. Even base in-group and out-group bias can make someone not feel guilt over harming another person terribly.

>>15319486
Why you talking to yourself, faggot?

>>15319863
Fair point, and similar to what I was saying.

>>15319658

Cartesian meditations or Ideas: General Introduction to Pure Phenomenology

>>15319811

Later Husserl is fully committed to the Transcendental Ego.

Husserl himself says he is not metaphysically utterly neutral, simply that he rejects naive metaphysics. Husserl himself places the ego as the center.

“ Carried out with this systematic concreteness, phenomenology is eo ipso “transcendental idealism”, though in a fundamentally and essen- tially new sense. [. . . ] The proof of this idealism is therefore phenome- nology itself. Only someone who misunderstands either the deepest sense of intentional method, or that of transcendental reduction, or perhaps both, can attempt to separate phenomenology from transcendental idealism “ - Husserl

“ Finally, lest any misunderstanding arise, I would point out that, as already stated, phenomenology indeed excludes every naïve meta- physics that operates with absurd things in themselves, but does not exclude metaphysics as such”

>>15285402
We’re pagans now. Philosophy is over.

>>15315578
Lmao. College is the least intellectually stimulating environment on the planet. Grant writing to study narrow bullshit.

>>15315578
>you need to publish a paper in muh peer review to understand something

>>15319591
5 is pessoa

Just getting this to 300 replies so this thread can finally fucking die

>>15319802
you think it's possible to have an eternal god with heidegger? cringe

>>15319863
>>15319802
oblivion is our destiny with heidegger

>>15320455
This is one of the only threads on the entire board with actual substance you faggot

>>15320259
Only pagans can do philosophy.

>>15319574
low IQ

>>15285402
>All the analytics philosophy since Witty is nazel-gazing garbage.
>ignoring all philosophy of mind
>ignoring all philosophy as a result from gödel
>ignoring the development of modern linguistics from analytic traditions
Fuck off

>>15320813
Not exactly. Heidegger makes it very clear he isn't talking about stop living but about the death of the Dasein as the end of being projected in possibilities, but that doesn't mean you aren't free to believe in an afterlife in which the elements that constitute the Dasein doesn't apply.
>>15320799
Heidegger himself seems to think so going by what Rivera said about their encounter.

>>15319591
That's not Camus
He's Michelstaedter

>>15317933
Frater, how do you reconcile all this with the relation of Christ's reunion of our human nature and all our hypostases, preserved in union with Him? How can we distinguish Self, Ego, Hypostasis, Spirit and Consciousness in the relation between the divine and human? I have grown out of the idea, which I consider now naive, of complete dissolution into a universal Self with no preservation of any distinction, any particularity. I have been interested in Kashmir Shaivism and Dnyaneshwar's writings precisely because of a more honest account on inherent duality, and consequently this leads to an interest also in Boehme and Hegel.

>>15322205
>Dnyaneshwar

He seems interesting, would you say something on his dualism?

>>15322244
His ''dualism'' is present through a poetic interplay between opposites, but merely in relation to an absolute nondual identity, that is, present insofar as it is illusory, non-existent. He still presents a valuable intuition, regardless of the point of view recalling ajativada, and it is in my opinion the most poetic and beautiful exposition of nondualism.

>Will the flame of a lamp remain without light if we do not ask her to wear the garment of light? Is not the Moon bathed in light even though we do not ask her To wear the moonlight? Fire is naturally hot; why should we consider heating it? A wise person is aware that he, himself, is the Lord, Shiva; Therefore, even when he is not worshipping, he is worshipping. Now the lamps of action and inaction have both been snuffed out and worshipping and not worshipping are sitting in the same seat, and eating from the same bowl. In such a state, the sacred scriptures are the same as censure, and censure itself is the same as a sweet hymn of praise. Both praise and censure are, in fact, reduced to silence; even though there is speech, It is silence. No matter where he goes, that sage is making pilgrimage to Shiva; and, if he attains to Shiva, that attainment is non-attainment. How amazing that in such a state, moving about on foot and remaining seated in one place are the same! No matter what his eyes fall upon at any time, he always enjoys the vision of Shiva. If Shiva Himself appears before him, it is as if he has seen nothing; For God and His devotee are on the same level.

>>15317933

"Now, therefore, amēn, I say unto you: Every man who will receive that mystery of the Ineffable and accomplish it in all its types and all its figures,--he is a man in the world, but he towereth above all angels and will tower still more above them all.

"He is a man in the world, but he towereth above all archangels and will tower still more above them all.

"He is a man in the world, but he towereth above all tyrants and will raise himself above them all.

"He is a man in the world, but he towereth above all lords and will raise himself above them all.

"He is a man in the world, but he towereth above all gods and will raise himself above them all.

"He is a man in the world, but he towereth above all light-givers and will raise himself above them all.

"He is a man in the world, but he towereth above all pure [ones] and will raise himself above them all.

"He is a man in the world, but he towereth above all triple-powers and will raise himself above them all.

"He is a man in the world, but he towereth above all forefathers and will raise himself above them all.

"He is a man in the world, but he towereth above all invisibles and will raise himself above them all.

"He is a man in the world, but he towereth above the great invisible forefather and will raise himself above him.

"He is a man in the world, but he towereth above all those of the Midst and will raise himself above them all.

"He is a man in the world, but he towereth above the emanations of the Treasury of the Light and will raise himself above them all.

"He is a man in the world, but he towereth above the Mixture and will raise himself entirely above it.

"He is a man in the world, but he towereth above the whole region of the Treasury and will raise himself entirely above it.

"He is a man in the world, but he will rule with me in my kingdom.

"He is a man in the world, but he is king in the Light.

"He is a man in the world, but he is not one of the world.

"And amēn, I say unto you: That man is I and I am that man.