/lit/ - Literature

>>20206098
Wagner already did this in the Ring.

>>20206098
What do you mean ”lame”? Technological thinking permeates modern philosophical history and most of ”modernity” today

Is it lame revealing how we’re stuck in a calculating-using-producing-presence way of being and that most other horizons of being have been eclipsed by technology?

>>20206098
It seems pretty obvious that technology changes human perception of reality for the worse. Acknowleding that in our pursuit of technological advancement seems like the best way forward.
Take the internet. In the 'golden age', a kind of libertarian idealism was imagined which saw the unhindered expansion of the technology as an imancipatory tool. This kind of thinking (unintentionally) has led to a corporate-state surveillance industrial complex that has reduced human interaction to quantified, economic units. A similar sort of process is happening with crypto and the blockchain. What began as a relatively sincere project to wrestle back control from centralising forces like banks has been reduced to a profit-seeking race to the bottom where mass-produced images of monkeys with guns are assigned (much) more value than projects like Monero which genuinely try to address serious economic and monetary issues.
Acknowledging these kinds of factors and processes from the beginning may have allowed the building in or acting out ways in which to mitigate those downsides. As such, the libertarian ideals of a free and open internet and cryptocurrency that poses a serious challenge to banking hegemony and fiat currency might have actually persisted.
I guess capitalist realism and deterritorialisation come into play as well with technology though.

>>20206156
I hope you get better Anon.

>>20206170
Oh, sorry. Forgot where I was. What I meant was
>>20206098
kek what a fucking midwit take. kys faggot.

>>20206098
The question concerning technology is not technology.

>>20206156
>Take the internet. In the 'golden age', a kind of libertarian idealism was imagined which saw the unhindered expansion of the technology as an imancipatory tool. This kind of thinking (unintentionally) has led to a corporate-state surveillance industrial complex that has reduced human interaction to quantified, economic units. A similar sort of process is happening with crypto and the blockchain. What began as a relatively sincere project to wrestle back control from centralising forces like banks has been reduced to a profit-seeking race to the bottom where mass-produced images of monkeys with guns are assigned (much) more value than projects like Monero which genuinely try to address serious economic and monetary issues.
Sounds like literally everything else. Any institution, money, banks, governments, anything at all followed the same process. Nothing to do with technology, this is dumb.

>>20206098
>Heidegger seeks to illuminate this phenomenon
Why? what's wrong with it?

>>20206227
>Sounds like literally everything else.
No.

>>20206253
Ok dimwit go seethe about computers somewhere else lmao

>>20206227
>Any institution, money, banks, governments, anything at all followed the same process.
Of course. I just used the internet as a precient example that most people older than 25 or so saw happen with their own eyes. The question is when did that process occur for those institutions? I think there's a pretty strong argument to be made that modernity is the underlying social condition that makes that process possible and therefore occur in all institutions, and that subsequently modernity occured with significant technological advancement made possible by the advances of capital. In other words, banks, money, government, and pretty much all modern institutions are directly tied to technology and its quantity-directed modes of value.
>>20206261
Also that wasn't me but I'm not seething about computers. Technology can be a force for serious good. It just isn't at the moment and probably won't be until we seriously consider why that is and take action to mitigate that process. Butlerian Jihad when?

>>20206098
https://archive.org/details/martinheideggerhayaomiyazakicuckphilosophy
Watch this

>>20206342
>cuckphilosophy
Not clicking

>>20206316
>In other words, banks, money, government, and pretty much all modern institutions are directly tied to technology and its quantity-directed modes of value.
What? These institutions hae nothing to do with technology. Banks did this stuff since the renaissance, and the others even earlier.

Has anyone read Heidegger's thoughts? Can you explain how he applies the concept of dasein to find something insightful about how technology affects us? Yes, it changes our perspectives, any 12 year old can say this. More details though?

>>20206098
>What do they bring new to the table?
People create technology both as a mean and as a goal, so for example you are cold, to warm up you need wood, to get wood you need an axe
The axe is both a mean and a goal
Now thing is that with the development of technology, with the axe getting replaced by a saw, then by a industrial sawmill complex etc., we entered an endless efficiency race which resulted that we see nature only as a resource that waits to be used
the river Rhine is just the actuator of a hydro power plant, the forest is just wood that isn't cut yet, the mountain is coal that hasn't been dig up yet. Heidegger says that in the future the same thing will happen to people, and he's kinda right if you look at the internet, individual people have been reduced to likes, shares, ad views etc. Thing is also that we see technology as a mean for us, while with its development humanity has been subordinated to technology. Nowadays things arent getting produced with the sake that there is a need for them, like with firewood since we are going to freeze to death, but simply because its possible to produce it, stack it somewhere in a warehouse and eventually sell them to CONSOOMERS (for example, there is no natural need for Coca Cola, and when you look at Heideggers view on poiesis, the ceremonial silver gobled example if you remember and if you actually read the book, you'd get it.)
I guess that you expected a Unabomber Industry bad kind of book, it tl:dr its about how humanity sees nature and technology and how technology rules over man now and not the other way around

>>20206407
Good, since he missed the point of the book and boils it down to nostalgia good nature good technology bad

>>20206587
Heidegger is literally a holderlin fag coping about muh windmills you don't get to say its much beyond that.

>>20206604
Please go actually read the book for once instead of reading the wiki, Jonas Čeika

>>20206612
I did read the book. Question Concerning Technology is a cope parody of Husserl's Masterpiece, The Crisis of European Science.

>>20206420
>Banks did this stuff since the renaissance
The Renaissance, you mean right around the invention of the printing press, gunpowder, etc.?

>>20206628
Catapults and aquaducts were invented even earlier, sounds like technology means anything you don't like

>>20206621
Thank you for confirming that you indeed didn't *read* the book, nor heidegger in general

>>20206634
Technology is everything man created, from computers to the programmer socks you are wearing

>>20206634
Catapults and aqueducts were not capable of being mass produced or used for mass production

>>20206604
who is the fag always crying about Holderlin?

>>20206420
'Technology' did not begin with the industrial revolution, nor did capital.

>>20206641
So houses and tools are technology got it. We really needed an analysis why houses are bad.

>>20206798
Technology isnt bad, Heidegger doesnt claim that, he just says that technology can lead to evil

also
>We really needed an analysis why houses are bad
Housing market

>>20206828
If someone had read the book, they could've explained Heidegger's novel insight by now.

>>20206921
Which is what?

>>20206581
>>20206156
I'm currently reading The Technological Society by Ellul, and while it's possible I'm just not being nuanced enough, I see great similarity between Ellul and what you guys are describing from Heidegger. Interestingly, both books were published in the same year, so both thinkers could have been influenced by the same events and current thought.

Have either of you read both and can comment on any distinguishing features or contrasts?

>>20206921
see >>20206581

>>20206581
Sounds very basic and uninteresting. It's also wrong: we use technology. Every piece of technology exists because someone wants it and someone makes a profit from it.
> sell them to CONSOOMERS (for example, there is no natural need for Coca Cola
People like it. What "natural need"? People have a "natural need" for pleasure, and they like the taste of Coca Cola.

>>20206954
>so both thinkers could have been influenced by the same events and current thought.
Same for Jungers Glass Bees, the period between WW1 and WW2 was a shock for a lot of people, and post-ww2 was even greater. A lot of new technologies were developed and people figured out that out civilization is heading towards progress for the sake of progress and towards the consumer economy
I still have to read Ellul, but as far I know he was influenced by Kierkegaard (same for Heidegger) and if that's true, Kierkegaards "The Present Age" could be the book linking them together
Its a short book and some of its ideas still holds up for our age

>>20206969
>we use technology. Every piece of technology exists because someone wants it and someone makes a profit from it.

>>20206973
>people figured out that out civilization is heading towards progress for the sake of progress
Not what's happening. There's never been a greater period for reducing global poverty. The progress we've made helped billions of people.

>>20206969
>People like it. What "natural need"? People have a "natural need" for pleasure, and they like the taste of Coca Cola.

>>20206977
Sorry, your memes don't count as arguments. Working conditions at Amazon are still much better than working conditions in the past.

>>20206983
Yes, luxurious exclusive brand created a thing for an infinitely small demographic. Not an argument.

>>20206985
Aha so you are saying that in the past we didn't use technology, but now that the working conditions are better we are using it? It's not like technological innovation is linked to investors and making a profit, creating needs where they didn't exist and first creating products before finding a problem?

>>20206989
>a brick is a luxury
>luxury is a natural need
Lmao

>>20206969
>People like it. What "natural need"? People have a "natural need" for pleasure, and they like the taste of Coca Cola.

How do you manage to read Heidegger and NOT become a Nazi?

and I dont mean Hitler, Göring or whoever, but the ideal itself.

Its baffling Heidegger managed to remain relevant in a world of people who despise the genuine ideal he saw as essentially necessary. A bunch of retarded marxist and liberals who never could follow his thoughts to the same end because it would horrify their ideological notions.

>>20206954
They were both influenced by FG Junger.
Best threads
>>/lit/thread/S17401055#p17418946
>>/lit/thread/17544025

>>20206581
>the river Rhine is just the actuator of a hydro power plant, the forest is just wood that isn't cut yet, the mountain is coal that hasn't been dig up yet. Heidegger says that in the future the same thing will happen to people
Heidegger inhabits the dustbin because he said that this is going to happen. Marx said that it already happened, somewhere around the Bronze Age.

>>20207108
Marx was retarded.

>>20206227
>Nothing to do with technology
Completely filtered. You're missing the point of how Heidegger defines technology.
>Any institution, money, banks, governments, anything at all followed the same process.
Correct. Now look into how Heidegger developed the idea of 'gestalt' in the essay. Technology doesn't just mean "physical inventions."

>>20207458
So can you explain what technology means to Heidegger and what novel insights he produced in OP's book?

>>20207749
I tried summarizing it for you but I can't understand it for you

this isn’t about “technology” as you might understand it. It’s about a more fundamental shift in our concept of being. In the modern age, we tend to conceive of being as a “standing reserve” of resources to be manipulated and controlled, leading to certain behaviors and modes of existence that Heidegger found troubling. If you want more specific critiques and understanding of technology, referring to computers, robots, etc. look into Don Ihde, Peter-Paul Verbeek, and other phenomenologists of technology.

>>20206098
All of Heidegger is lame, you'll either find his conclusions final or irrelevant and either fuck off into the woods forever or move on with your life.

>>20206227
>Nothing to do with technology, this is dumb.
>This absolute nigger of spirit does not even retrieve the ancient greek meaning of greek words

>>20207749
>spoonfeed me
No.
Start by reading the entire Platonic and Aristolian corpus, focusing on the concept τέχνη you absolute gigapleb.

>>20208527
Fuck off already retard, you neer read a book in your life lmao

>>20206098
Two bits of terminology are very important for making sense of his view:
>enframing
>standing reserve
I’d read more about them and then go back and re-read the essay. It’s a really enduring and phenomenal work.

>>20208386
Absolutely based and doubly based recommendations. I’ve read a fair bit of Verbeek.

>>20206134
>Is it lame revealing how we’re stuck in a calculating-using-producing-presence way of being and that most other horizons of being have been eclipsed by technology?
Some people will never grasp this no matter how clear a case is made for them

>>20207749
>So can you explain what technology means to Heidegger
The process of understanding something as already embedded within the unconscious hegemonic definition of that something is "enframing." Think about fighting climate change using cap and trade or fighting racism using race as a practical category until you realize where the foundation of justification becomes apparent and loops. Technology is pseudo-ontological as a self-justified process; it enframes.

>>20207092
>A difference to note here is that Jünger's focus is on technology as being and law. The state is in many ways supplanted by technology in the modern period, and what we see in governmental types is often a form of technical organisation rather than state power. The state is essentially determined by the technological relation, a neutralising force which demands a strong politics or simple being. The state cannot be in opposition to technical organisation, nor have the power to control it, as it is part of the same form, it is a way of being specific to our era. This is precisely what allows it to maintain its liberated character, it is a totality, as in the trees of a forest which are given greater character where a great tree or mountain towers above them.

>This is essential to the functioning of the society of nations. It effectively has more power than any traditional state, but also functions in a manner that suggests liberation and revolution, and as if all that happens is of nature. It is in this that we sense a great oppression while not being able to communicate what causes our discontent. Revolutionary organisations often lead to a worsening of destructive tendencies, and ossification, as they act blindly against the natural character of technical society without recognising that they are themselves part of it. This adds another stratum to technical order, and a deeper sense of impoverishment once the technical domination is felt. This is what we saw with the Soviet Union, the opposition to technology as material only creates a greater monstrosity. Technology is the most powerful source of profanation, yet its effects are of the sacred. Which is why critiques of technology always fail, they are luddism at the level of theoretical knowledge, and thus deepen the technological relation because of their misunderstanding.

Based post.

>>20208510
Yikes

>>20206098
It's just a restatement of Klages' Man and Earth in slightly more philosophical tones, instead of rhetorical ones.

>>20211020
Which is just a restatement of Nietzsche
Which is just a restatement of Holderlin
Which is just a restatement of Goethe
Which is just a restatement of Hume
Which is just a restatement of Shakespeare
Which is just a restatement of Machiavelli
Which is just a restatement of the Decameron
Which is just a restatement of the Bible
Which is just a restatement of Aristotle
Which is just a restatement of Plato

>>20206626
Schmitt hits the nail on the head every time.
Nothing abstract, more concerned with dynamics than definitions.
In terms of readability it's not great.....but compared to Ted?
Yea, Schmitt is readable

>>20211127
No, people had different thoughts

>>20206626
Lol the epic gathering of the post-industrial losers

sounds like he's saying that technology "objectifies" nature and even other people in a way that strips them of their inherent beauty and meaning and turns us into mindless enslaved bug people, and he wants to find a way in which we can be aware of this effect and use that awareness to learn to live along side technology without becoming bug people

honestly pretty based

>>20211358
>t. double digit IQ

>>20211278
What?

>>20208859
Those were multiple anons informing you that you're a filtered pleb.

>>20208527
Apparently Heidegger had this super novel concept that no one else saw before the 1950s. But anon doesn't want to share.

>>20212391
He did. It can be broadly labeled as 'orientation towards being' but even this is just one of many aspects and stating it alone betrays the density and originality of his corpus. That anon was pointing out there's no point in trying to explain a complex multifaceted argument, where even the very style of writing and intension of ancient words is important, to someone who is obviously filtered and will reply disingenuously. Now go look up what intension means and recognize why a conversation regarding Heidegger with someone like yourself is likely a waste of time.

>>20212488
I was genuinely curious and didn't post before that.

>>20212636
Jumping into a conversation involving a filtered retard with a snarky comment wasn't your best avenue when you could have just Googled τέχνη +Heidegger or asked about the meme of having to read and understand the entire corpus of philosophy while paying special attention to ancient Greeks. Someone might have been nice enough to explain the joke.

>>20212750
>has to explain a joke to a bunch of anons on a waldunchad subreddit
Doesn't sound like a very good joke.

>>20212872
>snarky fag asks someone to explain Heidegger to him and gets indignant when it's pointed out he's a snarky fag
I got his joke. I liked it. Stay filtered.

>>20211127
Quite clever of you but in this case it doesn't work unfortunately.

>>20206098
The way I interpreted it is that he critiques industrializing technology as a means of "denaturizing nature" in the same way that certain abuses "dehumanize humans." Industrialism cuts up nature into quantified raw materials, or "standing reserve" and thus a mountain is reduced to a quarry or a forest to lumber. Nature is primarily viewed as an exploitable resource in view of self-interested human purposes alone. In doing so however this falsifies our consciousness by forcing an illusionary artificial boundary that separates humanity from nature and makes a false distinction between artifactual and natural. This creates an alienating psychic split .

He also has positive or less judgemental things to say about technology. It is a form of "disclosure" or revealing that allows us to access and probe otherwise occluded regions of being. For example a microscope "brings forth" the microbial world just as telescopes do the heavens. Technology's essence is this power of "disclosure" or alethia
that expands the range of being to which Dasein has access.

The sad thing about Heidegger is that if you think he’s unnecessary, reading him is a massive waste of time because you’re busy enjoying technological society without a fuddy-duddy naysaying your lifestyle - and if you think he’s necessary, he’s a massive waste of your time because what you actually need is Walden and a good handbook on local edible plants.

It’s like giving a book on “how to rub a dick to orgasm” to a colony of lesbians - what’s the point?

>>20206098
Basically his definition works with enframement. Technology takes various physical rules of the universe and creates a machine to put them together simultaneously to achieve of task. His critique felt weak too but his definition was good.

>>20214862
This, anyone ONLINE telling you about their love of Heidegger is the philosophy equivalent of
>man preaching about the joys of marriage and the sin of homosexuality
>he's cheating on his wife, and with a big gay bear of a man, who rails his ass every night till he calls them daddy

The true inheritors of Heidegger's thought are on /out/ or are ACTUALLY out - as in outside.

>>20215252
That's a complicated way of saying out-posters are homos.

>>20207026
>Its baffling Heidegger managed to remain relevant in a world of people who despise the genuine ideal he saw as essentially necessary.
If you make a good enough point and influence the right people, lefty academicians can't help but begrudgingly engage with your ideas. Same goes for Schmitt.

>>20215350
Commie lecturers used to be engaged with the real world because the USSR gave them a reason to remain in contact with existence. Now that no such power exists there's no reason not to just descend into simulacra.

>>20215814
>the USSR ket them in contact with existence
Not really, more like political realities of the Cold war and Vietnam war made it inexpedient to be seen as overly far left when Commies were national enemy number one, and Americans were being drafted to fight and maybe die in combat with them in our first televised war.

The strong principled rightist opposition to the far left collapsed once the Soviet Union collapsed and got replaced by the far less compelling anti-sexual liberation political right (anti abortion, anti gay marriage, anti trans, etc.) which left a massive power vacuum far leftists and sexual liberation refugees merged together to fill.

>>20211275
>>20213375
that's the joke.jpg

>>20217455

>>20206581
>there is no natural need for Coca Cola
stopped reading right there. Coke is a fine American product and there is nothing more natural than sipping on a mildly stimulating sugary beverage while you are at the ball game, or just sitting in a public place while your grandkids and daughter in law explore the shops.

next you'll be getting rid of ice cream.

>>20211127
>Holderlin
Kind of uplifting in his own way.
https://www.archive.org/download/spc183_1809_librivox/spc183_hyperionssongfate_el_64kb.mp3

>>20206581
Sounds like Heidegger would be one of those faggots that praise Black Mirror as being insightful commentary

>>20209485
Underrated.

>>20206969
>People have a "natural need" for pleasure, and they like the taste of Coca Cola.
People have a tangled neverending web of pleasures which arose to promote adaptive behaviours in a savannah hunter-gatherer context. The adaptive behaviours address our natural needs.
Having a systematized method of rational discernment and using it to revert back to grug-tier hedonism in an absolutely completely different world is pretty pathetic desu. Of course, it's to be expected, because without a misanthropic ideology that shits on humans & human desire, the endless hunger will inevitably unleash itself even if it has to catabolize everything else in the world

>>20218644
Can you elucidate what is being said, specifically in the last couple of sentences?

>>20218234
Black Mirror is a pro-tech psyop by Musk glowies.