/lit/ - Literature

>just be shoemaker before making any shoes
>you are just born a shoemaker
... is it THAT hard to understand? Someone has to make a philosophy book with actual pictures so retards can make sense out of it.

>>22256187
I would buy that book

>>22256208
Fuck >>22256193

The realization of our essence as freedom only takes place after coming to terms with existence. We exist before we discover an essence, and this essence is more of a conception then a type of being.

>>22256187
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lIr8u0j08gU
SARTREANS! WHAT IS YOUR PROFESSION!?

>>22256193
So existence preceding essence only applies to actions? But then what is he even trying to refute? The debate over existence and essence was never about that. If that's the case, then he's just redefining the word essence and doing a semantic knot to refute an argument that had little to do with what he's bringing up.

>>22256291
That is an example of it. If you want to get into the real wankery check out his books, but it is existentialism, it is not about refuting shit. Don't you understand that he is finding a way to define the "self", basically trying to answer the question "who am I?"

>>22256193
>just be radically free before you do any freedom
>you're just born radically free
This is unironically what Sartre is saying. Existence preceding essence only makes sense if you shrink the meaning of "essence" so much that it becomes serviceable only to what Sartre wants it to mean.

>>22256307
>He is finding a way to define the « self »
Do you even know what nothingness means in being and nothingness you complete illiterate ?

>>22256319
You are free to do things, aren't you? Can't you commit a crime and get arrested? You can do whatever the fuck you want. That is the point, but people often don't know what to do, this is the problem.
https://www.ukessays.com/essays/philosophy/man-is-condemned-to-be-free-philosophy-essay.php

>>22256340
I'm a practical person. I don't care about wankery.

>>22256307
>Don't you understand that he is finding a way to define the "self"
Heidegger already did that. Sartre's entire philosophy is a reaction of getting mind broken by the fact that Heidegger's conclussion is that once Dasein answers the call of authenticity he should return to Das Man. The obvious implication of this is fascism, which is something a spiritual jew like Sartre could not accept, so he made an entire philosophy of mental gymnastics to explain why opting for fascism is bad, or in bad faith as he put it. He's a worthless philosopher and I regret the time I spent reading him. I only did so in my youth because I was interested in existentialism and didn't know where else to start. To OP, I recommend him very much not to read him.

>>22256347
>You are free to do things, aren't you?
I have some freedom, but not radical freedom. I'm conditioned by my thrownness.

>>22256354
Heidegger failed and ran away to poetry. Late Heidegger is pure charlatanism.

>>22256350
leave this board brainlet

>>22256371
I don't know, check out his books and check his arguments for it, or his wiki page on some philosophy encyclopedia.

>>22256354
What is the heideggerian conception of the self and identity you're giving him

>>22256383
>NOOO
>you have to circle jerk with us
KEK no. And I'm going ot be here and make fun of you while you are at it.

>>22256371
radical freedom =/= misunderstood freedom abstracted from material conditions of existence

>>22256388
Being is not an entity in itself but a-being being. Dasein is a-being that is aware of its own beigness.

>>22256394
>Being (sein) is a-being being (seienden)?

>Dasein is a-being that is aware of its own beigness.
Can you elaborate about the hedeggerian conception of the self? you just defined Dasein as da-sein here

>>22256398
>you just defined Dasein as da-sein here
Do you mean da-sein in Hegelian terms? I'm not well versed on Hegel so I wouldn't know, but for Heidegger, Dasen is a sein (a-being) that can question its own being.

>>22256187
>If humanity's essence is to be radically free
It's not. It's a human condition, not a human essence. Besides, freedom is the lack of essence. Yes you can be like "Technically the lack of essence is an essence" but that technicality is missing the deeper point, that humans do not have essences in the main sense, where it determines them entirely and forbids deviation. Freedom is the absence of that essentialist determination. Sartre grants that it can belong to more than one individual, i.e. to every human being. But this universality is not an essence proper, hence his term is "condition" instead.
>>22256354
>Heidegger's conclussion is that once Dasein answers the call of authenticity he should return to Das Man
Incorrect. Heidegger heavily criticizes lostness in das Man or the "they." Instead, he advocates authentic being-towards-death. What he DOES grant is that, instead of leading to isolated individuality, this authentic being-towards-death leads back to soliciting with other. Someone aware of this is called resolute. So Heidegger believes authentic being-towards-death points back to resoluteness which is social. But so does Sartre: he believes that by trying to oppress the other, we are self-contradicting the very basis of our freedom, which he says requires taking others as free as well. It's constitutive of the notion of taking yourself as free to take others as free as well. So that entails a social philosophy, which is why Sartre lived the life of an activist. You understand neither Heidegger nor Sartre.

>>22256354
>the fact that Heidegger's conclussion is that once Dasein answers the call of authenticity he should return to Das Man. The obvious implication of this is fascism
You are a mental midget. I will not elaborate further.

>>22256598
>>22256646
Did you niggers even read Being and Time? What do you think the chapter about Historicity is about? Heidegger is clear that Dasein cannot be authentic all the time, and that such thing would be undesirable. He says that after answering the call of authenticity, Dasein must partake in the destiny he inherited from his legacy, thus influencing Das Man, which is inherently linked to legacy. Stop talking about books you haven't read, fucking retards.

>>22256187
Stirner is better and doesn’t come with the existentialist baggage of humanism.
>Only when nothing is said about you and you are merely named, are you recognized as you. As soon as something is said about you, you are only recognized as that thing (human, spirit, christian, etc.). But the unique doesn’t say anything because it is merely a name: it says only that you are you and nothing but you, that you are a unique you, or rather your self. Therefore, you have no attribute, but with this you are at the same time without determination, vocation, laws, etc.

>>22256704
Every Heideggerian academic knows the chapter on historicity should be ignored. Heidegger was a brilliant man, sure, but he was also blindsided by his nationalism and he didn't always understand his own ideas. He spent the whole book talking about Dasein as something universal, that could be applied to anyone from any country and any era, and then at the very end he starts talking about different cultures and nations and how we should embrace those arbitrary distinctions? Fuck that shit. I even had a professor who was an expert on Heidegger who told me I shouldn't bother with that section because in the academic world no one thinks highly of it. So yeah, I'd rather listen to my professor than to you.

>>22256445
my reading of Heidegger’s subject is that Dasein is a being whom’s beingness is actually a problematique for it, and it is this ambiguity of disclosure that allows for subjectivity, so rather than Dasein being a being that is capable of questioning it’s own being it is a being whom’s being is a question.

>>22256704
You are thinking like a r*ghtoid. Authenticity does not mean that one's social-historical context gets erased and you start from scratch, it is a different way of relating to it, a creative appropriation of tradition. Instead of leaving the responsibility of determining your existential possibilities to tradition or social norms, you exploit its resources to forge your own path.

>>22256786
>thinking like a correct person
Die, lefty

>>22256795
single digit iq amerimutt detected, extermination process initiating

>>22256786
>you exploit its resources to forge your own path
Not the anon you're replying to, but Heidegger doesn't quite believe in forging your own path. Destiny and legacy are always shared, and therefor heavily conditioned, which is why he chose such a loaded word as destiny to begin with. A destiny is not something you invent, but something you accept. Those who accept their destiny are enacting their individuality, but also actualizing and enacting the will of their collective. It reminds me a bit of Hegel's idea that some people, under certain circumstances, can embody the Geist, but in a much smaller scale.

>>22256949
That would be equivalent to saying that human existence is entirely determined by its facticity.

>>22256974
Not quite, because collectives can also project themselves as possibilities in time, so there's some space to maneuver. But perhaps it could be said, in a way, that facticity does indeed play a bigger role with collectives than individuals, specially when it comes to big ones like nations. The bigger the legacy, the more facticity is involved. You don't get to be a Napoleon if you aren't closely aligned to your people, starting from the fact no one would follow you if you weren't. Of course, being Napoleon isn't the only way of being authentic, if he was at all. For most people, living authentically may not look very different from their regular lives, but the same principles of legacy and destiny apply. For an authentic Dasein, living for himself and living to fulfill the destiny of his people are not separable things, because he's the product of his legacy. The real question for the modern times, I think, is what constitutes "your people" anymore. In Heidegger's time national identities were still strong. Now we live in supra-states containing multiple fragmented nations inside. It seems horrific to think there may come the day when the world is so atomized there's no legacy left other than the culture of consumption.

>>22256704
I admit I haven't read primary sources, but I've read some secondaries and I've watched a few videos about him, and I thought his existential ideas seemed very cool and radical, and people always said that fascism wasn't an actual part of his philosophy, so I assumed his political ideas had no presence on his work. Is it true he talks about this shit about national legacies and destinies? I had never heard about it. If that's the case, then that's very disappointing, but I guess you cannot expect better from a nazi. His ideas of dasein are still cool though.

>>22257063
I don't think by destiny he means anything like accepting a project that has been already laid down for you by external forces. He is trying to imagine an authentic way of being with others. If authenticity consists in taking the burden of your existential possibilities on your shoulders, there is still the problem that the authentic individual lives in a social environment that is not determined by him. In order for individuals to shape their environment they need to both be self-reliant and to have a common cultural background, because without the former your existential possibilities are leveled down to what is customary and without the later there is no shared reality to be altered.
The question is not about "national identity" in the narrow sense of parades or waving the flag. The point is that the cultural creativity of a nation depends on a rich cultured background that can be drawn from for inspiration. The marching atomisation ushered by proto- and early Capitalism in classical Greece, the Renaissance and 19th century bourgeois liberalism both ushered a period of unprecedented intensity in cultural production and started eroding the shared social world. Now, around the second half of the 20th century the increasingly global economy of mass production and mass consumption pushes the atomisation to the point where there is almost no sense of historical consciousness or collective identity by the average citizen, although it also expanded personal freedoms and material conditions. What is needed is the combination of a thicker national identity with the experimentation a secular culture provides.

>>22256187
>That is why the "humanist" problems are false problems. How could this human being, who is the real one and not the one imagined by Sartre or Heidegger—how could he sovereignly perform what is expected of him: i.e., make choices, judgments, rejections in regard to technology as a whole or individual technologies? How and in terms of what could he give a different direction to technology than the one that technology gives itself in its self-augmentation? What initiative could he take that would not be primarily technological?

>>22256187
>Every man is radically free, born into full responsibility of his actions
>But if you are not a commie, you are acting in bad faith.
>You're still totally free tho
Sartre's two main metaphysical concepts contradict each other.

>>22256354
>spiritual jew
I will now take the liberty to ignore everything you say. Better luck next time

>>22256187
Good point, never thought about this obvious and immediate refutation of Sartre. Most bad philosophy really collapses because of its premises, not its reasoning.

>>22256808
It’s so awesome how we live rent free in the minds of third world faggots like you.