/lit/ - Literature

If you perceive an incongruity within this speculation then the single conclusion, with respect to its cognitive function and distinction from the general narratigm of the optional parativity, is that you are stupid.
-Derrida

>>4608721


that quote was part of a larger phrase by heidegger, this abbreviation is similar to some yellow journalist quoting an activist as saying 'I...like raping...little girls...'.

>>4608734
What's the rest of it?

>>4608738

'...in the ass'

>>4608738


>Those in the crossing must in the end know what is mistaken by all urging for intelligibility: that every thinking of being, all philosophy, can never be confirmed by "facts," ie, by beings. Making itself intelligible is suicide for philosophy. Those who idolize "facts" never notice that their idols only shine in a borrowed light. They are also meant not to notice this; for thereupon they would have to be at a loss and therefore useless. But idolizers and idols are used wherever gods are in flight and so announce their nearness.

Heidegger is just saying when you learn something and it immediately makes sense, then you're not really learning anything novel, you're simply interpreting it in terms of what you already know. If Philosophy is supposed to be grasping ultimate reality, it shouldn't be in terms of what we already believe or find intuitive.

What can be said at all can be said clearly; and whereof one cannot speak thereof one must be silent.

>>4608762
Thanks for the clear interpretation. I found it intuitive because it used terms I know.

Dennett is a hack

>>4608747
Pretty damning evidence.

>>4608906
Driving a cab is a fine profession. Must do all his thinking then.

Why can't there be something real that is not susceptible to exact measurement? Why not sorrow, for example? - Heidegger

Philosophers have a choice: they can play games with folk concepts (ordinary language philosophy lives on, as a kind of aprioristic social anthropology) or they can take seriously the claim that some of these folk concepts are illusion-generators. - Dennett

Philosophy can't do anything. - Heidegger

Philosophers who know only philosophy consign themselves to a janitorial role in the great enterprises of exploration that are illuminating the mysteries of our lives. - Dennett

>>4608721
Dennet is a joke, his quining qualia is based on subtle circular reasoning.

>>4610037
As part of his training to rid the world of evil Dennett practices open criticism and self criticism (Kaizen). So he probably already acknowledged the mistake. But for the sake of derailment:

Who argues quining qualia uses a fallacious circle? How is the circle structured?

>>4610037
You spelt Dennett wrong.

>>4610227

>Who argues quining qualia uses a fallacious circle? How is the circle structured?

It's the 20th century, I am an adult man and I still claim to have privileged access to secret philosophical knowledge.
t. Heidegger

>>4611050
t. Heidegger? Is that his brother or something?

>>4611065
Yeah, Trevor Heidegger. Thinks he "knows philosophy" because his brother "knows wicked philosophy"

>>4608794
Wittgenstein remarked after reading Being and Time that Heidegger was "brushing up against the limits of language". This was meant as a criticism, but I think Heidegger would accept that statement.

>>4611065

>>4608794
>What can be said at all can be said clearly; and whereof one cannot speak thereof one must be silent.
LOL that statement itself has so many different interpretations.

Shit

>>4611087
Yeah, and /lit/ almost without exception picks out all the wrong ones.

>>4611065
le finnish mene