/lit/ - Literature

I wish I could have fucked a young Hannah Arendt

>In the clear night of the nothing of anxiety the original openness of beings as such arises: that they are beings — and not nothing. But this “and not nothing” we add in our talk is not some kind of appended clarification. Rather it makes possible in advance the revelation of beings in general. The essence of the originally nihilating nothing lies in this, that it brings Dasein for the first time before beings as such.

>ontology
>fiction
choose two.

I get confused just by reading the wikipedia article on Heidegger. What the fuck is that dude about

>>6196329
If you imagine Philosophy, as a whole, to be a video game - Nietzsche is the First Stage Boss and Heidegger is the Final Boss

>>6196305
Heidegger, one slickerous tricckerous dick.

>>6196336
Where are Plato and Hegel?

>>6196336

Heidegger and Nietzsche are just intros to Derrida, Foucault, Deleuze etc. i.e. the true final bosses of theory

Reading Heidegger makes me feel alternately comfy as fuck and insane. His sentence structure is trippy.

>>6196305

TAKBIR

>>6196349
>Derrida, Foucault, Deleuze etc. i.e. the true final bosses of theory

>>6196336
>Nietzsche is the First Stage Boss

Hardly. Nietzsche is a Gameshark, and when you get shit from purists you can remark, "The original game is merely your own subjective Truth, this modded version is mine."

>>6196336
But Nietzsche pointed out that there most likely is no being, only becoming (if even that), so the concepts used by Heidegger predate the enlightenment scientific thinking allows us about the flux nature of the world?

>>6196346
>Where are Plato and Hegel?
Nietzsche says,
>Misunderstanding of the dream. --The man of the ages of barbarous primordial culture believed that in the dream he was getting to know a second real world: here is the origin of all metaphysics. Without the dream one would have had no occasion to divide the world into two. The dissection into soul and body is also connected with the oldest idea of the dream, likewise the postulation of a life of the soul, thus the origin of all belief in spirits, and probably also of the belief in gods. 'The dead live on, for they appear to the living in dreams': that was the conclusion one formerly drew, throughout many millennia.

>>6196349
Nietzsche did not know of structualism.

>>6196358
Hegel is a gameshark actually

>>6196375

>Nietzsche did not know of structualism

neither did Hegel know about historical materialism

that's how influence works

>>6196336
Plato is the first and last boss. Seriously.

>>6196409
I think it would be hard to predict their thoughts on them in either case.

>>6196419
>Plato is the first and last boss. Seriously.
Nietzsche says,
>Misunderstanding of the dream. --The man of the ages of barbarous primordial culture believed that in the dream he was getting to know a second real world: here is the origin of all metaphysics. Without the dream one would have had no occasion to divide the world into two. The dissection into soul and body is also connected with the oldest idea of the dream, likewise the postulation of a life of the soul, thus the origin of all belief in spirits, and probably also of the belief in gods. 'The dead live on, for they appear to the living in dreams': that was the conclusion one formerly drew, throughout many millennia.

>>6196324
>you will never collect a bucket of water with an elderly Martin Heidegger while talking about Being and international Jewry

Why live?

>>6196385

Hegel was such a horribly convoluted writer that there's no way any inexperienced person could grasp him at first. Nietzsche you don't need help for.

>>6196448
Whoa, you used the same Nietzsche quote twice, I guess every word Plato wrote has been proven absolutely false

>>6196448

>I think it would be hard to predict their thoughts on them in either case

nonetheless, many structuralists and post-structuralists draw from Nietzsche in the same way that Marx drew from Hegel

>>6196527
>>6196478
That doesn't address what he said.

>>6196527
You're saying they turn Nietzsche on his head? How so?

>>6196341
Erous.
Prick

>>6196575
erous
Tick

>>6196577
erous

>>6196341
>>6196575
>>6196577
>>6196581
dis nao an 'erous' thread.

>>6196546
Simply claiming that the Forms are products of dreaming being transferred into waking thought does not make it the case that it is so. This passage doesn't engage with any of the arguments Plato makes in regards to the nature of the Forms.

>>6196546

>You're saying they turn Nietzsche on his head? How so?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Genealogy_%28philosophy%29

>>6196591
>you must play videogames yourself before your claim that they are low culture can be true
>you must engage in skyfairyology before dismissing it as a good discipline
Its good to avoid bad odours

>>6196633
But both of those claims are true and you can't dismiss them that easily. The New Atheists, for example, are wrong not to engage more fully in theology. Calling theology 'skyfairyology' shows that you haven't engaged with it and aren't qualified to dismiss it. There are quite a few good video games, too. Philosophers with no knowledge of theology who simply reject every argument a theist makes on the basis that that person is a theist don't deserve to be called philosophers.

>>6196630
Nothing there suggests Foucault turned Nietzsche on his head like Marx did to Hegel. Marx used that metaphor because of the materialist inversion he applied to Hegel whereas Foucault is merely extending Nietsche's method and insights.

>>6196305
The word seems to flow out of the context of the sentence.
Doing injustice to it, so that people get scared away from it.
the word is Dasein.

>In relating itself to itself, and in willing to be itself, the self rests transparently in the power that established it.

>>6196647
Maybe our disagreement comes from your lower standards. Even the best video games don't compare to what is considered "average" in any classic medium. There are cultural reasons why that is so.

Similarly, if you think the ignorance of New Atheists proves your point then you need to read more and realise how irrelevant they actually are within even atheism.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Theology#Criticism

>>6196336
Plato is the first into boss. Kant is the mid-game centerpiece boss. Nietzsche is the boss that happens at the twist in the story. Heidegger is the seemingly-last boss but then when you beat him you find the game still goes on. Derrida and Foucault are optional end-game bosses. Wittgenstein is the real final boss. And Rorty is your father who tells you everything you've done up until now has been pointless and you should have been reading poetry instead.

>>6196679
> Plato is the first boss
That keeps coming back and fucking everything up.
Not even Kant can stop him

>>6196670
An average painting is qualitatively different from an average book or am average film. I'm not srguj g that all games are art, just that some do what the medium allows to be done better than others.
My point applies to anyone who, like you, thinks theology can be brushed aside without any kind of intellectual engagement with the actual content of the subject.

>>6196702
>implying Kant isn't the greatest pre-Oakeshottian philosopher

>>6196702
He keeps trying, but he Kant

>>6196722

>>6196722
>>6196726
His name is pronounced like 'cunt' so the joke doesn't work.

>>6196305
Heidegger deliberately wants to be misunderstood, just like Nietzsche.

It's not a surprise that analytics don't like continentals, because they don't really want to use their brain, they want everything to be a logical series of zeroes and ones.

>>6196702
Pfft, Plato's role has been overtaken by his apprentice, Hegel, who permanently moved onwards.

>>6196735
Heidegger also misunderstood Nietzsche which allows post-modernists to feel they have passed him rather than sidestepping.

>>6196756
I'm surprised this isn't a more common opinion actually, Heidegger is exactly the kind of obtuse German barrier to European enlightenment he described past figures as being.

>>6196765
(right down personal inclinations towards romantic nationalism nazi volk shit)

>>6196769
>having feelings is shit

Bertrand Russell pls go

>>6196780
What? I meant that Heidegger is both personally and philosophically similar to what Nietzsche hated about German philosophers.

>>6196751
I thought so, too, until I read Plato.

>>6196728
No it's not

Source: I know two German people

>>6196780
He's right. Nietzsche would probably be disgusted with Heidegger at some parts, yet thrilled at others. The ideology and the misinterpretation of Nietzsche (N is not actually the overcoming of nihilism, he's just the completion of it, ya gotta know Being first :^)) is horrible, yet the poetic and artistic discussions are wonderful.

>>6196448
That it is just a conjecture. If every metaphysical belief comes from dreams, they would be used more often in arguments on Plato's dialogues. They simply aren't. No even in the more "ethereal" dialogues like Phaedo they are mentioned.

The main thing that leads people to metaphysics are non-material entities like the mind/soul and numbers.

>>6196790
I know multiple German people who have told me that it is. More importantly I've studied under two academics specialising in German history, one of whom specialises in particular in eighteenth and nineteenth century German philosophy, both of whom pronounced it as 'cunt'.

>>6196808
>If every metaphysical belief comes from dreams, they would be used more often in arguments on Plato's dialogues. They simply aren't.
lel if you think Plato is anywhere near the start of that "many millenia" or that he would need to be aware of the origin of his behaviour in order to produce it

>>6196820
I am a German cunt Kantian so your argument is invalid

>>6196860
Do you have actual evidence that the theory of Forms is a product of dreams that Plato had, or that the experiential world isn't just a dream, or do you just enjoy reductive psychological interpretations of complicated concepts?

>>6196808
>The main thing that leads people to metaphysics are non-material entities like the mind/soul and numbers.
also lel if you think either "entities" preceded dreams, the quote says they are related to dreams and therefore the entities could be a more direct link to metaphysics.

>>6196872
How are they 'related,' exactly? What do you understand the quote to be referring to? What's the connection between numbers and dreams?

Again, you don't seem like you've engaged with Plato's actual arguments about the Forms.

>>6196860
Nietzsche argument is supposed to be self-evident since he doesn't provide detailed argument neither textual citations to back it up. It is not. It is a little clever piece of reasoning thown out without any responsibility attached to it.

"lel" to you, my friend.

Also, Metaphysics could exist even if humans didn't dream without any problem. The proof is that you're not gonna find a single serious philosopher who included dreams in his argument.

>>6196899
What about Descartes and Zhuangzi?

Not disagreeing with you.

>>6196905
I overextended there. I didn't remember a single reference so I just assumed there wouldn't be any.

Plato doesn't refer to dreams, though. Aristotle refers to dreams in some minor works, but it doesn't show up in his Metaphysics, neither in the Categories. I thinks there is something in De Anima, but it is very secondary.

>>6196728
Not this shit again. Kant is pronounced KAHNT, not cunt.

>>6196866
>Do you have actual evidence that the theory of Forms is a product of dreams that Plato had
Didn't claim that, seriously missing the point here.

>or that the experiential world isn't just a dream
oh wow the irony, proving my point with such a dichotomy.

>do you just enjoy reductive psychological interpretations of complicated concepts?
I prefer interpretations that are not limited by ignorance of science:
>To the plants all things are usually in repose, eternal, every thing identical with itself. It is from the period of the lower organisms that man has inherited the belief that there are identical things (only knowledge educated in the highest scientificality contradicts this proposition). It may even be that the original belief of everything organic was from the very beginning that all the rest of the world is one and unmoving. - What lies farthest from this primeval stage of the logical is the notion of causality: even now, indeed, we believe at bottom that all sensations and actions are acts of free will; when the sentient individuum observes itself, it regards every sensation, every change, as something isolated , that is to say unconditioned, disconnected: it emerges out of us independently of anything earlier or later. We are hungry, but originally we do not think that the organism wants to sustain itself; this feeling seems to be asserting itself without cause or purpose, it isolates itself and considers itself willful. Thus: belief in freedom of will is a primary error committed by everything organic, as old as the impulse to the logical itself; belief in unconditioned substances and in identical things is like wise a primary, ancient error committed by everything organic. Insofar, however, as all metaphysics has had principally to do with substance and freedom of will, one may designate it the science that treats of the fundamental errors of mankind - but does so as though they were fundamental truths

>>6196899
You're using the same reasoning as the other guy except now you're attacking the integrity of the explanation "responsibilty" "textual citations", funny that you feel entitled to either when defending such nonsense.

And just to clarify once more, a philosopher does not need to be aware of the origin of his metaphysics, or to use that origin as an example, for it to be the origin of his behaviour.

>>6196972
>Didn't claim that, seriously missing the point here.
What is the point? Could you actually explain yourself and not just expect us to pull out of Nietzsche's aphorism the content that isn't there, i.e., the part where he actually shows where Plato...well, I'm not sure what your or Nietzsche's point is because it's been articulated so poorly, so could you at least explain yourself?
>proving my point with such a dichotomy.
What's your point and how have I proven it?
>I prefer interpretations that are not limited by ignorance of science:
How is that passage scientific? Nietzsche wasn't qualified to talk about evolutionary psychology, and it doesn't seem likely that we inherited our ability to identify one thing with another from plants.

>>6196972
All Nietzscheaites are basically the same: They quote him making a grandiose claim, give a flawed interpretation of that claim, fail to provide an argument or evidence to back up the claim, and then laugh at you when you point out that they've staked their case on nothing.
The difference between Stirnerites and Nietzscheites is that Stirnerites know they've staked their cases on nothing, while Nietzsheites think their prophet's work can be used to actually forward a coherent philosophical position.

>>6196972
>And just to clarify once more, a philosopher does not need to be aware of the origin of his metaphysics, or to use that origin as an example, for it to be the origin of his behaviour.
>All that reductive psychologism

>>6196972
>You're using the same reasoning as the other guy except now you're attacking the integrity of the explanation "responsibilty" "textual citations", funny that you feel entitled to either when defending such nonsense.
>And just to clarify once more, a philosopher does not need to be aware of the origin of his metaphysics, or to use that origin as an example, for it to be the origin of his behaviour.

Why it is so nonsensical to believe that the reasons Plato gives are actually his reasons? I prefer this over believing some kind of mysticism over dreams. I'm not even claiming Plato doesn't have any kind of mysticism, He was a pythagorean, they were spooked by numbers. NUMBERS, not dreams.

You can believe in Nietzsche's argument, but you're claiming too much if you think he doesn't need to back up what he says or that to think that he is wrong is nonsensical.

As I said, what he claims is not self-evident. IMO, He's reading too much into psychology and in his assumptions of how ancient people practiced philosophy.

>>6196349
>Equating 'theory,' the most meaningless word in Western academia's lexicon, with actual philosophy

>>6197002
>>6197017
I'll gloss over the garbage here and summarise the thread. I posted a Nietzsche quote, to which anon replied:
>If every metaphysical belief comes from dreams, they would be used more often in arguments on Plato's dialogues
That is just outright silly. Even if you disagree they originate from the disparity of dreams/reality you can still accept the possibility of humans conducting metaphysics without being aware of what prompted them towards doing so. Therefore that is not a refutation of the interpretation.

>>6197039
The reasons Plato gives may be his direct inspirations but the point is that without dreams he and his inspirations wouldn't have come together in such speculation.

>>6197042

>'actual' philosophy

read more theory

>>6197065
wow, what a rebuttal

>>6197076

as good as what it's replying to

>>6197062
>you can still accept the possibility of humans conducting metaphysics without being aware of what prompted them towards doing so
Again, when I accused you of being reductive in your psychology, this was what I was referring to. Even if your claims about the origin of Plato's ideas are correct, it doesn't follow that the ideas themselves are wrong.
>without dreams he and his inspirations wouldn't have come together in such speculation.
How is this speculation to a lesser degree than the theory of Forms? He also wouldn't have been able to come up with it if he hadn't had food, but what bearing does that have on the content of his arguments?
The same could be said of Nietzsche. Maybe he had a nightmare and decided the only way he could cope with what he saw in it was by telling everyone that God was dead. But what does that have to do with the quality of his arguments? Absolutely nothing. If they're made well, they're good arguments; if they aren't, they're bad ones. The origin of arguments and ideas has little bearing on their validity.
>>6197065
What even is 'theory' supposed to be? How is it separate from philosophy? What qualifies something as theory? I've never seen one of you pseuds who throws around the names of mainstream French obscurantists actually give a coherent account of what 'theory' in this context is and what it's good for. I stand firmly with Chomsky on this.

>>6197086

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Theory

>>6197097
OK, Im familiar with numerous theories relating to one thing or another.
Now, as a single object, what is 'theory' and how can I read more of it? How is 'theory' something that one can 'read more' of? Why do you associate 'theory' so closely with structuralism and post-structuralism when the Greek theoria has a much broader connotation than what the people associated with those schools write about?
'Theory' as a separate body of thought doesn't exist.

>>6197103

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Critical_theory

>>6197106
Why didn't you just say 'critical' in the first place?
What would I gain from reading these people? Would reading Derrida make me more open to Being? What would I, or anyone, gain by familiarizing himself with this particular school as opposed to a more interesting one, for instance German idealism? What I've read about critical theory and the experiences I've had with it at university has led me to believe that it's a bunch of rigorless nonsense pushed by left-leaning academics to make themselves employable.

>>6197113

you might realize that the desire to 'gain' something from a text is the product of a desiring function to engage in the freeplay of difference in discourse

>>6197086
>Even if your claims about the origin of Plato's ideas are correct, it doesn't follow that the ideas themselves are wrong.
I never claimed that they were but thanks for admitting the objection to the quote is weak.

I leave it up to others to take what they will from the fact that dreams seem to be the most physical explanation for metaphysics in that form, and what that says about the behaviour itself.

>>6197120
is critical theory synthetic self-awareness for people who are hopelessly dense?

>>6197120
>desiring function
>freeplay
>difference in discourse
could you define these terms in ordinary english?

>>6197120
I already realized that, though. It isn't a very deep insight and it doesn't take that much obfuscatory language to get the point across. I like getting substantial content out of the texts I engage with on an intellectual level. Is that a crime?
>>6197124
Probably.
>>6197121
>I never claimed that they were but thanks for admitting the objection to the quote is weak.
Then what has your point been this whole time? And how is that a weak objection? The quote doesn't make a very strong argument.

Have you read Plato? You don't seem like you have.

>I like philosophy but I refuse to think about anything that might disagree with me

Its like you all take 4chan memes to heart, truly believing them instead of accepting them as jokes. You simply limit yourself by doing this.

>>6197113
>What I've read about critical theory and the experiences I've had with it at university has led me to believe that it's a bunch of rigorless nonsense pushed by left-leaning academics to make themselves employable.

Deconstruction is a great tool for anyone, not just a philosopher, to have in their head. What exactly do you mean by "gain" here? You are allowed to fluctuate between philosophical schools of thought, you can consider vastly different ideas, play devils advocate and rationalize why the university would keep "rigorless nonsense" in their department and so on.

I think an important progression of critical theory is not taking yourself so seriously.

>>6196679
Foucalt has a best-seller book, he can't be final anything. He was the Freud on his time, a high-tier read for bored housewifes.

>>6197946
I take myself seriously when I think about serious topics. Philosophy is absolutely serious, and justifying a lack of rigor in reasoning is unconscionable.
Besides, my interests lie almost entirely outside the field of critical theory, which seems to me to be philosophy for dunces.

>>6197962

>maybe housewives are the true philosophers

>>6196349
I don't know about that, Foucault is much easier to read than Heidegger. Much of his work can be read with little trouble.

>>6197144

why? so you can dismiss entire schools of thought without reading any books?

>>6196324
can someone translate this?

I have no idea what he's trying to communicate

>>6196765
>>6196756
You're both falling for it. This is how Platonic rhetoric is properly used ala Gorgias, putting yourself on trial. You're spotting Heidegger negating himself, saying nothing, which is a large part of his Philosophy/Sophistry. Language speaks.

>>6196469
Nietzsche is not as opaque as Hegel, but you kind of need the help of the whole western tradition to get Nietzsch

>>6196679
and then it turns out Plato is the final boss as well as the first.

>>6199926
Socrates is more likely to be the final boss. Plato turned him into the symbol of philosophy,while only including him in a negative sense. which what is up with all the hubbub about returning to the pre-socratics.

>>6197086
>What even is 'theory' supposed to be? How is it separate from philosophy? What qualifies something as theory?
Theory, or more specifically critical theory, is a pretty broad term for what is essentially the study of the effect discourse has in shaping and defining the world in which we reside. While it follows pretty close to the formulations of post-structuralist thought, there's also a kind of association with Hegel's master-slave dialectic, but with one major difference; the death struggle is resolved not with slavery itself, but 'linguistic' enslavement by means of the pervasive discourses which structure society into a hierarchy. That's why theory is so associated with leftist ideologies; the kind of discourses it examines are the ones which subject one 'group' of people into the subordination of another.

>>6196305
KEKKKK KEKKKK KEKKKKK
you have all the /lit/ernets of the day, good sir

>>6199950
the greeks are really not hard to understand at all which is what the whole "final boss" thing is about.