/lit/ - Literature

>>6629132
>What do you think of Heidegger's concept of the technological mode of Being and his critique of modernity?
he's a nazi, a reactionary anti-modernist

and yes, i'm qualified to say that because i actually did read the entirety of being and time. the dude thought that philosophy was best done sitting in a hut in the woods without any technology. he's a charlatan

>>6629132
You know, that's one of the parts of his writing I never agreed with. I'll premit that I'm in no way a learned scholar, just a dabbler.

I understand where he comes from with his critique, and funnily enough it seems to be shared by a lot of postmodernist thinkers / continental philosphers. I actually had a uni course on that earlier this year, talking about tecnocracy and the neo-orwellian state of the machine.

My main commentary is that he never thought about (as far as I know of course) about a kind of Being, a Dasein whose state of Nature is that of the Simulation, of the Hyperreal. One thing I want to do this summer, if I can, is to read up on Baudrillard, Hakim Bey and of course Heidegger and try to make something of it. I think a human being can exist and prosper in a willful, orgiastic embracing of the Simulation... a living-in-the-machine if you will, with the poetic abandon Heidegger links to nature. Of course, it may be complete bollocks, but it may be interesting. Ontological, accelerationist cyber-nomadism? Probably horseshit, but intriguing.

(let's not have the only potentially good thread on /lit/ in weeks die)

Heidegger was nostalgic for a past that never existed. There has never been a time in history when a significant portion of the population did not view nature as a resource to exploit. "Be fruitful and multiply, and fill the earth and subdue it; and have dominion over the fish of the sea and over the birds of the air and over every living thing that moves upon the earth." What Heidegger vaguely describes as "poietic habitation" has always been restricted to a small number of individuals. The reason people lived simply in pre-industrial societies is because they were poor. There is nothing poetic about spending all day in a field baling hay and dying at thirty from a disease that could have been prevented. There is not much difference between watching a movie with your family and listening to your grandmother tell a story. They are not mutually exclusive anyway. Reading a book is a form of teleportation and it has existed since people have been able to read. Does Heidegger want to go back to a time when most of the population could not even read? What Heidegger calls "awe and wonder" can better be described as bewilderment and confusion. Once you get rid of the complex terminology and reject some of the unfounded assumptions, most of what Heidegger says (in this regard) is pretty hollow.

>>6629173
>the dude thought that philosophy was best done sitting in a hut in the woods without any technology
It probably is.

>>6629672
How so?

>>6629679
Nice and quiet.

>>6629685
Sometimes not stimulating though. But maybe it depends on what you want to think about.

>>6629132

I used to be part of some Taoist circlejerk where we did positions, meditation and bullshit like that

It worked in the end, I did had this sense of wonder for some months, it was fun, green looked more green, plants looked alive, it was insane but i felt much more in joy than ever in my life.

Then i stopped going because my skepticism started going back, i left the circle and stopped doing the things. And once i stopped doing all the things related to the circle I became numb again, since then i couldn't find the joy that i experimented in the circle but my skepticism makes me don't go there again (because they believed in bullshit, but the joy was real).

Though i learned very niche things like lucid dreams, it's not the same without the ideology behind, I think Heidegger is close to Zen in this regard, and Zen is what I was experimenting during those times.

The problem with all this, is that once you go to that way you stop valueing the things of society as it is, so it's a double edge sword, you feel good but also you become much more numb to the society and you ultimately avoid doing some handy stuff.

>>6629132
Heidegger is full of shit. It's just value judgments.

>>6629132
It's interesting, but it's also some of the least convincing work I've read by him, when considering its relationship to his main inquiry.

>>6629709

Do you have actually read Heidegger? This is like 1% of what he said

>>6629173
>the dude thought that philosophy was best done sitting in a hut in the woods without any technology. he's a charlatan
You're begging the question here. Also, reading Being & Time doesn't make you a Heidegger expert. I should know, I've read Being & Time and some of his essays.

In the extract and in my description, I might be over-emphasizing thinking over action. Anyway, this whole method of philosophy is pretty dumb. I notice it in Marx too so it is probably coming from Hegel. Instead of developing a concept out of many simple facts, it seems like Heidegger is developing a concept and trying to make many simple facts fit after the concept was already developed.

Read Hitler and Evola. They're much better

>>6629132
Does anyone have any good sources about Heidegger talking about this subject?

>>6629851

>that old man strength

>>6629851
The Question Concerning Technology
Building, Dwelling, Thinking

>>6629851
Well, the Question Concerning Technology, and the Bremen and Freiberg Lectures where a rough version of the QCT was presented.

.>>6629851
Heidegger would have been the greatest grandpa

>>6629630
I wonder what he thought about Japans Edo Period. if it was closer to his ideal way of living because things like the tea ceremony