/lit/ - Literature

[Anonymous No.19159932]

>Thinking <that is> opposed to "values" does not hold that all that one explains as "values"--"culture," "art," "science," "the dignity of man," "world," "God"--is worthless. On the contrary, it matters <to such thinking> to understand that, by the very characterization of something as a "value," what has been judged to be such <a "value"> has been robbed of its worth. That is to say, through the evaluation of something as a value, what has been judged to be so becomes accepted as merely an object for valuation by man. But that which something is in its be[-ing] is not exhausted in its being opposite <to something else>, especially not when objectivity has the character of a value. All valuing, even where it values positively, is a kind of subjectifying. It [valuing] does not let <any kind of> be-ing <just> be, but instead valuing lets <every kind of> be-ing, solely as the object of its conduct <as valuing>, pass. The remarkable effort to demonstrate the objectivity of values does not know what it is doing. When one finally proclaims "God" to be "the highest value," that is indeed a degradation of God's essence. Here and as a rule, thinking in <terms of> values is the greatest blasphemy that can be thought of vis- à-vis be[-ing]. To think in opposition to values therefore does not mean to beat the drum for the worthlessness and invalidity of be-ing, but rather <it> means to bring the illumination of the truth of be[-ing] into the presence of thinking in opposition to the subjectifying of be-ing <[of any kind> to <the status of> a mere object.
Nietzsche can’t recover from this

[Anonymous No.19159993]

>wont read Heidegger in another than german, faggot.

I applaud Heidegger for so categorically filtering all the (failed) mathematicians/physicists/chemists/sociologists/psychologists/economists/etc. who had felt foolishly enough safe to insidiously enter the philosophy departments. Truly amazing work, Martin.

[Anonymous No.19160119]

>>19159932
Heidegger did a number on Neechtards, unfortunately Deleuze took this philosophy and created a coherent enough ontology for nerds to latch onto it to this day. Based Derrida for seeing through the ruse and synthesizing Heideggers critiques with an ontology of difference that doesnt fall back onto schizoanalytic pseudo-lacanian mumbo jumbo like Deleuze does (especially bad in the second half of the Logic of Sense where Deloser wants you to believe that Sense and Language and even the Idea are all generated by an intricate psychic play of Erogenous zones and the Phallus in the mind of the infant, in fact he is so ridiculous as to equate the entire ideational aether body with fucking sexuality LOL).