Heidegger: Being, Space, and Nothingness

[Anonymous No.20917882]

What the hell, was Heidegger ultimately a nihilist? How could he be committed to nationalism if the underlying substrate of Being is hollow? Consider the following quotes, the first on Being its relationship to space, and the second on Being and its relationship to nothingness:
>The first understanding of the concept of place is therefore summarized by remembering that place has a dynamis. Dynamis is a basic ontological category. Place is something belonging to beings as such, it is their capacity to be present, it is constitutive of their being. ‘The place is the ability a being has to be there (Dortseinkönnen), in such a way that, in being there, it is properly present (dortseiend, eigentlich da ist)’ (GA19, 109).
link: https://progressivegeographies.files.wordpress.com/2012/04/the-place-of-geometry.pdf
>Moreover, he develops another theme that is not seen in Being and Time which is the relationship between being and nothing. He says,―nothing does not remain the indeterminate opposite of beings but unveils itself as belonging to the being of beings‖ (Heidegger 1978, 120; 1998, 94) Furthermore, he states that ―[i]n the being of beings the nihilation (Nichten) of nothing occurs‖. (Heidegger 1978, 115; 1998, 91) We can infer from these statements that Heidegger takes nothing to be equivalent to being.
link: https://philarchive.org/archive/YAOTON
How could Heidegger defend nationalism as a reified thing when it is ultimately contingent on its circumstances and, given the nature of existence as explained earlier, even hollow? Being is not any particular thing, and Dasein in its omnipresent becoming has a myriad of possibilities which lay before it in its attempt to realize an authentic existence. A multitude of nations may spring out of the land, a kind of people may find a home wherever they go, and there's no essentialism that could "lock" these possibilities into place unless we choose it to be so.

Ironically, in reaction to the technocratic society, Heidegger is merely replacing one crystallized way of doing things with another without ever addressing the lack of intrinsic meaningful direction that lead us to abandon the traditional mores and take on the Faustian bargain in the first place: the pains of existence and the burdens of freedom. As much as I find blood and soil themes comfy, if they don't promise the eternal banishment of modernity, then it cannot be the answer. Otherwise, somebody will start asking (fair) questions about why things are the way they are, the way of doing things will eventually be undermined, and we'll be doomed to repeat the clown world we live in today.

[Anonymous No.20917894]

Because he plagiarized Okakura Kakuzou in Sein und Zeit.

[Anonymous No.20917908]

>>20917894
Wrong. He just rewrote the Wissenschaftslehre while changing key terms.

[Anonymous No.20917989]

Heidegger could not rid himself of his provincial romanticism but Derrida did.

Heidegger would make the argument for (German) nationalism based on language. German language is philosophically superior and thus Daseins thinking in German are better equipped to revive Europe from it's metaphysical problems (which have been de-strukted). But ultimately Heidegger had nothing to replace western metaphysics with and converts back to Catholicism at the end of his life.

[Anonymous No.20918028]

>>20917989
Do you think Heidegger's understanding of space could bear fruit when we begin to think about Deleuze, especially when it comes to the process of territorialization and deterritorialization?

I ask because it seems as if globalization has done everything it can to deterritorialize everything in the most abstract sense possible: there is no more room for subcultures, we're all subjected to the same aesthetic influences, we can travel anywhere and talk to anybody at the blink of an eye, everybody is in competition with everybody at the individual level, etc. In the simplest terms possible, there is no separation, no distance, no space for the growth of things that are new and distinct. Ironically, multiculturalism is yet another leveling force that sterilizes spaces and destroys culture. And at some point, not having enough diversity will destroy capitalism because some level of novelty will be required to keep the libidinal cycle moving forward.

So, how are we to combat this? I'm reminded of how Kojeve who thought that capitalism would sublate socialism, leading to expert management of economic production and wealth redistribution to keep things running smoothly. Perhaps we need to follow Kojeve's initiative but apply it to space. Should we begin to reterritorialize the world, dividing it up into arbitrary plots, to allow the space for new cultures to grow and ensure that we have enough *functional* diversity for the sake of having diversity? Or is it impossible to have controlled agri-culture of culture, and any attempt to generate culture is doomed to failure without a genuine sense of roots, history, continuity, etc., MEANING?

[Anonymous No.20918126]

>>20918028
the latter

[Anonymous No.20918146]

>>20918126
That's what my gut says. But why? And how are we to communicate that to a world which believes that life has no innate meaning, or even no meaning at all?

[Anonymous No.20918162]

>>20917882
>Heidegger
Who?

[Anonymous No.20918502]

bump

[Anonymous No.20918633]

>>20917989
>>20917882
>durr he reifies the nation
Retards

>[As] conceptual groupings. “The German” or “the French” or “the Chinese” describes no essential quality, no pure ideality free from contamination. And yet, the phenomenological datum remains that we understand something with these “signs,” even if this something is on the move in the différance of language. Iterability (if we expand on Derrida) does involve this moment of identity, as well as alteration, and in this he may come closer to Heidegger than we at first supposed. As I have argued, Heidegger understands the Volk, as he does the Self, not as a substance or an essence, but rather as something whose Being is at issue, as something that exists only insofar as it engages in a polemos concerning its own meaning. But this process cannot even begin without iterability’s self-identifying moment of recognition, for otherwise there would be no grouping to bring into question.

>To exercise a claim, to obligate us to them, different cultures, different languages, different values must exist, and, furthermore, must be asserted in some way so that they command our attention, and so lay claim to our responsibility to them. Even a “miscegenated polymorphism” implies a multiplicity of forms, and, as such, these forms must be distinct—aus-einander-gesetzt, to use the language of Heidegger’s polemos—even if they then miscegenate and so transform themselves in the play of différance. Caputo’s “miscegenated polymorphism” is in fact a contradiction: complete miscegenation would obliterate the multiplicity of forms. A degeneration into homogeneity, what Heidegger calls a Durcheinandersetzung, in contrast to Auseinandersetzung, is the death of multiplicity and difference. At best, it is liberal universalism covered over by the veneer of difference, demanding all the benefits of the liberal state’s protections without offering its institutions a principled defense

[Anonymous No.20918653]

>>20918633
Way to miss the point. Anyway, allow me to refine my argument:
>he reifies the conceptual grouping, preferring division to unity
Why is that good? Diversity leads to adversity.

[Anonymous No.20918661]

>>20918633
He doesn't reify the nation, but his reification of the German language necessarily entails at least some moderated form of nationalism.

I mean, he literally says Germans are like the ancient Greeks and Nazism is the opportunity for a new beginning for Europe, where the Germans are gonna be the caretakers.

[Anonymous No.20918849]

>>20918653
And you’re making ridiculous claims from quotes that have nothing to do with nationalism - except for the parallel that can be drawn between waking a national destiny from oblivion and the Seinsfrage. Taking your national destiny seriously is not arbitrary or “contextual” because it’s your origin, YOU’RE IN IT. You have a lot of nerve to call Heidegger a nihilist when “das Nicht nichtet” is exactly something that dismantles nihilism in the sense of metaphysics of presence and opens the clearing of Being.

>Why is that good?
Because Heidegger reads Heraclitus that way, because that’s how it is for him. Polemos trumps multiplicity, and adversity makes things come into being.

>>20918661
Heidegger was not a biological/ethnic racist/nationalist and nobody has implied that.

[Anonymous No.20918865]

>>20918849
You're getting too caught up on labels, you're not thinking meta when it comes to Heidegger, and it's clear that you're way too deep into his philosophy to understand its shortcomings. National destiny is made up. It's a product of the imagination.

[Anonymous No.20918874]

>>20918028
Reterritorialization will not happen on earth let alone space and human beings themselves have a natural predisposition towards deterritorialization, unlike animals who are tribal by nature due to their lack of rational thinking skills

[Anonymous No.20918905]

>>20918874
>human beings themselves have a natural predisposition towards deterritorialization, unlike animals who are tribal by nature due to their lack of rational thinking skills
then why have humans been tribal for literally the entirety of their existence up until about now? a blip of a couple centuries, for only a fraction of the species, out of millions of years... and you're about to throw the whole "natural predisposition" to tribalism out the window. weird

[Anonymous No.20918919]

>>20917882
Who the fuck sits like that? A castrated man.

[Anonymous No.20918925]

>>20918849
>You have a lot of nerve to call Heidegger a nihilist when “das Nicht nichtet” is exactly something that dismantles nihilism in the sense of metaphysics of presence and opens the clearing of Being.

lol good joke

[Anonymous No.20918927]

>>20918925
Do you sit like that?

[Anonymous No.20918977]

>>20918028
the latter obviously.
>>20918146
you don't. You let the current world collapse and revert back to perennial Tradition.
>>20918905
jews (just kidding it's actually the Kali Yuga anon get used to it we've got 40000 years to go still)

[Anonymous No.20918988]

>>20918849
One day I'm going to re-write the infamous "Einstein professor" copypasta so that the wily student proves that the professor, Hölderlin Heideberg, isn't trying to deconstruct all metaphysics, but rather replace one metaphysics with another, his own. Blah blah crocodile tears blah blah blah burnt in an ancient Germanic funeral pyre that later became the top soil for an artificially-created forest preserve dedicated for the harvesting of paper products in perpetuity.

Anyway, thank for contributing virtually nothing (lol) to our understanding of space. My concern isn't whether Heidegger is wrong per se (he may very well be right!) but rather if our sense of space is incomplete, and if this tension in Heidegger's work, Being and nothingness, has something to do with space and its vast array of potentiality. Where does directionality, fallenness, and throwness come into play? How can we make things like "national destinies" not only intelligible but also unassailable in the face of man's ineffable ability to choose?

[Anonymous No.20918994]

>>20918988
>Heidegger’s work, Being and nothingness
Yikes

[Anonymous No.20918997]

>>20918977
Why can't we turn the tide? Plato spelt Kali Yuga style doom and gloom with the devolution of the regime, but Aristotle rightfully pointed out that decay always looks preventable in hindsight. Aristotle's attempts to reverse the process is how we ended up with the Faustian metaphysics as pointed out by Heidegger. Now, why can't it be done better? What's ruling it out?

[Anonymous No.20919005]

>>20918994
That's not what I meant you cheeky autist.

[Anonymous No.20919025]

>>20918997
History is a march towards increasing negation from Tradition resulting in materialism, individualism and existentialist degeneration. We can't do it better because we're in a thousand-year process of replacing God with the human individual while making the mistake of believing in free-will. Which is why we ended up in the metaphysical hellscape we inhabit today. And it's just not going to get any better before we go back to perennial truth, which Plato outlined but no one listened, understood or interpreted him correctly. Especially not existentialist larpers like Heidegger whose work amounted to barely nothing else than twisting buddhist concepts that were devised millenia before he was born

[Anonymous No.20919036]

>>20918997
Also "decay always looks preventable in hindsight" because if we could anticipate future pitfalls then philosophy and history would be useless fields of study. And we view time as a linear arrow instead of a sequence of cycles and we are divorced from the intangible because of it. I mean bro I appreciate your optimism but you should just take the blackpill and go read Evola and meditate so you can end the samsara and escape this hellhole

[Anonymous No.20919041]

>>20919025
>yes so it was a thousand year process, a death by a thousand contingent cuts that didn't have to happen
>it just can't be reversed, okay?!?! you have to let it happen

[Anonymous No.20919054]

>>20919041
Well you've misunderstood me if you think I somehow implied that "it didn't have to happen". That's what you tell yourself as a coping mechanism whereas in reality everything that happens was by essence bound to happen. You can't change fate anon. "let it happen" implies resignation but it's just how reality works. You have to wait the cycles out, not try to change the unchangable

[Anonymous No.20919060]

>>20919054
>Well you've misunderstood me if you think I somehow implied that "it didn't have to happen"
If you're deny that we have free will, then it sounds like it had to have happened, does it not?

[Anonymous No.20919066]

>>20919054
How did Tradition arise in the first place? Why even stray from it? Your answers are unsatisfying, especially with your insistence that we have no free will.

[Anonymous No.20919092]

>>20919066
literally read Evola and Guénon brother I'll not paraphrase them to you
besides free will not existing is just the consequence of determinism and basic physics it's not some elaborate thought process that led me to this conclusion.

[Anonymous No.20919102]

>>20919092
I did. I wasn't convinced.
>besides free will not existing is just the consequence of determinism and basic physics it's not some elaborate thought process that led me to this conclusion.
So you're both an Evola and a heckin' science guy? Weird, cringeworthy combination.

[Anonymous No.20919119]

>>20917882
You've completely misunderstood what nothingness means for Heidegger. Maybe a review of his thoughts on the origin of philosophy and it's present future may clear that up?

[Anonymous No.20919125]

>>20919102
Well no it's perfectly coherent. You can debunk free will from other angles if you like, it doesn't make a difference. Science makes correct predictions about the material world and it has never pretended to do anything else. Besides I'm not here to convince you of anything, you just have to open your eyes and see reality for yourself. You seem confused but time will grant all answers if you pay close enough attention.

[Anonymous No.20919136]

>>20918146
>But why?
Because an individual's arbitrary aim cannot replace a culture's will. It's not just a matter of pretending traditional values exist so we can bear it's fruits, these are realities.

[Anonymous No.20919137]

>>20919119
What does it mean for Heidegger then?

[Anonymous No.20919140]

>>20919136
>Because an individual's arbitrary aim cannot replace a culture's will.
The culture's will was deliberately shaped by elites from the top-down. The wills of many were guided by the wills of a few, and in some cases, just one. That implies things could be different if we truly wanted it to be.

[Anonymous No.20919147]

>>20919137
it basically means follow the will of the Gay Nigger Society of America

[Anonymous No.20919148]

>>20918653
>Diversity leads to adversity.
You're using a utilitarian argument against Heidegger? Lol.

[Anonymous No.20919163]

>>20919148
>doesn't understand what utilitarianism is
ngmi

[Anonymous No.20919164]

>>20919140
what is the wills of the many? What does that look like?

[Anonymous No.20919168]

>>20919164
The culture's will.

[Anonymous No.20919173]

>>20919140
Yes, and things will be different once the masses realize what you are saying. Such an awakening lies dormant in each and every one of us like a slumbering spark of potential waiting to be ignited. Can you feel the ideological tide turning? Can you anticipate this exciting murmur of liberty trembling within the collective consciousness of our weary contemporaries? Only time will tell what will happen.

[Anonymous No.20919183]

>>20919168
Unless you're a different anon than the one I replied to, I thought you JUST said in that post that the "culture's will" is shaped by "elites from the top down", that the wills of the many are shaped by the wills of the few. So doesn't that mean you believe that the culture's will and the many's will are at odds?

[Anonymous No.20919185]

>>20919173
Yes, I can. It could probably be accelerated with a precisely calibrated approach.

[Anonymous No.20919192]

>>20917989
The decision between Heidegger and Derrida here is not based on any philosophy but just your preference. Without going into Heidegger's philosophising, at least this 'romantic' view has the benefit of tradition following it and hence some essentiality in our conception of human 'nature'.

>>20918633
>Heidegger understands the Volk, as he does the Self, not as a substance or an essence, but rather as something whose Being is at issue, as something that exists only insofar as it engages in a polemos concerning its own meaning.
This isn't true, and seems like the result of someone who can't see the forest for the trees in Heidegger's philosophy.

>>20918865
>National destiny is made up.
You don't get it if you're not German.

[Anonymous No.20919198]

>>20919183
The culture's will is largely engineered by elite institutions, yes.

[Anonymous No.20919204]

>>20919185
I like your audacity but I feel like that would be akin to defeating the Leviathan alone. Maybe it's best to let the slumbering beast fall from its height and crush all in this wake. I can already feel the whole metaphorical edifice crumbling at the seams, and soon the whole structure will topple like a new Babel. I sure hope you will find the strength within you to play a decisive role in this contemporary saga anon.

[Anonymous No.20919212]

>>20919204
>Maybe it's best to let the slumbering beast fall from its height and crush all in this wake.
No, that's retarded and lazy. And there's no guarantee that any of us will survive, let alone salvage anything "Traditional." The coming collapse may be so bad that it ends humanity for good.

[Anonymous No.20919217]

>>20919036
>if we could anticipate future pitfalls then philosophy and history would be useless fields of study
Yes, those fields of study only exist for a 'point' exterior to themselves...

[Anonymous No.20919227]

>>20919212
That's the outcome I'm suspecting to be honest. Reading so many books made me a pessimist and sometimes a call for action is needed. What would you recommend be done about this predicament?

[Anonymous No.20919229]

>>20919198
okay, so what is the will of the many then? I'm not understanding you here

[Anonymous No.20919257]

>>20919229
I don't know what's so difficult to understand. If the elite wanted to do things differently, they'd straighten up their act.

[Anonymous No.20919277]

>>20919257
what is the will of the many?

[Anonymous No.20919281]

>>20919140
Culture was never created from the 'top-down', in the case of 18th century Germany that 'top-down' quite nearly destroyed German culture. And I don't know any single leader to have created an entirely different culture. Your mistake is still thinking culture is merely arbitrary. Goebbels discovered the hard way the state can't just create artists. Of course things could be different as the result of a leader, our culture is not dead yet, but that doesn't mean he can do anything like you seem to propose. If a leader were to allow 'functional diversity' culture's may grow (still questionable in modern society) only because they are already cultures, not because he just sliced off a bit of land and a great culture will just spring up there. And that's not even mentioning the 'arbitrary' part of your splitting up land so who knows what cultural destruction he may cause there.

[Anonymous No.20919296]

>>20919277
The cacophony of each individual will, each subculture will, and each institutional will vying for dominance, mostly through preordained channels of expression, lifestyle, and achievement.
>>20919281
Explain education. Explain pop culture. Explain academia. Explain attempts at social engineering as demonstrated by the elite slowly bringing the masses to their point of view over the half century. Although I think the difference here is whether we mean "culture culture" or simply any mass of humans that manage to have something going on.

[Anonymous No.20919340]

>>20919296
>The cacophony of each individual will, each subculture will, and each institutional will vying for dominance, mostly through preordained channels of expression, lifestyle, and achievement.
In other words, it's "survival of the fittest" but it's no longer taking place in the "natural world" but in the "human world"?

[Anonymous No.20919348]

>>20919277
>>20919296
>Although I think the difference here is whether we mean "culture culture" or simply any mass of humans that manage to have something going on.
In some ways yes in some ways no. The elites today are literally still the result of a culture, and any possible idea they could have already dreamt up is in some sense 'belonging' to a culture. However these elites are opposed to traditional culture, though they're obviously influenced by it like everyone in existence today, whereas the elites of a Greek city state belonged to the culture of the city and were the dynamic factors of that culture's creativity. Sadly culture hasn't had a structure that matches the intellectual elites with the social class of elites in a long time. We are reaching the tensions within the word culture.

[Anonymous No.20919359]

>>20919348
Culture is dead because of the hyperreal construct created by materialistic capitalism followed by through deterritorialisation as theorized by Deleuse & Guattari in 1000 plateaus. First homogenisation, then atomization, and naturally then comes dissolution. We are now reaching the final steps and the point of no-return might have already been crossed. Like you said, it did not have to be like this. Instead of endlessly asking how we got here, we should ponder what the right course of action is, going forward.

[Anonymous No.20919368]

>>20919359
Can you explain "Culture is dead because of the hyperreal construct created by materialistic capitalism followed by through deterritorialisation as theorized by Deleuse & Guattari in 1000 plateaus.". I'm not familiar with a lot of these terms or either Deleuze or Guattari, I mean I've heard of them but I'm not familiar. Can you give it to me in layman's terms?

[Anonymous No.20919374]

>>20919340
Not necessarily, since the standards of "fit" has been distorted to the point where its nothing but a race to the bottom. Fitness is determined by the environment. But we determine the environment. So we have a little bit of an indeterminate situation here, where we're crafting poisonous environments that incentivize degenerate behavior, even though we could have chosen to live otherwise in better environments.

[Anonymous No.20919391]

>>20919374
well that's kind of what I mean then, like "fitness" as determined by the HUMAN world, not the natural world. In other words, the most degenerate monster, in this situation, this human world, IS the fittest. How about that then? It's like the human world is this ghastly reflection of the natural world.

[Anonymous No.20919421]

just wanted to do a quick overview to get this thread back on track:

did not talk about space at all:
>>20917894
>>20917908
>>20918162
>>20918502
>>20918633
>>20918653
>>20918661
>>20918849
>>20918865
>>20918919
>>20918925
>>20918927
>>20918977
>>20918994
>>20918997
>>20919005
>>20919025
>>20919036
>>20919041
>>20919054
>>20919066
>>20919092
>>20919102
>>20919119
>>20919125
>>20919136
>>20919137
>>20919140
>>20919147
>>20919148
>>20919163
>>20919164
>>20919168
>>20919173
>>20919183
>>20919185
>>20919192
>>20919198
>>20919204
>>20919212
>>20919217
>>20919227
>>20919229
>>20919257
>>20919277
>>20919296
>>20919340
>>20919348

talks (at least vaguely) about space:
>>20917989
>>20918028
>>20918126
>>20918146
>>20918874
>>20918905
>>20918988
>>20919281
>>20919359
>>20919368
>>20919374
>>20919391

come on guys, SPACE, PLACE, LOCALITY, TERRITORY. does every BEING have a PLACE? or is PLACE determined by BEING? what about BEING and TIME? PLACE and TIME? how does NATURE factor into all of this? NATURE versus CONVENTION? look at pic-related for inspiration.

Honestly? You know what might jog the thread's noggin' a bit? Some unexpectedly good quotes of Freud. It'll remind you of pic-related. Give me a moment.

(1/?)

[Anonymous No.20919444]

>>20919421
>This brings us to the more general problem of preservation in the sphere of the mind. The subject has hardly been studied as yet; but it is so attractive and important that we may be allowed to turn our attention to it for a little, even though our excuse is insufficient. Since we overcame the error of supposing that the forgetting we are familiar with signified a destruction of the memory-trace —that is, its annihilation — we have been inclined to take the opposite view, that in mental life nothing which has once been formed can perish — that everything is somehow preserved and that in suitable circumstances (when, for instance, regression goes back far enough) it can once more be brought to light. Let us try to grasp what this assumption involves by taking an analogy from another field. We will choose as an example the history of the Eternal City.’ Historians tell us that the oldest Rome was the Roma Quadrata, a fenced settlement on the Palatine. Then followed the phase of the Septimontium) a federation of the settlements on the different hills; after that came the city bounded by the Servian wall; and later still, after all the transformations during the periods of the republic and the early Caesars, the city which the Emperor Aurelian surrounded with his walls. We will not follow the changes which the city went through any further, but we will ask ourselves how much a visitor, whom we will suppose to be equipped with the most complete historical and topographical knowledge, may still find left of these early stages in the Rome of to-day. Except for a few gaps, he will see the wall of Aurelian almost unchanged. In some places he will be able to find sections of the Servian wall where they have been excavated and brought to light. If he knows enough — more than present-day archaeology does — he may perhaps be able to trace out in the plan of the city the whole course of that wall and the outline of the Roma Quadrata. Of the buildings which once occupied this ancient area he will find nothing, or only scanty remains, for they exist no longer. The best information about Rome in the republican era would only enable him at the most to point out the sites where the temples and public buildings of that period stood. Their place is now taken by ruins, but not by ruins of themselves but of later restorations made after fires or destruction. It is hardly necessary to remark that all these remains of ancient Rome are found dovetailed into the jumble of a great metropolis which has grown up in the last few centuries since the Renaissance. There is certainly not a little that is ancient still buried in the soil of the city or beneath its modern buildings. This is the manner in which the past is preserved in historical sites like Rome.

(2/?)

[Anonymous No.20919446]

>>20919421
Space is a mere lattice. It is interchangeable. Same as time if you consider the metaphysical nature of reality as supratemporal (as the ancients did). Space is just for lateral extension and vertical imagination. A decor for the demiurge's entertainment. A scene for us to gesticulate until we break samsara. etc

[Anonymous No.20919462]

>>20919444
>Now let us, by a flight of imagination, suppose that Rome is not a human habitation but a psychical entity with a similarly long and copious past — an entity, that is to say, in which nothing that has once come into existence will have passed away and all the earlier phases of development continue to exist alongside the latest one. This would mean that in Rome the palaces of the Caesars and the Septizonium of Septimius Severus would still be rising to their old height on the Palatine and that the castle of S. Angelo would still be carrying on its battlements the beautiful statues which graced it until the siege by the Goths, and so on. But more than this. In the place occupied by the Palazzo Caffarelli would once more stand — without the Palazzo having to be removed — the Temple of Jupiter Capitolinus; and this not only in its latest shape, as the Romans of the Empire saw it, but also in its earliest one, when it still showed Etruscan forms and was ornamented with terra-cotta antefixes. Where the Coliseum now stands we could at the same time admire Nero’s vanished Golden House. On the Piazza of the Pantheon we should find not only the Pantheon of to-day, as it was bequeathed to us by Hadrian, but, on the same site, the original edifice erected by Agrippa; indeed, the same piece of ground would be supporting the church of Santa Maria sopra Minerva and the ancient temple over which it was built. And the observer would perhaps only have to change the direction of his glance or his position in order to call up the one view or the other.
And for the kicker, emphasis mine:
>There is clearly no point in spinning our phantasy any further, for it leads tothings that are unimaginable and even absurd. If we want to represent HISTORICAL sequence in SPATIAL terms we can only do it by juxtaposition in space: THE SAME SPACE CANNOT HAVE TWO DIFFERENT CONTENTS. Our attempt seems to be an idle game. It has only one justification. It shows us how far we are from mastering the characteristics of mental life by representing them in pictorial terms.

(3/3)

[Anonymous No.20919483]

>>20919446
Is it "mere lattice"? Or has that lattice been "filled" with sunlight, topography, water, weather, topsoil, microbiota, forests, animals, ecosystems, etc., ... a diverse array of landscapes which flow into each other in some cases seamlessly, in other cases with abrupt breaks, ... all defined by unique vibrations and energies that are also somehow shifting the very earth beneath them that made those present landscapes come to life in the way that they currently are?

It doesn't seem enough to say that there's lattice and time. There's some kind of force moving through the nooks and crannies. And similar to how Heraclitus declares that nobody steps into the same river twice, there can be only one landscape in any given locality at a time.

[Anonymous No.20919485]

>>20918905
Capitalism, duh, expansion of the market mechanism. Capitalism was not a predominant feature of primitive societies

[Anonymous No.20919494]

>>20919485
so you're saying we had a natural predisposition to capitalism that we collectively restrained until about a few hundred years ago

[Anonymous No.20919501]

>>20919462
>If we want to represent HISTORICAL sequence in SPATIAL terms we can only do it by juxtaposition in space
This is akin to an unhinged rant. Historical sequences can only be understood temporally because this is what the discipline tries to tackle in the first place. This is pure fantasy. What is he reaching for apart from a farfetched picture of misguided psychobabble?
>It shows us how far we are from mastering the characteristics of mental life by representing them in pictorial terms
This is a very interesting little game our friend Sigmund has played before our very eyes but the only thing this pathetic spiel shows is rather how far we can go when you push a thought exercise to its limits and then try to draw some pseudo-philosophical garbage conclusions from it. Although amusing this entire line of thought leads absolutely nowhere (which could be said of the entire psychoanalytic corpus to be certain). I guess spending a lifetime creating theories so far removed from reality will lead you down such crazied roads. Freud should have psychoanalyzed himself more because this is more a testament of his insanity than an allusion to his capacity to produce original insights.

[Anonymous No.20919506]

>>20919483
Yes, because time passes. Which is not saying it has to follow the modern rigid linear and contrived convention of past-present-future. It can be cyclical and even happening everywhere at the same time. Still spacetime slices can be separated because your consciousness allows you to. No need to invoke crazied pictures of ancient Rome to describe physical reality in a sufficient and exhaustive fashion.

[Anonymous No.20919526]

>>20919501
t. brainlet who misses the point intentionally by deliberately trying to misinterpret everything

like, how can you miss the point so hard? his concept of memory trace, and the analogy of the city changing over time is pretty apt. Freud isn't even the first person to compare the mind with a city: that honor belongs to Plato.

anyway, pseud filtered.

>>20919506
space lattices ignore the fact that it's filled with matter with differing levels and patterns of animation. however, I did like one thing you said in particular:
>Still spacetime slices can be separated because your consciousness allows you to.
Can you expand on that further?

[Anonymous No.20919528]

>>20919137
I don't know.

[Anonymous No.20919534]

>>20917882
Readers of Heidegger rarely ever make sense. Stick to the text. Try to understand. Simplify the ideas. Do not overthink things, what he was trying to do is simple.

Heidegger was not a nihilist. He was trying to create a synthesis of Plato and Aristotle through a new ontology.

[Anonymous No.20919555]

>>20919534
Heidegger was deeply antagonistic towards Plato until late in his career. And Heidegger was hardly an Aristotelian either. There was hardly any attempt by Heidegger to synthesize Plato and Aristotle.
>through a new ontology.
Heidegger was trying to destroy ontology once and for all. Wtf are you smoking?

[Anonymous No.20920753]

bump

this was not as good as my Plato and poetry thread...

[Anonymous No.20921394]

bump

[Anonymous No.20921406]

>>20917882
You know the world is hollow
Option 1: fuck everything
Option 2: become sysiphos and live for the sake of living (its the more fulfilling option)

[Anonymous No.20921417]

This is NOT a Heidegger thread

*throws glass of water in own face*

[Anonymous No.20921436]

>>20918919
That describes a German person.

[Anonymous No.20921461]

>>20918919
an old person you fucking retard.

[Anonymous No.20921921]

bump

[Anonymous No.20923306]

bump

can't believe this thread nearly got off the ground, only to turn into an abortion

[Anonymous No.20923779]

bump

[Anonymous No.20924086]

pump

[Anonymous No.20924318]

dump

[Anonymous No.20925104]

>>20917894
Proof of this?

[Anonymous No.20925487]

bump

[Anonymous No.20926097]

thread must die, unfortunately. /lit/ simply isn't ready for this conversation

[Anonymous No.20926593]

>>20917882
Heidegger is such a cutie

[Anonymous No.20926603]

What is it that Heidegger wants us to do?

[Anonymous No.20927716]

bump

[Anonymous No.20927751]

>>20926603
Find god and write poetry.

[Anonymous No.20927767]

>>20926603
be

[Anonymous No.20928588]

>>20927767
bee and time

[Anonymous No.20929076]

>>20919494
No, it just simply didn't exist because societies were more contained and controlled

[Anonymous No.20930135]

>Nothingness refers to the troubling concept of nothing. When we speak of ‘nothing’, we are referring it as some sort of entity or being. But in fact, we can’t imagine nothingness. It’s somewhat considered to be a concept, but it’s a concept with no content, hence not actually a concept. The closest approximation we can think of nothingness is a jet-black screen. In Heidegger’s magnum opus, he places nothingness as the representative of death. Because nothingness is something that you can’t comprehend anything at all, humans generally shun from thinking about it even though it is apparent that our lives are moving towards this incomprehensible nothingness day by day. Simply put, nothingness is the manifestation of absolute fear of all living beings.
>Consciousness, basically the fundamental proof of our existence (as Descartes famously put), entails nothingness. Upon deeper introspection, our freedom as human beings is also a form of nothingness. While death is the representative of nothingness, nothingness is a merely a property of death. Even our ability to choose (freedom) is ridden with nothingness. We can’t know who or what will prop up in our way. We can’t expect the unexpected, as much as we can plan. We can’t rely on probabilities for a certain course of action. These are the initial touches of humans on nothingness - to be conscious is to be forced to choose, to choose is to experience traces of nothingness. All these are premonitions of our progress to death, the ultimate nothingness of being.
>We can never hope to understand nothingness. In What is Metaphysics, Heidegger’s obscurity culminates in its pinnacle. The meaninglessness of his poise is an attempted portrait of nothingness itself. And yes, this is where Heidegger puts in his “the Nothingness itself nothings”. This short but profound quote is sufficient to put across how utterly incomprehensible nothingness is.

[Anonymous No.20931533]

what did he mean by this?

[Anonymous No.20931679]

>>20931533
Lel

[Anonymous No.20932241]

>>20917989
>German language is philosophically superior and thus Daseins thinking in German are better equipped to revive Europe from it's metaphysical problems (which have been de-strukted).
His native language? How convenient!

[Anonymous No.20933049]

>>20917882
This pic makes me think of him and the teletubbies

[Anonymous No.20933112]

>>20932241
Part of it is autism, specifically legen-legein etymology, but it’s not completely retarded. Well, it’s interesting. He uses poetic license to say that. That’s all I’ll say for now.

[Anonymous No.20933128]

>>20917989
Derrida and all the french intellectuals who took after Heidegger are cowards who wanted the fruits of his work without having to deal with the fascist implications, which is why french philosophy is so full of mental gymnastics. For some reason, the french, who ironically were happy to be occupied by the nazis, are cucked beyond believe about having to avoid fascism at all cost, but they can't deny Heidegger had a point, so they must twist his philosophy until it becomes inoffensive.

[Anonymous No.20933133]

>>20932241
It is pretty true honestly, a lot of it is just that German words are more synthetic and can be brought to phenomenological consciousness more easily than words in say English, which is a hotchpotch of "hardened" borrowings that easily resist phenomenologica analysis and lead to stagnating in the "preontological" mode

Merleau-Ponty and Derrida both do a decent job with French but it's hard to beat some of the high pyrotechnics of Heidegger, like in the intro to Being and Time where he does what >>20933112 is talking about while implicitly comparing it to Greek.

[Anonymous No.20933139]

>>20926603
Read the last section of Being and Time.

[Anonymous No.20933143]

>>20919555
>Heidegger was trying to destroy ontology once and for all. Wtf are you smoking?
Heidegger was trying to destroy ontotheology, but he was above all an ontological thinker.

[Anonymous No.20933197]

>>20918874
>human beings themselves have a natural predisposition towards deterritorialization, unlike animals who are tribal by nature due to their lack of rational thinking skills
Wrong retard. There's no hard division between animals and humans. Also assuming those 2 things are mutually exclusive. Humans posses higher abstract thought and a competetive tribalistic tendency.
Arguably nationalism, despite all its ugliness, combined abstract mythology with humans basic tribalistic tendencies. So it shows both of our dimensions.
Also lmaoat the idea that tribalism has disappeared. It has just changed form. Open any political thread.
You tards need to put down the schizo tier garbage and pick up a history book