[ 3 / biz / cgl / ck / diy / fa / ic / jp / lit / sci / vr / vt ] [ index / top / reports ] [ become a patron ] [ status ]
2023-11: Warosu is now out of extended maintenance.

/lit/ - Literature

View post   
File: 6 KB, 176x254, images (1)..jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
2594805 No.2594805 [Reply] [Original]

Heidegger argues that being gives thought. Levinas argues that the other inspires and is prior to the question of being. Discuss.

>> No.2594814
File: 6 KB, 228x221, images (2)..jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
2594814

>> No.2594821

Heidegger takes being to be existence itself. So how could anything be prior to being under his framework?

>> No.2594824

Heidegger points out the mistake of Descartes and rids us of fundamental epistemic problems. Levinas commits the same mistake as Descartes and leaves us with unsolvable epistemic problems.

>> No.2594841

>2012
>still practising caveman philosophy

>> No.2594849

>>2594824

/thread

>> No.2594859

>>2594821

The issue is whether the other appears within being - understood as a horizon of intelligibility - just as any other object. This is Heidegger's position.

Or, does the other transcend this horizon? Levinas' position is that the other isn't intelligible like other entities in the world.

>> No.2594870

>>2594824

Care to elaborate?

>> No.2594879

>>2594841

And what exactly is 2012 philosophy?

>> No.2594883

>>2594879
Beyond petty and unfruitful phenomenology.

>> No.2594887

>>2594883

Please enlighten us. What do you consider fruitful?

>> No.2594892

>>2594887
Not isolated and circular.

>> No.2594893

>>2594887

This will almost certainly be Breivik.

>> No.2594894

What does Levinas mean by the other?
Other beings?

>> No.2594906

>>2594894

Another human being. For Levinas the other person occupies a place similar to god in traditional philosophy.

>> No.2594911

>>2594906
In that case, I suppose Levinas could be right, but I wouldn't know.
I can't examine being without the other. The other is always there.

>> No.2594916

noob here. Would this be a contemporary "rationalist" debate?

>> No.2594922

> wasting time with petty bourgeouis white boy philosophy
> not reading the Tao instead.

>> No.2594926

>>2594911

I agree. But I don't think that Heidegger's description of being-in-the-world testifies to the proximity of the other.

>> No.2594929

>>2594922
I read the Tao about 5 years ago and I got nothing out of it.

>> No.2594930

>>2594922
>Not reading both

>> No.2594935

Doesn't philosophy ever get a little tiring? Especially since that it's all very poorly written.

Like, I get how non-stop arguing over bullshit you won't put into practice is cool, but doesn't make you feel like a duster?

>> No.2594936

>>2594922

No thanks. I'm not interested in mastering my orgasm, the elixer of eternal life, or other such magic.

>> No.2594941

Heidegger isn't a simple reversal of I think therefore I am. Wittgenstein argues something like this, but Heidegger is more concerned with being itself.

>> No.2594945

>>2594935

I not a fan of boring philosophy that can't be practiced either. That's why I don't bother with analytic phil.

>> No.2594946

>>2594935
Personally for my own piece of mind I need to put philosophical issues to rest before moving onto practical things. Wittgenstein and Heidegger are quite useful for this.

>> No.2594952

>>2594945
Analytic philosophy is the only real philosophy. What you're implying here is that you only bother with street wisdom. Which is subjective and unnecessary but helps you sleep at night if your life sucks.

>> No.2594956

>>2594824

Levinas suspends epistemic concerns. They are not central to his project. So in a sense, he leaves these questions for others.

>> No.2594957

>>2594952

No it isn't.

>> No.2594963

>>2594957
Yes it is. Analytic/Continental is a false dichotomy. Even some traditionally "continental" writers are well respected in the analytic tradition. What you're interested in is folk wisdom, or the kind of thing Nietzsche called philosophy of the men down in the streets.

>> No.2594971

>>2594952

Analytic philosophy can't justify its own basic assumptions. According to them, truth is that which can be empirically verified. The above claim cannot be empirically verified. Therefore, analytic philosophy is complete bullshit.

>> No.2594985

>>2594971
Waiting For The Science.

>> No.2594988

>>2594971
Logical positivism is not the only analytic philosophy. Just saying...

Also, Ruth Millikan, BITCHES.

>> No.2594998

>>2594988

Are you alluding to Wittgenstein?

>> No.2595001

>>2594963

No it fucking isn't you rape-candidate void. Remember: there's nothing to be gained from anything with math in it, unless you're marketing or calling out a plumber.

>> No.2595004

>>2594998
Wittgenstein plus the fuckload of other philosophy schools on the analytic tradition.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Analytic_philosophy
(go to "Schools of thought in analytic philosophy")

>> No.2595007

>>2595001

Are you for real? I presume you're on a computer right now . . .

>> No.2595031

>>2595001
lel
>inb4 real responses

>> No.2595034

>>2595007

YES, AND IT ISN'T A PHILOSOPHER YOU FUCKING HOLE! Of course math is used in thousands of vital things, but not philosophy, or...


LITERATURE. See the name of the fucking board, cumstain. The idea that the scum who loiter in math would assert themselves to the title of 'philosopher'... it could make any thinker want to do murder. You're still my TV repair-man, you coon.

>> No.2595041

>>2595034
Borges wrote great literature and he used math a lot

>> No.2595042

>>2595041

He used fictional math. He didn't think math solved citizens.

>> No.2595051

>>2595034
2.4
Worst new tripfag

>> No.2595055

>>2595051

agreed.

>> No.2595058

>>2595051
>>2595055

You don't rate me because I speak the truth? Fine, enjoy your masturbatory algebraic fortune cookies.

>> No.2595061

>>2595051

Indeed.

>> No.2595060

>>2595034
You'll be fun to have in nursing homes. You should try vlogging about these ideas you have.

>> No.2595065

>>2595051
Yeah, the dude thinks HoL is excellent, wow.

>> No.2595069

Shall we continue the discussion at hand gentlemen?

>> No.2595072

>>2595060

> has no argument
> resorts to attempted classism
> remains part of the problem

>> No.2595077

>>2595065

Of it's type, it is.


>>2595069

If you think it's smart to be insolent to me, no, you fucking shan't.

>> No.2595081

Analytic philosophy has no relationship to the historic aims of philosophy, it's just parlor games played by the house niggers of entrenched power.

>> No.2595095

Any more questions?

>> No.2595178
File: 153 KB, 769x595, watch-out-we-got-a-badass-over-here-meme.png [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
2595178

>>2595077

>> No.2595184

>>2595178

The best you can do, and still not trying to continue.

>> No.2595191

>>2595184
I'm just a lurker, kinda wanted to come in this thread and put out that no one is afraid of you.

>> No.2595195

>>2594805
I've never read Levinas, but I have a hard time understanding how the other could be seen as prior to being. Certainly "the other" needs to be grasped as "other" within an understanding of being in order to exist as a conceptual entity at all. Right?

>> No.2595201

>>2595191

I didn't think they were, they're just afraid of the truth - everybody knows their backwater is stagnant. Analytical philosophy is not philosophy, it's a game for the unserious.

>> No.2595220

>>2595195

Right, except that for Levinas the other is not an entity that can conceived.

I won't be able to explain this well, but I'll give it a shot. Levinas uses the language of what is said, and the saying of the said by the other. The said is like being. It just is. But the saying gives that which is, and that which is to be understood, and the cultural horizon in which anything is understood at all.

So for Levinas, the other gives being (understood as the intelligibile horizons of a culture or world). Does this help at all?

>> No.2595234

>>2595195

I'll try again. I dont just perceive you in light of that which is already said, or already is. In my encounter with you, you speak to me, thereby disrupting that which has been said, or that which already is. Your saying gives a said, or gives being.

It's prob still not clear.