[ 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: 660 KB, 1280x1631, yWfwS10.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
4937494 No.4937494 [Reply] [Original]

We tl;dr philosophers.

>Aurelius - all that maters is yourself.

Pic unrelated

>> No.4937503

that's a really shit paraphrasing of the Meditations. i almost suspect you didn't even read it

>> No.4937514

Stirner:
>CRAAAAAWLING IN MY SKIIIIIIIIN

>> No.4937517

>>4937494
>We tl;dr philosophers
No

>> No.4937532

>>4937517
Sade?

>> No.4937545

>Nietzsche
Be a big guy

>> No.4937551

Diogenes
>Suck my dick fag lol

>> No.4937564

>>4937494

>Plato- I don't know what justice is, but I know it when I see it

>> No.4937611

>>4937494
Hobbes
>Well, somebody has to be in charge.

>> No.4937612

>>4937545
For who?

>> No.4937627

>Derrida
>Pic unrelated
>Pic is, in fact, related
>Aurelius published the meditations
>meditation
mɛdJˈteJʃ(ə)n/
noun
noun: meditation

the action or practice of meditating.
>meditate
ˈmɛdJteJt/
verb
gerund or present participle: meditating

focus one's mind for a period of time, in silence or with the aid of chanting, for religious or spiritual purposes or as a method of relaxation.
"I set aside time every day to write and meditate"
think deeply about (something).
"he went off to meditate on the new idea"
>Pic advises that you will think all sorts of thoughts, but you are to picture yourself an immovable mountain.
>The image of oneself as a mountain requires thought.
>Spend time deeply thinking of oneself as a mountain.
>What if you'd never before seen a mountain, or had seen one in your youth, but now strain to remember it effectively
>Inevitably requires deep thought.
>Pic is contradicting itself, and in contradicting itself, is contradicting OP's post, in that it requires some deep thinking.
>This entire point of this post is to act against tl;dr
>Post turns out rather long
>The post is contradicting itself

>> No.4937661

>>4937627
Time to stop posting.

>> No.4937686

Heidegger:
>If I obscure my language and just keep insisting you don't understand what I'm saying, maybe you won't notice that I'm just restating luddism.

>> No.4937701

>>4937612
For jews

>> No.4937709

> Camus
Life sucks and means nothing but you shouldn't kill yourself in protest of said bullshit

>> No.4937725

Philosophy is king

>> No.4937737

>>4937686
No.

>> No.4937739

>Schopenhauer
Humbug

>Marx
The party doesn't start till I walk in

>Plato
I like to play hot wheels and give the cars voices

>Thomas Aquinas
God exists because he revealed that he does

>Nietzsche
God never existed
Humans are shitty
Let's idolize evolutionary progress
Repeat

>> No.4937743

>>4937739
>>Schopenhauer: woman likes men with beards because it reminds their animalistic brains of pubic hair

>> No.4937753

>>4937737

Heidegger lovers:
>If I ignore what he says and simply say that I disagree without a rebuttal, maybe people won't recognize that my philosophy's indefensible

>> No.4937760

>>4937753
>not understanding Heidegger
>probably hasn't even read him
>tries to do a TL;DR
And you wonder why we don't take you seriously.

>> No.4937764

>>4937760

>Not actually explaining the disconnect between the criticism and the actual material
>Was preempted for being cagey about this
>Still tries to claim high ground

Heideggdagdittitydoo please.

>> No.4937767

>>4937764
>implying that your flippant comment warranted a genuine rebuttal

>> No.4937776

>>4937767

>still_no_defense.jpg

Heidegger confirmed for just obscured neoluddism

>> No.4937781
File: 96 KB, 400x400, 1399581485110.png [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
4937781

>>4937776

>> No.4937794

>>4937494
>tfw you always make the 'peak' because of your fingernails

>> No.4937811

I know this is an ebin thread, but what about hegel?

>> No.4937820
File: 201 KB, 452x572, 1393435913279.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
4937820

>>4937811

>> No.4937825

>>4937820
Neither do you, Hegel

>> No.4937827

>>4937514
THESE WOUUUNDS THEY WILLL NOT HEAAAULLLL

>> No.4937828

>>4937494
>Nietzsche - you only believe that because you want to, and everyone's a sophist

>> No.4937830

>>4937820
t-thanks

>> No.4937839

>>4937627
Only one In thread who's read the stated philosopher.
>>4937739
Honourable mention, but hasn't read Nietzsche. Potential for just misunderstanding like Aquinas.

>> No.4937846
File: 2.88 MB, 186x190, 1379166566804.gif [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
4937846

>>4937820
>mfw I made this image

>> No.4937871

>>4937739
You got nietzche all wrong.

>> No.4937898
File: 111 KB, 634x591, heideggtoroctupus.png [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
4937898

>>4937781

If you cut past the Heideggeran lexicon and try to find a core to what he's trying to say, I believe he makes three major points

>There are frames through which we can look at and experience existence
>Technology and science collectively represent one of these frames in modern society, and modern overuse of this frame damages our ability to use other frames, which is bad.
>We should therefore reject or be very leery of further technological progress.

From my perspective, that's just neoluddism restated.

>> No.4937910
File: 33 KB, 325x325, 1306404720273.gif [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
4937910

>ugh i am SO TIREd of funDIES with ther "philosophy" and "history" dont they know science does everything????
- Sam Harris

>> No.4937925
File: 13 KB, 300x200, 1395589162156.gif [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
4937925

>>4937898

Whoever was supporting Heidegger in the thread actually needs to rebut this one, at least at face value this seems like a reasonable critique.

>> No.4937934

>>4937898
Not the guy you're talking to but techne itself isn't a frame, nor is enframing solely applied to modern technology or technology.

>> No.4937941

>>4937898
Yeah you can sense some reactionary remarks on him. Well, if the 'return of the gods' didn't make it more obvious.

>> No.4937942

>Heidegger
>What your shoes say about you

>> No.4937956
File: 37 KB, 720x480, 1370891990869.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
4937956

Althusser:
> Hey, you! You're fucked. You've always been fucked. You cannot conceive of a world in which you are not fucked, because your very definition of "fucked" is handed down from the big systemic cock that's been fucking you since before you were born. Brb, gonna give my wife a massage.

>> No.4937960

>>4937934

I feel this is just semantics. If the phrasing is such an issue, then just shorten and rephrase the second line to

>Modern overuse of science and technology damages our ability to experience frames, which is bad

And the argument remains just as true.

>> No.4938049

>>4937960
Yeah but then you're making up shit he didn't say. Techne can become an enframing which limits your relationship with other entities even if it's medieval or ancient technology - taking it to mean modern technology ignores that he's talking about a problem he thinks has existed in understanding the world since Plato. The techne back then was just as fine once it didn't render a standing reserve back then as it is now, and encompasses much more than no more Internet. He'd probably be more against standing silently facing front in elevators than he would be against email for an example within just modern technologies where the earlier has a stronger and more negative pull on how you order entities.

>> No.4938132
File: 103 KB, 634x848, ducksnclothes5.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
4938132

>>4938049

Minor complaint about form: someone in thread already complained about how obtuse Heidegger's vocabulary usage is, and that it's a way to conceal a lack of new insight.

Knowing this, and this is just a question as someone who wants others to be able to understand what the fuck we're talking about, why would you write something like "Techne can become an enframing" when "Technology and related matters can become a type of existence" and means the same thing and can be understood by everyone? From my perspective, you're literally just swapping vocab to make understanding harder. Why?

Also, your argument still just boils down to semantics and is nonresponsive as a rebuttal to the claim that his arguments are just restated neoluddism, both in the original three points or the edited form.

It doesn't matter what he would've thought about medieval or ancient technology in comparison to modern technology when we live in and are discussing modern times.

>> No.4938159

>>4937956

not just

>hey!

>> No.4938171

>>4938132
I don't know what he's pointing at. He seems to insist both his statements and yours are different, but failed to say why.

>> No.4938180

>>4938159
Kek 10/10
Most accurate.

>> No.4938194

>>4937494
Socrates:
>Just try and prove me wrong faggot, come on, just try.

>> No.4938201

>>4938132
Because he's talking about a raw moment that he wants you to understand in it's rawness. Him being weird with language is him trying to circumnavigate the seas of meaning people already have. Someone who mistrusts language but has to convince "mentals", ie people who exist in language primarily.

Heidegger is huge, don't get mixed up and think that you get him. He's not of different degree, but of different kind.

>> No.4938204

>>4937564

The state was justice?

>> No.4938215

>>4938132
I used enframing because it was the language used by the person accusing me of semantics and I wanted to close the gap in understanding of technology/techne as in Heidegger and as in their post. It seemed more efficient to not redefine another term while correcting the misapprehension of techne.

It's not semantics, techne is a key part of how we can truly interact with our entities as well; the farmer on his combine harvester is as much in contact with his entities as we can presume the one with a hand plow to be. You're in worse relation to your entities than the shit poster on s4s because you can't seem to argue that it's anything other than a semantic difference when you are arguing for semantic prescriptivism of terms you've misaprehended as that misapprehension. And it's not technology or semantics which is your problem, it's you the enframer. Passing it off on technology is a semantic mingling of techne and the standing reserve which makes as much sense as saying windows show sky and only ever sky. You miss the standing reserve which can happen without techne then, and call a window which opens onto a street scene something other than a window because god knows those only show sky.

As for the last sentence aren't you kind of cherry picking now? It's worse you're not even picking ripe fruit because, again, he doesn't have a problem with technology. If you eliminate him having this position for previous periods, then why would he suddenly have it now?

>> No.4938240

>>4937494
This is not what Aurelius said at all.

A better tl;dr would be:
>Aurelius - try your best and be a stoic

>> No.4938318

>>4937612
whom

>> No.4938327
File: 920 KB, 446x374, 1394358184269.gif [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
4938327

>>4938215

Different anon.

Looking back, the wold "enframing" was never used by the guy you're talking to.

And it wasn't efficient because I have no idea what the fuck you're trying to say but the other guy is pretty clear.

And your metaphors and explanations are shit and just make things more confusing: What the fuck does "contact with his entities" mean? Why can't you just explain the concept?

Also, what the fuck does enframing mean and what does it mean to call someone an enframer? At first you were using enframing as a noun, "Techne can become an enframing", now you're implying it's an action by saying it's something a certain type of person does.

I think you're just throwing jargon around which doesn't have any fixed actual meaning because the philosophy itself doesn't have any fixed actual meaning. I suspect you'll resort to damage control and just claim I'm too ignorant/unread/pleb to understand, but feel free to prove me wrong.

>> No.4938331

>>4937739
>>Plato
>I like to play hot wheels and give the cars voices

Holy shit.

>> No.4938351

>>4937739
>Nietzsche
>Evolution

Calling it: crazy anti-science leftie.

>> No.4938406

>>4937503
What is a good site to teach proper meditation techniques then?

>> No.4938441

>>4938406
>Asking for spoonfeeding

>> No.4938446

Heidegger
>Just listen and think more often, but not the way you usually do.

Nietzsche
>Becoming: who "you" are.

Adorno
>The only thing we can do that's accountable is to critique and shed light on all that is today, because that's what thinking should be all about.

>> No.4938457

>>4938441
Can you give me a link? I keep typing that in, and the only thing to pop up is sparknotes pages.

>> No.4938458
File: 8 KB, 225x196, mAk-Hk2oM3yRV-JbgfKO09Q.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
4938458

>>4937494
This is the shit im talking about.

faggots

>> No.4938460

>>4937898
It's not luddism. Heidegger's is attempting to trace back the root of the Greek conception of techne, their sort of concept of technology which was much more oriented towards a an unconcealing of Being and the world that had with it very strong connotations of gratitude and reciprocity. It was not a kind of man make tools, mans uses tools to cut trees, man uses trees to build dams sort of thing. It also had embedded in it, a air of poesis (poetry to it). For Heidegger, poetry is essentially the means by which we relate to the world/unconceal Being.

Thinking, poetry, and listening to Being is what late Heidegger is all about. The task today for the salvation of modern man is not in technology, that is in its inherent logic a dead end that will only leads towards a complete enframing (objectification) of everything in the world--and eventually man himself. The way forward is in poesis. It's not rejecting technology, but it is weary of any technological salvation. If you want a better exploration of Heidegger's views on poesis, salvation, and their relation to Being, read What are Poets For?, The Thing, and all his stuff on Holderlin.

>> No.4938481

>>4938327
Techne is the Greek conception of technology/creation. It has embedded in it notions of poesis and Aristotle's four causas.

The essence of modern technology is enframing. Enframing is delimiting or putting into a box or setting off and quantifying in some way so as to extract and lord over it. Enframing is one way of unconcealing Being, of relating to the world and experiencing that which was previously concealed in Being. Those trees? Now they're a house. That river? Now its the source of electricity generated through a dam. You're unconcealing things that were previously not evident/concealed.

The problem is that Enframing is a nasty way of revealing because it tends to dominate over all other ways of revealing (think of profound moods like anxiety, boredom; poetry) and is all consuming in that it enframes humans and turns them into standing reserve (something to be used, to be calculated).

Just read The Question Concerning Technology. It's like one of Heidegger's easier pieces.

>> No.4938507

>>4938457
How to meditate:
Step 1. Sit the fuck down.
Step 2. Shut the fuck up.
???
Profit!

>> No.4938539

>>4938460
>>4938481

This anon knows what's up.

>> No.4938556

>>4938457
What? Old Mark one or the usual meditation? There are many kinds of meditations. For starter just google Astangga Yoga.

>> No.4938581

>>4938481
>>4938460
Holy shit now I understand the influence of old Martin towards the younger Martin Buber. Thanks, anon.

>> No.4938670

>>4938460
>>4938481
This is the consequence of blurring the Truth with Meaning.