/lit/ - Literature

[Phil Gabriel !jcOURqNIBM No.6642721]

>Sein und Zeit
More like Slime and Shit

[ΟΥΤΙΣ No.6642724]

posting

[Anonymous No.6642729]

[Phil Gabriel !jcOURqNIBM No.6642742]

>>6642724
What do you think of Heidegger?
>>6642729
>jelly.flac

[Phil Gabriel !jcOURqNIBM No.6642994]

Bump
Doesn't anyone else want to make fun of this Nazi shill Heidegger?

[Anonymous No.6643159]

>>6642729
holy fuck was that guy really in yes

>>6642994
read this faggot
http://www.faz.net/aktuell/feuilleton/geisteswissenschaften/heidegger-konferenz-in-siegen-so-sieht-denken-aus-13574615.html

[Phil Gabriel !jcOURqNIBM No.6643265]

>>6643159
That wasn't the real Steve Howe. I can't read German.

[Anonymous No.6643344]

>>6643265
>he can't read German

Ausgesondert.

[Phil Gabriel !jcOURqNIBM No.6643355]

>>6643344
You Germans are mean :(

[ΟΥΤΙΣ No.6643438]

>>6642742
>What do you think of Heidegger?
I think he's valuable more for understanding an outlook than actually adopting it. Heidegger was a crypto-reactionary who understood that that his politics were irrelevant, since industrialization isn't subject to the cyclical history reactionaries depend upon both as hope and a critique. He insulated himself from the real world by creating an ontology so abstract he wouldn't have to worry about it being pinned down by the real world of course they could, but would be a Frankenstein monster like Nazism, but aside from that Heidegger was pure Hegelian abstraction without any dialectical potential, it could not be mediated because opposition to mediation is the very premise.

[Phil Gabriel !jcOURqNIBM No.6643451]

>>6643438
I'm with you 100%, but I don't see any value in dialectic. Heidegger wanted to break with German idealism, so your claim that he didn't care about dialectic doesn't apply.

[Anonymous No.6643501]

more like "I'm desperate for attention"

[Anonymous No.6643551]

>>6643438
>an ontology so abstract

I don't read Heidegger as particularly abstract. In fact, lots of the people I've spoken to about Heidegger feel like reading Heidegger is reading something you already thought. I also see the dismantling of the metaphysical project that Western philosophy finds itself engaged in to be a good thing that can make philosophy more relevant to lived experience. In this sense I actually think Heidegger's ideas of 'thrown-ness' and Dasein as the being for whom Being becomes an issue help philosophy become more concrete not abstract.

>it could not be mediated because opposition to mediation is the very premise.

Well I think in Being and Time Heidegger uses the example of equipmental things to show that the premises of the subject/object divide are actually pretty artificial and begin from extrapolated and necessarily metaphysical ideas of what it means to be a subject (i.e. Descartes's res cogitans vrs. res extensa).

[ΟΥΤΙΣ No.6643614]

>>6643451
I'm analyzing Heidegger from an Hegelian perspective, and from that perspective Heidegger is pure abstraction, which is withdrawing totally into your mind because you find the real world too disagreeable.

>>6643551
I'm not interested in dismantling metaphysics at all. Heidegger doesn't represent all metaphysics.

I don't disagree that the distinction is pretty artificial (and Hegel illustrated this), I mainly disagree with Heidegger's idea of artificial. From where he's coming from, one could just as easily get Teilhard. But Heidegger is driven by an anti-modernity agenda: the problem is that anti-modernity is an element of modernity, which is why it's not present in any pre-modernity thought. Unlike, say, John Milbank, who's a critique of modernity supporting alternative modernity, Heidegger is anxious about all change, he supports the static for the static's sake, which an anathema to being.

[Anonymous No.6643633]

>>6643614
> and from that perspective Heidegger is pure abstraction, which is withdrawing totally into your mind because you find the real world too disagreeable.
That doesn't sound like a good characterization to me. it sounds like you've cut and pasted Hegel's critique of Buddhism onto Heidegger's philosophy. I don't see how he was a crypto-reactionary, he was a member of the Nazi party and explicitly a fascist. I know you worship Gentile, but he was about as much of a reactionary as it's possible to be, politically.

[Phil Gabriel !jcOURqNIBM No.6643638]

>>6643614
Hegel was totally full of shit. Dialectic is nonsense. lrn2/modal logic.

[Anonymous No.6643648]

>>6643614
>Heidegger is anxious about all change, he supports the static for the static's sake

This is just prima facie not true if you read the Question Concerning Technology, thinkers like Derrida and Stiegler mobilize Heidegger's understanding that the saving power grows along with enframing.

>I mainly disagree with Heidegger's idea of artificial. From where he's coming from, one could just as easily get Teilhard.

Who's Teilhard? You've out patricianed me with that name drop.

[ΟΥΤΙΣ No.6643683]

>>6643633
>That doesn't sound like a good characterization to me. it sounds like you've cut and pasted Hegel's critique of Buddhism onto Heidegger's philosophy.
No, I'm referring to Hegel's "unhappy consciousness" from Phenomenology of the Spirit.

>. I don't see how he was a crypto-reactionary, he was a member of the Nazi party and explicitly a fascist. I know you worship Gentile, but he was about as much of a reactionary as it's possible to be, politically.
Fascism is futurist, whereas Heidegger was anything but.

[Anonymous No.6643686]

>>6643614
>I don't disagree that the distinction is pretty artificial

Also, Heidegger's point is not that the distinction is artificial, but that equipmental beings blur the distinction totally and that the world is actually experienced through these equipmental beings, their chains of significations/references etc.

This comes back to your accusation that Heidegger is anti-modern: through his discussion of technical objects, Heidegger does a sort of technological phenomenology, the results of which are ambiguous. And while Heidegger is rightly critiqued by contemporary thinkers like Bernard Stiegler for perpetuating a metaphysical distinction between artificial/authentic, I don't think his technological phenomenology condemns the technological approach, rather just emphasizes it as central to our understanding of the world (which comes with certain dangers, but also certain possibilities, i.e. Derrida's predicted language and escape from the metaphysical closure).

[Phil Gabriel !jcOURqNIBM No.6643694]

>>6643683
>No, I'm referring to Hegel's "unhappy consciousness" from Phenomenology of the Spirit.
It still doesn't sound accurate.
>Fascism is futurist
That seems like a really pointless and arbitrary distinction to make. Why that predicate?

[ΟΥΤΙΣ No.6643707]

>>6643648
>This is just prima facie not true if you read the Question Concerning Technology, thinkers like Derrida and Stiegler mobilize Heidegger's understanding that the saving power grows along with enframing.
But not inherently so much as because of how it is used.

>Who's Teilhard? You've out patricianed me with that name drop.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Phenomenon_of_Man

[ΟΥΤΙΣ No.6643721]

>>6643694
Futurism is about creating new traditionalism compatible with post-industrial society, it welcomes industrialization.

[Phil Gabriel !jcOURqNIBM No.6643733]

>>6643721
So what? Again, that seems like an odd predicate to emphasize. Heidegger claimed to have discovered the essence of Nazism, and history has proven that Nazism is the essence of fascism, contrary to your claims about Italian fascism. You're hardly a scholar, by the way.

[Anonymous No.6643748]

>>6643733
respond to me in ur other heidegger thread, asshole

[ΟΥΤΙΣ No.6643750]

>>6643733
Nazism can hardly the essences of fascism when fascism outright rejects nations as facts of nature or static concepts.

[Phil Gabriel !jcOURqNIBM No.6643785]

>>6643748
I did.
>>6643750
You're acting like your version of fascism is the truth, but it's just one form of fascism. You're a twat because you do things like this in every thread.

[ΟΥΤΙΣ No.6643802]

>>6643785
It's not my version, it's from The Philosophic Basis of Fascism.

North Korea called themselves communists, China continues to do so, but it was the Grand Council of Fascism which removed Mussolini from power, after which he referred to his politics as "socialist", and the Nazis never referred to themselves as fascists.

[Anonymous No.6643815]

>>6643802
>Muh special fascism
You're clearly just an antisemite. Why else would you advocate fascism?

[ΟΥΤΙΣ No.6643819]

>>6643815
Because communism and liberalism both suck.

[Anonymous No.6643830]

>>6643819
It doesn't follow that fascism is better.