You are not logged in!

F.A.Q
Log in

Register
  
 
  
(nobody)
...and 14 guests

Last 5 registered
Oplandisks
nothingstar
N_loop
yipe
foxtrotromeo

Browse members...
  
 
Members 8025
Messages 2552180
Today 17
Topics 124082
  
 
Messageboard index
do u mutilate
 

offline welt on 2019-04-29 22:19 [#02576271]
Points: 1958 Status: Regular



LAZY_TITLE


 

offline mohamed on 2019-04-30 06:36 [#02576289]
Points: 27692 Status: Addict | Show recordbag



You mean like those shebab people in africa?


 

offline Roger Wilco from You fool! Look out! on 2019-04-30 09:21 [#02576291]
Points: 209 Status: Regular



Not consciously but I do suffer from stress
erections
.


 

offline Tony Danza from Bright Moon on 2019-04-30 15:40 [#02576304]
Points: 1237 Status: Regular



There are two possible reactions to the tensions of modern
liberal secular modernity - one is to go forward from it -
to achieve greater emancipation for all, and not for just
the lucky few - and one is to retreat from it. Heidegger
chose the latter, and his retreat to a vision of a
mythic past is one of the primary distinguishing features
of fascism, which is why he was so open to the "volkish"
tendencies of National Socialism.


 

offline mohamed on 2019-04-30 15:52 [#02576307]
Points: 27692 Status: Addict | Show recordbag



i just want to say its a thin line from the german to the
hebrew language


 

offline dariusgriffin from cool on 2019-04-30 19:58 [#02576343]
Points: 11313 Status: Regular



ugh god heidegger is such a piece of shit windbag


 

offline dariusgriffin from cool on 2019-04-30 20:01 [#02576344]
Points: 11313 Status: Regular



"science is kind of like religion nowadays" wow yes he was a
nazi but how can we ignore such an astute and important
thinker!!


 

offline mohamed on 2019-04-30 21:43 [#02576349]
Points: 27692 Status: Addict | Show recordbag



dont retreat to a vision of arabs selling hash when sihnala
sell weed


 

offline welt on 2019-04-30 22:54 [#02576361]
Points: 1958 Status: Regular



If you think that Heidegger’s support for the Nazi party
in the 1930’s is important to evaluate his philosophy. Do
you think that (anti-Nazi) guys like Sartre, Levinas,
Derrida, whose philosophies are based on concepts developed
by Heidegger, carry the flaws of Heidegger’s ideas into
their own thinking?

If, for instance - Tony Danza mentioned emancipation -
Heidegger’s thinking would have to be seen as essentially
direct against emancipation, would you evaluate, for
instance, Derrida’s 'left-wing' project of deconstruction
(which is explicitly based on Heidegger’s idea of the
Destruktion der Geschichte der Metaphysik) also as
anti-emancipatory?

This is not a rhetorical question.


 

offline dariusgriffin from cool on 2019-04-30 23:35 [#02576362]
Points: 11313 Status: Regular



well, as to the first question, yes, obviously

i mean sartre is an idiot and his existentialism is very
right wing despite his best efforts

but heidegger is not just a nazi, he's also a very banal new
age thinker. modernity is bad, rationalism is bad,
technology is bad because it alienates us from our authentic
self.

i can't go into details because i'm lazy and i don't have a
very deep understanding of whatever nuances but
levinas is mostly new age nonsense

derrida is maybe the most sympathetic one, tho he is very
useless and i'm not sure who literary criticism is supposed
to emancipate. the frankfurt school did it better anyway.

french theory has its progressivist postures, but on the
whole it is rather deeply reactionnary, which can't be
helped if your main influences are heidegger and god damn
fucking nietzsche

deleuze is more of a nietzsche guy, also 100% new age
nonsense but he's a nice social democrat at heart so i don't
grudge him too much

anyways
read bourdieu on heidegger, he's fun

also husserl is the only phenomenologist who isn't full of
shit. he's mostly unreadable, and to be honest i don't
really ... get phenomenology, but at least he tried to
proceed rationally.


 

offline Tony Danza from Bright Moon on 2019-05-01 00:02 [#02576363]
Points: 1237 Status: Regular



french theory has its progressivist postures, but on the
whole it is rather deeply reactionnary, which can't be
helped if your main influences are heidegger and god damn
fucking nietzsche


*stands and applauds*

I really like reading Nietzsche though, he's so explicitly
terrible, he's yelling the part "presentable" reactionaries
whisper. He's also deeply insightful in a way, you just have
to turn him upside down most of the time.

Anyways Welt, what is it about Heidegger that is of value?
What are the ideas that really grab you by the sac, and why?
I'm not dismissing him only on the basis of his avowed
Nazism and the antisemitism in the "black notebooks", I'm
more interested in his anti-modernism and how that
ball-and-sockets with fascism in general. He seems to want
people to spend their lives in a timeless contemplative
stupor, all fucked up on traditionalist soma.


 

offline wavephace from Aspiring Moderator on 2019-05-01 04:23 [#02576383]
Points: 2795 Status: Regular



This thread needs more queer theory


 

offline Monoid from one source all things depend on 2019-05-01 08:57 [#02576394]
Points: 10876 Status: Regular | Followup to welt: #02576271



Heidegger sucks. Science has a naturalistic, materialistic
ontology and religion has not. This is a huge diffrence that
seems not to be obvious to him, tho he talks about
metaphysics all the time.
Scientist believe in certain things too, but they have very
good reasons for it. Religion has only bullshit to offer.
What a dumbass


 

offline Tony Danza from Bright Moon on 2019-05-01 11:15 [#02576397]
Points: 1237 Status: Regular | Followup to Monoid: #02576394



hmm science and metaphysics are just different branches of
philosophy though, not sure why people insist on making them
fight.


 

offline wavephace from Aspiring Moderator on 2019-05-01 12:31 [#02576401]
Points: 2795 Status: Regular



I fucking love metaphysics


 

offline Tony Danza from Bright Moon on 2019-05-01 12:37 [#02576403]
Points: 1237 Status: Regular | Followup to wavephace: #02576401



we all do though we may not notice, e.g. physicalism is a
metaphysics


 

offline dariusgriffin from cool on 2019-05-01 13:36 [#02576404]
Points: 11313 Status: Regular | Followup to wavephace: #02576383



right, queer theory is also irrationalist reactionary
nonsense!
also it's so sad that 'french feminism' in the US refers to
idiot psychanalysts Cixous, Fouque or Julia 'actual
bulgarian spy' Kristeva and not actual cool & interesting
feminists like Wittig, Delphy or Nicole-Claude Mathieu


 

offline dariusgriffin from cool on 2019-05-01 13:40 [#02576405]
Points: 11313 Status: Regular



metaphysics fucking rules and transcendental idealism is a
kind of materialism (i thought i was a bit mad and/or trying
too hard but apparently the point is being argued by Actual
Philosophers so, guess i'm good at philosophy!)


 

offline welt on 2019-05-01 13:41 [#02576406]
Points: 1958 Status: Regular | Followup to Tony Danza: #02576363



Why value Heidegger? I try to keep my answer as simple and
to the point as possible.

- I value Heidegger for being a phenomenologist

- Phenomenology can only be understood in contrast to
metaphysics. Metaphysics claims that behind the
world-we-experience (Lebenswelt) there is the real world.
(According to Plato’s metaphysics the real world consists
of intelligible Forms; according to the currently
fashionable metaphysics of physicalism the real world
consists of light-waves and elementary-particles we never
directly perceive and so on.)

- Heidegger (following Husserl’s groundwork) has, in my
opinion, successfully shown that metaphysics depends on
primal trust in the Lebenswelt, it depends on taking the
world-we-experience-directly for granted. Then on the basis
of trust-in-our-Lebenswelt a theory about the ultimate
metaphysical nature of reality is constructed and then,
in the next step, the metaphysicians go against the basis of
their thinking and claim that the experienced-world is only
illusory because it contradicts the nature of the real
world
…… but metaphysicians have no basis on
which to base their theories if they disvalue the
experienced-world
This is paradoxical and therefore
not rationally satisfying


- Phenomenology (thus understood) is, as a general
theoretical outlook, more rationally satisfying, because it
reflects on the basis of metaphysics by trying to give an
analysis of the structure of the Lebenswelt. The Lebenswelt
being that which only gives birth to metaphysics ..

… I’m slightly tempted to address the aspect of
anti-modernity, but leave it for now ..

.. So my question to you would be (A) Do you see the problem
of the paradoxical basis of metaphysics (constructing a
metaphysical theory on the basis of the Lebenswelt while at
the same time rejecting the Lebenswelt as deeply illusory)?
… (B) If you see the problem, how do you deal with it?


 

offline dariusgriffin from cool on 2019-05-01 13:42 [#02576407]
Points: 11313 Status: Regular



KANT 👏 WAS 👏 A 👏 MATERIALIST 👏


 

offline dariusgriffin from cool on 2019-05-01 13:50 [#02576411]
Points: 11313 Status: Regular | Followup to welt: #02576406



does trust in the lebenswelt have to be absolute? if so, how
does metaphysics depend on this absolute trust? (not being
rhetorical i'm genuinely wondering)


 

offline welt on 2019-05-01 13:55 [#02576415]
Points: 1958 Status: Regular | Followup to dariusgriffin: #02576411



It doesn't have to be absolute trust. But, if you want to be
a rational metaphysican ( = if you want to give
grounds/justifications for your moves/positions) you would
have to give a criterion which parts of the normal
Lebenswelt-understanding can be distruted. And where the
fucking hell do you find this cirterioin without using
circular-reasoning? (Genuine question.)


 

offline dariusgriffin from cool on 2019-05-01 13:58 [#02576416]
Points: 11313 Status: Regular



like, i don't know, the noumenon/phenomenon dichotomy and
how kant treats it is pretty satisfactory to me.

also i know heidegger hates the cogito but my only issue is
that it doesn't go far enough. i only am in the
infinitesimal instant that i am thinking. a life is a
collection of infinitesimal i-s. i am already dying all the
time, martin. my authentic self is infinitesimal and
discontinuous.


 

offline welt on 2019-05-01 13:59 [#02576417]
Points: 1958 Status: Regular



Anyway, my wife happens to be an expert on Heidegger.
Sometimes we sit on the balcony and discuss Heidegger's late
(even more weird) philosophy'. It often strikes me that it
sounds (on the surface) very very new-agey and the
neighbours probably think we're in a weird cult. I don't
blame them.


 

offline dariusgriffin from cool on 2019-05-01 14:08 [#02576418]
Points: 11313 Status: Regular



i can't hope to compete with heidegger experts obviously,
i'm the worst sort of dilettante
but let's say for instance, where exactly is the paradox in
kant's understanding of the world?


 

offline welt on 2019-05-01 14:10 [#02576419]
Points: 1958 Status: Regular | Followup to dariusgriffin: #02576416



- My issue with Descartes would also be that he dosn't go
far enough. I'd say he proves the existence of
Awareness/Consciousness, but he doesn't prove the existence
of the Ego. It's undubitable if you think something, that
you are aware of something and that thus Awarness
exists .... but the status of the Ego remains unclear. So
you can't prove the Ego in this way.


 

offline Monoid from one source all things depend on 2019-05-01 14:13 [#02576420]
Points: 10876 Status: Regular | Followup to dariusgriffin: #02576404



Well queer theory and identity politics tries to deconstruct
the binary gender system. Thats not a bad thing per se.
However, the idea behind it is, because our society is
gendered and people think in these categories, queer theory
can not just ignore this fact, and thus identity politics is
neccessary. But it is not an in itself.
Many people on the left seem to forget this, and are
fourious to defend even the most retarded 'identities'.
Because of this, left identity politics looks a lot like the
'alt right' or the identitarians.


 

offline dariusgriffin from cool on 2019-05-01 14:17 [#02576423]
Points: 11313 Status: Regular



queer theory's objective is actually to reform our system of
gender into another less obviously coercive and exploitative
system of gender :(


 

offline welt on 2019-05-01 14:19 [#02576425]
Points: 1958 Status: Regular | Followup to dariusgriffin: #02576418



- Kant is not paradoxical in the way I addressed. Kant
claims that we can infer nothing about the thing-in-itself
(the 'real' world) from the world of phenomena (from the
Lebenswelt). He stricly seperates the two reals thus he
avoids paradox.

- I see Heidegger and the others therefore not in strict
opposition to Kant but I see them as building on his
insights.


 

offline welt on 2019-05-01 14:20 [#02576427]
Points: 1958 Status: Regular



*He strictly seperates the two realms thus he avoids paradox


 

offline Tony Danza from Bright Moon on 2019-05-01 14:28 [#02576428]
Points: 1237 Status: Regular | Followup to welt: #02576406



Welt, thank you for a thorough answer.

I do not see the "conflict" between lebenswelt and
metaphysics in the same way. I mean, your articulation of
the problem seems to be endorsing naive realism (as opposed
to not science but scientism).

It's like saying, the sun must be rotating around the earth,
because that's how it seems at first, and we relied in some
sense on our primary intuitions to arrive at a conclusion
that asserted otherwise.

This is an all-or-nothing stance that implies that our
holistic experience of the world must be either infallible
or meaningless.

In another sense it's a parts-or-wholes stance; to take it
straight to phenomenology, either our conscious experience
which appears as a simple, direct and undifferentiated
whole, must be that simple, direct and
undifferentiated whole, or else it is utterly wrong /
utterly meaningless / what have you.

This creates a very dumb conflict between parts and wholes
that is best seen as a fallacy of composition / division.

How to address this in a way that synthesizes wholes and
parts, or analytical and holistic? Probably some form of
structural realism.


 

offline Hyperflake from Wirral (United Kingdom) on 2019-05-01 15:40 [#02576429]
Points: 23285 Status: Addict



Seems like modern philosophy has reached peak word salad


 

offline Hyperflake from Wirral (United Kingdom) on 2019-05-01 15:43 [#02576430]
Points: 23285 Status: Addict | Followup to welt: #02576271



I was watching that video, perhaps what he was saying was a
new idea at the time, I don't know enough about philosophy
to say, but he seemed like he was constructing a semantic
framework for a whole load of nothing, I.e. he wasn't saying
anything more profound from what you hear from a random
bloke down the pub


 

offline Hyperflake from Wirral (United Kingdom) on 2019-05-01 15:48 [#02576431]
Points: 23285 Status: Addict



A lot of philosophy to me seems like someone thinking of the
most obtuse/opaque way to say something that is either
fairly simplistic or relatively apparent,


 

offline Hyperflake from Wirral (United Kingdom) on 2019-05-01 16:08 [#02576432]
Points: 23285 Status: Addict



sorry was being overly dismissive, im not really a fan of
transcendentalism


 

offline Monoid from one source all things depend on 2019-05-01 16:10 [#02576433]
Points: 10876 Status: Regular | Followup to Tony Danza: #02576397



There is no fight. Philosophy (social sciences) and science
rely on logic, arguments, specific terms etc. There is an
overlap between science and Philosophy, for example both ask
'What is life?'. Heidegger has obviously no clue about
philosophy of science, so he says science is like religion.
But this is not true


 

offline Hyperflake from Wirral (United Kingdom) on 2019-05-01 16:25 [#02576434]
Points: 23285 Status: Addict | Followup to Monoid: #02576433



yeah I mean science isn't generally dogmatic in its
approach, its for ever open for revision, the best example
is when quantum mechanics became a more accurate description
of physical reality on subatomic scale over classical
physics,


 

offline Hyperflake from Wirral (United Kingdom) on 2019-05-01 16:30 [#02576435]
Points: 23285 Status: Addict



it might not be ultimately the only successful description
of physical reality in the end but certainly for most of
human history its been the most successful one, if you
reject it like Heidegger seems to imply what are you left
with apart from ontological tautology where you cant say
anything definite about anything


 

offline Monoid from one source all things depend on 2019-05-01 17:22 [#02576437]
Points: 10876 Status: Regular | Followup to Hyperflake: #02576435



Heidegger doesn't reject science, nor do the postmodern
philosophers who follow him. They say scienctific theories
are a social construct, and this of course partly true.
However, the problem is that this explaination opens the
door to extreme relativism i.e. pseudo science or cultural
relativism.
Thats the problem of the identitarian left nowadys. Just
because the submission of women is a cultural practice in
islam doesn't mean we should respect it. Calling bullshit
bullshit has nothing to do with eurocentric thinking, its
simply a kind universalism be it with science or culture.


 

offline Hyperflake from Wirral (United Kingdom) on 2019-05-01 17:31 [#02576438]
Points: 23285 Status: Addict | Followup to Monoid: #02576437



yeah you summed it up well, it opens the door to nebulous,
woolly minded thinking. I take issue with the idea that
science is a social construct, I think that's a
mischaracterisation, science reveals something inherently
immutable about the nature of reality, outside of human
agency


 

offline Hyperflake from Wirral (United Kingdom) on 2019-05-01 17:37 [#02576439]
Points: 23285 Status: Addict



I guess really I don't have an issue with his think, at
least its a different abstract approach, a thought
experiment, its always good to have a dialogue to test the
strength of your own position

Who I really dislike are modern charlatans like Deepak
Chopra, who have this weird amalgamation of
transcendentalism and quantum mechanics, which he has no
real understanding of, and as a consequence uses that as a
backdoor/trojan horse to suggest there is some real physical
mechanism for his mumbo jumbo


 

offline Tony Danza from Bright Moon on 2019-05-01 17:39 [#02576440]
Points: 1237 Status: Regular | Followup to Monoid: #02576437



"Heidegger was a pro-sharia cultural marxist" is the most
galaxy-brain take I'll see this year, I guess.


 

offline Hyperflake from Wirral (United Kingdom) on 2019-05-01 17:51 [#02576441]
Points: 23285 Status: Addict



yeah I guess cultural Marxism is an unhelpful phrase,
haven't all cultures and societies developed the scientific
method independently in one way or another anyway to varying
degrees, that's why I see it something that is outside of
the remit of culture, although it can certainly be meddled
with to make it appear so, like Lysenkoism


 

offline welt on 2019-05-01 17:51 [#02576442]
Points: 1958 Status: Regular | Followup to Tony Danza: #02576428



Some clarification

The argument is not „Ultimate reality is identical with
how the world appears to us, therefore everyone who
disagrees with common understanding is wrong“ (which would
presuppose naive realism).

The argument is “We don’t know what the ultimate status
of reality is, or whether that is even a well-formed
question. But if you attempt to make rationally certain
statements about ultimate reality, then you would need a
basis for your statements which is more certain than our
everyday-lebenswelt-understanding. Metaphysics has no access
to such a basis and therefore it can not be used to deny
common understanding in a rationally binding way“ (which
is an expression of careful agnosticism)

.... My impression is that you and the guy you linked to (I
haven’t listened to much of the longish podcast though)
try to circumvent the whole topic of the question of the
ultimate justification and the certainty our knowledge by
opting for some sort of *pragmatist* approach? Would you
agree?



 

offline Tony Danza from Bright Moon on 2019-05-01 17:55 [#02576443]
Points: 1237 Status: Regular



Cultural marxism, or postmodern neo-marxism as some call it
these days, was originally a German nationalist concept in the 1930s.


 

offline welt on 2019-05-01 17:56 [#02576444]
Points: 1958 Status: Regular



I wonder why it’s so difficult for ***some people*** to
understand that rejecting the metaphysical position of
naturalism in no way means rejecting science ...


 

offline Hyperflake from Wirral (United Kingdom) on 2019-05-01 18:14 [#02576445]
Points: 23285 Status: Addict | Followup to welt: #02576444



I understand what your saying now sorry, I misunderstood

Hiedigger did seem to suggets that coutries with a higher
degree of technical proficiency were in some way less
developed in other means, so to me that seemed like a bit of
a regrejection of science



 

offline Hyperflake from Wirral (United Kingdom) on 2019-05-01 18:21 [#02576446]
Points: 23285 Status: Addict



On issue I have is that in Heidegger communicating his ideas
he is relying on language, linguistics which if you think
about it is the science of communication, its predicated on
the idea of cause and effect, I say something, you
comprehend etc.. etc..


 

offline Tony Danza from Bright Moon on 2019-05-01 18:35 [#02576447]
Points: 1237 Status: Regular | Followup to welt: #02576442



The argument is “We don’t know what the ultimate
status of reality is, or whether that is even a well-formed
question. But if you attempt to make rationally certain
statements about ultimate reality, then you would need a
basis for your statements which is more certain than our
everyday-lebenswelt-understanding. Metaphysics has no access
to such a basis and therefore it can not be used to deny
common understanding in a rationally binding way“ (which
is an expression of careful agnosticism)


This seems more like Hume / Kant than Heidegger IMO

.... My impression is that you and the guy you linked to
(I haven’t listened to much of the longish podcast though)
try to circumvent the whole topic of the question of the
ultimate justification and the certainty our knowledge by
opting for some sort of *pragmatist* approach? Would you
agree?


Sure and he does talk about that, and about how our models
are all wrong but some are better than others. Listen to it,
it's pretty good, though I don't agree with him on
everything, for example I'd assign a firmer reality-status
to number and other abstracta.

But really the thing I'd like to take up is whether an
analytical approach undermines a holistic approach, whether
you lose lebenswelt by considering what goes into it. Does
seeing parts wreck wholeness? This is why I brought up
structural realism at all: the idea that structures are real
and not just unitary things-in-themselves.

Hume talks about this right at the beginning of the Enquiry,
that we needn't worry about undermining our everyday
knowledge and experience by poking at it a bit.

BTW there's a terrific bit in Greg Egan's novel Diaspora
(best sci fi novel ever written) where he talks about the
Dream Apes, who are genetically engineered human descendants
who wanted to lose the ability to represent things
symbolically and retreat to an animal's consciousness, which
they consider to be more like dreaming. I think Heidegger
wants people to become Dream Apes.


 

offline Tony Danza from Bright Moon on 2019-05-01 18:35 [#02576448]
Points: 1237 Status: Regular | Followup to welt: #02576444



Do you think naturalism is synonymous with materialism or
physicalism?


 


Messageboard index