 |
|
You are not logged in! F.A.Q Log in Register |
 |
|
 |
 Now online (1)big ...and 102 guests Last 5 registered Oplandisks nothingstar N_loop yipe foxtrotromeo Browse members... |
 |
Members 8025Messages 2608923 Today 17 Topics 127234 |
|
|||||||||
| |||||||||
|
|
|
||||||||
|
|
|||||||||
| |||||||||
|
|
You mean like those shebab people in africa? |
||||||||
|
|
|||||||||
| |||||||||
|
|
Not consciously but I do suffer from stress erections. |
||||||||
|
|
|||||||||
| |||||||||
|
|
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 is one of the primary distinguishing features of fascism, which is why he was so open to the "volkish" tendencies of National Socialism. |
||||||||
|
|
|||||||||
| |||||||||
|
|
i just want to say its a thin line from the german to the hebrew language |
||||||||
|
|
|||||||||
| |||||||||
|
|
ugh god heidegger is such a piece of shit windbag |
||||||||
|
|
|||||||||
| |||||||||
|
|
"science is kind of like religion nowadays" wow yes he was a nazi but how can we ignore such an astute and important thinker!! |
||||||||
|
|
|||||||||
| |||||||||
|
|
dont retreat to a vision of arabs selling hash when sihnala sell weed |
||||||||
|
|
|||||||||
| |||||||||
|
|
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. |
||||||||
|
|
|||||||||
| |||||||||
|
|
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. |
||||||||
|
|
|||||||||
| |||||||||
|
|
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. |
||||||||
|
|
|||||||||
| |||||||||
|
|
This thread needs more queer theory |
||||||||
|
|
|||||||||
| |||||||||
|
|
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 |
||||||||
|
|
|||||||||
| |||||||||
|
|
hmm science and metaphysics are just different branches of philosophy though, not sure why people insist on making them fight. |
||||||||
|
|
|||||||||
| |||||||||
|
|
I fucking love metaphysics |
||||||||
|
|
|||||||||
| |||||||||
|
|
we all do though we may not notice, e.g. physicalism is a metaphysics |
||||||||
|
|
|||||||||
| |||||||||
|
|
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 |
||||||||
|
|
|||||||||
| |||||||||
|
|
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!) |
||||||||
|
|
|||||||||
| |||||||||
|
|
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? |
||||||||
|
|
|||||||||
| |||||||||
|
|
KANT 👏 WAS 👏 A 👏 MATERIALIST 👏 |
||||||||
|
|
|||||||||
| |||||||||
|
|
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) |
||||||||
|
|
|||||||||
| |||||||||
|
|
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.) |
||||||||
|
|
|||||||||
| |||||||||
|
|
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. |
||||||||
|
|
|||||||||
| |||||||||
|
|
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. |
||||||||
|
|
|||||||||
| |||||||||
|
|
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? |
||||||||
|
|
|||||||||
| |||||||||
|
|
- 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. |
||||||||
|
|
|||||||||
| |||||||||
|
|
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. |
||||||||
|
|
|||||||||
| |||||||||
|
|
queer theory's objective is actually to reform our system of gender into another less obviously coercive and exploitative system of gender :( |
||||||||
|
|
|||||||||
| |||||||||
|
|
- 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. |
||||||||
|
|
|||||||||
| |||||||||
|
|
*He strictly seperates the two realms thus he avoids paradox |
||||||||
|
|
|||||||||
| |||||||||
|
|
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 |
||||||||
|
|
|||||||||
| |||||||||
|
|
Seems like modern philosophy has reached peak word salad |
||||||||
|
|
|||||||||
| |||||||||
|
|
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 |
||||||||
|
|
|||||||||
| |||||||||
|
|
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, |
||||||||
|
|
|||||||||
| |||||||||
|
|
sorry was being overly dismissive, im not really a fan of transcendentalism |
||||||||
|
|
|||||||||
| |||||||||
|
|
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 |
||||||||
|
|
|||||||||
| |||||||||
|
|
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, |
||||||||
|
|
|||||||||
| |||||||||
|
|
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 |
||||||||
|
|
|||||||||
| |||||||||
|
|
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. |
||||||||
|
|
|||||||||
| |||||||||
|
|
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 |
||||||||
|
|
|||||||||
| |||||||||
|
|
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 |
||||||||
|
|
|||||||||
| |||||||||
|
|
"Heidegger was a pro-sharia cultural marxist" is the most galaxy-brain take I'll see this year, I guess. |
||||||||
|
|
|||||||||
| |||||||||
|
|
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 |
||||||||
|
|
|||||||||
| |||||||||
|
|
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? |
||||||||
|
|
|||||||||
| |||||||||
|
|
, or postmodern neo-marxism as some call it these days, was originally a in the 1930s. |
||||||||
|
|
|||||||||
| |||||||||
|
|
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 ... |
||||||||
|
|
|||||||||
| |||||||||
|
|
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 |
||||||||
|
|
|||||||||
| |||||||||
|
|
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.. |
||||||||
|
|
|||||||||
| |||||||||
|
|
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. |
||||||||
|
|
|||||||||
| |||||||||
|
|
Do you think naturalism is synonymous with materialism or physicalism? |
||||||||
|
|
|||||||||
|
Messageboard index
|
|||||||||
