/lit/ - Literature

>There is a growing impoverishment and deterioration of existence occasioned by industry, technology, and finance, in connection with the enervation and depletion of the constructive forces of knowledge and tradition, to say nothing of the lack of every establishment of goals for human existence.

>>21902612
>What a revelation it was for the mass of people who were unfamiliar with actual thinking and its rich history when two decades ago, in 1917, Oswald Spengler announced that he was the first to discover that every age and every civilization has its own world view! Yet it was all nothing more than a very deft and clever popularization of thoughts and questions on which others long before him had ruminated far more profoundly. Nietzsche was the most recent of these. Yet no one by any means mastered these thoughts and questions, and they remain unmastered up to the present hour. The reason is as simple as it is momentous and difficult to think through.

>>18199054
>What a revelation it was for the mass of people who were unfamiliar with actual thinking and its rich history when two decades ago, in 1917, Oswald Spengler announced that he was the first to discover that every age and every civilization has its own world view! Yet it was all nothing more than a very deft and clever popularization of thoughts and questions on which others long before him had ruminated far more profoundly. Nietzsche was the most recent of these. Yet no one by any means mastered these thoughts and questions, and they remain unmastered up to the present hour. The reason is as simple as it is momentous and difficult to think through.

>What a revelation it was for the mass of people who were unfamiliar with actual thinking and its rich history when two decades ago, in 1917, Oswald Spengler announced that he was the first to discover that every age and every civilization has its own world view! Yet it was all nothing more than a very deft and clever popularization of thoughts and questions on which others long before him had ruminated far more profoundly. Nietzsche was the most recent of these. Yet no one by any means mastered these thoughts and questions, and they remain unmastered up to the present hour. The reason is as simple as it is momentous and difficult to think through.

>>17872264
Yes.

>>17050094
>music isn't grounded in any ontological truth, and therefore only a sense-maker, a meaningless feeling exciter, and therefore a lesser art
>poetry is the greatest art
How do you answer Heidegger?

>>16414203

>>16340036
>the virgin virg's

>>15924783
That's why you often have to disregard these concepts. Schopenhauer makes the mistake of putting pleasure as the goal of life, whereas his morality saves him.

>>15599980
Explain that tangibility =/= consciousness is false. Something can be tangible as it is conscious, though I would advise you to use a different word than conscious, however God "thinks" as it were, is not limited by animal definitions of conscious/unconscious. It might be better to put it as "animation", or better yet in Heidegger's "Being" which naturally is in form conscious as well as a rude empirical brick. That is, better for their basic understanding. There are a billion other ways you can go about this, and you can simplify materialism ad absurdum about a billion times more than you can Idealism. It might be wise to use Fichte's I and then outer as an example of the how material objects relate to consciousness. But again, this is just representative of how many flash arguments you could use for this conversation.

> It is absolutely necessary that those who helped place National Socialism in the saddle be called to account. Heidegger is among the few professors to have done that . . . Heidegger’s manner of thinking, which to me seems in its essence unfree, dictatorial, and incapable of communication, would today be disastrous in its pedagogical effects . . . Heidegger certainly did not see through all the real powers and goals of the National Socialist leaders . . . But his manner of speaking and his actions have a certain affinity with National Socialist characteristics, which makes his error comprehensible.
He’s not wrong.