/lit/ - Literature

>>14490712
I think it's precisely by locating the question of being in, say, a peasant's boot, which allows us to enter into an ecstatic openness to being in its constant unveiling. I don't understand why you see philosophy being conducted through everyday practices to be a "reduction", it's importance is precisely in its mundanity

>>14490712
I think it's precisely by locating the question of being in, say, a peasant's boot, which allows us to enter into an ecstatic openness to being in its constant unveiling. I don't understand why you see philosophy being conducted through everyday practices to be a "reduction", it's importance is in its mundanity.

I am a Heidegger fanboy but all those criticisms are perfectly true. I'm not much of a Straussian but his critique of Heidegger is pretty spot-on. Not that the Straussians with their vague "the perpetual dialogue about transcendent values is the closest thing we can get to a transcendent value :^)" bullshit is any less guilty of nihilism, but at least the diagnosis of Heidegger is true. It comes out strongly in the debate with Gadamer: why is temporality/historicism better than platonism/substance ontology, which is the same question as why is remembrance of being better than the forgetting of being? Which is the same question whether it's posed in terms of the authenticity of a culture-Dasein or of an individual-Dasein.

That doesn't mean Heidegger isn't a useful tool. He pretty much completes transcendental philosophy, albeit while also cluttering it up with a lot of distinctly Heideggerian shit that confuses boomers like you rightly say. Some of this stuff is somewhat useful, like if you want to found a volk to battle against the rule of technology. But you are correct that he wouldn't be able to answer the question "why combat technology though?"

Unless someone can point me to a place in his writings where he does so. Which I would really like, because this is my main frustration with him. Honestly I always regard it as implicit that he is non-nihilistic, but never says it explicitly. Some future man will be able to overcome mere historicity and ground historical Dasein in something worthy of being called metaphysics. But we cannot do it yet, so at least we should delude ourselves that we have. That for me is Heidegger's utility.

>>14490726
>so at least we should delude ourselves that we have.
should read
>so at least we should not delude ourselves that we have.

Said the opposite of what I meant.

>>14490723
Thank you for the reply.
>mundanity
Because Dasein is a being in the world? But first to you have to establish that there is a world. You can’t just dodge the most important question of modern philosophy (namely the existence of a world beyond our perception) simply by stating that Dasein is in the world.

>>14490736
>simply by stating that Dasein is in the world.
Because it sounds (is) dogmatic

>>14490726
Interesting. You seem knowledgeable. I’m going to cook up a question.

>>14490736
I guess my reply would be that in order to even pose the question of a "world beyond" we already suppose a ground with which to ask that question. To say it in another way, the notion of the thing-in-itself already always contains its opposite, the thing-as-it-is-given-to-us.

>>14490752
>in order to even pose the question of a "world beyond" we already suppose a ground with which to ask that question
And won’t that ground turn out to be Dasein=being-in-the-world-and-in-time-possessing-a-body-being-born-and-dying, thus assuming what you want to prove? From what I understood the way Heidegger bypasses the question of thing-in-itself and for us is by saying that it is “meaningless“ for Dasein. But... it’s not meaningless for Dasein, it’s inconvenient for one Dasein (namely Heidegger himself).

>>14490765
>being-in-the-world-and-in-time-possessing-a-body-being-born-and-dying,
Assuming quite a lot actually...

>>14490712
have you tried bee-ing yourself, anon?

Heideggeranons:

H states that Dasein is preferable to initiate the study of being because from the get go it already possesses “something like an understanding of being” (BT, 183; cf. xxvi. 194).
Questions are:
How can we be sure that animals don’t possess something like an understanding of being, only to an instinctive and non verbal degree?
I’m assuming that only humans have an understanding of being H seems to privilege one form of relationship to being: namely cognition. But who is to say that cognition is preferable to non and pre cognitive forms like Whitehead’s (much more general) notion of prehension?

>>14490793
>I’m assuming
In* stating*

>>14490793
>animals
Specially since we can’t assume that humans have a soul or a rationality superimposed on it, and the difference between it and animals must merely be one of degree not clear cut

>>14490726
for him its not really a 'battle' as some would like to conflate it with primitivist and transcendental methodology. he was humble enough to say the end of philosophy as 'tech' is something beyond him, but through this he highlights that what has won is the malformed relationship of 'techne' not 'tech' itself as the outgrowth and the now common material description of it, which weighs more on concealment. its not the 'tech' doing bad shit to us, its ourselves misaligned dasein that convinces us that we fully grasp the new model but at the same time willfully uprooting our fundamentals. now if you have sparred with nietzschad, this tells you something not even the best memers can tell you.

>>14490712
>Why was this guy taken seriously by proto-boomers?
Because they are mostly brainlets who have't studied traditional metaphysics and don't realize that the value of Heidegger's work mostly lies in what he took from reading Zen and Taoist writings, once you strip these elements from his work it's left a series of hackneyed ambulations that one might expect from a stoned high schooler.

">May sees great influence of Taoism and Japanese scholars in Heidegger's work, although this influence is not acknowledged by the author. He asserts: "The investigation concludes that Heidegger’s work was significantly influenced by East Asian sources. It can be shown, moreover, that in particular instances Heidegger even appropriated wholesale and almost verbatim major ideas from the German translations of Daoist and Zen Buddhist classics. This clandestine textual appropriation of non-Western spirituality, the extent of which has gone undiscovered for so long, seems quite unparalleled, with far-reaching implications for our future interpretation of Heidegger’s work.""

Instead of reading hacks who did a poor and inferior rip-off of traditional doctrines as his own, you could instead read a brilliant polyglot who was esoterically initiated into multiple traditional doctrines and who explains them extremely well, i.e. a real intellectual, René Guénon (pbuh)

>>14490765
From a commonsense view, for me at least, it seems nonsensical to pose a being outside myself while at the same time positing my own non-being.

>>14490835
I like both Heidegger and Guenon, but you're just associating Guenon with your puerile shitposting by doing this. You're turning him into a meme and I mean this in the worst possible way, think discord tranny.

Charges of "ontotheology" are toothless in the face of apophatic mysticism. I see Heidegger poisoned by the same nihilism he tries to diagnose, much like Nietzsche (and curiously, he accuses Nietzsche of the same). That said, I'll take a transcendental philosophy of the prosaic over technicity any day

>>14490712
>"God lets the oppositional will of the ground operate in order that might be which love unifies and subordinates itself to for the glorification of the Absolute. The will of love stands about the will of the ground and this predominance, this eternal decidedness, the love for itself as the essence of being in general, this decidedness is the innermost core of absolute freedom."

>"Only a god can save us. The sole possibility that is left for us is to prepare a sort of readiness, through thinking and poetizing, for the appearance of the god or for the absence of the god in the time of foundering; for in the face of the god who is absent we founder"
>"For us contemporaries the greatness of what is to be thought is too great. Perhaps we might bring ourselves to build a narrow and not far reaching footpath as a passageway."

You haven't read Heidegger.

>>14490712
>>14490859
He was always a Neoplatonist.

>>14490726
>>14490726
>Heidegger's utility

man everything sure looks useful from the technological point of view huh anon :^)

>>14490845
>to pose a being outside myself while at the same time positing my own non-being.
But nobody is doing that?

>>14490835
Based

fucking nerds. Read actual science and not this crap.

>>14490726
>t. never read Heidegger

>>14490992
Science is actually, unironically, retarded. Real brainlet shit.

>>14490992
>those in the crossing must in the end know what is mistaken by all urging for intelligibility: that every thinking of being, all philosophy, can never be confirmed by "facts," i.e., by beings. Making itself intelligible is suicide for philosophy. Those who idolize "facts" never notice that their idols only shine in a borrowed light. They are also meant not to notice this; for thereupon they would have to be at a loss and therefore useless. But idolizers and idols are used wherever gods are in flight and so announce their nearness.

>>14491084
>I FUCKING LOVE SCIENCE

>>14491043
based. Can't believe the LARPing going on here

>>14490969
If you look up in the reply chain, I was responding to the initial challenge that:
>But first to you have to establish that there is a world.

>>14490793
>How can we be sure that animals don’t possess something like an understanding of being, only to an instinctive and non verbal degree?
it's an excellent question, anon. The answer has got to do with the difference between our way of Being (existence) and that of the animals. Dasein's temporality is ecstatical. We stand out of our present into our past and our future. This, our ecstatic temporality, is what makes it possible for us as Dasein to make sense of beings in terms of their Being. When Heidegger says that "temporality constitutes the meaning of the being of the human Dasein," this is what he has in mind. Animals do not stand out of their present. Therefore, they do not encounter beings as *beings*, as things that *are*. Humans are temporal. Animals are not.

>H seems to privilege one form of relationship to being: namely cognition
This is simply not the case. An understanding of being as such lies at the root of all comportment toward beings. It is not true that all our comportment is theoretical/cognitive. Heidegger even says that "all practical-technical commerce with beings is also a comportment toward beings. And an understanding of being is also present in practical-technical comportment toward beings so far as we have at all to do with beings as beings. In all comportment toward beings [...] an understanding of being is already involved." (Basic Problems of Phenomenology, p. 275).
>who is to say that cognition is preferable to non and pre cognitive forms
if anything Heidegger really privileges our practical comportment not our theoretical-cognitive comportment

>>14491257
>Animals do not stand out of their present
Says who?

>>14491264
Says fucking I nigga

>>14491223
I guess this is how philosophy dies.

>>14491264
Says Heidegger :^)

In all seriousness, spend any amount of time actually observing animals and how they behave. Their lives are determined almost if not entirely by the demands of survival. They are poor in world (weltarm). They cannot make choices and they do not transcend their own instincts. The Dasein can and does because it forms worlds/is world-forming (weltbildend).

>>14490793
Heidegger mainly understands animal Dasein by privation from our own Dasein, which is a common approach not just in contemporary phenomenology and proto-phenomenology like Uexkull and Scheler, but in German idealism more generally. It's kind of controversial exactly how far Heidegger wants to go about positing forms of Dasein other than our own, and where and when he distances himself from similar strategies in these other authors. And the more time passes, the less willing he is to talk about it speculatively, and the more he will only talk about it from the perspective of our own Dasein. One of the famous passages is when he discusses a snail's being-in-the-world in (I think) History of the Concept of Time, section 20 or 21. The other one is in Fundamental Concepts of Metaphysics, after SZ (Being and Time). Here are two sources to look at instead of trusting fags on internet forums:
https://books.google.com/books?id=rVxSkV511dcC&pg=PA148
https://books.google.com/books?id=qv-EQcY7SVoC&pg=PA88

Generally, Heidegger draws a phenomenological distinction between pre-theoretical being or being-in-the-world and the possibility of an enworlded Dasein theoretically (in the original Greek sense) "knowing" the contents of its world in a phenomenologically "originary" way. Enworldedness is the ground of experience, but it does not guarantee knowing.

In general, Heidegger is frustratingly vague about subjects that would commit him to the existence of real things in the real world, so, about natural philosophy and metaphysics in the traditional sense. Bad Heideggerians will dither about these things to avoid talking about them, but good Heideggerians will openly ask whether we need to go beyond Heidegger or whether Heidegger or what. There's an interview with Hubert Dreyfus where he excitedly proclaims what we can never break outside our merely relative, (phenomenologically) enworlded understanding of the (real, natural) world, which I always found kind of sad.

>>14490745
I'm just a dabbler, I do agree with you though if you are the OP. You should check out Strauss' inconclusive debate with Gadamer, it's very frustrating and Gadamer's response shows that he simply can't really answer the question.

>>14491223
>>14491043
Don't phonepost contentless negations. Either substantiate your negation with content or be quiet.

>>14490958
That is non sequitur. The point of my post was that said Heidegger himself gives merely instrumental (i.e. relative) justifications for his philosophy. If you DO have a non-relative, supra-instrumental reason for doing philosophy, then yes, Heidegger's philosophy becomes "useful." Don't just scan for vaguely related words you recognize and respond to them in a vacuum.

>>14491426
>Don't just scan for vaguely related words you recognize and respond to them in a vacuum
nigga it was a JOKE

>>14491426
>trusting fags on internet forums
if anon's shouldn't trust someone, it's you. "Heideggers utility" my ass. Way to miss the point of his writings. Dasein is not metaphysical. He's not vague.
kys.

>>14490793
Also to answer this in a more plain and honest way, I don't think Heidegger privileges "cognition" if by cognition what you mean is traditional ("epistemological") conceptual knowledge possessed by a subject. I mean he obviously does, but in an inadvertent way that can be criticized by someone like Derrida, namely that (again) he presumes that we OUGHT to authentically and "originarily" reclaim the phenomenological grounds of the things which we otherwise think un-theoretically. This "ought" is what is unjustified in his system. This is, arguably and from a critical standpoint he would reject, the Platonic and Christian legacy in his own thinking.

But like I said, and like the other anon is suggesting above, within his philosophy he would at least claim to be privileging the "practical" (in a specific, Greek sense) over the theoretical, at least in the sense that authentically recovering the phenomenological ground of the practical is the only possible basis for an authentic theoretical encounter to begin with.

I'm still having trouble understanding Whitehead myself but for him it's a combination of Leibnizian monads pre-theoretically "knowing" each other, and (and this is the part I really don't understand) a kind of Christian/Neoplatonist/Berkleyan God-mind "knowing" everything that happens in the whole of (real) nature, which is a classic way of avoiding the "how do things have permanence, in and of themselves?" problem. The Leibniz thing I kind of understand, but only in a vulgar Whiteheadian way as I've had it explained to me, where he (IIRC) turns all the little bits or processes of nature into viewers of one another, therefore interacting with the rational content of one another, and then more complex "rational" beings (like human rationality) would arise out of that. But I don't understand where or when the God-entity enters into the system.

>>14491453
My bad then, I thought you were doing like the other guys and doing the "how can I prove I am a member of the Elite Heidegger Krew while also not committing myself to a position that can be critiqued in turn so that I am INVINCIBLE and all the users of /lit/ will know that random anonymous poster #14491453 was better at Heidegger than some other guy because he replied 'nh thats wrng' but said nothing else besides?" thing, which I find gay.

>>14491483
Already addressed the "hehe u said utility" thing above. Apparently the other guy was joking about being retarded, but since you aren't, consider that reply to have been aimed at you preemptively.

Yes, for the same reasons Kant was critiqued by Aenesidemus, Hamann, and many others, positing a transcendental subjectivity like Heidegger's Dasein whose essence is that it cannot know the essences of things except transcendentally, is begging the question. Now get mad because I said Heidegger's Dasein is a "subject." At some point in your life you are going to have to differentiate between doing philosophy and memorizing jargon.

>>14491501
>reading Whitehead
Trash

>>14491084
Actual, unironic cope

>>14491338
My dog makes the choice to lie there and lick his balls all the time. Pretty sure that’s not determined by survival

Am I a brainlet because I find this stuff near-unintelligible? It reads like St. Augustine's mysticism. At least the first half of his Confessions he gives us a self-reflective biography peppered with what I think are the only worthwhile philosophical schools, ethics and existentialism

>>14491526
post something worthwhile for once nigger retard

>>14491426
>Don't phonepost contentless negations. Either substantiate your negation with content or be quiet.
stfu pseud, your entire post series has been factually wrong. Including things which completely go against Heidegger's philosophy(such as your understanding of Dasein), many stupid interpretations and also missing critical areas of his beliefs such as in>>14490859

I might debate another day but currently I'm running on 5 hours sleep for three days and must rest even though it's 6:33 AM.

Goodmorning sir.

>>14491695
you first.