/lit/ - Literature

[Anonymous No.23040235]

>"the time of paradigmatic philosophical and scientific discovery has passed"
>20th century: theory of relativity, quantum mechanics, Whitehead, Heidegger,..."
what did he mean by this?

[Anonymous No.23040243]

>>23040235
It's over.
The west has fallen.
Etc.

[Anonymous No.23040272]

>>23040235
>any of these
>discoveries
they're just rehashes of old ideas reified into something "empirical" or "scientific"

[Anonymous No.23040286]

People like Whitehead and Heidegger he (correctly) considered academic philosophers, people for whom philosophy was purposely obscurantist for the sake of professional gain. Heidegger fits the description almost perfectly. In regard to relativity and quantum mechanics, he sees these more as a last gasp of scientific “discovery” as it’s collapsing in itself. I mean, quantum mechanics is pretty obviously exactly that. Nowadays, what we consider quantum mechanics is really just sort of a posited cope for the contradictions inherent in physics. In Spengler’s view, science inevitably refutes itself and results in skepticism, which itself results in a doubling down into quantum theories and scientism, into a shallow clinging to religiosity, or into existentialist philosophy as a surrogate for both.

[Anonymous No.23040294]

>>23040286
And to be clear, what he means by it being shallow is that it’s not really felt religiousness. In the end, science refutes itself and skepticism creeps in. In so far as truth is maintained, it’s the truth that science was never actually more than the old justification by faith stripped of certain ideas in order to fulfill the mandate of domination over the natural world. Spengler considered the goal of science to be dominating nature, not genuine discovery. In so far as the goal is knowledge it’s because there’s a “knowledge is power” dynamic at work. So the flight to religiosity is shallow in the sense that one arrives at the conclusion that religiosity is somehow logical or necessary, but it’s not really believed in the way a medieval would have believed it, jna. Time where the world was experienced as essentially religious in nature. It’s a faked antique, he says.

[Anonymous No.23040359]

>>23040235
True. The discoveries of the 20th century brought up to the precipice of rational limits and prepared us for the next stage, exploration and growth of the psychic interior.

[Anonymous No.23040399]

>>23040235
>"the time of paradigmatic philosophical and scientific discovery has passed"

Materialistic world-views in which everything must be measured, quantified and allocated is fading. It is the passing of the Scientist who thinks 'Since i can not measure or observe it it, it does not exist. There is no higher plane than what I occupy now.'

[Anonymous No.23040400]

>>23040359
Exploration is a nice way of saying domination and the psychic interior is just a surrogate for the spiritual interior. There’s no place for it in a materialistic and extensive civilization such as ours, per Oswald Spengler.

[Anonymous No.23040562]

>>23040286
>people for whom philosophy was purposely obscurantist for the sake of professional gain. Heidegger fits the description almost perfectly
kill yourself. there's nothing obscurantist about Heidegger. there's just a lot of prerequisite reading. how are you going to understand a commentary on the history of philosophy, leading to a Nietzschean metacommentary on the possibility of philosophy itself and what is at stake for the world, without... idk, reading through and understanding all those philosophers?

there was nothing deliberately obscurantist by Heidegger compared to the French academic culture of the mid 20th century. in that case, many times there was literally nothing behind the prose except an inside joke.

[Anonymous No.23040708]

>>23040562
I'm another anon. What are the actual prerequisites to get into Heidegger? If I recoll correctly, Hiedegger himself said that even a person without philosophical background could get into his philosophy.
I've read a lot of Greeks, but couldn't ever make it to modern philosophy. What should I read?

[Anonymous No.23040839]

>>23040562
Heidegger is the obscurantist par excellence and he actually never had an original idea of his own. Nobody actually knows what he meant by “authenticity” for example because he purposely avoided writing in concrete specific terms and preferred to hide behind obscurity. Furthermore, he stole all of most if not all of his ideas from his friends and even Heidegger scholars admit this. Even “the meta-commentary on the possibility of philosophy” is an open door to obscurantism. It says nothing and explains nothing that Spengler didn’t already say and say in more concrete terms. Heidegger is a dead end, a chess piece for graduate students and scholars.

And for what it’s worth, he would’ve considered those French academics also classroom philosophers. For Spengler, philosophy ended before he ever picked up a pen and what remained were nothing more than ethical-economic questions epitomized mainly by 20th century socialism. You’ll note that the primary interest in Heidegger is the image of Heidegger the Nazi.

[Anonymous No.23040841]

>>23040708
Dude, just read Heidegger and then read Spengler and if you have even the slightest sense that Heidegger doesn’t fit perfectly into Spengler’s idea of the useless classroom philosopher, then just return to Heidegger and start following the threads back to Nietzsche or Aristotle or whoever. This whole “spend 20 years on Aristotle before you ever read Heidegger” thing is BS.

[Anonymous No.23040937]

>>23040839
What would Spengler think of somebody like Deleuze

[Anonymous No.23040966]

>>23040841
Well, actually planned to just read him. Just wanted to hear an opinion from a person, who's possibly somewhat competent in Heidegger.
Status of a charlatan is understandable though, my main interest is not really his philosophy as it is.

[Anonymous No.23041948]

>>23040839
All retarded made up claims. Not even worth addressing. You're stuck complaining about the most elementary and inconsequential parts of Being and Time as if the man didn't pen dozens of other books, lecture series, etc., that were of substantial value.
>You’ll note that the primary interest in Heidegger is the image of Heidegger the Nazi.
Only by the teenaged zoom-zooms here. I kid you not, Heidegger is the end boss of philosophy.