Heidegger

sus

sus

Moderator
luka said:
The other thing which attracts me is that Heidegger correctly puts poets before philosophers. Philosophers are dependent on poets and follow in their wake.
Click to expand...

a Twitter acquaintance Peli Grietzer wrote a cool dissertation trying to formalize poetic vibe. He takes up the WCW line about no ideas but in things and extends it. It's a cool paper, he wrote a shorter version of it for Glass-Bead.
 
Last edited:
sus

sus

Moderator
thirdform said:
I mean Edmond Burke is more interesting as reactionaries go. At least he centres the sublime, which Heidegger is too besotted to early 20th century German academia to do.
Click to expand...

What do you like in Burke? Ever since reading an amazing takedown of meritocracy culture, I've been wanting to read his Reflections on the Revolution.
 
sus

sus

Moderator
thirdform said:
you and corpse are behind the curve though, all the literature students have moved into the equally abysmal Hannah Arendt now and are embarrassed about their Heidegger phase.
Click to expand...

Arendt is based; I can put up with the Martin slams, but you've crossed a line buddy.
 
luka

luka

Well-known member
“The house of language is not innocent and is no temple. The intensities of poetic encounter, of imagination and deep insight into spiritual reality and poetic truth, carry with them all the fierce contradiction of what human language is and does. There is no protection or even temporary shelter from these forms of knowledge that is worth even a moment’s considered preference, even for poets or philosophers with poetic missions. Because the primal hut strips away a host of circumstantial appurtenances and qualifications, it does represent an elemental form, a kind of sweat-lodge; but it is confederate with deep ethical problematics, and not somehow a purifying solution to them. Yet the hut presents always a possible aspiration towards innocence, residual or potential, and towards transformation, so that a cynical report would be equally in error. Poets worth the attention of serious readers are not traffickers in illusions however star-bright, and entering by choice rather than necessity into a hut implies choosing the correct moment to come out again. Even Wordsworth manages to do this, in the poem I have cited. The house of language is a primal hut, is stark and is also necessary, and not permanent.”

JH Prynne.
 
sus

sus

Moderator
I've never understood dasein/being stuff though, I can't tell whether it's way more slap-your-forehead simple or way more complex than I'm making out to me. I can't tell what work his neologism's doing over the existing concept.
 
luka

luka

Well-known member


Clark tells us that, in “The Numbers”,
The politics, therefore, is for one man,
a question of skin, that he ask (etc.)
Click to expand...
is Powellite racism, as if the skin referred to skin colour. But in the phenomenological context of Prynne’s writing, it would seem that skin appears here as the folds of our intimate surface, the sensory organ which links the mind to the sensory world, as the precondition of all abstract thought; in function of which space is the precondition of all mental experience, imposing paradox by its own qualities of foreshortening and passing out of sight. The skin is to feelings what the horizon is to sight; it is the origin of “inside and out”,
 
linebaugh

linebaugh

Well-known member
awhile ago I was trying to break into Being in Nothingness. Was a little frustrating since as most sources of note seemed to say, why not just read Heidegger? From what I understand a primary task of Heidegger's was to make being wholistic and end the dualism of Descartes cogito- I think therefore I am, i.e. the seeming difference between the subject and being. Sartre tried to take up the same task but apparently no one really bought it- despite his claims otherwise, the consensus was that he was returning us to that same duality.

Thirdform says Husserl is now the guy that is top dog amongst the phenomenologists, but I remember reading there is doubt on the use of his late career work, and the relationship of Husserl and Heiddegger was like that of a pupil who fully realized his teachers project. who knows.

regardless, these lectures notes on being and nothingess do a good job of talking through the phenomenological system all these guys were working with- https://pvspade.com/Sartre/pdf/sartre1.pdf I think its a fun system, and really foregrounds the continental philosophers to follow. Humans as bodied time is a real bong ripping good time.
 
  • Haha
Reactions: sus
T

thirdform

pass the sick bucket
suspendedreason said:
I've never understood dasein/being stuff though, I can't tell whether it's way more slap-your-forehead simple or way more complex than I'm making out to me. I can't tell what work his neologism's doing over the existing concept.
Click to expand...

It's pre-nazi volkisch shit. Remember that the original unshortened form of volk is volksgemeinschaft - the germanic community, not merely the jingoism of angloamericans. This includes all ancient customes, kultur, music, peasant romanticism. It's a whole worldview in response to A) 1789 and B) The fact that the german bourgeoisie only really came to power in an aborted form with a juncker aristocracy in the 19th C, kaiserreich functionaries assuming the state managerialism typical of democrats in England and France.
 
luka

luka

Well-known member
usually the value comes from being presented with the questions and letting those questions work upon you till the objects in the room take on a more insistent reality and we ourselves start to hum at a higher vibrational frequency. having opinions is a long way beneath the likes of us.
 
T

thirdform

pass the sick bucket
Linebaugh said:
awhile ago I was trying to break into Being in Nothingness. Was a little frustrating since as most sources of note seemed to say, why not just read Heidegger? From what I understand a primary task of Heidegger's was to make being wholistic and end the dualism of Descartes cogito- I think therefore I am, i.e. the seeming difference between the subject and being. Sartre tried to take up the same task but apparently no one really bought it- despite his claims otherwise, the consensus was that he was returning us to that same duality.
Click to expand...

Yes and Heidi is about 100 years out of date. the subject can only exist post-being, I.E: post-existence, I.E: I eat, therefore I am.

To posit a neutral thinking subject - taken to its logical extreme under Rawls is the separation of theology from history. It is good for Jesus eurotrance freaks and christian socialists, not for people who are rigorous about such things. Here is Bordiga putting it succinctly:

In his criticism of Feuerbach, who he nevertheless considers to be the most serious of the “young Hegelians”, Marx notes that Feuerbach is the only one who actually manages to handle the master’s dialectics and his negation of negation; but he criticises teacher and student alike, because their purely abstract studies are based only on the overcoming of religion through (speculative) philosophy, only to end up again with the sublation of philosophy and the restoration of religion and theology. Historically, this means that the atheism of the emerging bourgeois class concludes its parable with a new victory of the religious: in 1844 one called oneself an atheist without fear, today no author dares to do so any more.
Feuerbach here, as Marx explains, follows Hegel: The latter is therefore responsible for the infertility of the bourgeois-critical method. Marx says on this point, while setting up a scheme that unfortunately will soon be interrupted: “Let us take a look at Hegel’s system. We must begin with his Phenomenology, which is the true birthplace and secret of the Hegelian philosophy.” The scheme works like this: “Phenomenology. A. Self-consciousness 1. Consciousness. […] 2. Self-consciousness. The truth of certainty of oneself.” We do not need to repeat the schematic and hard-to-digest development here. It becomes clear: For Marx, Hegel’s mistake is to place his enormous speculative construction on a strictly formal, i. e. abstract basis, that of “consciousness”. And as Marx will say so many times, one must proceed from being, not from the consciousness that the I has of itself. From the very beginning, Hegel is in the cage of the hollow dialogue between subject and object. His subject is the I, understood in the absolute sense, and his object, the first object, is for him the “certainty of its self”, as it is also called in other places. “Hegel commits a double error”, which “appears most clearly in the Phenomenology, which is the birthplace of Hegelian philosophy”.
As can be seen from all the meaningful and dense passages, Hegel’s mistake is to start from the thinking subject, the mind that thinks. In the afterword mentioned above, Marx speaks of inverting the Hegelian dialectic, which is upside down. Finally, all bourgeois thinkers who put the historical act of the capitalist class into words succumb to the same mistake. Their I, their human being, their subject, in which they find one and the same absolute expressed, are only a fleeting peculiarity of the bourgeois human being.
Click to expand...
 
luka

luka

Well-known member
The aim of the project is always to burn down all libraries and destroy all knowing. This is what we need to impart to third who has clogged his brain with useless information.
 
luka

luka

Well-known member
I abolished all facts quite some time ago now. We live in a post-truth and post-fact society. I simply burned the library down. We can all breathe again.
 
T

thirdform

pass the sick bucket
luka said:
The aim of the project is always to burn down all libraries and destroy all knowing. This is what we need to impart to third who has clogged his brain with useless information.
Click to expand...

That is the exact opposite of Heidegger's philosophy.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top