Do you want to start a thread about it? If it's an interesting question we could look at it
He did.Start a thread on a thinker you have found useful if you like.
"His most famous riff, perhaps, was about knowledge. Not knowledge of anything in particular; just knowledge in and of itself. Who was the last person, he would ask, to enjoy a full command of the intellectual activity of their day? The last individual, I mean? It was, he'd answer, Leibniz. He was on top of it all: physics and chemistry, geology, philosophy, maths, engineering, medicine, theology, aesthetics. Politics too. I mean, the guy was on it. Like some universal joint in the giant Rubik's Cube of culture, he could bring it all together, make the arts and sciences dance to the same tune. He died three hundred years ago. Since Leibniz's time (Peyman would go on), the disciplines have separated out again. They're now on totally different pages: each in its own stall, shut off from all the others. Our own era, perhaps more than any other, seems to call out for a single intellect, a universal joint to bring them all together once again - seems to demand, in other words, a Leibniz. Yet there will be no Leibniz 2.0. What there will be is an endless set of migrations: knowledge-parcels travelling from one field to another, and mutating in the process. No one individual will conduct this operation; it will be performed collectively, with input from practitioners of a range of crafts, possessors of a range of expertise. Migration, mutation and what I (Peyman affirmed) call "supercession": the ability of each and every practice to surpass itself, break its own boundaries, even to the point of sacrificing its own terms and tenets in the breaching; and, in the no-man's land between its territory and the next, the blank stretches of the map, those interstitial zones where light, bending and kinking round impossible topographies, produces mirages, fata morganas, apparitions, spectres, to combine in new, fantastic and explosive ways. That, he'd say, is the future of knowledge."With more information and less time than ever thinkers get turned into trading cards. There's a social need to know about everything but no time to learn anything. It all becomes a question of knowing which names are names to drop at any given time. Keeping up with the trend-currents.
You can see the same effect in music. 30 years ago you were hip if you'd heard of Can and Lee Perry. Now those names are mainstream and anybody into music would claim to be a fan of things which were vanishingly obscure in the '90s but because of time constraints and the nature of consciousness and experience in the digital age, actual engagement has become almost impossible. The surface area is vastly expanded while, inevitably, depth is reduced to the thinnest possible veneer.
everywhere I watch i see edgy kids, mostly white, totally absorbed in a Yankee stream of pompous culture, recycling elements ant texts completely uproot from the environment and the time where they may have some meaning, trying to decontextualize and reterritorialize them in a new empty elitism, some compressed culture where quantity is the utmost sign of excellence. I studied philosophy and stuff for more than 10 years, into academy and outside, in 3 different countries (sorry to say: Europe, where this stuff has sense) to understand that: what you believe to think, as a thinker, it's just the way you make money. If philosophy is not a well payed profession, it is just a mind trouble, a dream, a salad of words. Because it is all about words, and verba volant. Philosophy is just words and words are just codes. There is no linguistic meta-language, and if you meditate enough, you see ut has always been really stupid to think it was possible. You loved Nietzsche: he knew that and he needed less readings to see it. With words you can win an election, even a war, or subjugate millions, but you can't understand anything. Michelstaedter reached the same conclusion. After more than a century we still pretend. Evola? Zizek? Why don't just read poetry? why cumulate books, names, words? you can build a world with 3 books and to destroy it you barely need to read. If you really need knowledge to act, to work, to live, you'll see that philosophy offers almost none, and somehow it makes harder to gain new ones. Of course, if you're some elite trying to enforce the status quo, no discourse is better than an endless and smokey one. Philosophy, today, is like religion, but less serious, less effective.
"As this passage makes clear, the Being-in dimension of Being-in-the-world cannot be thought of as a merely spatial relation in some sense that might be determined by a GPS device, since Dasein is never just present-at-hand within the world in the way demanded by that sort of spatial in-ness. Heidegger sometimes uses the term dwelling to capture the distinctive manner in which Dasein is in the world. To dwell in a house is not merely to be inside it spatially in the sense just canvassed. Rather, it is to belong there, to have a familiar place there. It is in this sense that Dasein is (essentially) in the world."Being-in is not a ‘property’ which Dasein sometimes has and sometimes does not have, and without which it could be just as well as it could be with it. It is not the case that man ‘is’ and then has, by way of an extra, a relationship-of-Being towards the ‘world’—a world with which he provides himself occasionally. Dasein is never ‘proximally’ an entity which is, so to speak, free from Being-in, but which sometimes has the inclination to take up a ‘relationship’ towards the world. Taking up relationships towards the world is possible only because Dasein, as Being-in-the-world, is as it is. This state of Being does not arise just because some entity is present-at-hand outside of Dasein and meets up with it. Such an entity can ‘meet up with’ Dasein only in so far as it can, of its own accord, show itself within a world. (Being and Time 12: 84)