I'm a philosophy student that tends to post about really serious things unseriously and about really unserious things seriously.
I was once described as a "beautiful, intelligent iguana".
Catching Elephant is a theme by Andy Taylor
Heidegger's Gesamtausgabe
Since my mention of this got lost in the noise earlier, I thought I should post a direct link.
I seriously need to learn German just for this. Holy hell.
The pedal hides from the driver the complex mechanisms that actually make the car go faster, just as the brake pedal hides the mechanisms that slow the car, and the steering wheel “hides” the mechanisms that turn the car. This enables people with little or no knowledge of how engines, braking and steering mechanisms work to drive a car easily.
This programming book I’m reading is going full metaphysics of presence and Heidegger on me.
Philosophy Bro: Martin Heidegger's "Being and Time": A Summary
klae:
This summary was literally brilliant.
This is really great. The only thing it’s missing is an analysis of the tool-though experiment, which lends itself only to well to the bro-situation.
The way that the ping pong ball ‘signals’ the array of cups on the table, and the cheering bros around you. But the situation of ‘beer-pong’ only comes to us through it’s failure to operate - when the bro tries to catch the ball, but instead knocks over a cup. Everyone appropriate cries out “Party foul, asshole!”, as the meaning of the game is realized in its failure.
Then you go shotgun some natty ice.
But as soon as Dasein ‘exists’ in such a way that absolutely nothing more is still outstanding in it, then it has already for this very reason become “no-longer-Being-there” [Nicht-mehr-da-sein]. Its Being is annihilated when what is still outstanding in its Being has been liquidated. As long as Dasein is as an entity, it has never reached its ‘wholeness’. But if it gains such ‘wholeness’, this gain becomes the utter loss of Being-in-the-world. In such a case, it can never again be experienced as an entity.
Martin Heidegger, ‘Being & Time’ (via aidsnegligee)
Kamehamehaaaaaaaaa
Reblooged~?
…
#this explains why Ed went to Germany in the first series
This is a good post.
hay u guys i have a few things to say here that might be relevant
how many mortal sins is it to be complicit with fascism because i’m pretty sure heidegger needs longer in purgatory than that :3
to be fair the fact that he was a nazi doesn’t automatically make his philosophical ideas invalid — carl schmitt was way more of a nazi and focused explicitly on politics and is still worth reading
in heidegger’s case, though, i do think there’s an element of nostalgic romanticism that pretty much naturally lends itself to fascism — which is why i’m not the biggest fan
Still think that Harman’s account of Heidegger’s ethics - that his complete lack of a theory of time was a large contibutor to his lack of ethics as well - might be a good line of thought to pursue on this question.
Regardless, I still think it’s likely that Heidegger was the most important philosophy of the 20th century. Sorry I’m not sorry.
… in what universe does Heidegger lack a theory of time?
I’m working off of Harman’s interpretation here, where I think he shows (rather convincingly) that Heidegger lacked any substantial theory of time, and all that is usually seen as time oriented in him (projection, being-towards-death, customs, etc.) are just a continuation of the presence/withdrawal dichotomy that grounds all of Heidegger’s thought, the dualism of ready-to-hand/presence-to-hand, and not anything actually having to do with time (specifically).
I know, it’s probably the most controversial claim possible about Heidegger (in terms of his own philosophical system) considering how Heidegger scholars tend to think about his system, and Harman makes sure to point out that Heidegger would almost certainly disagree with it, but the more I read Heidegger, especially Being & Time, it seems like he might be right (or at least have an extremely plausible interpretation).
Then you need to look at The Basic Problems of Phenomenology, especially the section on Temporality, Aristotle, and the phenomenology of looking at the clock.
But, I have read most of the Basic Problems, and I understand Heidegger’s relationship to Aristotle generally (I mean, in “My Way to Phenomenology” he says he came up with his own philosophy while meditating on Aristotle’s use of aletheia and Husserl’s categorical intuition), but those still don’t mean he has an actual, substantial theory of time.
When Heidegger talks about something like tradition, it’s not how tradition effects us over the course of time, but how tradition influences whatever makes up a present. Same with something like projection or throwness: Heidegger doesn’t talk about the future, but only a present relation to a possible unknown future, and how that relation affects the present. Past and future are the withdrawn aspects of Dasein’s being, while the present is the, well, present aspect of Dasein’s being - but the fact that Heidegger talks about these things doesn’t mean he has a theory of time to any extent. Harman, when talking about this, is quick to point out that while people like Deleuze, Bergson, and Levinas actually do have functional theories of time, Heidegger lacks one (partially because he lacks any notion of something spontaneous and contingent happening in time that breaks with the current flow (in the same way Levinas or Deleuze would talk about it)).
For example, look at this quote that I posted not that long ago, where Harman talks about this relationship explicitly.
But, finally, at this point all I can really suggest is to actually read some of Harman’s egagement with Heidegger (specifically, his work “Tool-Being”) or else this conversation will just continue to be cross talk. Sorry if that seems crass, but I’ll be honest: I don’t understand Harman’s interpretation enough to defend him against someone who hasn’t engaged with him, but I do know him well enough to discuss him with someone that has, so all I can really do at this point is recommend reading some of his stuff.
(Source: young-earth-lysenkoist)
hay u guys i have a few things to say here that might be relevant
how many mortal sins is it to be complicit with fascism because i’m pretty sure heidegger needs longer in purgatory than that :3
to be fair the fact that he was a nazi doesn’t automatically make his philosophical ideas invalid — carl schmitt was way more of a nazi and focused explicitly on politics and is still worth reading
in heidegger’s case, though, i do think there’s an element of nostalgic romanticism that pretty much naturally lends itself to fascism — which is why i’m not the biggest fan
Still think that Harman’s account of Heidegger’s ethics - that his complete lack of a theory of time was a large contibutor to his lack of ethics as well - might be a good line of thought to pursue on this question.
Regardless, I still think it’s likely that Heidegger was the most important philosophy of the 20th century. Sorry I’m not sorry.
… in what universe does Heidegger lack a theory of time?
I’m working off of Harman’s interpretation here, where I think he shows (rather convincingly) that Heidegger lacked any substantial theory of time, and all that is usually seen as time oriented in him (projection, being-towards-death, customs, etc.) are just a continuation of the presence/withdrawal dichotomy that grounds all of Heidegger’s thought, the dualism of ready-to-hand/presence-to-hand, and not anything actually having to do with time (specifically).
I know, it’s probably the most controversial claim possible about Heidegger (in terms of his own philosophical system) considering how Heidegger scholars tend to think about his system, and Harman makes sure to point out that Heidegger would almost certainly disagree with it, but the more I read Heidegger, especially Being & Time, it seems like he might be right (or at least have an extremely plausible interpretation).
(Source: young-earth-lysenkoist)
hay u guys i have a few things to say here that might be relevant
how many mortal sins is it to be complicit with fascism because i’m pretty sure heidegger needs longer in purgatory than that :3
to be fair the fact that he was a nazi doesn’t automatically make his philosophical ideas invalid — carl schmitt was way more of a nazi and focused explicitly on politics and is still worth reading
in heidegger’s case, though, i do think there’s an element of nostalgic romanticism that pretty much naturally lends itself to fascism — which is why i’m not the biggest fan
Still think that Harman’s account of Heidegger’s ethics - that his complete lack of a theory of time was a large contibutor to his lack of ethics as well - might be a good line of thought to pursue on this question.
Regardless, I still think it’s likely that Heidegger was the most important philosophy of the 20th century. Sorry I’m not sorry.
Derrida’s essay on Heidegger and sexual difference is really good. Oh God, I think derrida is charming me. Oh no.
bildungstheorie replied to your post: bildungstheorie replied to your post: …
oh, I meant the paper you read about heidegger & truth as correspondence! sorry, i can put words together, maybe
Oh, no, my fault for not being able to remember what I said just a few minutes ago. Damn, I suck at blogging sometimes. Also, sorry the response took so long, I had to re-find the essay.
But! The article is called “Heidegger and Truth as Correspondence” by Mark A. Wrathall.
The article argues that while Heidegger argues that theirs a Truth that’s more primordial than any sort of correspondence theory, once we reach that sort of primordial type of knowing/truth, Heidegger basically says we have a mental correspondence with objects.
Here’s a link to a scribd version of the book I found it in: http://www.scribd.com/doc/28602737/Heidegger-Reexamined-Volume-2
