I just realized that Heidegger's entire philosophy is just window dressing for an anti-reason Dionysian world view.

I just realized that Heidegger's entire philosophy is just window dressing for an anti-reason Dionysian world view. Kinda based how much he mystified it. Truly Dionysian.

The Kind of Tired That Sleep Won’t Fix Shirt $21.68

UFOs Are A Psyop Shirt $21.68

The Kind of Tired That Sleep Won’t Fix Shirt $21.68

  1. 3 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    Woah, I just realised that this complex unfamiliar thing I don't understand just so happens to be a version of simple familiar thing I do understand. What are the odds!

    • 3 weeks ago
      Anonymous

      >zero argument

      It's true. What do you think all his talk about Dasein and authenticity, being in the world is about. He is addressing reality from a subjective, intuitive framepoint. Not the rationalist, detached attempt at objectivity.

      • 3 weeks ago
        Anonymous

        I wish you knew how absolutely fricking stupid you sound here, but you don't read. if you'd read being and time instead of listening to some third-hand source you'd know how moronic what you just said is. but you're never going to read.

        reductionism is SCIENTIFIC. have a nice day.

        • 3 weeks ago
          Anonymous

          frick reading, mate. When the egg speaks —you listen, kapiš?

        • 3 weeks ago
          Anonymous

          You're literally just getting mad because I'm not using Heidegger's own intuitive method to explain such a method. You can't stand that somebody is cutting through his pseudo-mystic terminology and understanding clearly what his inclinations were. I'm not saying I'm able to come to truly understand Heidegger's through this "reductionist" method I'm using but that to even begin to understand what Heidegger was even doing you have to use more conventional methods first. Cope and seethe fanboy.

          • 3 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            you understand what heidegger is saying by READING HIM LMFAOOOO, everything you've said about him is wrong. "pseudo mysticism", he spends a chapter laying out his transcendental hermenutic phenomenology in its entirety as a discursive methodological conception. only with phenomenology is ontology possible.

            also, subjective? objective? if you're going to talk about heideggers thought, you should *not* be using the very ontology he laboriously demonstrates as pseudo-primordial.

            you don't know what you're talking about. everything you've said about heidegger is evidence you watched EpochPhilosophys video or some moronic hand me down knowledge.

          • 3 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            >. only with phenomenology is ontology possible.
            It's actually completely arbitrary to make human experience the center of your ontology. Metaphysical truth existed before humans did, it's not based on human experience or silly existential notions about living "meaningfully". Heidegger was a piss-poor metaphysician.

          • 3 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            do me a favor and have a nice day, taking your shit third world platonism with you. "metaphysical truth" LOL

          • 3 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            What a rude young man! You should learn some manners. We don't have much toleratnce for such behavior.

          • 3 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            > calling the metaphysics of plato third world.

            Bruh obviously there is objective truth. There is no such thing as objective truth is a self defeating statement. Moreover, if a tree falls in a forest and nobody sees it still fell.

          • 3 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            double bruh: if you count as a variable for a chemical experiment of truth does it make it subjective or objective?

          • 3 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            Well bro if you take you out of the equation the chemical reaction of the "Truth" of something such as a tree falling in a forest then the chemical reaction still happens making it objective.

          • 3 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            schnibba, I ain't seen it it never happened, gnomesaayyan? all else is cgi in authorized well-salaried authors presenting literary grammys to each other or whatever

          • 3 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            >the baby is black but I never seen my wife frick a black person so its all good.

          • 3 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            >*americana joins the conversation*

          • 3 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            >do me a favor and have a nice day
            Heiddegertrannies malding and seething when confronted with the truth

            >platonists still never having provided an eternal, independent truth after 2000 years

            do platocucks really?

          • 3 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            platonists did not but pl atonists on the other side of the hand......

          • 3 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            >platonists still never having provided an eternal, independent truth
            "OP continuously cultivates eros towards other men"

          • 3 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            >if a tree falls in a forest and nobody sees it still fell.
            prove it

          • 3 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            The tree was up. Then its down. We can make a logical inference that the tree fell.

          • 3 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            no

          • 3 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            Ok? Not going to refute my point.
            HA I le win.

          • 3 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            no

          • 3 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            no

          • 3 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            no

          • 3 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            no, ad infinitum. ad nauseum.

          • 3 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            no

          • 3 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            No because "falling", "down", "tree" are concepts of the mind. I can only predict that I will observe that the tree will lay at it's side given a certain condition and upon observing that the tree is on its side I can only infer that it may have performed this "falling" had I been there to observe it but no more.

          • 3 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            >do me a favor and have a nice day
            Heiddegertrannies malding and seething when confronted with the truth

          • 3 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            >Metaphysical truth
            Metaphysical "truths" can only exist in the context of our human experience, you can choose to engage in metaphysics or not, you can choose to be a substantialist or a relational ontologist, a monist or dualist etc,but you can't choose the human experience, since that's the ground of every possible option and your freedom to chose any of those options, so human experience and phenomenology is more primordial, with phenomenology you can actually study "why" we do metaphisics, thus going above metaphisics

          • 3 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            > Metaphysical "truths" can only exist in the context of our human experience
            That’s not true, it’s actually nonsense. If there is a metaphysical origin of all living beings in the universe for example (e.g. God), then that truth existed before humans and other creatures originated, in which case its existence is prior to that of humans

            >since that's the ground of every possible option and your freedom to chose any of those options, so human experience and phenomenology is more primordial,
            You are confusing ‘primordial’ with ‘intimate’, something that is the basis of our decision making and viewpoint of reality is more intimate to our identity and our process of forming those beliefs, but if there is a metaphysical reality that is prior to that situational confluence that influences our viewpoint, then that metaphysical reality or truth is in fact more primordial than the situational confluence that is derivative of it.

          • 3 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            you don't know what metaphysics is. read kant or some shit. this is like 4th grade level philosophy.

          • 3 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            T. malding Heiddegetroony

          • 3 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            then tell me what metaphysics is, tell me what truth is, and then give me an example of metaphysical truth.

            this isn't even heideggarian philosophy. this is Kant. you know, the guy who delimited the boundaries/possibilities belonging to speculative metaphysics (such concepts as God, the origins of time and so on).

          • 3 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            > then tell me what metaphysics is, tell me what truth is, and then give me an example of metaphysical truth
            It’s not necessary for me to do either in order to simply point out that what that poster was saying was at best a non-sequitur.

            >If there is a metaphysical origin of all living bein
            >If
            You're admiting that your whole argument rest on mere speculation, which is totally different from
            >Metaphysical truth existed before humans did
            Even you admit that this is mere speculation
            So the only "ground" we, by necessity, have to analize these metaphysical arguments is our experience, we make metaphysic from our human ecperience and then we speculate about something that "could" exist before us and our experience, but that's just mere speculation, factually what present itself as the ground of our inquiry is human experience, not god, i don't need to speculate about the possibility of me experiencing this experience

            >argument
            It’s not an argument but is simply a factual observation that if there is, for example, a metaphysical origin of human beings, then that metaphysical origin is in every manner more primordial and than some pseudoexistential notion about human experience. Simply saying “yea well our experience of being thrown into the world influences how we talks about this” (no shit!) does nothing to negate or change this.

          • 3 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            moron status confirmed

          • 3 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            moron status confirmed LMFAO

          • 3 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            moron status confirmed

            moron stance is a valid strategy to banish a malignant spirit of modern age. Which is, essentially, a Dionysian act. And might be seen as a precursor energy of creative acts. As long you have unhooked from the systemic thinking (the-egg-veiling thinking: hide-egger).

          • 3 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            >does nothing to negate or change this.
            Yes and it doesn't need to, since it already present itself as mere speculation, it doesn't need to be refuted or revised since it has no truth value

          • 3 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            > since it already present itself as mere speculation
            Everything Heidegger and his fanboys cite as reasons for the primary of phenomenology over ontology is also speculation.

            >it doesn't need to be refuted or revised since it has no truth value
            It cannot be refuted since it’s incontrovertibly and irrefutably true. This is just a matter of simple logic, to deny this betrays a misunderstanding of basic logic. If there is a metaphysical source of all beings, then it automatically logically follows as a necessary consequence that this source is more primordial and fundamental than whatever phenomenology of experience those beings come up with, since that metaphysical truth ends up being both the source of those beings and their phenomenology of experience in such a scenario. You can choose to believe your own speculative and nonsensical theory of how phenomenology or experience is more fundamental, but it’s engaging in the question-begging fallacy to say “Its true because Heiddeger says so and I will dismiss any contrary theory as unproven speculation until its proven otherwise even though my own position on this is also unproven speculation”.

          • 3 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            >It cannot be refuted since it’s incontrovertibly and irrefutably true.
            No is not, the mere presuposition of a god is not an irrefutable truth, is just dogma

            >This is just a matter of simple logic, to deny this betrays a misunderstanding of basic logic
            not only is not logical to presupose a god (petitio principii fallacy) but you end up in a contradiction, since anything you want to establish as prior to experience will be in the end articulated "in the experience" making again, experience, the ground of any metaphysical "truth"

            >If there is a metaphysical source of all beings, then it automatically logically follows as a necessary consequence that this source is more primordial and fundamental than whatever phenomenology of experience those beings come up with, since that metaphysical truth ends up being both the source of those beings and their phenomenology of experience in such a scenario.
            >if

            >You can choose to believe your own speculative and nonsensical theory of how phenomenology or experience is more fundamental, but it’s engaging in the question-begging fallacy to say “Its true because Heiddeger says so and I will dismiss any contrary theory as unproven speculation until its proven otherwise even though my own position on this is also unproven speculation”.
            I don't need any "Heideggerian dogma" to back up the assertion that any metaphysical claim made in the realm of human experience, has human experience as it basis, is basic logic, you on the other hand, can't defend the existence of anything beyond existence without resorting to mere especulation, that's why you always start your argument with "IF god exists", i don't need to do that, saying "IF this experience exist" is ridiculous and contradictory, since the fact that i'm having the experience is in itself the proof of its existence, i can't "experience non-existence"(how can i have the experience of something that doesn't exist/nothingness), or "non-experience existence" (how can i experience non-experience?)and i can't "experience something beyond experience" (if i'm having that experience then is not something "beyond" experience)either, all of those cases end up in clear contradictions,so i can say that experience is the basis of experience without falling into contradiction(i don't need Heidegger system for that) but each instance in which you want to go beyond that you end up in a logical error, so your only option is to just speculate that maybe "if" a god exist then metsphysics won't rely on experience as it basis, but at that point you're out of the debate, since no one need to entertain your unfounded speculations, saying that "if the spagetti monster exist all dogs bark for him" is just as insightful, Heidegger clearly didn't have time to waste in such trivial issues

          • 3 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            >No is not, the mere presuposition of a god is not an irrefutable truth, is just dogma
            You either don't understand basic English or basic logic or both, since I didn't say that the presupposition of God is an irrefutable truth, rather I instead said that if God exists in a certain way, e.g., as the origin of everything, then there are automatic consequences which necessarily result from that fact, and the fact of these consequences necessarily resulting from that fact is irrefutably true since there is an inherent connection between them.nings of the terms themselves.

            >but you end up in a contradiction, since anything you want to establish as prior to experience will be in the end articulated "in the experience" making again, experience, the ground of any metaphysical "truth"
            That's not true, simply because an idea that is beyond experience is explained within experience is not taking any step to make experience the ground of that notion.

            >I don't need any "Heideggerian dogma" to back up the assertion that any metaphysical claim made in the realm of human experience, has human experience as it basis
            It's a completely groundless and unserious assertion that isn't supported by anything whatsoever.

          • 3 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            >You either don't understand basic English
            In

            Every reply this guy makes, I feel like I'm watching his brain short-circuit as he types.

            i said that the statement "if god exist is prior to experience" has no value of truth, your answer in

            > since it already present itself as mere speculation
            Everything Heidegger and his fanboys cite as reasons for the primary of phenomenology over ontology is also speculation.

            >it doesn't need to be refuted or revised since it has no truth value
            It cannot be refuted since it’s incontrovertibly and irrefutably true. This is just a matter of simple logic, to deny this betrays a misunderstanding of basic logic. If there is a metaphysical source of all beings, then it automatically logically follows as a necessary consequence that this source is more primordial and fundamental than whatever phenomenology of experience those beings come up with, since that metaphysical truth ends up being both the source of those beings and their phenomenology of experience in such a scenario. You can choose to believe your own speculative and nonsensical theory of how phenomenology or experience is more fundamental, but it’s engaging in the question-begging fallacy to say “Its true because Heiddeger says so and I will dismiss any contrary theory as unproven speculation until its proven otherwise even though my own position on this is also unproven speculation”.

            was "It cannot be refuted since it’s incontrovertibly and irrefutably true" and my answer to that is that is still speculation and thus it has no truth value, of course that "if god/something more primordial than experience exist, that thing is then more primordial than experience" but that just a grotesque tautology, who on his right mind would want to refute or even engage in such a dumb statement? The problem is that such shallow speculation not only has nothing to back it up, but any attempt to validate said speculation would need an articulation made on our experience, thus making experience the true ground of inquiry, the idea that you can do metaphysics outside of experience is self defeating
            >simply because an idea that is beyond experience
            How can you know that idea is beyond experience? And how can you experience an idea that is not part of your experience?
            >completely groundless and unserious assertion
            How so?
            Each metaphysical idea i have and can have must be done in the realm of human experience, how can i experience those ideas without "experience"? The notion that i need to have an experience of metaphysical ideas to have metaphisical ideas is logically coherent, the opposite on the other hand breaks the law of non contradiction, so yeah is pretty grounded and serious

          • 3 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            nothing you've said so far in all these paragraphs can't be summed up in like 3 premises
            >if muh metaphysics (doesn't understand the nature of metaphysics, and assumes it is objective, KEK!)
            >muh logic (homie really thinks logic can demonstrate truth LOL!)
            >tu quo que heidegger! (hasn't read heidegger)

            literally just read heidegger bro. You're not even refuting anything he's written, because you don't know what to refute. heidegger isn't even dealing with experience, he's dealing with perception (which phenomenologically amounts to intentionality, which is a primary question he's wrangling with)

          • 3 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            I should caveat this by saying, the portion of heideggers work were currently dealing with (the existential analytic) is primarily focused on "perception" (this is in kantian terms btw, where perception amounts to absolute position). division 2 is focused on the human experience. anyways being is a condition for experience, not all things that are experience.

          • 3 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            >isn't even dealing with experience, he's dealing with perception
            the frick kind of sentence is that?

          • 3 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            >If there is a metaphysical origin of all living bein
            >If
            You're admiting that your whole argument rest on mere speculation, which is totally different from
            >Metaphysical truth existed before humans did
            Even you admit that this is mere speculation
            So the only "ground" we, by necessity, have to analize these metaphysical arguments is our experience, we make metaphysic from our human ecperience and then we speculate about something that "could" exist before us and our experience, but that's just mere speculation, factually what present itself as the ground of our inquiry is human experience, not god, i don't need to speculate about the possibility of me experiencing this experience

          • 3 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            literal meltdown

          • 3 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            Heidegger's philosophy is concerned with how to be rather than what is being. You have to read the presocratics, heraclitus and parmenides and zeno to truly understand heidegger, and his later influence derrida.

            >only with phenomenology is ontology possible.
            I don't think this is accurate. How can something come into being, or become from nothing? There has to be an ontology first before a phenomenon. Monists would also disagree with you on this since there is no need for a phenomenology in their metaphysics. They could argue that things always were and always will be, etc.

          • 3 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            You're asking metaphysical questions about ontology rooted in a flawed prior ontological tradition. heidegger deals with "Why are there things" in his intro to metaphysics. what he's really interested in is what the meaning of being is, which has been neglected by that tradition as self evident or too general to be captured.

            phenomenology makes ontology possible, because ontology pressuposes this understanding of itself. phenomenology, as heidegger sees it, is the method of revealing entities by seeing past appearance and semblance to light up the thing itself through discourse.

            he wants to bring being out from concealment, so that ontology becomes fundamentally grounded in itself, which can only be done by making being clear. phenomenology is the method of making things clear.

            >how does something come from nothing
            it doesn't, both belong to Being. he answers this question in his what is metaphysics essay

          • 3 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            This can still be refuted by monists who have no need for phenomenology. You are doing the same thing you are accusing me of. You are presupposing phenomenology as if its a necessary thing when i have explained how monists don't have that necessity. Its like a scientist trying to explain god as being a scientist while a christian does not need such explanations. Monists do not care to know why there are things when they can simply admit the existence of things as they always were, are or always will be.

          • 3 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            I'm not who you're replying to but you're deeply missing the point here. All you're saying is that monism doesn't realize how much it has already presupposed. This is exactly the forgottenness of Being that Heidegger refers to. Nothing is refuted by not being able to understand the existence of the problem.

          • 3 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            You are also missing my point aren't you? Phenomenology doesn't realize how much it presupposes by assuming thing need to always happen. I assume things have always been and you assume they happen, we are both presupposing something the only difference is that i can dispense with your notion by showing how things only happen if they already were, they don't happen ex nihilo. Phenomenology is a post-ontology thing, so my presuppositions come before yours.

          • 3 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            > Phenomenology doesn't realize how much it presupposes by assuming thing need to always happen

            I don't know where you are getting this from because this is not what phenomenology entails. I believe this entire thread is a result of bad background knowledge. Heres the problem: when you say "things have always been", what is it for something to "be" in general, either past, present, future, continuous, whatever the case may be? You already smuggle in an understanding of being sufficient to ground your claims, which is not something to be taken for granted, however you want to phrase it as being prior.

          • 3 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            If you understand modal logic then you should understand what i mean. Something, or rather the monistic being was, is, will be. There is not much else that can be said about that. Once you presuppose this, then you can begin doing phenomenology by assuming selfs and change.

          • 3 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            You're still doing it. In order to avoid the problem of presuming a definition of Being, you have to now introduce modal logic, which is itself derivative of our pre-reflective understanding of Being. You're endlessly kicking the problem down the road in order to avoid it. Fine, something "was, is, will be", but what is it to be? Not much else can be said about that? I very much beg to differ. What you're providing is neither methodologically sound nor satisfying.

            >then you can begin doing phenomenology by assuming selfs and change
            You still don't know what phenomenology is and you're not helping yourself by saying things like this. Being and Time division one is literally devoted to the analytic of Dasein because Heidegger's phenomenology does not presume a self in any traditional sense.

          • 3 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            His phenomenology assumes change, monistic being does not. And i used modal logic to show how far reaching the monist's being is as opposed to the kind of changing being heidegger is proposing. There is no change or time in my definition of being since it is constant throughout time as opposed to yours. It seems more like you don't like my definition and don't necessarily have a refutation of what i am trying to say.

          • 3 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            >His phenomenology assumes change
            How so?

          • 3 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            not who you're replying to, but the concealment and revealing of being/beings is a dynamic fluid process that is ever evolving as greater awareness of context is elucidated or dimmed. Being is always in flux, phenomenology acknowledges this, and is thus never attuned towards a thing-in-itself (as it is a philosophical purity that is impossible), and is directed towards how the things themselves show up. it may seem like a small difference, but it's a Massively subtle shift away from substance ontology (which is a subordinate modality of being)

          • 3 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            >His phenomenology assumes change
            This is like the fourth incorrect statement you've made about phenomenology and you've refused to acknowledge any of the former ones, or cite why you are thinking this way if you believe I'm mistaken. Its like you know roughly the vocabulary of philosophy but not the actual thoughts behind it. This is no longer worth my while. You aren't even defending yourself, you're just making a series of statements without justification. You can do that on your own.

          • 3 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            Didn't he say that dasein are in a state of discovering the world. Hence my mention about him assuming some form of change. Doesn't he differentiate btn mitsein and dasein, hence my mention of his assumption about self and its environment. Now you are running pretending that i never addressed anything you said. Come back when you can parse my statements into coherent arguments like i have done above for you.

          • 3 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            Point by point: "World" does not mean world in the usual sense, although this explains a lot, you have a wikipedia background in this, the words are there but not the context. Dasein IS its world, and a world is only possible on the basis of Dasein's mode of Being. There is no firm difference, and no "hard" ontology underneath this for the purposes of the analytic of Dasein. All of that is bracketed off for the moment. This has nothing to do with him assuming forms of change.

            Mitsein is Dasein's way of being which already contains other Daseins, which is to say, the problem of "other minds" never gets off the ground because it is derivative of a basic comportment towards the world which always already has others in it. This has nothing to do with a self/environment distinction or assumption, especially because this distinction doesn't exist in Being and Time division 1. I am not "running" so much as I am attempting to not waste any more of my time. Any suspicions I had about you were confirmed with this post. Go back, read the texts carefully, then have an opinion on them. You aren't up for what you're trying to do right now, and I mean this as nicely as I can.

          • 3 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            You still don't understand anything do you? Self does not mean individual, it means any sort of difference from the single monistic being. The fact that dasein and mitsein are things that we can talk about is a presupposition of change. Monistic being does not have differentiation or change or time. You are not up for what you think you are trying to tell me, you simply don't understand it as well as you think you do. You need to do better than this slop you call an explanation.

          • 3 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            no, he's 100% right lmao. you're too moronic to get any of this shit. I'm done replying to your midwit ass

          • 3 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            frickoff nobody asked you to

          • 3 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            You can't define or defend a single point you've made and you're just throwing my own words back in my direction because you're getting mad. I'm out, I should have been out a while ago, but hopefully someone reading our exchange can get more out of it than you did.

          • 3 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            Yes you are in a constant of being out aren't you, is it any wonder you don't understand being at all lmao?

          • 3 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            Every reply this guy makes, I feel like I'm watching his brain short-circuit as he types.

          • 3 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            You are both in and out aren't you? You want it both ways but can't even have either so you resort to lazy ad hominems.

          • 3 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            Hes not me, who was talking to you, but I am still watching lol

          • 3 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            rent free, i need as many minds thinking about my ideas as possible

          • 3 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            >dogmatically regurgitates ancient monist talking points with surface level engagement
            >"my ideas"
            bro.. this level of pseudery is life threatening..

          • 3 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            my ideas anon, keep repeating them, i don't even need to pay you, keep up, i need a reply every 5 minutes

          • 3 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            not who you're replying to, again, BUT
            >differentiate
            what do you mean by this? if by separate into individual conceptions, then no. if by distinguish from each other while maintaining their unity, then yes.

          • 3 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            As someone not involved in this debate, you’re clearly right, it looks like mostly Wikipedia knowledge and that teenage thrill of arguing-for-the-sake-of-arguing while hardly knowing what you or your debater are talking about, sadly all too common in philosophy discussions here.

          • 3 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            the monists didn't write being and time. stop being a pzeud, and pick up heidegger. you're already barely coherent.

          • 3 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            And where did i say they did moron. Don't blame me for your poor understanding of what i am trying to say.

          • 3 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            alright I'll try to thoughtfully engage with what you're saying then

            >the monists had no need for phenomenology
            you mean engaging in the process of seeing past appearances towards a deeper relation with being? did you read parmenides' fragments? do you know what the second half is titled?

            >presupposing phenomenology as if it's necessary
            it *is* a necessary process. your allegory would be more accurate if you likened the monists to pre-scientists without the scientific method. still moving in a solid scientific direction, although without any rigid methodology or technical devices that would serve to consistently demonstrate results. only developing the basic concepts.

            phenomenology IS that technical methodology that provides the basis for a hermenutic investigation of being. heidegger outlines the entirety of the process in great detail, along with its necessity. I, again, encourage you to actually read being and time.

            to say that phenomenology is arbitrary to ontology is like saying the scientific method is arbitrary to biology. it just doesn't make any sense.

            to say you dont need it because the ancients didn't have it (thus apparently making it a presupposition) is also an indefensible claim. ontology is a science, ontology =/= being. sciences are developed, and have not always been. being, for as long as Dasein has been, and is, will be.

          • 3 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            fanboys associate their libido with the object, and so try to realize it, as through a vehicle; obviously they will fight to death with anyone who are trying to deactivate the sacred strapon they consider a rightful and living peneese.
            But you have a good realization. I'd expand it a bit: every locus of this reality is a possibility for creative eruption that un-veils the truth and revives the participant.

          • 3 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            >using the mode of thought that Heidegger showed to be worthless actually makes me based and superior to Heidegger
            OP is a homosexual as usual. Wake me up when there's a Heidegger thread where people actually understand Heidegger.

          • 3 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            > Wake me up when there's a Heidegger thread where people actually understand Heidegger.
            Narrator: "And so Anon slept for an eternity"

      • 3 weeks ago
        Anonymous

        Isn't Dasein something objective, but having modes?

        • 3 weeks ago
          Anonymous

          >Isn't Dasein something objective, but having modes?
          From what little I know, I don’t think Heidegger is even trying to think in terms like “objective” and “subjective”, he thinks it’s a sort of error or failing in Western ontology and metaphysics, although perhaps a useful conventional concept and in epistemology. But he’d say it’s blocking the more fundamental, primordial outlook that “subject” and “object” are both like poles (or modes, if you will) of Dasein. Subject is never there without object and object is never there without subject. Dasein encompasses both these poles, it becomes incoherent at this point to say whether reality itself, or Dasein, is “subjective” or “objective.”

          • 3 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            >Subject is never there without object and object is never there without subject
            Interesting, this bit reminds me of Husserl. Thank you for the post, anon.

      • 3 weeks ago
        Anonymous

        >subjective
        I think Heidegger's agenda was to build a system that goes beyond the subject/object duality, existentiality and the state of openess means that any "subjective" action is ontologically trapped in an objective reality, the world from we can't escape is just as important as our existential fate to interpret it, both subject and object are mental abstraction born from our more basic hermeneutical activity "in the world"

  2. 3 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    yeah, OP, egg em: put your arm into a sock puppet of mr hide-egger and make them speak sexy.
    >egg vs the veiling
    just another win.

  3. 3 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    Reminds me of a pseud who said that Apollo represents fiction, whilst Dionysus represents reality, and that said in an strictly existential sense. MY BALLS. I wish I could frick him, but not in a sexual way.

  4. 3 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    Gnome saiyan is as real as your objective truth. (If some of us able to comprehend it, i.e. witness it into existence it is real.) And that is what hide-eggers of varioous sorts, and their minions, don't want you realizing. Because they fear the super saiyan mode the gnome can achieve. DyioniSUS??? what if DyoMAOGUS.

  5. 3 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    Just as people who claim to be "for reason" claim people who disagree with them are "irrational", those "irrationalists" could also claim that what what "rationalists" do is just rationalizing, not reasoning.

  6. 3 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    Define what you think Nietzsche means by Dionysian, and then explain how you think Heidegger is pursuing that.

  7. 3 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    This thread is just awful and 90% of you should be ashamed of yourselves. Why read Heidegger if you don't even understand the basic method of phenomenology?

  8. 3 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    I can understand your perspective on interpreting Heidegger's philosophy as ultimately promoting an anti-rational, Dionysian worldview that rejects reason and modern rationality. There are certainly elements of his thought that can be read in this way:

    1. His critique of the metaphysical tradition in Western philosophy as having forgotten the question of Being itself, getting trapped in a representational mode of thinking that treats beings as mere present-at-hand objects.

    2. His notion of authentic Being-towards-death as a confrontation with human finitude and the limits of rational calculation about existence.

    3. His emphasis on moods like anxiety and being-thrown as more primordial than rational deliberation in disclosing our situatedness in the world.

    4. His recovery of pre-Socratic thinkers like Heraclitus and Parmenides as expressing a more Greek experience of reality prior to the turn towards rationalism.

    However, I would caution against reducing the entirety of his philosophy to just being a Romantic rejection of reason. While cultivating a more poetic, non-representational way of experiencing Being was part of his project, he was also deeply engaged with seminal figures in the rational tradition like Kant and Descartes.

    His fundamental ontology in Being and Time aimed to provide a more primordial grounding for the categories and conceptual framings we use to understand the world rationally. So in that sense, he was seeking a more rigorous account of the conditions for the possibility of reason itself.

    Ultimately, I think Heidegger's philosophy contains a productive tension between recuperating more mythic, aesthetic modes of disclosure and retaining a commitment to working out the most primordial conceptual grounding for our rational, scientific frameworks. Whether he successfully navigated that tension is certainly up for debate.

    • 3 weeks ago
      Anonymous

      chatgpt slop

  9. 3 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    I'm pretty sure the guy you folks are arguing with is a schizo who's been dropping into Plato and Heidegger threads the last few months, babbling about how he's free from the cave and how Heidegger requires everyone to exit the cave to become authentic. He's hopelessly confused, as you all know, and he'll just say shit apropos of nothing to look smart.

  10. 3 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    just listen to Queen

    >It's a kind of Magic – Queen
    >The bell that rings inside your mind
    >Is jumping the doors of time
    >
    >Hammer to Fall – Queen
    >Don't hear the bell but you answer the call
    >
    >Being and Time – Heiddegger
    >Indeed the call is precisely something which we ourselves have neither planned nor prepared for nor voluntarily performed, nor have we ever done so. 'It' calls against our expectations and even against our will. On the other hand, the call undoubtedly does not come from someone else who is with me in the world. The call comes from me and yet from beyond me.
    >
    >
    >It's a kind of Magic – Queen
    >One golden glance of what should be
    >It's a kind of magic
    >One shaft of light that shows the way
    >No mortal man can win this day
    >
    >Insight into that which is – Heidegger
    >“To flash” [blitzen], according to the word and the issue at stake, is to glance [blicken]. In the glance [im Blick] and as the glance, what is essencing enters into its own illumination. Through the element of its illumination, the glance shelters back in the glancing whatever it catches sight of; at the same time, glancing likewise guards in illumination the hidden darkness of its provenance as what is unilluminated. [...] We thought the truth of beyng in the worlding of world as the mirror-play of the fourfold of sky and earth, mortals and divinities.
    >
    >
    >Gimme the Prize (Kurgan’s Theme) – Queen
    >Garage and water
    >From the sprinklers
    >It also left a man's decapitated body
    >Lying on the floor
    >Next to his own severed head
    >A head which at this time has no name
    >"I know his name..."
    >Here I am, I'm the master of your destiny
    >I am the one, the only one, I am the God of kingdom come
    >Gimme the prize, just gimme the prize
    >
    >On the way to language – Heidegger
    >[Commenting a poem by Stefan Georg]
    >The last line names the guest, yet does not name him. Like the guest, the prize remains nameless. And nameless remains also that highest favor which comes to the poet.
    >[...]
    >Prize, favor, guest, it says-but they are not named. Are they then kept secret? No. We can keep secret only what we know. The poet does not keep the names a secret. He does not know them. He admits it himself in that one verse which rings like a basso ostinato through all the songs:
    >Wherein you hang-you do not know.

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *