Heidegger was just a nutter

[Knotted]

"The Other to it [Being] is simply Nothing" Heidegger.

That's really saying nothing special.

He mystifies Daoism. He gives us clues, when he says that we should give up the entire western philosophical tradition from Plato onwards.

But only in the most trivial way. In terms of style his philosophy is that of pre-Kant German cluncking metaphysics. Cf the synthetic philosophy of Christian Wolff who used to derive a priori the number of windows that a house has by virtue of being a house.

"What gives things their thingness is not itself a thing"

"The thingness of a thing .. cannot itself be a thing again"

Which is Diehegger and which is the daoist philosopher ?

The second one is Heidegger. The essence doesn't have a dynamical relation with the thing in Heidegger. The essences are not entities seperate from the things which give them their character in Heidegger.

(Clue: look to Buber for a source)

I recon I don't need to.

 

[invisibleplanet]

Mystifies Daoism.

That takes some doing.

There are some really dreadful translations of Daoist texts out there, and many of those do 'mystify' their meaning. Diehegger's Sein und Zeit (1927) does, in my opinion, manage to mystify and conceal Daoism and Daoist texts within itself. Reinhard May (1996) tells us that Diehegger had access to Wilhelm's 1911 German translation of Lao Tse's Dao De Jing, and Buber's edition of "Zhuangzi' ( Speeches and Parables of Tschuang-Tse). Today, this would class as plagiarism. Diehegger is the one who 'got away with it'.

Personally I prefer Chinese collaborative or Chinese-only translations, although I don't mind Wilhelm's translations.

 

[chazegee]

Favourite philosophy critique.

 

[invisibleplanet]

If Diehegger was alive today, this could have been his fate: German Defence Minister stripped of his PhD, resigns

He came under pressure after a Bremen University law professor began reviewing his 2006 thesis with the aid of the internet.

Reports emerged of a passage from a newspaper article that featured word for word, and then of a paragraph from the US embassy website being used without attribution.

Analysts then estimated that more than half the 475-page thesis had long sections lifted from other people's work.

Eventually the University of Bayreuth, which had awarded him a doctorate, decided that Mr Guttenberg had "violated scientific duties to a considerable extent".

 

[nosos]

What idol will Knotted slay next?

 

[invisibleplanet]

What idol will Knotted slay next?

Best not to have idols, I reckon. It avoids the messy business that is guru-killing

 

[nosos]

What better confirmation of your status as a guru than to have someone try and kill you though? Almost a prerequisite to feeling confident in that status I imagine

 

[invisibleplanet]

What better confirmation of your status as a guru than to have someone try and kill you though? Almost a prerequisite to feeling confident in that status I imagine

And it's always the most eager pupil Heidegger's assaults on Husserl are a good example of such behaviour.

 

[kyser_soze]

'Your powers are weak old man. Now the pupil has become the master'

No hero, no idols, no gods.

 

[Knotted]

What idol will Knotted slay next?

On the same day I read Introduction to Metaphysics I started reading Deleuze and Guattari's Anti-Oedipus. I can't slay it, because that would mean reading all of it and it's just too tiresome. Everything is a machine. Tiresome. Hair flows and that's like electricity flowing. So tiresome. I can't bear it. At least Heidegger was an entertaining crank.

 

[kyser_soze]

Delueze & Guattari's prose, at it's best, is a kind of poetry. Doesn't alter the fact that actually finding a concrete example of anything they bang on about is like trying to grab a handful of mist.

 

[Bernie Gunther]

Delueze & Guattari's prose, at it's best, is a kind of poetry. Doesn't alter the fact that actually finding a concrete example of anything they bang on about is like trying to grab a handful of mist.

Books that only make sense when you take a lot of drugs are problematic I feel.

 

[Knotted]

Delueze & Guattari's prose, at it's best, is a kind of poetry. Doesn't alter the fact that actually finding a concrete example of anything they bang on about is like trying to grab a handful of mist.

I hear what you are saying. Their prose has an energetic flow. Yep, like a machine...

But it's been done before and so much better.

Are they trying to provoke me? Is that provocation? This is provocation.

 

[TruXta]

If you want to get at the gist of D & G I can only recommend you read Manual De Landa's A new philosophy of society, which lays out a general ontological framework based on the core ideas of D & G without all the unnecessary drama. You can get a critical taste of it here.

 

[Bernie Gunther]

<snip>

Are they trying to provoke me? Is that provocation? This is provocation.

Reported to the ALF for cruelty to sloths.

 

[Knotted]

If you want to get at the gist of D & G I can only recommend you read Manual De Landa's A new philosophy of society, which lays out a general ontological framework based on the core ideas of D & G without all the unnecessary drama. You can get a critical taste of it here.

You can be a methodological individualist and still believe that society is real and the individual is a fiction. That's because there is no theoretical problem with deriving the real from the unreal. The terms of the theory don't matter - you can translate from one ontology to another, it's just that different things are labelled "real" and "unreal". Pay attention! It's a matter of methodology not ontology - hence "methodological individualism" not "ontological individualism". Do you not understand that all sides of this argument are just lamely trying utilise Heidegger for their social theorising? Heidegger wasn't some academic, disinterested theorist. This whole question of ontology is not about a practical tool for sociologists it's supposed to be the deepest, most invigorating contemplation that must take place before the classical pre-Socratic spiritual reawakening can be realised.

It's important to understand that Heidegger was a unhinged classicist. If you take the maniac out of Heidegger you are left with this irrelevant French drivel. What makes Heidegger interesting is his attitude. It's not a disinterested matter-of-fact affair.

 

[Santino]

Have you spotted any phenomenology in Heidegger yet?

 

[TruXta]

You can be a methodological individualist and still believe that society is real and the individual is a fiction. That's because there is no theoretical problem with deriving the real from the unreal. The terms of the theory don't matter - you can translate from one ontology to another, it's just that different things are labelled "real" and "unreal". Pay attention! It's a matter of methodology not ontology - hence "methodological individualism" not "ontological individualism". Do you not understand that all sides of this argument are just lamely trying utilise Heidegger for their social theorising? Heidegger wasn't some academic, disinterested theorist. This whole question of ontology is not about a practical tool for sociologists it's supposed to be the deepest, most invigorating contemplation that must take place before the classical pre-Socratic spiritual reawakening can be realised.

It's important to understand that Heidegger was a unhinged classicist. If you take the maniac out of Heidegger you are left with this irrelevant French drivel. What makes Heidegger interesting is his attitude. It's not a disinterested matter-of-fact affair.

As far as I know there's not a single sentence devoted to Heidegger in De Landa's book, so pardon me for saying I haven't a fucking clue what you're on about, except to say that you're dead wrong in saying that ontology is not about a practical tool for sociologists. It is in fact a hotly debated topic within sociology - what is it that sociologists can or should study? A question which has immediate practical implications.

 

[Knotted]

Not really. I haven't read any more Heidegger. There is only very small part of Introduction to Metaphysics which could be described as phenomenology and that's where he seems to paint Parmenides as a phenomenologist. But it's very vague. My feeling is that he rejected phenomology (at least in this period) and sort to find something more integrated in the pre-Socratics. Phenomenology is really a branch of philosophy, an approach. He's trying to be more ambitious than that here. He looks at how the concept of being is limited by various things - for instance how it is limited by the concept of appearance. He try's to reorentate our distinction between being and seeming, but he does this by looking at classics and hermeneutics not any analysis of phenomena. His point is language dependent, not about some sort of universal human experience. Some of the points he makes don't even work in English.

 

[Santino]

Does it strike you as odd that you can't see any phenomenology in his work, and that you disagree with almost everyone's understanding of him?

 

[TruXta]

You can be a methodological individualist and still believe that society is real and the individual is a fiction.

WTF? Because one can "derive the real from the unreal"? I can get that you can be a MI and believe both society and individuals to be unreal, or both real, but I fail to see how one can be a MI and not believe in the fundamental reality of individuals and individual minds.

 

[Knotted]

As far as I know there's not a single sentence devoted to Heidegger in De Landa's book, so pardon me for saying I haven't a fucking clue what you're on about, except to say that you're dead wrong in saying that ontology is not about a practical tool for sociologists. It is in fact a hotly debated topic within sociology - what is it that sociologists can or should study? A question which has immediate practical implications.

It matters only if you are a strict realist who can't tolerate theoretical fictions playing a central role in your theory. Further there is no reason why you should tolerate a rule which proscribes the status of your concepts. Why the need for such generality?

 

[Knotted]

Does it strike you as odd that you can't see any phenomenology in his work, and that you disagree with almost everyone's understanding of him?

Yes. But that's the delight of reading the man and not the secondary literature.

 

[Knotted]

WTF? Because one can "derive the real from the unreal"? I can get that you can be a MI and believe both society and individuals to be unreal, or both real, but I fail to see how one can be a MI and not believe in the fundamental reality of individuals and individual minds.

This confusion is a confusion of taking the logical for the causal and the causal for the logical. Theories are logical, reality is causal.

 

[TruXta]

More waffle.

 

[kyser_soze]

Knotted has been possessed by the babble-demon gorski.

 

[Santino]

Knotted has been possessed by the babble-demon gorski.

Typical anglo-saxon response Have you tried reading Zizek no, thought not... well what do you expect

 

[TruXta]

Knotted has been possessed by the babble-demon gorski.

At least he's fucked off.

 

[kyser_soze]

typical anglo-saxon response Have you tried reading zizek no, thought not... Well what do you expect

back to the texts with you!!!! :d /(--dhd

 

[Fruitloop]

I miss gorski.