0
   

Standingunder Understanding

 
 
kennethamy
 
  1  
Reply Sat 20 Feb, 2010 06:52 pm
@Reconstructo,
Reconstructo;130356 wrote:
I won't speak for Heidegger. Everyone knows the man was a Nazi. He's famous for his questionable style. His etymologies have been doubted by experts. From the beginning of knowing the least bit about him I have been aware of all of this. In fact, I learned of him first from those against him. So I put off looking into him.

I speak for myself here. Take or leave it. Yes, I'm influenced by Heidegger, but also by many others.

Philosophy is not just debate, argument, the making of a case. Perhaps it was Plato who put this attitude into Western philosophy. Then Aristotle came in with his formal logic, etc. The point is to not take it for granted that dialectic is the royal road to truth. Personally, I love a good argument. But that's not the only way to communicate. Sometimes an aphorism is better. Sometimes a paradox is preferable. Sometimes a poetic-suggestiveness is the right method to communicate one's experience.
I don't care if it looks like poetry. In my eyes, it's all poetry. It's the creative use of language. And any text on the nature of text is subject to the next text. As far as I can tell, argumentation requires axioms, implicit or explicit. From the beginning then, dialectic is a bluff. Dialectic is persuasion that pretends to be "scientific."

---------- Post added 02-20-2010 at 03:41 PM ----------



.


After this, why not just :surrender:?
0 Replies
 
Twirlip
 
  1  
Reply Sat 20 Feb, 2010 07:26 pm
@Reconstructo,
Reconstructo;126033 wrote:
To understand is to stand under.
Western Man likes to rip Nature's dress off. If not that, then some other dress or curtain. The intellectual is conceived of as a person with x-ray vision who "sees through." [...] To stand under and look up.

Well, it saves on dresses. :devilish:

You mentioned in another post (sorry, haven't got the hang of quoting from several posts in a long thread - is it that "multi-quote" button I can no longer see?) about Heidegger being the opposite of Francis Bacon. I just want to mention having read somewhere recently that the remark about "putting nature on the rack" which is often attributed to Bacon is actually due to Leibniz.
Deckard
 
  1  
Reply Sat 20 Feb, 2010 07:46 pm
@Reconstructo,
All this talk about tearing dresses reminds me of the beginning scene from Zizek's Perverts Guide to the Cinema where he says "I want a third pill." (He is making a Matrix reference) Zizek's quip is a bit like stopping ourselves before we tear the dress off and saying to the Goddess, "Let's leave the dress on this time."
kennethamy
 
  1  
Reply Sat 20 Feb, 2010 07:50 pm
@Deckard,
Deckard;130429 wrote:
All this talk about tearing dresses reminds me of the beginning scene from Zizek's Perverts Guide to the Cinema where he says "I want a third pill." (He is making a Matrix reference) Zizek's quip is a bit like stopping ourselves before we tear the dress off and saying to the Goddess, "Let's leave the dress on this time."


Good old Zizek! He is always good for a laugh!
0 Replies
 
Reconstructo
 
  1  
Reply Sat 20 Feb, 2010 11:46 pm
@Twirlip,
Twirlip;130428 wrote:
Well, it saves on dresses. :devilish:

You mentioned in another post (sorry, haven't got the hang of quoting from several posts in a long thread - is it that "multi-quote" button I can no longer see?) about Heidegger being the opposite of Francis Bacon. I just want to mention having read somewhere recently that the remark about "putting nature on the rack" which is often attributed to Bacon is actually due to Leibniz.


Thanks. I would still say that "knowledge is power" is the opposite of how I currently understand Heidegger. I'm not saying I follow H all the way, by any means. But I can see how he has been so influential. It's as if thinking has been stripped of the sacred. H's head was stuffed with theology. Rorty described him as an ascetic priest. He's also describable as the most negative of theologians. Being is not a being but only the light that discloses beings. But to describe Being as light is to describe a being. At some point Heidegger would cross out the word Being after writing it, to remind himself that the name of Being is not being but just another being. Heidegger wanted, as far as I can tell, to dwell on the ontological and not the ontic. Of course this can be attacked as utterly impractical. But that was perhaps the point. To fixate on the raw mystery of existence. I suppose its philosophy-as-poetry-as-theology-so-negative-that-it-can't-be-called-theology. I'm no expert but he also seem to stress our embeddness in language. We are always already immersed not only in language but in praxis. We are always-already thrown into a particular context.

I also like his concept of Being-towards-death. Husserl accused him of writing anthropology in Being and Time. So be it.

---------- Post added 02-21-2010 at 12:48 AM ----------

Deckard;130429 wrote:
All this talk about tearing dresses reminds me of the beginning scene from Zizek's Perverts Guide to the Cinema where he says "I want a third pill." (He is making a Matrix reference) Zizek's quip is a bit like stopping ourselves before we tear the dress off and saying to the Goddess, "Let's leave the dress on this time."


I like that part. Zizek is generally great on the erotic in general. He loves the word "phantasmatic," doesn't he? His views on love aren't exactly fit for a hallmark card, as he presents sex as assisted masturbation.

"Leaving the dress on." That's a good addition.
0 Replies
 
 

Related Topics

How can we be sure? - Discussion by Raishu-tensho
Proof of nonexistence of free will - Discussion by litewave
morals and ethics, how are they different? - Question by existential potential
Destroy My Belief System, Please! - Discussion by Thomas
Star Wars in Philosophy. - Discussion by Logicus
Existence of Everything. - Discussion by Logicus
Is it better to be feared or loved? - Discussion by Black King
 
Copyright © 2021 MadLab, LLC :: Terms of Service :: Privacy Policy :: Page generated in 0.03 seconds on 07/30/2021 at 02:00:29