What was Heideggers problem?

This is the main board for discussing philosophy - formal, informal and in between.

Postby Jakob » Sat Jun 30, 2007 11:57 pm

Sauwelios wrote:
Jakob wrote:Eh, Snau, is this one of those situations you get into where you lose sight of all rational processes because you feel cornered?
And why do I get the feeling you haven't the first clue who Euclides is?
I know you are an alpha - but I don't buy this this complete lack of exact understanding. You cannot actually sit behind a computer and deny that mathematics correspond to reality. It is beyond silly.

Do you have a point?

Great, Ollie's pretending to be incapable of perceiving the different points I make game. Yawn.
Yes,
-computers use mathematics. You're using one. You do not draw consequences from reality when you make your claims.
-You denied Euclidean math corresponds to reality. You didn't know what Euclidean was, you thought it was adding and dubstracting quantities. You didn't register you were wrong. Didn't retrace your steps. You did not draw consequences again.
Image
For behold, all acts of love and pleasure are my rituals
User avatar
Jakob
ILP Legend
 
Posts: 7497
Joined: Sun Sep 03, 2006 9:23 pm
Location: look at my suit

Postby Jakob » Sun Jul 01, 2007 12:10 am

Sauwelios wrote:
Jakob wrote:And why is it that for the 8 years you've been on these fora, everytime someone gives breaks down your argument, you completely ignore it

Please stick to the case at hand. Show us where my argument was "broken down".

You mean the last time? It was simple; I told you mathematial law has nothing to do with perfect or exact quantities. You thought it did and based your claim that mathematics does not correspond to reality on it.
What happened to your 'perfect one'? Did you forget you made that mistake about math?

I guess you mean the exact 1? But we see that again in the width of every mathematical line: an infinitisemal width, i.e., a width of ...000.000...0001.

Again, what does this juggling with numbers representing quantities and sizes have to do with mathematical law?
sauwelios wrote:stop whining

Account for your claims and I will stop asking you to.
Image
For behold, all acts of love and pleasure are my rituals
User avatar
Jakob
ILP Legend
 
Posts: 7497
Joined: Sun Sep 03, 2006 9:23 pm
Location: look at my suit

Postby Sauwelios » Sun Jul 01, 2007 12:21 am

Jakob wrote:-computers use mathematics. You're using one. You do not draw consequences from reality when you make your claims.

Yes, computers use mathematics. They assimilate (make similar) electronic signals (or even light) to an already established 1; if the input is not sufficient, they don't register anything, which is symbolised by 0 (zero). So the computer does the same as its maker, man: it assimilates/simplifies impressions. This proves nothing as to the supposed correspondence of mathematics to the physical world.


-You denied Euclidean math corresponds to reality. You didn't know what Euclidean was, you thought it was adding and dubstracting quantities.

How do you know what I thought? As a matter of fact, Euclid is in "The Classical Greek Reader", which I own. But my example regarded mathematics, not geometry.

I gave an example, which you dismissed as not being an example of what you were discussing (geometry). I promptly came up with another example that was, and you, unable to dismiss or tackle with it, started whining.

Oh, and I have not been on fora for 8 years yet.
"Someone may object that the successful revolt against the universal and homogeneous state could have no other effect than that the identical historical process which has led from the primitive horde to the final state will be repeated. But would such a repetition of the process--a new lease of life for man's humanity--not be preferable to the indefinite continuation of the inhuman end? Do we not enjoy every spring although we know the cycle of the seasons, although we know that winter will come again?" (Leo Strauss, "Restatement on Xenophon's Hiero".)
User avatar
Sauwelios
Philosophical Supremacist
 
Posts: 7183
Joined: Fri Sep 08, 2006 7:07 pm
Location: Amsterdam

Postby Sauwelios » Sun Jul 01, 2007 12:30 am

Jakob wrote:
Sauwelios wrote:
Jakob wrote:And why is it that for the 8 years you've been on these fora, everytime someone gives breaks down your argument, you completely ignore it

Please stick to the case at hand. Show us where my argument was "broken down".

You mean the last time? It was simple; I told you mathematial law has nothing to do with perfect or exact quantities. You thought it did and based your claim that mathematics does not correspond to reality on it.

Er, no, it was just an example. I promptly provided another. I can provide more, if you want.


What happened to your 'perfect one'? Did you forget you made that mistake about math?

I guess you mean the exact 1? But we see that again in the width of every mathematical line: an infinitisemal width, i.e., a width of ...000.000...0001.

Again, what does this juggling with numbers representing quantities and sizes have to do with mathematical law?

It means that the concept of "infinity" is nonsense, for one.

No such thing as an infinitely long line.
No such thing as an infinitely narrow line.
No such thing as a perfectly straight line.
No such thing as a mathematical line.


sauwelios wrote:stop whining

Account for your claims and I will stop asking you to.

Keep your hands off of my Capitals!
"Someone may object that the successful revolt against the universal and homogeneous state could have no other effect than that the identical historical process which has led from the primitive horde to the final state will be repeated. But would such a repetition of the process--a new lease of life for man's humanity--not be preferable to the indefinite continuation of the inhuman end? Do we not enjoy every spring although we know the cycle of the seasons, although we know that winter will come again?" (Leo Strauss, "Restatement on Xenophon's Hiero".)
User avatar
Sauwelios
Philosophical Supremacist
 
Posts: 7183
Joined: Fri Sep 08, 2006 7:07 pm
Location: Amsterdam

Re: What was Heideggers problem?

Postby Jakob » Wed Dec 03, 2014 3:00 am

Valuable time spent reading back old posts. I wasn't aware anymore that I had been so very close for years before my mind clicked.
See he notion of self-valuing in formation from excess:

Heidegger said that any practical answer to a question is not a philosophical answer. Philosophy is the constant adressing of the fundamental problem of being - 'why being, why not far rather not being?' This is supposedly the torment of the philosophical mind.
Nietzsche's answer to it is simple: because of the joy that existence brings to the succesful being. This existential joy justifies even the most horrible suffering. Heideggers question seems to be answered quite easily.
to me, who has suffered from Heideggerian complex for years, this answer is sufficient. It is, in a very human way, perfectly logical. A classical scientific objection would be that the cause of existence is not to be formulated in terms of human experience. The objection to this objection is that there is not really any other way for a human to judge and measure - so that objection is out of the way. I can't think of another objection, but I'm sure there is - or is there? Is not simply nature's cause nature's delight in itself? I'm using nature here where I previously said existence because it effectively comes down to the same thing, with the difference that nature allready includes the idea of self-perpetuation through delight.

Here can be seen the enormous difference between what I mean with self-valuing and its interpretation as self-interest or self-conservation through minimizing harm. But I will readily admit that throughout the process of clarifying the mechanism and the logic, the excess from which it sprung fell to the theoretical background - and this excess is the true 'logic' behind the theory - the standard on which the logic relies. Absolute positivity -- which is so radically different from the present human condition that the task of connecting the two simply has to start somewhere, anywhere. It is already certain that a dozen chalices will have to be hallowed and broken before the proper drink can be poured.
Image
For behold, all acts of love and pleasure are my rituals
User avatar
Jakob
ILP Legend
 
Posts: 7497
Joined: Sun Sep 03, 2006 9:23 pm
Location: look at my suit

Re: What was Heideggers problem?

Postby Orbie » Wed Dec 03, 2014 3:12 am

God recognizes the insular. Remember him saying every hair of your body is counted, that was enough to overcome his reservation as to deciding between , to be, or not.
[size=50][/size]Allone's Obe issance



In answer to your prayer
sincere, the centre of
your circle here,
i stand ; and , without
taking thought,-
i know nothing. But i can

Full well your need-as
you be men
This: Re-Creation. With a
bow,
Then, your obedient

servant now.
One gift is all i find in me,
And that is faithful
memory
Orbie
partly cloudy, with a few showers
 
Posts: 7596
Joined: Sat Jun 16, 2012 6:34 pm
Location: Night of infinite faith

Re: What was Heideggers problem?

Postby Arminius » Wed Dec 03, 2014 3:59 am

What was Heideggers problem?

That question is rhetoric, propaganda!
Heidegger was the greatest philosopher of the 20th century!

So how can we know that "problem" in the year 2014 with all that Propaganda after April 1945?

Do you - YOU (!) - know the answer?

:wink:
Image
User avatar
Arminius
ILP Legend
 
Posts: 5732
Joined: Sat Mar 08, 2014 10:51 pm
Location: Saltus Teutoburgiensis

Re: What was Heideggers problem?

Postby Jakob » Wed Dec 03, 2014 1:12 pm

Arminius wrote:
What was Heideggers problem?

That question is rhetoric, propaganda!
Heidegger was the greatest philosopher of the 20th century!

So how can we know that "problem" in the year 2014 with all that Propaganda after April 1945?

Do you - YOU (!) - know the answer?

:wink:


There also was a post below the title.
Image
For behold, all acts of love and pleasure are my rituals
User avatar
Jakob
ILP Legend
 
Posts: 7497
Joined: Sun Sep 03, 2006 9:23 pm
Location: look at my suit

Re: What was Heideggers problem?

Postby Lys » Fri Dec 05, 2014 1:53 am

@Fixed,

Its like a crop effect in a picture-edit,,, the more you chop off, the more the picture magnifies, emerging like a sculpture from a potter's wheel of churning, and appears like an image in the mirror of our soul. Beholding such self-knowledge in all its entirety without shaming, tearing, hiding, masking, banishing any part whispers a Power to be able to do so.

This is self-joy,, as opposed to the Pleasure of self-indulgence, if you get me.

The chopping has a nature of, "By doing we forego." [N., JW, 304]:

"At bottom I abhor all those moralities which say: “Do not do this! Renounce! Overcome yourself!” But I am well disposed toward those moralities which goad me to do something and do it again, from morning till evening, and then to dream of it at night, and to think of nothing except doing this well, as well as I alone can do it. When one lives like that, one thing after another drops off. Without hatred or aversion one sees this take its leave today and that tomorrow, like yellow leaves that any slight stirring of the air takes off a tree. He may not even notice that it takes its leave; for his eye is riveted to his goal – forward, not sideward, backward, downward. What we do should determine what we forego; by doing we forego – that is how I like it, that is my placitum. But I do not wish to strive with open eyes for my own impoverishment; I do not like negative virtues – virtues whose very essence it is to negate and deny oneself something."
User avatar
Lys
Thinker
 
Posts: 663
Joined: Wed Jun 04, 2014 8:12 am

Re: What was Heideggers problem?

Postby Aussenseite » Fri Dec 05, 2014 3:02 am

I would suggest the books "The Seduction of Unreason" and "Heidegger's Children" by Richard Wolin, as he takes a good look at the history of Heidegger, the intellectual culture and times in which he lived and the poststructuralist condemnation of his ideas and our subsequent intellectual romance with fascism. Both books are well researched and attainable and I highly suggest them. Be warned that "The Seduction of Unreason" also covers the flaws in Nietzschean philosophies.

A short and narrow problem with Heidegger is one of language and where he was in time. He loved making up new words and explanations for those words that were hard for people to understand and interpret and didn't fully understand the rest of the world outside of European intellectualism, but spoke about them like he knew and understood. Are there more specific issues you have with Heidegger's philosophies? Maybe we can start there and discuss each one. That would be much easier and I think more beneficial to an understand of where Heidegger was coming from and where it went wrong.
Last edited by Aussenseite on Fri Dec 05, 2014 5:18 pm, edited 1 time in total.
User avatar
Aussenseite
 
Posts: 188
Joined: Thu Nov 20, 2014 10:04 pm

Re: What was Heideggers problem?

Postby 1mpious » Fri Dec 05, 2014 4:58 am

What was Heideggers problem?

Inauthentic peeps? :think:
'Up and down, round and round, let's get down now upside down' :evilfun:
User avatar
1mpious
decent guy
 
Posts: 402
Joined: Sun Feb 23, 2014 3:58 am
Location: Sydney Secondus

Re: What was Heideggers problem?

Postby Orbie » Fri Dec 05, 2014 10:05 pm

Jakob wrote:Valuable time spent reading back old posts. I wasn't aware anymore that I had been so very close for years before my mind clicked.
See he notion of self-valuing in formation from excess:


Heidegger said that any practical answer to a
question is not a philosophical answer. Philosophy is
the constant adressing of the fundamental problem of being - 'why being, why not far rather not being?' This is supposedly the torment of the philosophical
mind.

Nietzsche's answer to it is simple: because of the joy
that existence brings to the succesful being. This
existential joy justifies even the most horrible
suffering. Heideggers question seems to be answered quite easily.
to me, who has suffered from Heideggerian complex
for years, this answer is sufficient. It is, in a very
human way, perfectly logical. A classical scientific objection would be that the cause of existence is not to be formulated in terms of human experience. The
objection to this objection is that there is not really
any other way for a human to judge and measure - so that objection is out of the way. I can't think of another objection, but I'm sure there is - or is there?
Is not simply nature's cause nature's delight in itself?
I'm using nature here where I previously said existence because it effectively comes down to the same thing, with the difference that nature allready
includes the idea of self-perpetuation through delight.

Here can be seen the enormous difference between what I mean with self-valuing and its interpretation
as self-interest or self-conservation through
minimizing harm. But I will readily admit that throughout the process of clarifying the mechanism and the logic, the excess from which it sprung fell to
the theoretical background - and this excess is the
true 'logic' behind the theory - the standard on which the logic relies. Absolute positivity -- which is so radically different from the present human condition
that the task of connecting the two simply has to
start somewhere, anywhere. It is already certain that a dozen chalices will have to be hallowed and broken before the proper drink can be poured.


Jakob, Absolute positivity entails absolute identity, where as many chalices possible to achieve this may not connect the two. That is what is below all conditions by which the function of Dasein can be approximated. It is below the two, in the realm of the one, where the two becomes one. They cannot meet , they cannot become one or meet at a point because at that point, they do not rise to the level of
discernability.
[size=50][/size]Allone's Obe issance



In answer to your prayer
sincere, the centre of
your circle here,
i stand ; and , without
taking thought,-
i know nothing. But i can

Full well your need-as
you be men
This: Re-Creation. With a
bow,
Then, your obedient

servant now.
One gift is all i find in me,
And that is faithful
memory
Orbie
partly cloudy, with a few showers
 
Posts: 7596
Joined: Sat Jun 16, 2012 6:34 pm
Location: Night of infinite faith

Re: What was Heideggers problem?

Postby Arminius » Tue Dec 23, 2014 12:57 am

Jakob wrote:There also was a post below the title.

And ...?
Image
User avatar
Arminius
ILP Legend
 
Posts: 5732
Joined: Sat Mar 08, 2014 10:51 pm
Location: Saltus Teutoburgiensis

Re: What was Heideggers problem?

Postby Arminius » Tue Dec 23, 2014 1:03 am

Sauwelios wrote:In Sein und Zeit, Heidegger says that "the Being of that which is 'is' not itself something that is." He also says somewhere that the Nothing itself nothings. So we might say that the Being of that which is 'is' nothing, whereas the nothinging of that which nothings is (i.e., is Being). So existence is really the nothinging of the Nothing.

Heidegger's existence philosophy teaches that the nothing(ness) becomes obvious or evident by the fear („Angst“) in which always lies a move back from something which is in reality the nothing(ness). The essence of the nothing(ness) is the nihilation, namely the repellent or resisting reference to the sinking entity in the entirety, meaning to the nothingness of all entity.

Martin Heidegger wrote:

„Worum sich die Angst ängstet, ist das In-der-Welt-sein selbst.“ (Martin Heidegger, Sein und Zeit, 1927, S. 187).

Martin Heidegger wrote:

„In der hellen Nacht des Nichts der Angst entsteht erst die ursprüngliche Offenbarkeit des Seienden als eines solchen: daß es Seiendes ist - und nicht Nichts. Einzig weil das Nichts im Grunde des Daseins offenbar ist, kann die volle Befremdlichkeit des Seienden über uns kommen und die Grundfrage der Metaphysik: Warum ist überhaupt Seiendes und nicht vielmehr Nichts?“ (Martin Heidegger, Was ist Metaphysik?, 1929).

The fear („Angst“) isolates the existence („Dasein“) and opens it in this way as possible being („Möglich-Sein“), as free being („Frei-Sein“) for the freedom („Freiheit“) of the self chosing („Sich-selbst-wählen“) and self seizing („Sich-selbst-Ergreifen“).

The being in the world („In-der-Welt-Sein“) is the transcendental basic constitution („Grundverfassung“) of the existence („Dasein“). The concept of the „In-der-Welt-Sein“ deactivates the consciousness concept and the of subject/object dualism.
Image
User avatar
Arminius
ILP Legend
 
Posts: 5732
Joined: Sat Mar 08, 2014 10:51 pm
Location: Saltus Teutoburgiensis

Re: What was Heideggers problem?

Postby Jakob » Thu Dec 25, 2014 10:00 pm

Orb wrote: Jakob, Absolute positivity entails absolute identity, where as many chalices possible to achieve this may not connect the two. That is what is below all conditions by which the function of Dasein can be approximated. It is below the two, in the realm of the one, where the two becomes one. They cannot meet , they cannot become one or meet at a point because at that point, they do not rise to the level of
discernability.

But see, you have imprudently discerned them as underlying discernibility. Sein und Zeit is a given-up attempt of doing that without doing it.
Value ontology is the abnegation of the will to do it, and the resolution to do the sensible thing instead.
Have a model wherein this distinction does not exist, but into which the distinction can be fluidly resolved, without the elements losing their functional attributes -- their juxtaposing cognitive hooks which allow for grammar to take place.
Image
For behold, all acts of love and pleasure are my rituals
User avatar
Jakob
ILP Legend
 
Posts: 7497
Joined: Sun Sep 03, 2006 9:23 pm
Location: look at my suit

Re: What was Heideggers problem?

Postby Jakob » Thu Dec 25, 2014 10:16 pm

Arminius wrote:„In der hellen Nacht des Nichts der Angst entsteht erst die ursprüngliche Offenbarkeit des Seienden als eines solchen: daß es Seiendes ist - und nicht Nichts. Einzig weil das Nichts im Grunde des Daseins offenbar ist, kann die volle Befremdlichkeit des Seienden über uns kommen und die Grundfrage der Metaphysik: Warum ist überhaupt Seiendes und nicht vielmehr Nichts?“ (Martin Heidegger, Was ist Metaphysik?, 1929).

Heidegger identifies, here and usually without saying it (which is unwise and simply poetic), the mind, and not being.
Dasein is "Man in his mind" - Bauen, Wohnen, Denken.

The hole in the donut of being, basically - the fact that the mind has to contemplate in contrasts and thus as soon as it contemplates "Being" as some sort of whole, or "thing", it evokes the idea of Non-being, also as a "thing".

The absurdity of identifying being as an object, is the same stupidity of speaking of "the universe" -- "being as a whole" is in fact negated by the actually referred meaning of the term being; i.e. phenomena, experience, the scientifically measured world; open ended conceptions.

The fear („Angst“) isolates the existence („Dasein“) and opens it in this way as possible being („Möglich-Sein“), as free being („Frei-Sein“) for the freedom („Freiheit“) of the self chosing („Sich-selbst-wählen“) and self seizing („Sich-selbst-Ergreifen“).

This would be an interesting subject for a book. The interest would be to revaluate fear, to come to see it as the requirement of courage/freedom/choice/identity - and in a mans fear is his character reflected. Ethos anthropos daimon...
Image
For behold, all acts of love and pleasure are my rituals
User avatar
Jakob
ILP Legend
 
Posts: 7497
Joined: Sun Sep 03, 2006 9:23 pm
Location: look at my suit

Re: What was Heideggers problem?

Postby Magnus Anderson » Fri Dec 26, 2014 5:57 pm

Heidegger's problem was that he was a charlatan. I never really read him, but based on everything I read, it appears to me to be the case (I can't read every single fucking imbecile in his entirety just so that I can be able to pass my judgment, you see.) I mean, what kind of idiot do you have to be to pose questions such as "why is there something rather than nothing"? For anyone with an IQ above that of a monkey the imbecility of such a question should become apparent within seconds for there is no such a thing as "nothing" (i.e. nothing is just another something.) With that in mind, the question is revealed to be of the form "why is there X and not Y" which is just another form of "how did X happen?" But what is X in this case? If what is meant is "how did EVERYTHING happen?" (and I am sure that's EXACTLY what is meant) the question becomes meaningless because in order for such a question to make sense this X must not be everything because in order for such a question to be answerable there must be some other Y that can be said to be the cause of X.

I feel very ashamed to have to post this because it requires from e to assume that pretty much everyone on this topic is a fucking imbecile and part of me is resisting this because I find it extremely hard to believe. It is DEPRESSING to see so many posts seriously addressing such a tripe.
Magnus Anderson
ILP Legend
 
Posts: 5124
Joined: Mon Mar 17, 2014 7:26 pm

Re: What was Heideggers problem?

Postby Jakob » Sat Dec 27, 2014 1:20 pm

The standard which Heidegger sets is one of general intellect. He who does not grasp H is almost by definition cognitively incapable of recognizing the philosophical challenges of this time.
Last edited by Jakob on Sat Dec 27, 2014 1:46 pm, edited 4 times in total.
Image
For behold, all acts of love and pleasure are my rituals
User avatar
Jakob
ILP Legend
 
Posts: 7497
Joined: Sun Sep 03, 2006 9:23 pm
Location: look at my suit

Re: What was Heideggers problem?

Postby Jakob » Sat Dec 27, 2014 1:24 pm

Ork hork bork, right o maggneuhr, eeee kjuuu eeeek juuuu magggnoes.
Image
For behold, all acts of love and pleasure are my rituals
User avatar
Jakob
ILP Legend
 
Posts: 7497
Joined: Sun Sep 03, 2006 9:23 pm
Location: look at my suit

Re: What was Heideggers problem?

Postby Jakob » Sat Dec 27, 2014 1:49 pm

Anyway, the problem of Heidegger is the problem of man as a species rather than as an individual. The problem is that mankind is not primarily biologically but linguistically detetmined -- the dna of the species is human grammar.

Unfortunately this codex overrules the healths and diseases of dna and places weak men in charge. Brutes may clamor for power but as long as force does not penetrate language, it is toothless.
Image
For behold, all acts of love and pleasure are my rituals
User avatar
Jakob
ILP Legend
 
Posts: 7497
Joined: Sun Sep 03, 2006 9:23 pm
Location: look at my suit

Re: What was Heideggers problem?

Postby Magnus Anderson » Sat Dec 27, 2014 2:29 pm

Cancer


Capricorn.

Jakob wrote:The standard which Heidegger sets is one of general intellect. He who does not grasp H is almost by definition cognitively incapable of recognizing a proper philosophical challenge.

Most avoid him with some form of excuse.
But yes, philosophy actually excludes the many, and this is not their poor fault.


Many would do well to avoid someone who spouts non-sense such as:

any practical answer to a question is not a philosophical answer.


Seriously motherfucker? What sort of chemical imbalance one has to suffer from in order to be able to assign such a noble little word that is practice a negative connotation? Practice = reality; everything that is not practice = fiction/laziness/solipsism/armchair philosophy. One would do well to stop right here and skip the goddamn motherfucker. No need for any further inspection, that's how terrible this statement is.

. . . for even when we merely think, we're dealing with practice, SIMULATED practice, which is based on our previous experience of practice. The two are in cyclical relationship, you theorize then you act, and when your actions invalidate your theories then you go back to theorizing again and when you're done fixing your theory you go back to acting again AND SO ON AND SO FORTH.

On one hand, you have the modern idiots who despise theory; on the other hand, you have the philosophical solipsists who despise practice.

Or are you going to tell me that I'm misinterpreting the motherfucker? That he's merely using language in a stupid way? and that his stupid of language is in no way betraying his stupid innate inclinations? and that I should simply CLOSE MY EYES to his pathetic use of language and put up with the bullshit so that in the end I can understand the precise kind of chemical imbalance he suffered from?

And then, there's your own stupidity, further diminishing my desire to pick him up . . .

Nietzsche's answer to it is simple: because of the joy that existence brings to the succesful being. This existential joy justifies even the most horrible suffering.


Which has absolutely nothing to do with Nietzsche and absolutely everything to do with hedonism i.e. Nietzsche would never reduce anything to joy.
Magnus Anderson
ILP Legend
 
Posts: 5124
Joined: Mon Mar 17, 2014 7:26 pm

Re: What was Heideggers problem?

Postby Jakob » Sat Dec 27, 2014 3:13 pm

We already know you have read none of the Germans.
Image
For behold, all acts of love and pleasure are my rituals
User avatar
Jakob
ILP Legend
 
Posts: 7497
Joined: Sun Sep 03, 2006 9:23 pm
Location: look at my suit

Re: What was Heideggers problem?

Postby Magnus Anderson » Sat Dec 27, 2014 3:18 pm

You should really try to learn how to defend your stupid stances, you know, instead of simply posting boring pointless one-liners which serve nothing but to show us that you do not know how to defend your stupid stances and that you are in need of being told that you should really try to learn how to fucking defend your stupid fucking stances for christsake just deal with my points instead of shitting one-liners.
Magnus Anderson
ILP Legend
 
Posts: 5124
Joined: Mon Mar 17, 2014 7:26 pm

Re: What was Heideggers problem?

Postby Magnus Anderson » Sat Dec 27, 2014 3:19 pm

OH I DIDN'T READ THE "GERMANS" THE "GERMANS" AS FIXED HALLUCINATES THEM. I DIDN'T READ NIETZSCHE SAYING THAT PLEASURE JUSTIFIES PAIN FOR CHRISTSAKE.

And if he DID say that so what, moron? Who cares if Nietzsche made a mistake?
Magnus Anderson
ILP Legend
 
Posts: 5124
Joined: Mon Mar 17, 2014 7:26 pm

Re: What was Heideggers problem?

Postby Magnus Anderson » Sat Dec 27, 2014 3:58 pm

Another way to interpret the question is like "why live and not die" which is a bit more concrete but you still have to wonder what kind of person do you have to be to ask such a question, or rather, what kind of person do you have to be to be BOTHERED by such a question. It is pretty obvious to me that living is better than dying and I need no reasons whatsoever to defend my stance though I have to admit it would be fun to do so (to figure out the reasons, because it would strengthen my position.)

If it were the other way around, if living was easy and dying was difficult, I am pretty sure they would be asking themselves something like "why die and not live" because the reason they pose such questions is in order to conceal from themselves the fact that they find their task difficult. First, they find it difficult to stick to a goal, then, they find it difficult to admit to themselves that sticking to their goal is difficult. So they end up being motivated to invert the values by posing a question such as "why goal X and not its opposite goal Y?" So if living was easier they would be all like "why dying and not living" and if dying was easier they would be all like "why living and not dying". Either way, whatever was easier they would be all over it. The funny thing is that they wouldn't be able to commit suicide either, because committing suicide requires a bit of a will power which they lack, so instead of going for a quick death they'd go for a slow death endured with the help of delusions of all sorts.

People don't do things because they give them joy or whatever, they do them because they can do them i.e. they are strong enough to do them. Simple.

To say that life/existence has to be justified is to say that you don't like your life.
To say that pain has to be justified (by joy or whatever) is to say that pain is a bad thing.
To say that Nietzsche said these things is to say that Nietzsche contradicted himself (and that he was talking rubbish.)

So yeah. Have a good day and a Happy New Year.
Magnus Anderson
ILP Legend
 
Posts: 5124
Joined: Mon Mar 17, 2014 7:26 pm

PreviousNext

Return to Philosophy



Who is online

Users browsing this forum: Bing [Bot]