|
My wife disliked reading Tillich for similiar reasons. His thesis was always at the end of the chapter in the systematic theologies.
|
#
?
Feb 26, 2019 16:42
|
|
|
|
| # ? Apr 29, 2024 10:52 |
|
|
BrandorKP posted:Ze Germans write different yo. Oh come on you can’t pin this on the German language. Nietzsche by contrast is an excellent writer. His books often read more like a battle rap than academic tombs. Heidegger is just a tedious bore who churned out reams of gibberish. It's not even an analytic vs continental thing. Sartre was a brilliant author who could explore deep themes through his novels and theatre. Foucault was incisive and specific in his commentary. Heidegger is just a chore. Squalid fucked around with this message at 20:05 on Feb 26, 2019 |
|
#
?
Feb 26, 2019 18:56
|
|
|
Being grandly important yet somewhat obscure and difficult to parse seems like the ideal writing style for your career if you're an academic trying to make good in a literally totalitarian society.
|
|
#
?
Feb 26, 2019 18:59
|
|
|
Squalid posted:Oh come on you can’t pin this on the German language. It's not the language specfically. It's not even the analytical vs the continental. Personally I think it's more the idealism. I had a hell of a time communicating the concepts I picked in Tillich up over the years in threads here. People thought I was schizophrenic (and I'm most definately not). The very passage Glowingfish picked is explanative of the gap. It's almost like having an alien understanding. This gap is what modernity causes. How does one talk about a thing experienced internally to those that haven't experienced it. It's not like explaining faith to someone who doesn't have it, it is the exact same. How does one communicate that which is only understood by a negation?
|
|
#
?
Feb 26, 2019 21:48
|
|
|
BrandorKP posted:It's not the language specfically. It's not even the analytical vs the continental. Personally I think it's more the idealism. I had a hell of a time communicating the concepts I picked in Tillich up over the years in threads here. People thought I was schizophrenic (and I'm most definately not). Uh...the passage I "picked" was me writing Heidegger parody. I thought it was obvious. Was I trolling people without trying to?
|
|
#
?
Feb 27, 2019 02:01
|
|
|
Yes I didn't notice.
|
|
#
?
Feb 27, 2019 02:10
|
|
|
" the poetry of language, the language of poetry, and how they are both silent" I mean, I couldn't even write that without giggling. I usually don't like faking people out, I thought it was a clear reference, especially since I did the same thing earlier in the thread.
|
|
#
?
Feb 27, 2019 02:12
|
|
|
Ehh I'm entirely too earnest all the time assume everybody else is and am a pretty easy mark for that.
|
|
#
?
Feb 27, 2019 02:19
|
|
|
Accidental reenactment of Sokal hoax itt
|
|
#
?
Feb 27, 2019 02:51
|
|
|
See this is the problem with "philosophers" who try to justify their obscurantism one way or another. A single sentence of prose as entropic as Heidegger's can mean a thousand different things, few of them even intentional. Readers who sincerely try to distill concrete, self-consistent meaning (while refusing to cheat themselves into "understanding" something they don't for the sake of being pulled along on Heidegger's Wild Dasein Ride) will--correctly--conclude that the work is mostly gibberish. But readers who power through, either by suspending critical thought or just by experiencing the work through a mostly aesthetic framework (which, you know, you could do a hell of a lot better than this quack if that's your jam), will basically end up seeing patterns in oracle bones. And while, as with any form of cleromancy, people may sometimes be able to obtain interesting, profound, or correct insights this way, the fact that they are just as easily able to do so by scrutinizing less authentic gibberish should come as no surprise.
|
|
#
?
Feb 27, 2019 09:14
|
|
|
Squalid posted:you lost me at the third clause. Not all philosophers are good writers, neither are all philosophical projects the same. Heidegger felt that both "Plain language" and philosophical language at the time did not have the vocabulary needed to express what he wanted. He had to develop many of the concepts that he would later use, or it would be even more unweildly in both volume and coherency. Kant and Hegel faced similar charges of obscurantism as they all have a sort of meta-language to learn in order to parse a random passage from their work. KVeezy3 fucked around with this message at 09:28 on Feb 27, 2019 |
|
#
?
Feb 27, 2019 09:20
|
|
|
Morbus posted:See this is the problem with "philosophers" who try to justify their obscurantism one way or another. A single sentence of prose as entropic as Heidegger's can mean a thousand different things, few of them even intentional. This is entirely my problem with Deleuze too. Dude writes gibberish and yet he’s highly disseminated in literary academia like wtf Venomous fucked around with this message at 10:31 on Feb 27, 2019 |
|
#
?
Feb 27, 2019 10:28
|
|
|
glowing-fish posted:For example, say we read someone say "The police will only ever protect the wealthy, the justice system is only used to protect those in power". You can read that about 50 times a day on here. The second way can lead to something more: that inordinate wealth and power are what should be addressed directly. Obviously this is far easier said than done, in that this will require a massive ontological change as beings, but Heidegger is more suited to asking the right questions rather than generating solutions.
|
|
#
?
Feb 27, 2019 16:27
|
|
|
I've never read any Heidegger, except to know in a general sense the themes and topics he has written about. But I thought I would mention that the movies of Terrence Malick are thought to be heavily influenced by Heidegger, specifically the film The Thin Red Line. Before he became a filmmaker, Malick was a philosophy professor and Rhodes Scholar...he met with Heidegger at one point, and did an English translation of one of his works. Malick's usage of voice-over seems to dovetail into Heidegger's affinity for poetry (in fact, Malick has sometimes asked his actors to write poems). Generally speaking, most filmmakers head into movies or some other form of art first, while a few are in a different line of work before becoming filmmakers. I think Malick is almost singularly unique in his heavy philosophy background before making the transition, and it infuses his work in a manner that is wholly distinct from anyone else. The Thin Red Line is not a straight forward movie and won't be everyone's cup of tea, but I think it is worth watching if you have any interest in Heidegger's work!
|
|
#
?
Feb 27, 2019 22:41
|
|
|
I have been fantastically happy with only a single Heidegger quote, about a man being born as many men and dying as only one. I felt that was a concise explanation of the reason for not rushing out and playing red dead redemption two, and instead tutoring people at school, for free, in subjects that I have an inherent understanding of. Not philosophy. As we have said in the lodge, death is the end of earthy ambitions. What branches of the man I could still be would be pruned without my fairly late in life understanding of this. How many of my bitter leaves unturned, have never had the chance to fall to the ground, and are just still hanging there? Is this all just the poison fruit William Blake grew for thieves, simply because of the man Heidegger died as? I really liked your giggle worthy quote OP, probably for the same reason you inadvertently trolled. Nonsense is strung into music all the time. But then again, I look to myself for understanding of other people, and as I have been told again and again by goons, something awful or maybe even the internet in general, is not a good place for discussion in earnest. Hasn’t Facebook or Reddit demanded we like or dislike something to create community moderation standards? What has the goon policy been for community moderating those who are not in need of administrative punishment, if not attack the person, instead of the idea they propose in earnest?
|
|
#
?
Mar 3, 2019 01:49
|
|
|
How much are people like Foucault and Derrida directly copying from Heidegger, and how much inbetween distance and transformation is their in the ideas they had? Also, I think I asked this in the A/T philosophy thread, but how do you get to Heidegger from Hegel, so to speak? How much is Heidegger copying from Hegel, how many layers inbetween, etc?
|
|
#
?
Mar 4, 2019 02:26
|
|
|
glowing-fish posted:For example, say we read someone say "The police will only ever protect the wealthy, the justice system is only used to protect those in power". You can read that about 50 times a day on here. What if POMO is right and the argument doesn't mean anything in particular except that a person is signaling to other people that they are mad about a thing?
|
|
#
?
Mar 4, 2019 17:37
|
|
|
wateroverfire posted:What if POMO is right and the argument doesn't mean anything in particular except that a person is signaling to other people that they are mad about a thing? I suppose that would invite the question of what got you mad enough to come start signalling in this thread?
|
|
#
?
Mar 4, 2019 19:36
|
|
|
a
emTme3 fucked around with this message at 04:01 on Mar 31, 2022 |
|
#
?
Mar 5, 2019 17:42
|
|
|
splifyphus posted:There are theological/metaphysical assumptions built into the structures of languages due to their historically contingent genesis and the 20c positivist project to construct a language without said assumptions failed utterly. Two immediate corollaries: nothing worth saying can be said in 'plain language' (which is why nobody worth reading is gonna be easy) and you must ruthlessly always be dissecting said 'plain language' if you want to have even a tiny chance of one day experiencing a thought you might call your own. The alternative is much easier and you're already there - a lifetime of submission to unquestioned assumptions invented by priests and technocrats. The bolded part strikes me as incredibly dumb, could you elaborate?
|
|
#
?
Mar 5, 2019 18:03
|
|
|
splifyphus posted:The reason for this is that Hegel invented/discovered a rapacious conceptual machine that preemptively devours everything it encounters, which wasn't a very nice thing to do to future philosophers. Eh it gors way back at least to Marcion in Antithesis which is radical Paulinism. Or what about Proclus? And anyway is it really good to assert the thought of Hegel as a Theonomy ? "You will encounter this concept often in my writings and in discussions. And whenever you are asked, "What do you mean with theonomy?" then you say: "The way of philosophizing of Anselm of Canterbury," or "The way of philosophizing of Augustine," or "The way of philosophizing" –now I hesitate to say it--" Hegel" -History of Christian Thought Tillich Bar Ran Dun fucked around with this message at 03:44 on Mar 6, 2019 |
|
#
?
Mar 6, 2019 03:39
|
|
|
Norton the First posted:The bolded part strikes me as incredibly dumb, could you elaborate? He's just suffering from the sunk cost fallacy and expects that anyone who wastes as much time as he has reading tedious dreck will convince themselves it was actually all worthwhile and its not pointlessly long winded but actually really deep. Finnegan's Wake would be a much more tolerable bedside companion than Being and Time. The difference between Joyce and Heidegger is that Joyce is actually a good writer. Actually I should check and see if Finnegan's Wake is on Audible, put on 2x speed and it would probably be a good listen at the gym.
|
|
#
?
Mar 6, 2019 04:05
|
|
|
the basic point is not wrong - plain language evolves and can distort the often-technical meaning of a text. philosophical jargon is like all other jargon - you wouldn't expect a biologist to stop talking about alleles because it's not plain language though yeah heidegger, hegel and kant all write god-awful prose
|
|
#
?
Mar 6, 2019 09:56
|
|
|
From what I've read of Kant he is clarity itself, especially compared to those two.
|
|
#
?
Mar 6, 2019 15:21
|
|
|
V. Illych L. posted:the basic point is not wrong - plain language evolves and can distort the often-technical meaning of a text. philosophical jargon is like all other jargon - you wouldn't expect a biologist to stop talking about alleles because it's not plain language Yeah, but the assertion that anybody readable isn't really worth reading leaves out, say, Plato. I can't see how he could possibly be serious.
|
|
#
?
Mar 6, 2019 16:23
|
|
|
The actual contention here is that philosophy doesn't deserve the respect afforded to the maths/sciences for any impenetrability and therefore must at minimum be entertaining or reduced to the level of self-help books.
|
|
#
?
Mar 6, 2019 18:15
|
|
|
Norton the First posted:Yeah, but the assertion that anybody readable isn't really worth reading leaves out, say, Plato. I can't see how he could possibly be serious. Plato may be readable but if anything that often makes his real meaning harder to grasp. See, for instance, the all too common tendency even among people who read it in university to assume that The Republic is a book about designing a government rather than an extended metaphor for human nature. KVeezy3 posted:The actual contention here is that philosophy doesn't deserve the respect afforded to the maths/sciences for any impenetrability and therefore must at minimum be entertaining or reduced to the level of self-help books. That's true, but if you over correct for this too much you end up with neoclassical economics, which is an even worse outcome.
|
|
#
?
Mar 6, 2019 18:40
|
|
|
Helsing posted:Plato may be readable but if anything that often makes his real meaning harder to grasp. See, for instance, the all too common tendency even among people who read it in university to assume that The Republic is a book about designing a government rather than an extended metaphor for human nature. Ehhh, I seriously doubt that his real meaning would be easier to grasp if he wrote like a German.
|
|
#
?
Mar 6, 2019 19:03
|
|
|
Norton the First posted:Ehhh, I seriously doubt that his real meaning would be easier to grasp if he wrote like a German. At least most people are comfortable admitting they don't really know what those guys were talking about, whereas Plato still somewhat regularly gets trotted out any time some blowhard hack like Andrew Sullivan needs to polish his latest turd on the failures of democracy. Arguably - and let's hope I'm not doing exactly the kind of superficial read on Plato that I just warned again - thinking you know something is a deeper form of ignorance than knowing that you know nothing. That, after all, was said to be the reason why the Oracle declared that no man was wiser than Socrates.
|
|
#
?
Mar 6, 2019 19:55
|
|
|
wateroverfire posted:What if POMO is right and the argument doesn't mean anything in particular except that a person is signaling to other people that they are mad about a thing? To discuss that question, I started a thread about rationalism, but it didn't really take off.
|
|
#
?
Mar 8, 2019 01:18
|
|
|
glowing-fish posted:To discuss that question, I started a thread about rationalism, but it didn't really take off. I take a break from SA and I miss all kinds of things. =( glowing-fish posted:" the poetry of language, the language of poetry, and how they are both silent" This was the high point of this thread, IMO. Heidegger is essentially an early 20th century ERIPSA. Had the latter been born much earlier and I guess been a Nazi he also might have been one of the pillars of modern western philosophy.
|
|
#
?
Mar 8, 2019 14:35
|
|
|
glowing-fish posted:The mass man, the man of the city, divorced from being, scampering from one event seen-through-the-eyes-of-others to another, is unable to understand the poetry of language, the language of poetry, and how they are both silent. And so he looks into Being, looks into the logos, not the logos of category, but the logos of connection, of linking, that ideas-as-thoughts-as-words-as-poetry, are what is Being-there-as-human-as-history-as-Volk, and he calls it "nothing". Because the teleology of "interest", where essence leads, through a series of hints and allegations and things-left-unsaid, to existence, and where existence, in its circuitous path that is not the forest-path of the German Worker who joyfully uses the trees in the service of the Volk, is lead back into essence, this game is the game the urbanite plays and speaks, and where the true nature of Being, that forgotten ray of light piercing the forest kanopy, becomes "boring", becomes "Nothing". An illustration of this sentiment, this ideology in action, can be found in Murnau's "Sunrise." This passage, while utilizing words of a more formal character, is essentially romantic in its worldview.
|
|
#
?
Mar 10, 2019 01:19
|
|
|
CountFosco posted:An illustration of this sentiment, this ideology in action, can be found in Murnau's "Sunrise." This passage, while utilizing words of a more formal character, is essentially romantic in its worldview. 
|
|
#
?
Mar 11, 2019 12:59
|
|
|
Have you seen Sunrise? Are you unaware that one of the big themes is the man of the city versus the man of the country?
|
|
#
?
Mar 11, 2019 17:32
|
|
|
I saw Sunrise but can remember exactly zero things about it.
|
|
#
?
Mar 11, 2019 17:49
|
|
|
So I've been thinking about this thread. But not so much about Heidegger. More glowing-fish orginal premise that Heidegger is relevant to current event. And I think the broader question it raises is that of our relationship with symbolic orders and ourselves and how they can interact and how this question is being manipulated by malign actors.
|
|
#
?
Mar 18, 2019 17:45
|
|
|
BrandorKP posted:So I've been thinking about this thread. But not so much about Heidegger. More glowing-fish orginal premise that Heidegger is relevant to current event. And I think the broader question it raises is that of our relationship with symbolic orders and ourselves and how they can interact and how this question is being manipulated by malign actors. Although it didn't get much response, the "What is rationality" thread was meant to address this, and I will make a post about this issue, right after dinner. ("right after dinner" is an important phrase, because I am not a detached intellect, but a corporeal being who requires sustenance, which is one of the points of the post)
|
|
#
?
Mar 18, 2019 23:17
|
|
|
|
| # ? Apr 29, 2024 10:52 |
|
|
I am a complete ignoramus when it comes to philosophy but I have really enjoyed reading this thread and have learned a lot from it, thank you all for posting 
|
|
#
?
Mar 19, 2019 21:18
|
|
