|
If one wants to talk about Being without the nazi, an alternative route is Tillich. Another German he got chased out of Germany by the Nazis in 1933 (for The Socialist Decision). Havard Theological Review on how they are related: https://www.jstor.org/stable/1509278?read-now=1&seq=2&socuuid=b66c5320-08b8-4ca7-bec6-3f3e215f1459&socplat=email#page_scan_tab_contents Thing is it's theology, which aint everybody's jam. Edit: as it's MLK day, MLK's thesis was about Tillich btw.
|
#
¿
Jan 22, 2019 07:22
|
|
|
|
| # ¿ May 15, 2024 22:13 |
|
|
glowing-fish posted:there is a deeper strain to what fascism is, and I believe a lot of it is concealed inside of the philosophy of Martin Heidegger. The idea of wanting to do away with our individual consciousness and conscience, and replacing it with an oceanic feeling of being part of something bigger, is something that we can appreciate. The idea of returning to the unity of a community and a simpler world is something that sounds like a good idea, until we think of all that could mean. Looking at the damage caused by "Western rationality" is a good critical perspective, as long as we don't forget what the alternative has been. It's the corruption of salvation. Fascism, terrorism, the various right wing christian nationalists, they offer a false salvation. Tillich defines the demonic in systematically theology as basically this.
|
|
#
¿
Jan 22, 2019 07:49
|
|
|
glowing-fish posted:But when I read them, I can't tell whether they are based in rationality or irrationality. Whether they are an enlightenment idea or the type of post-enlightenment that Heidegger started. Luther. Luther went gently caress Aquinas yo and created the break. The enlightenment is not outside of this break (they're all German Lutherans, Kant, Hegel, Shelling, etc) nor are the various strains of post enlightenment thought, be they marxist, existentialist, or religious existentialist. Edit: Zizek is taking it back to Hegel to try to resolve this question, but that's not far enough back. Edit 2: They aren't disconnected, there just is not much translation between the different branches, but there can be! Bar Ran Dun fucked around with this message at 21:51 on Jan 22, 2019 |
|
#
¿
Jan 22, 2019 21:45
|
|
|
Who are they reading, reacting to, and being influenced by?
|
|
#
¿
Jan 22, 2019 21:54
|
|
|
Let's cut to the crux, Where do you think the break between the analytical and continental branches starts? What sets that spilt in motion for you? Edit: Tillich thought the break occured with Luther in his History of Christian thought. Convince me there's a better place to locate the split? Bar Ran Dun fucked around with this message at 22:12 on Jan 22, 2019 |
|
#
¿
Jan 22, 2019 22:09
|
|
|
Yeah but Frege is just responding to questions raised by Kant. And I don't think it's any accident that it's mostly the English being the ones to respond to the Germans because they broke with the Catholics in a different way, that didn't involve a fundamental change in the way they thought.
|
|
#
¿
Jan 23, 2019 00:05
|
|
|
Glowingfish, What are the existentialists (and most of that post enlightenment / post modern category is rooted in existentialism) reacting to? Idealism, not nessisarily the enlightenment. But to confuse matters some of the religious existentialists are idealists! But let's take an author close to existentialism, Melville. Melville has two works that I think capture what Tillich calls the existentialist impulse, one in personal terms and one in societal terms. The one that is autobiographical and personal is Bartleby the Scrivner. The one that deals with society is Billy Budd. Tldr: (not for you, I'm sure you're very familiar with both) gently caress your well meaning ideas about what you think I should do with my life, "I'd prefer not to." gently caress being sacrificed, literally wrongly executed knowingly, to enforce societies norms for the greater good. This impulse I think one finds in Nietzche and Marx and Kierkegaard and Lacan and Foucault, etc. I dont think it's accurate to limit it to merely a reaction to the enlightenment. It's a dialectic between this impulse and the construction of ideas with language. Which is why I like the putting of it as starting at Luther, particularly his rejection of Aquinas and Aristotle combined with the breaking of Catholicism theonomy. Bar Ran Dun fucked around with this message at 22:42 on Jan 23, 2019 |
|
#
¿
Jan 23, 2019 04:22
|
|
|
Just an observation a prior first lady named her book "Becoming". Now I know, with certainty, that this comes from the churches she attended in Chicago, and the thought of Tillich, which comes from Heidegger in 1925 (edit see Jstor link I posted earlier). I'm not sure we can look at America without taking about Being and Nothing. Bar Ran Dun fucked around with this message at 07:12 on Jan 25, 2019 |
|
#
¿
Jan 25, 2019 07:03
|
|
|
"[Dasein is] that entity which in its Being has this very Being as an issue". Glowing fish you characterise Heidegger's hermeneutics as "complicated" why? What's the word mean literally? Translation, interpretation, explaination! Imagine a pastor at a mainline (not evangelical!) doing an exegesis of scripture to answer a contemporary question. Now imagine instead of one question it was towards the end of building a system and there were many exegesis involved. This is the same thing in a religious context (and it's where the process Heidegger uses for his hermeneutics orginates from). You look to the past: the poetry, stories, philosophies and then explain them to answer the questions of now and to build a system. Look at Zizek for someone thinking this way now. Also I think of it sort as the inverse of deconstruction. In Tillich the equivalent concept is the method of correlation. If you need examples I can dig atleast one up?
|
|
#
¿
Jan 27, 2019 05:57
|
|
|
Ze Germans write different yo. It's like the difference between writing a paper for a UK university and a US one, the structure you use is different. On top of the structural differences there is the difference between materialists and idealists. The materialist writes about one thing the idealist writes about many things like that fragmented light coming through the canopy.
|
|
#
¿
Feb 26, 2019 16:18
|
|
|
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
|
|
|
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
|
|
|
Yes I didn't notice.
|
|
#
¿
Feb 27, 2019 02:10
|
|
|
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
|
|
|
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
|
|
|
|
| # ¿ May 15, 2024 22:13 |
|
|
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
|
|