accessibility, marx, heidegger Anonymous 2023-05-02 (Tue) 11:22:30 No. 15484 [View All]
Things (pragmata) have not mere objective presence (vorhandenheit), but also a handiness (zuhandenheit), and in average-everydayness we fall into infinite chains of 'in-order-to' via references (verweisungen) between useful things and the 'what-for' (wozu); the mode of being that Heidegger calls circumspection, in which we only perceive things in their handiness. Capital makes heavy use of accessibility, signage, to make things easy to use in production– think about the dull soullessness of modern operating systems and computers; Capital has its own entire branch of study for this - 'ergonomics'. The effect of this is to pull us further into circumspection and out of a recognition of the pure being of things, so that we keep following orders, consuming, obeying, etc.
Things in their pure objective presence only become noticeable for a person stuck in average-everydayness when they break or become unhandy, when there is a 'disruption in the chain of references', bringing us back into the real world and provides real possibility for a re-evaluation of the surrounding world (umwelt). For me this implies that as people who wish to change the world and destroy Capital, we should as our first point of praxis in resistance seek to destroy chains of signification and reference. This calls for not simply protesting calls for people to re-evaluate their relation to labour– but outright sabotage. anti-work. pure destruction of that which pulls people in most into average-everydayness in terms of productive work. large corporations' attempts to ever improve 'accessibility' for the disabled, ease-of-use, ergonomics, etc requires the strongest opposition. the more anti-work and anti-capitalism you are the better, putting up positive ideals for systems has to come after we already have disrupted capitalist signification and brought people back into a sober relation to the objective presence of things so that we can start re-evaluating our relation to the world which has to itself begin with a relation to our own Being. This is not to say protesting capitalism doesn't work since protestations can also yank people out of their average-everydayness but generally it has to be an emotional affair first rather than a rational one.
sooo let's break things ig :)
https://theanarchistlibrary.org/library/emile-pouget-sabotage 199 posts and 29 image replies omitted. Click reply to view. Anonymous 2023-05-06 (Sat) 16:04:18 No. 15686
>>15683 im not a zizek stan so i dont really understand this whole 'big Other' thing but as I explained in OP capitalism is kind of a detriment to letting things be and certain forms of marxism (specifically the cyberneticists) are the culmination of philosophy, which Heidegger wishes to find an antithesis to. but in reality fascists are just repressing genuine synthesis and deconstructions of tradition and reifying inorganic culture, making the same mistake of refusing to let things Be. if heidegger wasnt brainwashed by the nazis and by his environment maybe he would have seen that, and maybe he would have seen that we can only begin to let things be starting with a negation of the material conditions that get in the way of our thinking about being.
Anonymous 2023-05-06 (Sat) 16:05:01 No. 15687
>>15685 I don’t.
I wonder how one might have lead to the other. How “influential” someone is doesn’t really stop me considering we live in the epoch of liberalism. If it has influence under the current state of affairs I generally remain skeptical for a bit.
Anonymous 2023-05-06 (Sat) 16:06:01 No. 15688
>>15686 at the same time, we can only begin to actually break down those material conditions when we have full knowledge of them and an understanding of our current relationships in them which can only be brought about by a violent break in circumspection, either ideologically or physically.
Anonymous 2023-05-06 (Sat) 16:06:47 No. 15689
>>15687 One leads to the other for me because I know 20th century philosophers are not very friendly to liberalism or capitalism or racism on the whole so I have no problem recognising that I need to compartmentalise
Anonymous 2023-05-06 (Sat) 16:09:07 No. 15690
>>15689 Every single French new left capitulated to neoliberalism.
Anonymous 2023-05-06 (Sat) 16:14:53 No. 15691
>>15686 >In reality fascists are just repressing genuine synthesis and deconstructions of tradition and reifying inorganic culture, making the same mistake of refusing to let things Be. That is literally Heidegger's criticism of nazism. That it wasn't "fascist enough" and had compromised with the hebraism logic of progress. Your philosophical claims of the world are not new, it is quite literally the same ideas Proudhon, Bakunin, and Duhring had that capitalism is the natural state of the world and that any crisis that occurs within it is the result of someone outside of society who is manipulating social relations and serves as this contradictory figure. It's not shocking that all these thinkers became antisemitic.
Anonymous 2023-05-06 (Sat) 16:19:36 No. 15692
>>15691 >Your philosophical claims of the world are not new, it is quite literally the same ideas Proudhon, Bakunin, and Duhring had that capitalism is the natural state of the world and that any crisis that occurs within it is the result of someone outside of society who is manipulating social relations and serves as this contradictory figure. It's not shocking that all these thinkers became antisemitic. 1. I never said I was doing anything 'new'
2. Bakunin and Proudhon were not pro-capitalist
3. Nothing that's being said here implies capitalism is 'good and just being corrupted'
4. Neither is it a criticism that fascism isn't 'fascist enough'
This seems like a somewhat pathetic attempt to equate anarchism with fascism.
Anonymous 2023-05-06 (Sat) 16:27:48 No. 15693
>>15689 I really don’t see that as being the case. Most of the ones I encounter are vouching for liberal reformism or social democracy rather than a radically different system.
Anonymous 2023-05-06 (Sat) 16:44:39 No. 15694
>>15679 But it’s kind of predicated on Heidegger not knowing better because his philosophy informed his Nazi beliefs. He didn’t see a contradiction. Also, you already lost interest in what Heidegger had to say when he started philosophizing about the jews.
Anonymous 2023-05-06 (Sat) 16:45:55 No. 15695
>>15692 Then why did you write this original post? It is clearly your own ideas and are using Heidegger as inspiration. The posters correctly identified it as fascism and you have not given an adequate response to it. When posters called you out on your fascism, you regress into liberalism. Heidegger was "brainwashed" by the nazi regime? Come on…
Also there are historical arguments that Proudhon and Duhring were proto-fascists, it is not a ridiculous claim and Marx rightfully called them out for petite bourgioise thinking that later became the class basis for fascism.
There's really no use in this conversation since you have no clue on Heidegger's own philosophic arguments for antisemitism and how he gets the inspiration from Nietzsche who claims that Christianity is in essence jewish. Marx's polemic on the Jewish Question is a good start for getting an understanding at the time on how prevalent Antisemtism was in germany and how it served the philosophy at the time.
Anonymous 2023-05-06 (Sat) 16:58:00 No. 15696
>>15695 “you cannot say anything unless it is absolutely positively new”
in this case why are you on a board talking about marx? please use the brain God blessed u with lol
Anonymous 2023-05-06 (Sat) 16:59:11 No. 15697
>>15696 Marxism is a science and I am philosophizing right now.
Anonymous 2023-05-06 (Sat) 17:00:17 No. 15698
>>15695 frankly theres no point having “this conversation” at all to start with because your argument is basically a sophist point of “X Y Z therefore we cant talk about heidegger bc he was a nazi” and you clearly havent *read* Heidegger in the first place to even hold it, nor does it have any effect on anything or anyone because none of us are going to stop discussing heidegger merely because you constructed some strawmen and got offended over them
Anonymous 2023-05-06 (Sat) 17:03:47 No. 15699
>>15697 you’re all over the place.
Anonymous 2023-05-06 (Sat) 17:05:17 No. 15700
>>15698 Why should I care about Heidegger. You've admitted the only reason why you do care in the first place is because he's considered "influential".
I don't care about how influential a philsopher is, I care about arriving at the truth. You're offended because I don't worship Heidegger as some great philosopher despite your only interest in him is because other people have told you that he's interesting. If you can use Heideggar to reach truth like Derrida does then I'll listen. Right now, all the ideas you've presented are utterly generic and boring. They are not truth at all.
Anonymous 2023-05-06 (Sat) 17:09:36 No. 15701
>>15698 > X Y Z therefore we cant talk about heidegger bc he was a nazi No one said this
Anonymous 2023-05-06 (Sat) 17:10:49 No. 15702
>>15700 1. You've spent hours saying absolute nonsense in this thread instead of arguing that we shouldn't care about Heidegger for philosophical reasons so maybe next time just do that instead of wasting everyone's time
2. If you don't care about ontology and just want to be an ideologue who doesn't critically re-evaluate the foundations and assumptions of your metaphysics that's A. Okay, just leave it to the rest of us who have more than 2 brain cells to work with
3. I never said 'I only care about heidegger because he's influential' and now you're veering into the territory of actually lying about what I've said
4. Those last two statements just prove you're trolling so I'm not bothering any more with your dumb ass.
Anonymous 2023-05-06 (Sat) 17:11:09 No. 15703
>>15701 Scroll up? Literally that is what this whole discussion is about right now
Anonymous 2023-05-06 (Sat) 17:21:13 No. 15704
>>15703 I’m not seeing it.
Anonymous 2023-05-06 (Sat) 17:26:25 No. 15705
>>15702 < . I dont really grasp the whole 'u cant read him bc he was a nazi' thing from marxists. If you actually read Heidegger despite his tone policing of Marx he is eminently critical of capitalism and sounds outright marxist in many areas. Lacan, Foucault, Derrida – ALL Heideggerians. Deleuze himself says we must all be Heideggerians.
This was literally your argument on why Marxists should care about Heidegger.
Anonymous 2023-05-06 (Sat) 17:31:15 No. 15707
>>15701 We are discussing how Heidegger's philosophy leads to Fascist conclusions.
Anonymous 2023-05-06 (Sat) 17:35:41 No. 15708
>>15707 this is barely a discussion. you're just doing sophistry. it would be kind of offensive to people i have had discussions with in this thread if I were to equate this with a dialogue. You're just playing a lot of language-games.
Anonymous 2023-05-06 (Sat) 17:42:36 No. 15709
>>15708 Explain what sophistry means to you, and if they are word games, why do you keep falling for them?
Anonymous 2023-05-06 (Sat) 20:39:48 No. 15712
>>15705 > If you actually read Heidegger despite his tone policing of Marx he is eminently critical of capitalism and sounds outright marxist in many areas If I actually read Heidegger, will all the Nazi stuff that he wrote and I read about him wanting to save the western dasein from communism simply disappear?
Anonymous 2023-05-06 (Sat) 21:12:39 No. 15713
>>15712 >If I actually read Heidegger, will all the Nazi stuff that he wrote and I read about him wanting to save the western dasein from communism simply disappear? No, but Heidegger isn't as self-consistent as you seem to believe. For example, Heidegger makes the declaration (in his Nazi-era notebooks, I think) that Jews lack "world," which is nonsense if you consult Heidegger on "world" in "Being and Time" or in his lectures a few years before he wrote that notebook entry.
I'm not a Heidegger partisan, but, if you're interested in these topics, a serious interrogation is worthwhile for two separate reasons: 1. to see why he reaches conclusions that parallel Marx and other Marxists, both in his earlier and later period, and look into whether the parallel conclusions suggest further elaborations within Marxism (not a Heideggerian extension of Marxism, but extensions within Marxism of those conclusions along paths suggested by your reading of Heidegger); 2. to be able to offer a more substantial critique than "he's a Nazi" or "philosophy is pointless." Neither is a rationally satisfying answer as to what Heidegger might be wrong about. These answers might satisfy some people emotionally, but, if you're the sort of person who needs to understand why, these answers won't be satisfying, and it'll be irritating until you investigate it for yourself.
Anonymous 2023-05-06 (Sat) 21:20:28 No. 15715
>>15714 its the leftypol claims something is a misunderstandign without exposition hour
Anonymous 2023-05-06 (Sat) 21:24:17 No. 15716
>>15713 >seem to believe I don’t, which is why I asked.
Another thing I don’t get is why you can’t say the inconsistency in his philosophy lead to Nazism. Nazis themselves aren’t always consistent in their belief systems so that wouldn’t really be surprising. That his philosophy mirrors that is kind of what I would expect.
Anonymous 2023-05-06 (Sat) 21:27:47 No. 15717
>>15661 >But later he accepts this criticism and moves towards an understanding of all beings ive already pointed out the problems with him that remain here:
>>15636 >'Heidegger was a nazi' also not a great reason to move away from Heidegger IMO ofc but it is a good reason to read him with extra care. i do not think heidegger should be completely dismissed. if i did i wouldn't put this much energy into critiquing him and situating his thought into a larger framework. i am personally sympathetic of wolfendale's reading of late heidegger:
https://deontologistics.files.wordpress.com/2010/09/dublin-paper.pdf <For the early Heidegger, the world is the phenomenological horizon within which entities can be encountered as the entities they are. This means that the world confers significance upon entities by situating them in relation to our culturally articulated practices for dealing with them. The world is therefore something that is generated or projected by human Dasein. The name that Heidegger gives to this process through which the world is projected or opened up is disclosedness, or Truth. At this point, Heidegger recognises that the world is fundamentally revisable, insofar as our practices for dealing with entities can change and develop, but he doesn’t make anything of it. <It’s not until ‘On the Essence of Truth’ and ‘On the Origin of the Work of Art’ that he works out the consequences of this revisability. What he shows in these essays is that the process through which the world is revised is perpetual. There is a constitutive excess of the whole of beings in itself (or the earth) over our grasp of the whole (or the world). There is thus a constant back and forth wherein the earth disrupts our world and we revise our practices to adapt to it. Heidegger names this dynamic relation the strife between earth and world. He then identifies this strife with Truth. <[…] However, there is more to the second stage of the transition than a simple move away from metaphysics. The move to overcoming metaphysics involves positively accounting for the historical relativity of Being. The transition from Being to Ereignis is completed by incorporating the historical relativity of Being within the structure of Ereignis itself. This is the significance of the famous thesis that Ereignis ‘gives’ Being in the form of the various historical epochs within which given conceptions of beingness reign. In essence, all this means is that Heidegger ceases to see the structure of beings as such as an invariant feature of the process through which the world is revised, but instead takes it as something that is subject to revision in the process of strife. Therefore, insofar as Ereignis names the happening of strife it also names the process through which the various metaphysical epochs give way to one another. >Heidegger actually saw Marx as the culmination of philosophy this seems more to do with the fact that he saw philosophy as cumulating in the social sciences which he stresses has a technological character
<The development of philosophy into the independent sciences which, however, interdependendy communicate among themselves ever more markedly, is the legitimate completion of philosophy. Philosophy is ending in the present age. Ie has found its place in the scientific auicude of socially active humanity. But the fundamental characteristic of this scientific auitude is its cybernetic, that is, technological character. The need co ask about modern technology is presumably dying out to the same extent that technology more definitely characterizes and regulates the appearance of the totality of the world and the position of man in it <The sciences will interpret everything in their struC(ure that is still reminiscent of the origin from philosophy in accordance with the rules·ofscience, that is, technologically. Every science understands the categories upon which it remains dependent for the articulation and delineation of its area of investigation as working hypotheses. Their truth is measured not only by the effect which their application brings about within the progress of research <Scientific truth is equated with the efficiency of these effects Anonymous 2023-05-06 (Sat) 21:34:37 No. 15718
>>15715 I'll keep this short because I really don't have the patience. Heidegger critiqued the metaphysics of presence throughout his whole career. The point of the Vorhandenheit/Zuhandenheit chapter in Being and Time was to demonstrate that what you call "pure objective presence" is precisely not "the real world", because it is an abstraction from real lived experience i.e. being-in-the-world.
Anonymous 2023-05-06 (Sat) 22:18:41 No. 15719
>>15718 You're right about Heidegger's position overall, although the OP's reading of the "equipmental analysis" part of "Being and Time" seems accurate or at least plausible. I don't see it as wrong in relation to the anti-capitalist position in the OP, which isn't Heidegger's.
Anonymous 2023-05-06 (Sat) 22:51:43 No. 15721
>>15717 >this seems more to do with the fact that he saw philosophy as cumulating in the social sciences which he stresses has a technological character Actually he says Marx and Nietzsche specifically (End of Philosophy and Task of Thinking).
I read the paper you sent but I felt it was not really bringing up any criticism of Heidegger that'sworth nothing. Sure, goes into some of the opportunism Heidegger did to save face with the French after the war. But not much in terms of actually bringing up Marcuse's real disagreements. A bit meh
Anonymous 2023-05-07 (Sun) 00:37:48 No. 15723
>>15722 the paper i linked b4 mentions this scene lol. some say he might not even have read marx at all, though this ignorance might be a whitepill for heideggerians
>>15721 yeah it's more questioning how genuine this call for productive dialogue really was. also yeah he mentions marx but it leads into talk about how exactly philosophy gets ended and cybernetics
Anonymous 2023-05-07 (Sun) 01:13:29 No. 15724
>>15722 This is one of those cases where you could quote book Heidegger on "resoluteness" and "certainty" to attack video Heidegger.
Part of the problem is that he's just using the "Theses" to evaluate Marx's positions, though, under the apparent impression that they constituted the beginning and end of Marx on the relation between theory and practice - supposing Heidegger wasn't being disingenuous or intentionally misrepresenting Marx. That isn't knowable from the video, and can't be assumed; he was notoriously unable to quote Hegel correctly in the various editions of "Being and Time".
Anonymous 2023-05-08 (Mon) 18:57:51 No. 15725
>>15723 yes, but like w Kierkegaard, Heidegger wasn't just saying we should abolish philosophy. Philosophy is still a vital part of our lives. One makes a double movement– full embracing of the reality of the will-to-power, as well as a moving beyond
Anonymous 2023-05-08 (Mon) 18:59:11 No. 15726
>>15722 he's being inconsistent with himself basically – he rightly says that wanting to change the world entails an understanding of what 'world' is (ontological grounding). the implication is that marx doesn't have an ontology– but as people in this very thread have pointed out, he does.
Anonymous 2023-05-08 (Mon) 19:03:28 No. 15727
I can't wait for another exciting episode of a terrible thread created by, and half the posts created by pseudo-intellectual anfem poster. I'd rank cat poster top tier, but eh I'd also do male posters, but ironically the only ones I can think of is Shay (unless they changed their gender to female), and thing noticer
Anonymous 2023-05-11 (Thu) 09:40:05 No. 15728
bump
Anonymous 2023-05-11 (Thu) 09:48:16 No. 15729
the person above me is a rabid anti-communist dog
Anonymous 2023-05-11 (Thu) 09:50:11 No. 15730
>>15729 We are all rabid dogs here
You must be a rabid dog or you wouldn't be here
Anonymous 2023-05-11 (Thu) 20:05:33 No. 15732
>>15725 ofc, but that is also one of the angles through which he is attempting to critique marx. i do not agree w his criticism
Anonymous 2023-05-11 (Thu) 20:47:56 No. 15733
>>15727 they're all made up, you're interacting with bots you dumb cunt
Anonymous 2023-05-11 (Thu) 22:49:10 No. 15735
>>15733 Totally don't care engaging in dialogue is a massive force multiplier for thinking and the board tradition and culture is to
always take the bait
which drives the mods nuts but such is life Unique IPs: 15