accessibility, marx, heidegger Anonymous 2023-05-02 (Tue) 11:22:30 No. 15484 [Last 50 Posts]
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 Anonymous 2023-05-02 (Tue) 11:23:05 No. 15485
Oh not again
Anonymous 2023-05-02 (Tue) 11:32:22 No. 15487
>>15486 sir this is leftist politically incorrect
Anonymous 2023-05-02 (Tue) 11:39:18 No. 15490
>>15489 >sabotage workplace >get fired >starve Why don't you try doing that? Oh wait, you don't have a job. That's right.
Baffles me you even considered posting this.
Anonymous 2023-05-02 (Tue) 11:47:53 No. 15492
>>15491 this was me i just forgot the flag
Anonymous 2023-05-02 (Tue) 11:51:40 No. 15493
>>15489 Okay but for this be even a little successful you'd need to be able to give these people some type of safety net or agitate for some kind of temporary reduction of bills
If not it would be awfully hard for lower class people to walk off jobs when they live pay check to pay check. These ideas seem better to people who live with parents or are in college. Not a single mom or a family who is behind on debt who can quickly be evicted if miss rent
Anonymous 2023-05-02 (Tue) 11:54:08 No. 15494
>>15493 im not talking about lower class people walking off jobs
Anonymous 2023-05-02 (Tue) 11:56:11 No. 15495
>>15494 Then how are you go to do this "anti work" thing. People who disrupt at jobs get fired typically and have no union protection. What is the plan here
Anonymous 2023-05-02 (Tue) 12:02:30 No. 15496
>>15495 i didnt make this post to iron out every crease and detail, nor am i going to talk about how i personally do it. if you want that go read the essay i posted alongside what i wrote, or one of the many many guides or manuals out there.
Anonymous 2023-05-02 (Tue) 12:11:57 No. 15498
Lots of nonsense for someone talking about accessibility
Anonymous 2023-05-02 (Tue) 12:12:58 No. 15499
>>15498 just goes to show how little your brain is if you think i was praising accessibility
Anonymous 2023-05-02 (Tue) 13:13:00 No. 15500
>>15484 It is not sufficient to just sabotage. Debord wrote about how capitalist societies simultaneously embrace the contradiction between ending history and continuing production. Disruptions in the production continuity (it is not a cycle, because there is no 'general' cycle humanity depends upon (like we did in our agrarian societies)) only temporarily halts production somewhere, but overall it is not important, because even destruction gets capitalized on (this is the spectacle in action).
Pannekoek wrote (in 1920!)
<The conception that revolution in Western Europe will take the form of an orderly siege of the fortress of capital which the proletariat, organised by the Communist Party into a disciplined army and using time-proven weapons, will repeatedly assault until the enemy surrenders is a neo-reformist perspective that certainly does not correspond to the conditions of struggle in the old capitalist countries. Here there may occur revolutions and conquests of power that quickly turn into defeat; the bourgeoisie will be able to reassert its domination, but this will result in even greater dislocation of the economy; transitional forms may arise which, because of their inadequacy, only prolong the chaos. Certain conditions must be fulfilled in any society for the social process of production and collective existence to be possible, and these relations acquire the firm hold of spontaneous habits and moral norms – sense of duty, industriousness, discipline: in the first instance, the process of revolution consists in a loosening of these old relations. A good revolution requires time. Capitalism is breaking down withing itself, but the inherent dynamics of developed capitalism have been embraced by the working class of the West, and breaking out of these dynamics means also waiting.
Besides that your posts are shit, I dislike the whole abstract nonsense Heideggerian analysis of men-as-time instead of men-as-labor. Labor and time can only be equalized in communism, where men really are what they do, the time they themselves put to use, instead of time in production or consumption, like under capitalism.
Anonymous 2023-05-02 (Tue) 13:16:34 No. 15501
>>15484 you desperately need a blog.
>Things (pragmata) have not mere objective presence (vorhandenheit), but also a handiness (zuhandenheit), ok. i've only read the question concerning technology, so i'm no heideggerian, but this seems fair so far.
>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. you've played a subtle trick where we've gone from the dichotomy being one of presence v. utility to one of "pure being" v. utility. i dislike this privileging of presence as "pure" whereas utility is treated as "impure" when each are indispensable aspects of our understanding of being as such. i struggle to see how the act of recognizing is any more revolutionary than that of instrumentalizing. it would seem that revolutionary consciousness calls for each of these modes of being, e.g. both a recognition of the presence of capitalism as the contradictory splitting off of labor from itself in the form of capital, and a circumspection of what products of capitalism can be instrumentalized as means towards the ends of a revolutionary transformation in the mode of production.
>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). when stuff breaks at the plant i work at, people call the guy that fixes it and move on with their day. if they find at you broke it, they will be far more likely to be pissed at you than to have some profound epiphany about what is directly present before them. and so what if they did have such an epiphany? pure presence in and of itself does not generate anything other than the simple recognition of that fact.
>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. >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. we began by outlining two modes of relation between consciousness and things. i don't believe this relation comes into sharper relief by repressing one of the modes and sanctifying the other. what is needed is not to destroy or disrupt, but to build and enable alternative modes of circumspection which reveal the ways in which capital enframes things as an instrument to the ends of perpetuating its mastery over labor, and show what aspects of capital could be instrumental for labor to the ends of abolishing its subordination.
>sooo let's break things ig :) no. let's build new things that people can use to create a better tomorrow.
Anonymous 2023-05-02 (Tue) 13:25:03 No. 15502
>>15500 Just to add something about the last point.
I think that men really are not just nothing, they are less than nothing. Men only realize that they are less than nothing after contact with the Real, when the whole imaginary/symbolic order breaks down. Call the imaginary and symbolic Reality.
Capitalism has its own Reality, the reality of totality of capitalism. All things before are frozen and exhibited, progress is seen as being total under capitalism, and the only reality we have is the frozen past and a non-existing future. The reality of capitalism is frozen time, yet time still goes on and we feel it only after Reality breaks down. It is this contact with the Real that also makes us temporal. Communism should, I think, accept this fact of the nullity of man and his existence. When Marx says
What he really is saying is not that we shall have fully automated luxurious gay space communism where things are so easy, anyone can do them. He is saying that men are only realized by labor, labor is estranged under capitalism, and hence men are never who they are under capitalism. While under socialism, men really no longer are men, because they can become any profession, as long as they put in the time, as long as labor is not estranged, and whatever men does, man is.
Anonymous 2023-05-02 (Tue) 13:32:23 No. 15503
>>15500 how can destruction get capitalized on if you are actively destroying the functioning of capital? come on, use your brain. yes in some way 'punk' is an expression of sabotage subsumed, but you cannot make up for actual sabotage, it's just an attempt to recuperate. i am increasingly finding the accelerationism of fisher highly naive and void of any practical analysis.
>>15501 as Heidegger says in S&Z, you can't have a recognition of the referential chains without conspicuousness. when stuff breaks at the plant you work at, yes people recuperate and move on, but it is an opportunity to actually consider and re-evaluate our relation to production and the utility of the thing. Anyone with experience with broken objects can recognise the truth of this statement. When my phone stops working, the fact taht it is a hunk of metal becomes apparent to me. Something becomes 'more present' to me when it breaks in itself, I pay greater attention to it, more care.
Also, the Question Concerning Technology is a horrible translation. It should be called the Question Concerning *Technics*
Anonymous 2023-05-02 (Tue) 13:35:05 No. 15504
>>15502 Sartre pls go read the Letters on Humanism. People are not what they do.
Anonymous 2023-05-02 (Tue) 13:44:55 No. 15505
>>15501 also i dont know how to blog i suck at technology and if i did get one no one would read it anyway so i am forcing my opinions on you unfortunate people instead
Anonymous 2023-05-02 (Tue) 13:48:27 No. 15506
>>15503 >how can destruction get capitalized on if you are actively destroying the functioning of capital? It will always get capitalized on, if you don't have mass support, mass coordinated destruction of the old world. I don't think I have to argue on this point. You can see it in every day life almost. Run down neighborhoods are 'investment opportunities'; destroyed industries are open to gentrification. As long as capital, as long as wage labor, as long as alienation is present, capitalists will always somehow profit off of the proletariat.
>>15504 You can't convince me by suggesting things to read. I'm telling you about my experience which I tried to put in some framework.
Anonymous 2023-05-02 (Tue) 13:55:13 No. 15507
>circumspection, in which we only perceive things in their handiness > pure being of things >bro, just break things with 0 frame of reference
Anonymous 2023-05-02 (Tue) 13:57:04 No. 15508
>>15503 >it is an opportunity to actually consider and re-evaluate our relation to production and the utility of the thing. >Anyone with experience with broken objects can recognise the truth of this statement. it's funny you say this, because i've spent basically my entire working life dealing with broken things and the people that use them. it hasn't been my experience that when things break people "reconsider their relation to production" or the reason why they are using the thing. perhaps they will reconsider the way they have been using it, so as to not break it again and thereby better achieve the circumscribed end, but it does not conjure in people the revolutionary fervor to overturn.
>When my phone stops working, the fact taht it is a hunk of metal becomes apparent to me. yes. this is what i meant when i said "pure presence in and of itself does not generate anything other than the simple recognition of that fact."
>Something becomes 'more present' to me when it breaks in itself, I pay greater attention to it, more care. this is a misapprehension. hobbes' challenge "does reality admit of more and less?" applies here. presence does not exist on a gradient. something is here/there for something else, or it is not. your phone does not become more present for having lost its ability to function. in fact, all that has happened is that the presence of the phone's workings, it's instrumentality, has vanished, leaving only the raw fact of its material component parts lying in your hand for you to consider.
>Also, the Question Concerning Technology is a horrible translation. It should be called the Question Concerning *Technics* *fart noise* >>15505 >also i dont know how to blog i suck at technology and if i did get one no one would read it anyway so i am forcing my opinions on you unfortunate people instead i wonder why you get so many dismissive and outright hostile replies.
Anonymous 2023-05-02 (Tue) 14:06:06 No. 15509
>>15505 Please write about marxism and not petty-bourgiosie random musings. You've gotten destroyed by someone who actually understands marxism and is able to critically use philsophers to serve Dialectical Materialism. Less reading critical theory and more reading Marx.
Anonymous 2023-05-02 (Tue) 14:11:11 No. 15511
>>15484 Reminds me somewhat of the function of adblockers as an anti-capitalist tool . Ad blockers help "break the chain of references" as you say. A good enough tracker blocker can even disable the ads on youtube (although youtube will keep spamming your connection with api events to try to trigger an ad.
Filtering out this false capitalist reality is no easy task, especially as capitalism has grown more political by appropriating various social causes, excepting class struggles, of course, which are the glaring blindspot. It will pretend to champion the rights of various minority groups, but you never see it problematize how unfair it is for workers in capitalist society
Anonymous 2023-05-02 (Tue) 14:26:19 No. 15512
>>15509 >'omg u got destroyed!!' kill yourself.
Anonymous 2023-05-02 (Tue) 14:27:42 No. 15513
>>15508 none of this is particularly edifying. 'your phone does not become more present for having lost its ability to function' a cursory glance at anyone's reaction upon losing or damaging their phone will prove otherwise.
Anonymous 2023-05-02 (Tue) 14:28:25 No. 15515
>>15507 please i beg of you to not just post the first shit that comes into your brain
Anonymous 2023-05-02 (Tue) 14:28:47 No. 15516
>>15514 that is about the sum of what you put in your post, yeah.
Anonymous 2023-05-02 (Tue) 14:30:31 No. 15517
>>15516 no, i am the one actually saying things here. all you've said is "x is so because, well, it just is, ok? everybody can see it!"
Anonymous 2023-05-02 (Tue) 14:31:41 No. 15518
>>15515 If you had to think to post that, then your brain is shit.
Anonymous 2023-05-02 (Tue) 14:33:01 No. 15519
>>15515 you shouldn't post anything that comes to your brain because it's all tedious nonsense that i spend hours unpacking and finding flaws in excruciating detail only for you to say "no that's wrong because people get mad when their iphone don't turn on".
Anonymous 2023-05-02 (Tue) 14:33:49 No. 15520
>>15511 I'm not so sure that's true. In a certain manner, ad blockers kind of lubricate the experience of consumption, they simply block further perversions of desire. it really depends on what you're doing in the time you save and what you do when an ad comes on. when an ad comes on my reaction is usually to go 'oh fuck this' and look away from the screen and think about how much i hate capitalism, whereas an ad blocker can sometimes just allow me to continue with my mindless scrolling and consumption of images. in a sense we have to throw a spanner in the works and make peoples' lives harder. but it's a balancing act between this and getting people mad for trying to get them to think. look at the reaction of this board– many people on this board are much more inclined to ontological thought than the average person, but the visceral reaction of anti-intellectuals to this thread really demonstrates what I'm talking about. Even when it's in service of an analysis of capitalism it's not good enough!
Anonymous 2023-05-02 (Tue) 14:34:29 No. 15521
>>15517 >in my experience >i spent my life doing this!!! >no people dont do that zero reason given
Anonymous 2023-05-02 (Tue) 14:39:00 No. 15523
>>15522 very "pure being" of you.
I suddenly feel edified.
Anonymous 2023-05-02 (Tue) 14:40:33 No. 15524
>>15521 Oh just another petite bourgioise idiot who has no humility. I appreciate you trying to bringing theory here since dengism has rotted everyone's minds but you're repeating the worst tendencies of the online left community pre-2016. Most people are averse to what you say because you are speaking nonsense. Read Mao and Althusser.
Anonymous 2023-05-02 (Tue) 14:42:24 No. 15525
>>15521 so, you say
>Anyone with experience with broken objects can recognise the truth of this statement. and yet i'm not actually allowed to refer to my own experience with broken things when deciding whether what you are saying is nonsense. funny how "experience" (specifically your experience as a philosophy poisoned westerner) is basically the sole premise for your conclusion, and yet i am not allowed to premise my conclusions on my own experience.
>>15522 swine.
Anonymous 2023-05-02 (Tue) 14:42:32 No. 15526
>>15524 Do you see no irony calling out anons for being petit-bourgeois idiots and then complaining about Dengism?
Anonymous 2023-05-02 (Tue) 14:42:33 No. 15527
>>15523 >>15524 >come into thread >"I never read Heidegger but…<nonsense>" >fail to engage with OP and get called out >get offended and lash out with your silly little slogans keep being ineffective dullards :)
Anonymous 2023-05-02 (Tue) 14:45:11 No. 15528
>>15527 you have far too high an opinion of yourself and your work. seldom have i seen someone more in need of self-crit.
Anonymous 2023-05-02 (Tue) 14:45:42 No. 15529
>>15528 okay can u stop derailing the thread with your egotism now?
Anonymous 2023-05-02 (Tue) 14:47:44 No. 15530
>>15529 there isn't a thread to derail. you've clearly made up your mind about this, and you've made your blogpost, so now i will demean you.
Anonymous 2023-05-02 (Tue) 14:48:22 No. 15531
>>15527 I was about to point out people have engaged with you but you throw a BPD style tantrum every time they do, but that's just your brain high on Heideggerian spooks, I guess.
There's really no point.
Anonymous 2023-05-02 (Tue) 14:50:27 No. 15532
>>15520 How you use the internet and what content you seek is up to you. If advertisement is eliminated or reduced, then you are guided less by market influences.
Of course any usage of the commercial internet will subject you to various persuasive algorithms, but using blockers and other software can interfere with these algorithm's ability to get a beat on you.
Anonymous 2023-05-02 (Tue) 14:50:53 No. 15533
>>15532 >beat on you. bead*
Anonymous 2023-05-02 (Tue) 14:50:59 No. 15534
>>15530 >>15531 im collecting your tears into a littel bottle as we speak
Anonymous 2023-05-02 (Tue) 14:56:51 No. 15536
>>15534 so to recap we have:
>anybody who's ever experience a broken object knows that when it breaks it becomes more present for people and causes them to consider their relation to it <i have quite a bit of experience with broken things, and i have found that not to be the case. and anyways, how can something be more or less present? something either is present or not. what you are describing is an absence which removes a distraction from presence. from there it devolves into several non-responses and eventually you crying that everybody is just being so mean to you. wonderful conversation, i'm going to bed.
Anonymous 2023-05-02 (Tue) 15:02:20 No. 15538
>>15536 OP is borrowing Heidegger's notion of readiness to hand and present-to-hand, if you didn't already know that. If you're having a hard time understanding OP it's because, sympathetically, you're having a hard time understanding Heidegger.
Heidegger uses the example of a hammer without a head. When a workman uses a hammer regularly, it becomes an extension of their body and therefore unconscious, uninterrupted with the uniform flow of consciousness . It is ready to hand. When the hammer breaks, it draws our attention to it as a distinct, isolated unit of existence, separate from that integrated gestalt. It becomes "present to hand" a spotlight of distinguishing consciousness shines on it and it is brought to our attention.
How does that fit into OP's overall thesis? That's not for me to explain.
Anonymous 2023-05-02 (Tue) 15:12:08 No. 15539
>>15538 It's not that hard to understand honestly. The mere presence of the object is when the greatest shining forth can occur. You can't re-evaluate your relation to the handy-object without the object first being present. Until that point it's a mere handy useful thing. A hammer is not merely a useful thing, but for the person who always sees the hammer as a useful thing, it requires a break in that monotony to really re-evaluate your relation to it. In this sense we can say that ideals follow reality– that the relations to production *must first change* before we can begin to truly appreciate and re-evaluate our orientation towards being. It's not something you simply can choose to do in everydayness. In this sense I am Making Heidegger Marxist.
Anonymous 2023-05-02 (Tue) 15:15:13 No. 15540
>>15539 The fact that I'm getting so much pushback on this is kind of mind-boggling. Many of you so-called 'marxists' actually just want workers to serve you like mindless automatons seemingly, simply changing the alienation workers face into new forms of alienation which you like and approve of, instead of actually making workers autonomous
Anonymous 2023-05-02 (Tue) 15:16:58 No. 15541
>>15526 Theory of productive forces is revisionist and has been attacked by every major thinker of communism.
>>15527 You're an idiot. That is simply a fact. You have created this fantasy that you're a great thinker and that everybody else is too stupid to realize how smart you are. You do this to cover up the traumatic truth that you are in fact extremely stupid. That is why you are lashing because the worst thing that can disrupt your fantasy is if people who are much smarter and knowledgeable than you call you out on your bullshit.
This does not have to be the case. Unlearn everything you have been taught and restart with Marxism as your foundation because it Is simply true. The next time you have a crisis, the science of marxism will be waiting.
Anonymous 2023-05-02 (Tue) 15:20:27 No. 15542
>>15541 im not your mom, stop whining.
Anonymous 2023-05-02 (Tue) 15:26:47 No. 15544
Of all the marxist thinkers out there you decide to ape fucking HEIDEGGER?
Anonymous 2023-05-02 (Tue) 15:27:50 No. 15545
>>15539 Yeah, this is still really dumb.
Capitalism isn't a hammer. It's like relating apples to an entire system for planting oranges. You're not "breaking" capitalism the way you would a hammer by destroying the wheelchair ramp to your workplace.
Anonymous 2023-05-02 (Tue) 15:30:20 No. 15546
>>15545 >taking the analogy literally terminal anglo brain
Anonymous 2023-05-02 (Tue) 15:30:41 No. 15547
>>15545 Oh please. Capitalism cannot exist without feeding off of labour.
Anonymous 2023-05-02 (Tue) 15:31:34 No. 15548
>>15546 i think leftypol is just determined to aggressively and purposefully misunderstand everything i say because they enjoy ineffective whining over real discussion
Anonymous 2023-05-02 (Tue) 15:33:15 No. 15549
>>15548 its the flag, its always the flag
i mean a lot of ur posts are terrible but its not because of feminism
Anonymous 2023-05-02 (Tue) 15:33:58 No. 15551
>>15546 OP quite literally used breaking wheelchair ramps as an example.
>>15547 So how many wheel chair ramps do we destroy until we get to full communism?
Anonymous 2023-05-02 (Tue) 15:34:25 No. 15552
>>15550 you're doing it again
Anonymous 2023-05-02 (Tue) 15:34:43 No. 15553
>>15551 when did i use breaking wheelchair ramps as an example? lmfao
Anonymous 2023-05-02 (Tue) 15:36:45 No. 15554
>>15551 obviously breaking wheelchair ramps isn't an effective form of sabotage and i never said we should do that. it would be far more effective to start destroying road-signs, puncturing tires, putting sand in important machines, destroying cellphone towers. not that im saying we should do that mr fbi person!
Anonymous 2023-05-02 (Tue) 15:45:44 No. 15555
>>15541 >Theory of productive forces Whatever that is, it's not Dengism. Dengism doesn't even exist. It's just Marxist-Leninist theory and practice applied to China. But go on, talk out of your ass.
Anonymous 2023-05-02 (Tue) 15:50:11 No. 15556
>>15554 >>15553 >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 Do wheelchair ramps fit under the criteria of "accessibility for the disabled" or not?
>far more effective to start destroying road-signs, puncturing tires, putting sand in important machines, destroying cellphone towers. Why exactly isn't this the same exact thing? How many busted cellphone towers until we get to communism? How do you ensure blame for the absence of cellphone service for the common person isn't offloaded onto socialists? You act like this hasn't already been tried in relatively recent history.
Anonymous 2023-05-02 (Tue) 15:58:40 No. 15557
>>15556 >you oppose capitalist accessibility, this means you think that if we destroy enough wheelchair ramps we get communism >tell me how many you think we should destroy rn!!! you are being incredibly dishonest and im just not gonna bother cuz youre kinda just jerking yourself off.
see
>>15496 >'i didnt make this post to iron out every crease and detail, nor am i going to talk about how i personally do it. if you want that go read the essay i posted alongside what i wrote, or one of the many many guides or manuals out there.' If you have an argument against what I'm saying just say it. Don't employ this hella dishonest rhetorical nonsense and mischaracterisations and outright lies about what i said
Anonymous 2023-05-02 (Tue) 16:19:29 No. 15559
>>15557 >You're being dishonest Yeah, no. I'm not but you are. I'll point to it again:
>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 It's not my fault you don't think through the ramifications of your strategies before you post them.
I just made it. You act like the details aren't important but the failure to give them attention is precisely why this doesn't work. I'm not impressed by your pamphlet from 1912 either. That hardly seems applicable to the situation today, especially considering this road has been well-tread since then. If you're going to advocate sabotage then the burden is on you to outline why. Otherwise you lead people right into a woodchipper for the sake of an "emotional affair".
Anonymous 2023-05-02 (Tue) 16:46:01 No. 15560
>>15559 ah yes, because of course I never considered how many wheelchair ramps we need to destroy in order to destroy capitalism. thank you for showing me the error of my ways!
you fucking tard.
S 2023-05-02 (Tue) 16:59:29 No. 15562
>>15484 Heidegger was quite literally a fascist and you're acting like one too by opposing basic decency for the disabled. It is highly reactionary and is an unironic example of ableism to want to destroy accessibility for them. Put yourself in the shoes of someone suffering from brain injury who needs a simplified desktop to work on their PC. In all your posts you speak in such philosophy babble you make Capital seem easy to read, and all for you basically saying you hate anything that isn't pretentious philosophy shit, and as you outline in your OP post you hate improvements in worker's standard of living in the same way a third worldist might, because you think its the only way there will be revolution in the imperial core. You're completely idealist and you employ not a shred of materialism. I don't understand how you plan to build a mass movement whilst obviously holding the people in distain… like you look down on the average person as stupid for not using your epic Linux distros. Though I guess you don't want to build a movement at all since your praxis is just mindless destruction. Post-left anarchism is the new fascism.
Anonymous 2023-05-02 (Tue) 17:01:25 No. 15563
>>15560 Nah, but you probably didn't consider wheel chair ramps as falling under the category of "accessibility for the disabled", which is actually pretty funny to me, yh.
>you fucking tard. seethe I guess
Anonymous 2023-05-02 (Tue) 17:39:31 No. 15564
> “Direct Action” and “Sabotage” rank easily next to Anarchy, Nihilism, Free Love, Neo-Malthusianism, etc., in the hierarchy of infernal inventions. <Neo-Malthusianism
Anonymous 2023-05-02 (Tue) 17:42:10 No. 15565
>>15540 I do think you're being unfairly shitted upon. Anons can be like this on this board. Usually it's because they disagree with you for some irrelevant reason that's extraneous to your argument so they resort to ad hominem.
That said, your prose style is opaque and unnecessarily dense your point could be communicated with simpler language.
Anonymous 2023-05-02 (Tue) 17:44:14 No. 15566
>>15565 >your prose style is opaque and unnecessarily dense is it? i think the main issue is that both sides are too confrontational and ends up being a trolls trolling trolls special olympics situation
Anonymous 2023-05-02 (Tue) 17:49:09 No. 15568
>>15565 >>15566 >I do think you're being unfairly shitted upon. Strongly disagree.
It's completely deserved.
Anonymous 2023-05-02 (Tue) 18:06:51 No. 15571
>>15570 lel they deleted it.
Anonymous 2023-05-02 (Tue) 19:22:49 No. 15572
>>15562 > that isn't pretentious philosophy shit It’s not even good either.
Press them on why they think an already alienated workforce relates to capitalism the same way they do a hammer and watch them screech.
Anonymous 2023-05-02 (Tue) 20:23:43 No. 15573
>>15511 my son
yuo are western leftist now
yu must chose
you will either organise working people into a vanguard party and overthrow capitalism
or you will download ublock origin extension to browser of your choice so you can more efficiently watch mr. beast videos
Anonymous 2023-05-02 (Tue) 21:50:51 No. 15574
please learn to sage threads like this if you really despise it
Anonymous 2023-05-02 (Tue) 22:09:36 No. 15575
It seems like you're mostly getting garbage replies again, but I noticed this problem earlier:>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.
Anonymous 2023-05-02 (Tue) 22:21:58 No. 15576
>>15575 > It seems like you're mostly getting garbage replies again <makes the same argument everyone has been making, that “simply sabotaging things won't necessarily work”. Really standing out from the crowd. I’m sure this time will be different.
Anonymous 2023-05-02 (Tue) 22:28:08 No. 15577
>>15576 if you look up, no one has actually tried to even make this argument yet, merely implied it aggressively
>>15575 It doesn't necessarily imply pull ing people closer to communism and ur absoltuely right, this is something I mention - there needs to be some pairing with a new positive vision. But we can't even really begin to speak of such a thing IMO until we have a plan to actually break people out in the first place. I think sabotage can be highly effective when coordinated with pushes for worker demands (and the failure to achieve them). However I don't really think a worker's revolution is ever gonna happen.
Anonymous 2023-05-02 (Tue) 22:32:11 No. 15579
>>15578 >no response my point exactly.
Anonymous 2023-05-02 (Tue) 22:33:22 No. 15580
>>15577 >if you look up, no one has actually tried to even make this argument yet, merely implied it aggressively more lies
>>15500 >It is not sufficient to just sabotage. Anonymous 2023-05-02 (Tue) 22:37:46 No. 15581
>>15576 >Really standing out from the crowd. I’m sure this time will be different. That's the same position a couple of people have expressed, but not the same argument. The closest I saw was in the comment mentioning Debord. I'm not disagreeing with that position, so I wasn't trying to be novel there.
>>15577 >there needs to be some pairing with a new positive vision No doubt, but no one is going to believe in a positive vision of the future from the people sabotaging "what was working." It's much easier to believe "these are the bad guys doing this" than "this sort of breakdown is an inevitability of capitalism itself" when the destruction is deliberate.
The underlying point you're making - that breakdowns do force people out of everyday ways of living and force re-evaluations of their situations - is right, but I don't think communists can be the ones to bring about such a state of affairs. If communists in concert with workers do this, I can imagine a different result, but not just individuals or groups on the left.
>However I don't really think a worker's revolution is ever gonna happen. That's ironically one of the few scenarios in which I see sabotage being an effective strategy.
Anonymous 2023-05-02 (Tue) 22:38:27 No. 15582
>>15579 The question already betrays a total lack of understanding of what was said. It’s akin to me asking socialists why they want to tax the rich more. Total stupidity. Obviously not worth a serious response
>>15580 And I responded to that user with a counter-argument. What’s your point attention seeker?
Anonymous 2023-05-02 (Tue) 22:40:35 No. 15583
>>15582 >Total stupidity. Obviously not worth a serious response and the screeching continues. totally predictable.
Anonymous 2023-05-02 (Tue) 22:42:44 No. 15584
>>15581 I agree that communists can’t bring about this, but I also think no one can bring this about on a wide scale. Quite pessimistic about the left in general and the near-mid future of the world
Anonymous 2023-05-02 (Tue) 22:42:58 No. 15585
>>15582 That you like to lie
Anonymous 2023-05-02 (Tue) 22:46:18 No. 15587
>>15586 It's funny how everyone supposedly misunderstands you but you seemingly can't explain why. Very convenient way out of any discussion that might require you to dig a little deeper.
Anonymous 2023-05-02 (Tue) 22:54:08 No. 15588
>>15587 There are people in this thread who have literally explained it to you folks but you still choose to misunderstand it. How come they get it and you don’t? Maybe you are just stupid? I am thinking it’s more just bad faith, hence why I’m not engaging.
Anonymous 2023-05-02 (Tue) 22:55:08 No. 15589
>>15588 In the first place, why would you get so mad and respond so much if you don’t understand what is being said? Reeks of ego
Anonymous 2023-05-02 (Tue) 23:00:53 No. 15590
>>15588 >>15589 Explained what?
Even the people who can see what you're referring to with Heidegger don't necessarily agree with your conclusion. You're the one lying but I'm bad faith? Right…
>>15589 >Responding means you're mad lol
Anonymous 2023-05-02 (Tue) 23:03:26 No. 15591
>>15590 Disagreeing with something != thinking something is not worthy of consideration. Unlike you, they are capable of rational discussion, without throwing a hissy fit because you don’t feel involved at the big kids’ table. You’re responding (madly) despite admitting to not knowing anything about the subject, nor reading the many explanations, nor even trying to make any attempt to. Why? Dumb! That’s why.
Anonymous 2023-05-02 (Tue) 23:06:17 No. 15592
>>15591 >thinking something is not worthy of consideration Never said this.
> without throwing a hissy fit because projection
>despite admitting to not knowing anything about the subject lies
>nor reading the many explanations more lies
>nor even trying to make any attempt to lies ontop of lies
>Why? Dumb! That’s why <*screeching continues* Anonymous 2023-05-02 (Tue) 23:11:31 No. 15593
>>15592 Oh? Then, if you understand what was said, please explain your post here
>>15572 where did I say that the workforce ‘relates to capitalism’ in the same way a worker ‘relates to a hammer’ or how this is relevant in any way as a criticism?
Anonymous 2023-05-02 (Tue) 23:13:52 No. 15594
>>15593 Since you clearly know so much about this topic, I assume you know that the referential chain that we’re talking about which Dasein resides in is capitalism, and that rather than Dasein ‘relating to capitalism’ it simply relates to images and commodities and that it cannot even begin to ‘relate to capitalism’ until it actually recognises the existence of capitalism which requires a disruption in the referential chain?
I guess you understand this better than me so I’d love to hear it.
Anonymous 2023-05-02 (Tue) 23:22:27 No. 15596
>>15592 I hate this
>let's dissect every single sentence of a post that channers do
>when "debating". Anonymous 2023-05-03 (Wed) 00:28:59 No. 15597
>>15593 >>15539 >>15503 >A hammer is not merely a useful thing, but for the person who always sees the hammer as a useful thing, it requires a break in that monotony to really re-evaluate your relation to it. In this sense we can say that ideals follow reality– that the relations to production *must first change* before we can begin to truly appreciate and re-evaluate our orientation towards being. It's not something you simply can choose to do in everydayness. In this sense I am Making Heidegger Marxist. >when stuff breaks at the plant you work at, yes people recuperate and move on, but it is an opportunity to actually consider and re-evaluate our relation to production and the utility of the thing. Anyone with experience with broken objects can recognise the truth of this statement. When my phone stops working, the fact taht it is a hunk of metal becomes apparent to me. Something becomes 'more present' to me when it breaks in itself, I pay greater attention to it, more care. Now as this anon here
>>15538 kindly points out
>Heidegger uses the example of a hammer without a head. When a workman uses a hammer regularly, it becomes an extension of their body and therefore unconscious, uninterrupted with the uniform flow of consciousness . It is ready to hand. When the hammer breaks, it draws our attention to it as a distinct, isolated unit of existence, separate from that integrated gestalt. It becomes "present to hand" a spotlight of distinguishing consciousness shines on it and it is brought to our attention. The working class does not wield the system itself as a hammer. Breaking handrails in the bathroom or wheelchair ramps does not arrest whatever perceived hammer you think they are wielding within their gestalt because they are already alienated from their own workplaces most of the time. It simply heightens the "everydayness".
>>15594 >Dasein I don't know how to tell you this, but I don't really give af about Heidegger's Dasein. It's marred by his dichotomization of authenticity and inauthenticity.
>Dasein is always its possibility. It does not ‘have’ that possibility only as a mere attribute of something objectively present. And because Dasein is always essentially its possibility, it can ‘choose’ itself in its being, it can win itself, it can lose itself, or it can never and only ‘apparently’ win itself. It can only have lost itself and it can only have not yet gained itself because it is essentially possible as authentic [eigentliches], that is, it belongs to itself. The two kinds of being of authenticity and inauthenticity [Eigentlichkeit und Uneigentlichkeit]—these expressions are terminologically chosen in the strictest sense of the word—are based on the fact that Dasein is in general determined by always being-mine. Anonymous 2023-05-03 (Wed) 00:52:43 No. 15598
>>15596 I welcome your hatred
Burn Cellphone towers Anonymous 2023-05-03 (Wed) 00:57:43 No. 15599
>>15556 Why must every burned down tower be in service and expected to bring communism today?
Booo.
Anonymous 2023-05-03 (Wed) 00:59:03 No. 15600
>>15596 >>15598 its a very imageboard brained thing, arguments simply do not work that way anywhere else except maybe on reddit where debatebros reign supreme too
Anonymous 2023-05-03 (Wed) 01:00:56 No. 15601
>>15599 How many burned down cell phone towers until we get communism tomorrow then?
Anonymous 2023-05-03 (Wed) 01:02:22 No. 15602
>>15600 Damn, good thing I'm on an imageboard.
Anonymous 2023-05-03 (Wed) 01:05:04 No. 15603
>>15602 "chan culture" is a very weak defense for acting like an utter retard sadly
Anonymous 2023-05-03 (Wed) 01:07:34 No. 15604
>>15603 I'm sorry I offended your sensibilities as a critic of internet culture, a very non-retarded realm of expertise.
Anonymous 2023-05-03 (Wed) 01:27:18 No. 15605
>>15500 >Besides that your posts are shit, I dislike the whole abstract nonsense Heideggerian analysis of men-as-time instead of men-as-labor. Labor and time can only be equalized in communism, where men really are what they do, the time they themselves put to use, instead of time in production or consumption, like under capitalism. this is an excellent point! do you know any articles which expand on this criticism of heidegger? it should also be noted that capitalism ALREADY produces disruptions that break the ready-to-handedness of everyday life as well. isn't that a major thing that marx talks about with the contradictions of capitalism leading to catastrophes and possible collective action? and when this occurs, there is a far more immanent manner in which capitalism presents itself as a problem which should be scientifically analyzed, as opposed to some voluntaristic sabotage which is phenomenologically extraneous to the problems with our mode of production
>>15502 >He is saying that men are only realized by labor, labor is estranged under capitalism, and hence men are never who they are under capitalism this is very much true. really if there is a major ethical principle which marx's ideas are based upon, it is kantian positive
freedom . he takes this idea and makes it material in the realization that sensuous activity is the primordial nexus within which positive freedom first manifests
>>15504 >People are not what they do elaborate? i think Being is only ever manifest within some process and shouldn't be som hypostasized category indifferent to this. as brzozowski points out, (non-mechanized) labour is in some sense irrational as it is ontologically productive by virtue of it being tied so close to duration
>>15539 i really think a major problem with your conclusion ties into some criticisms i have made of heidegger. this goes even deeper into my system of ontology and i have developed quite a bit of terms to express these ideas succinctly. at any rate i will still try here to express the core problem: heidegger's understanding of time is simply too abstract and disconnected from our everyday experience. as a temporal idealist he sees primordial temporality as this abstract unity of past present and future, and then our own concrete experience is some sort of projection on that. moreover, his understanding of our concrete experience is itself abstract, as a succession nows (incidentally deleuze seems to suggest a similar idea with aion and chronos… not boding too well for deleuze sisters). then we have heidegger's understanding of autonomy which has us project intentionality into the future, and fallenness has us take up the past as some sort of constitutive element. however, as stern points out in the article i posted in the other thread 'On the Pseudo-Concreteness of Heidegger's Philosophy', these are merely abstract possibilities for what shape Dasein can be. this is reminiscent of the idealist strategy to look simply at shapes of consciousness abstracted from the interweaving of rhythms we see in actuality. this is problematic as we then see that the cruciality of material conditions appears absent in heidegger. and this of course makes the projection into the future which heidegger talks about as also abstract as it does not interact with these conditions much either
what heidegger is missing here is that our embedding in time is rhythmic, has multiple scales of time, and intermeshes with other rhythms.
why is this important? well, the way we interact with any object has multiple different scales. what heidegger calls readiness-to-hand is manifest in each of these scales. on one scale, we have the readiness-to-hand of the shoe i am wearing, at another scale we have the readiness-to-hand of the shoe store and the greater supply chain it is implicated into. the ordinary everydayness of our lives has points of vulnerability at multiple different scales, and when it does break down
our attention is often taken towards that particular scale in which the problem arises this is the major problem with your suggested praxis. when someone encounters vandalized buildings, their attention is going to be directed towards to the factual existence of the building as opposed to capitalism as a whole. this is something someone else in the thread points out and is absolutely correct. to encourage people to take a critical eye towards capitalism, they need experience with a
systemic disruption in readiness-to-hand as opposed to an atomic disruption. this is what we see in financial crises and mass corporate layoffs. in short, no, don't just "break shit"
>>15572 "relates" here is vague. they relate to capitalism to the extent that they are embedded in it, and capitalism unquestionably constitutes a substantial portion of everyday life. this is not to say that workers are though completely subsumed by capitalism. there is always a non-identity involved which permits one to step outside of false consciousness
>>15597 >because they are already alienated from their own workplaces most of the time i somewhat accept this point, however we need to be a little bit more concrete. man is indeed alienated but it only creates a disruption in their everydayness when they actually desire/need to exercise their positive freedom in a way that has friction with their material reality. so while this is definitely a vector in which the everyday is disrupted, it is one contingent on the particular drives and material conditions of that individual at that time. everydayness is obviously not constantly disrupted in this manner. as such, what op is talking about is not completely trivial
>>15577 >But we can't even really begin to speak of such a thing IMO until we have a plan to actually break people out in the first place i sense a major problem in how you are sometimes conceiving the break down in everydayness which is again an outcome of subscribing to heidegger's simplistic conception of temporality. when a hammer breaks down, the blacksmith breaks out of everydayness qua hammer. he does not break out of everydayness qua everydayness. he is not going to start asking larger existential questions. the escape out of substantiality afforded by the disruption is localized to that occurrence. in the grand scheme of things, the blacksmith remains a blacksmith, and we only see a present-to-hand within a larger context of his everyday profession
as an aside even heidegger somewhat understood as much. anxiety is not caused by a nihilation (which i reinterpret as a phenomenologically manifest lack of mastery/manipulatability) in some particular domain. rather, it is produced by a nihilation in all domains. it is when one has an inability to take a grasp at anything as a means to aid with the problem at hand. there is a requisite systematicity there
Anonymous 2023-05-03 (Wed) 01:29:42 No. 15606
>>15600 it is something that happens in pretty much any forum where there isn't a character limit and discussions have a certain level of complexity. you need to stop using twitter as your reference frame for discussion anon
Anonymous 2023-05-03 (Wed) 02:08:03 No. 15607
>>15605 >"relates" here is vague. Fair.
>non-identity I'll have to think about this framing. You're referring to the nonidentity problem, correct?
>it is one contingent on the particular drives and material conditions of that individual at that time. EXACTLY , thank you
Anonymous 2023-05-03 (Wed) 02:14:19 No. 15608
>>15606 i used to use traditional forums and fucking nobody argued in that retarded way, most of the times you didnt even quote posts and if you did youd quote the whole post or an entire paragraph
youre supposed to tackle ideas not address every sentence separately like they arent part of a broader argument, it IS a debatebro thing to do
Anonymous 2023-05-03 (Wed) 02:18:56 No. 15609
>>15504 things are what they can do, read delooz
Anonymous 2023-05-03 (Wed) 03:08:32 No. 15611
>>15607 >You're referring to the nonidentity problem, correct? idk what the nonidentity problem is. i am referencing adorno and his negative dialectics here. any concept is not in complete identity with its objects. quoting his lectures on negative dialectics:
<When a B is defined as an A, it is always also different from and more than the A, the concept under which it is subsumed by way of a predicative judgement i may be incorrect here, but i believe this principle is employed by marx when he for instance criticizes hegel's philosophy of right. the actual existence of institutions isn't always in complete accord with their concept. similarly, workers are not just individuals molded by capitalism
Anonymous 2023-05-03 (Wed) 04:51:36 No. 15612
>>15597 >Breaking handrails in the bathroom or wheelchair ramps does not arrest whatever perceived hammer you think they are wielding within their gestalt because they are already alienated from their own workplaces most of the time. It simply heightens the "everydayness". I wouldn't say this is true of "everydayness." I've lived with a blind person before, and moving stuff around can create a slight sense of confusion or disorientation. Beyond experience, this should accord with intuition: we rely on things being there and continuing to be basically where they ought to be, and when our expectations are thwarted, confusion, frustration, anger, sadness, etc. can start to set in, the emotion depending on the situation. You can think of not being able to find your keys as a simple example, or losing a wallet. It certainly doesn't heighten "everydayness."
>It's marred by his dichotomization of authenticity and inauthenticity. "Authenticity" may be flawed, but I don't think the dichotomy between those the two is faulty on its face. It does describe two distinct sets of relations for Heidegger: empty "talk" and going along with the "they" vs. taking on guilt and becoming responsible for one's words and actions for oneself (i.e. "resoluteness"). You could say that the guilt for which we take responsibility and resolve to bear is itself taken out of the complex of empty talk in some fashion, even if that guilt isn't taken seriously in that empty talk. Heidegger seems to acknowledge this, though.
All the same, there is a split within authenticity itself, and one of its aspects could be characterized as "inauthentic." Heidegger wavers between authenticity as going beyond the empty talk and irresoluteness of "the they" toward a way of being of one's own vs. authenticity as committing oneself to a choice between the "factical possibilities." The latter has a pronounced tendency toward conformism, although his argument tends to drive him toward the former as he elaborates. He's similar to one of his inspirations, the early Martin Luther, in his attacks on
prudentia in his lectures and sermons prior to his split with the Catholic Church. Like Martin Luther, Heidegger wants to "do both": to make peace with the world as it currently works, and to undermine the complacency and indolence that make such a peace possible.
Anonymous 2023-05-03 (Wed) 05:46:27 No. 15613
>>15605 >this is an excellent point! do you know any articles which expand on this criticism of heidegger? No, sorry. It's a pseudo-original thought. But I do suggest to read Debord's Society of the Spectacle. Ignoring his historical critique of 'despots' like Lenin, and obvious bias towards the USSR, his last 5. chapters kinda explore this idea. It's where I picked them up.
Anonymous 2023-05-03 (Wed) 09:50:00 No. 15616
>>15605 I think you can see Deleuze and Heidegger take on a Proustian notion of time and I don't think this is idealist, it's think at its core he's simply talking about the existential 'temporality' of Dasein, not so much talking about big T Time. Proustian recollections of the past are mistaken as spiritual experiences often, but at their core are simply a recognition of what-was, which allows for synthesis of past knowledge with present knowledge aimed towards the future. In Deleuze, the recollection is also often mistaken for a spiritual experience and leads to repression of difference. I don't think it's that different, and I think there's plenty of interesting overlap between the two. Acceleration of spectacle leads to a collective dementia in which the collective memory grows ever shorter (as our understanding of history (and in this the spirit of the age) must always be fragmented) until the repressed spirit lashes out. I don't mean any of that literally, but I think it goes to talk about how we can talk about time and how it affects the world without having any big T time. I think Heidegger talks about scales of time. Each Dasein has its own 'time'. I don't really grasp a lot of these critiques of Heidegger. Of course you're right that the attention does not necessarily need to be direct at capitalism, but this doesn't escape the fact that the attention needs to be drawn away from everydayness qua hammer in order that we can even start talking about other modes of being. A systematic disruption in readiness-to-hand is not really mutually exclusive with what I'm saying, in fact that sort of is what I'm saying when I say
You're spot on that capitalism already produces disruptions (that logically follows from what I say about the Proustian nature of time and the collective dementia resulting from the acceleration of capital). But these disruptions are always already being co-opted into new forms of everydayness which serve Capital. We need our own disruptions.
What you say about anxiety is worth dwelling on. What is anxiety? Heidegger borrows heavily from Kierkegaard this concept of anxiety. The 'attraction and repulsion from the nothingness of future possibilities'. Anxiety is an ontological structure. In this sense you understand what Heidegger is talking about when he says anxiety, but I don't think this constitutes an argument because I didn't say 'we should only break stuff'. I just said 'we should break stuff'.
I think the core of what I'm saying is accurate. Most people do not even think about *capitalism* because they are so invested in the circumspection of capitalism! The provocation must be a disruption in this circumspection by a showing of the unhandiness either of the handy things.
>>15597 >The working class does not wield the system itself as a hammer. If socialism is real, how come Joe Biden nuts?
Anonymous 2023-05-03 (Wed) 09:54:14 No. 15617
>>15616 Wingaudium leviosa
Anonymous 2023-05-03 (Wed) 09:57:17 No. 15618
>>15616 just a bit more on the 'breaking stuff' thing bc I don't think I explained that sufficiently. When I say 'we shouldnt only break stuff' I am saying 'we shouldnt only break *stuff*' not that we shouldnt *only* break stuff. we should only break 'stuff' (ideology, things, etc, other)
Anonymous 2023-05-03 (Wed) 12:05:15 No. 15619
>>15616 the reason why i called it idealist is not because it frames time as a spiritual experience, but rather that it views qualitative time as merely a subjective lived experience. it is too anthropocentric. perhaps deleuze might avoid this and thus my charge of idealism may not accurately characterize his position, however for heidegger it very much seems to. there might be more bergsonian criticisms of the aion-chronos scheme though these are not so relevant. moreover, i do think that deleuze's ontology is better than heidegger's in this regard as it is better at thinking about the material conditions people are embedded in
with scales of time, each Dasein would have multiple "times" the picture of aion and chronos is to have aion as a line, and chronos as a circle. the more bergsonian way of visualizing the temporal character (note that i got this from someone else) of the subject is as this interlocking patchwork of gears. each gear has its own frequency at which it makes full turns. at the same time they interact with one another
the problem i am pointing out is less with the basic premise, but rather the fact that it is too abstract. people are only going lose the stance everydayness towards systems when the systems themselves are broken. just sabotaging random cellphone towers of whatever. really if the praxis of "let's break things ig" is taken seriously and my criticisms are taken into account, then it would turn into a form of accelerationism. the praxis would be to reduce those regulations on capitalism which try to limit its production of failures, and to furthermore accelerate the decrease in rate of profit by means of developing technology and furthering worker "rights". this would lead to more instances in which capitalism takes people out of the everyday
seems like this is related to a discussion earlier in this thread e.g. here
>>15506 though i do not think massive enough failings actually get co-oped. economic collapses seem more like wounds that need to heal as opposed to things that get reincorporated as a new industry or commodity. at best it becomes the new dreary reality for many. even then, what is normalized the resulting economic reality as opposed to economic collapse (or whatever else) tout court. thus, new failures of this sort will always provide fertile soil for radicalization
Anonymous 2023-05-03 (Wed) 12:21:07 No. 15620
>>15619 >just sabotaging random cellphone towers of whatever *not just sabotaging random cellphone towers of whatever
Anonymous 2023-05-03 (Wed) 12:40:50 No. 15621
>>15484 >This calls for not simply protesting calls for people to re-evaluate their relation to labour– but outright sabotage. Seeing things break down also shakes people's faith in the system and will give them anxiety that can push them toward seeking an alternative.
> large corporations' attempts to ever improve 'accessibility' for the disabled, ease-of-use, ergonomics, etc requires the strongest opposition. wew
Color me shocked that heideggerian thinking leads to this kind of reactionary brain rot.
"Fuck disabled people because accelerationism or something" is a hell of a take.
It should be noted that if you're going to attack convenience and the planned out "loops" of people's daily lives, the target you want to hit is the one that will have the widest effects and relates to the most people. In the current year with our technological interconnection that can be pretty simple. Elon Musk is doing a good job of it on the regular at twitter. When Amazon Web Services crashed a while back and loads of websites went offline, that's another good example of a small failure having a wide impact. What doesn't help is making things worse for a largely invisible and marginalized minority group. "Disabled" is a large umbrella and the many accessibilities tools that exist are a significantly more difficult/complex target with vastly less payoff.
Anonymous 2023-05-03 (Wed) 14:08:14 No. 15622
>>15621 marxists talk to a single disabled person in their life challenge. 'yes sir, pls give me accessibility so i can make u money' brain rot
Anonymous 2023-05-03 (Wed) 14:12:14 No. 15623
>>15619 In S&Z Heidegger makes the mistake of anthropocentrism but especially in his later essays he grows a lot more in this way. particularly in "The End of Philosophy and the Task of Thinking"
Anonymous 2023-05-03 (Wed) 14:18:15 No. 15624
>>15619 >>15506 though i do not think massive enough failings actually get co-oped. economic collapses seem more like wounds that need to heal as opposed to things that get reincorporated as a new industry or commodity. at best it becomes the new dreary reality for many. even then, what is normalized the resulting economic reality as opposed to economic collapse (or whatever else) tout court. thus, new failures of this sort will always provide fertile soil for radicalizationYeah I made the same point myself actually. The idea that capitalism simply turns everything into an advantage is a bit unscientific. It just is very good at healing and evolving.
Well, I do not believe there will ever be a serious successful workers' revolution, so I think the best we can do until there is a massive enough failure is just the equivalent of concentration camp resistance a la Blessed is the Flame. Educate etc go ahead, hold up a proverbial mirror to society and whatnot, I do that all the time. But setting forward a positive vision is kind of just lying to people.
Yes, each Dasein does have multiple 'times' but temporality itself for Dasein is the horizon of its existence (this is not synonymous with death).
I'll re-read end of philosophy later and bring more to you on this
Anonymous 2023-05-03 (Wed) 14:27:26 No. 15625
>>15484 You are not a cute anime girl. When you act twee it creeps people out. Even over text. Fuck off
Anonymous 2023-05-03 (Wed) 14:29:29 No. 15626
>>15625 posting an anime girl is not acting twee
Anonymous 2023-05-03 (Wed) 14:32:28 No. 15627
>>15626 I'm talking about the dumbass things you say
Anonymous 2023-05-03 (Wed) 14:32:52 No. 15628
I remember you from your last thread you bipolar retard
Anonymous 2023-05-03 (Wed) 14:43:42 No. 15630
>>15622 Any personal experiences then? Did they come to you citing the great philosophers and beg to be left isolated from society?
Anonymous 2023-05-03 (Wed) 18:57:51 No. 15632
>>15631 Well, what is the source for disabled communists saying this?
Anonymous 2023-05-03 (Wed) 19:34:24 No. 15633
>>15584 That's what happens when you forego materialism and bury yourself in existentialist (idealist) philosophy, I think.
Anonymous 2023-05-03 (Wed) 19:51:14 No. 15634
>disabled people shouldn't have access to libraries and schools because uh… because these are structures of oppression in the althusser-foucaultian sense or smth >trust me bro, we gotta stop the 1% (the cripples) to reproduce capital
Anonymous 2023-05-03 (Wed) 19:52:18 No. 15635
>>15633 >existentialist (idealist) when u know what words mean
Anonymous 2023-05-03 (Wed) 23:33:54 No. 15636
>>15623 later heidegger talks much less about time and his thought so i am not sure that he doesn't remain a
temporal idealist. furthermore, his thinking takes an even more mystificatory/vague direction. this leads to stuff like "object oriented philosophy" which absolutizes the concept of concealment and puts it into objects themselves so that every object interacts with every other object through a transcendental (re)doubling. levi bryant attempts to fix this fetishistic tendency with onticology, but to do so he goes deleuzean (another reason why deleuze has a better ontology than heideggerians). i have also made my own attempts at grounding these ideas by making them categories only intelligible within processes of development (like i incidentally do w lacan's desire as lack which idk if is related) as opposed to hypostasizing concealment as some sort of substantive property
>>15624 >Yeah I made the same point myself actually i am not disagreeing with the point gestured by other anons that more local failures tend to be easily reincorporated into the system. what is needed is a finer-grained analysis which is what i attempted to provide
i don't completely disagree, however the picture heidegger paints is too abstract. it is akin to the claim that man has positive freedom. if we talk about man in some abstract ideal manner, yes. however what we are missing is the differential manifestation that comes with the fact that the most fundamental site for autonomy is sensuous activity and thus it is subject to material exigencies
thus we are not always able to exercise our freedom or actualize our species being. it goes back again, to the point of non-identity as well. yes such and such institution has a particular purpose, but is this purpose always manifest in actuality? this is the core of the debord anon's critique of heidegger man-as-time
another limitation of heidegger's formulation is that is conception of temporality is limited. i have already explained why. however, i can be expand it further. to me heidegger is focused solely on what i call "making-time". it is that aspect of temporality that is concerned with demarcating regions in duration as significant and having such and such purpose. when this process projects into the past, we have the constitution of a history (as opposed to just a past). when this process projects into the future, we have an anticipation of future possibilities (of Dasein and larger fabrics it is embedded within). this is fine and all, but there are other modes of temporality e.g. filling-time, finding-time, impinged-time, etc
moreover, this making-time i think of as a manifestation of what zizek calls the authentic act. it ultimately depends on some deeper temporal fabric, one that is "incomplete" or to take notes instead from johnston liable to a redirection of its elements. this bedrock i identify with duration as concrete universal or "filling-time". this is the intermeshing of rhythms interlocking from different temporal scales which i talked about before. i think brzozowski's and marx's ontological insights are crucial here as well. labour is a crucial middle term between filling-time and making-time as it is the most basic locus within which autonomy can be exercised
furthermore, it is within this context we find the world as a determining factor for this temporal horizon heidegger speaks of. if there is a proper place for bryant's onticology, it would be here. this is where it makes sense to talk about aletheia, the earth, the sky, and the gods
Anonymous 2023-05-04 (Thu) 05:17:31 No. 15637
its funny how this complains about the hypnotic effect of ease-of-use, which railroads us into instrumentalizing rather than staying curious and understanding the things we use, while the language and structure of the text (inserting pointless jargon, taking so many words to say something very simple) lull the reader into a similar state or reading as an action rather than reading as learning.
Anonymous 2023-05-04 (Thu) 05:53:48 No. 15638
>>15484 >>15605 >there is a far more immanent manner in which capitalism presents itself as a problem THANK YOU
i was going to say (and thought i'd read thru the thread first…) that it's ridiculous to think that random, radicalized individuals need to make more problems in society, and somehow that will lead to change, as if the contradictions of capitalism are only put onto us chosen leftists, and purely in a subjective form, so that they have to be transformed into material contradiction through acts of destruction. School shooter mentality. Maybe someone will see your pain when you destroy enough wheelchair ramps or iphones…
To relate the OP question/proposition more to reality, the problematic is that the class divide and its symptoms is seen as natural, because it's the wider metabolism we live and breathe. We relate to our relations of production similarly to an instrument. How do we make it apparent? In fact, we can't, or if we did and desired to do so it would presuppose failure already (well not to you because you're an idealist… so RIP, but shoutout to the people who think reality comes before perception lol). What makes the relations of production apparent is failures of the system. Both crises, which bring the system under acute scrutiny by a larger number of people at the same time, or the everyday personal crises of poverty, racism, violence, corruption, unemployment, houselessness, and the various psychic traumas individualist society inflicts.
The core of your misunderstanding is you still believe in the system. You don't see the systemic nature of its failings, and the inevitability of its explosion. The failure comes from inside. No need to produce it. In fact, your discontent is a product of it.
Anonymous 2023-05-04 (Thu) 06:07:54 No. 15639
>>15624 >concentration camp resistance 😂 i am actually dying send help, have you READ about the successes of the concentration camp resistances? (and maybe have you… uh… read about who liberated them 😳)
Anonymous 2023-05-04 (Thu) 06:38:31 No. 15640
>>15484 What prompted you to re-evaluate your relation to the world? Did you have an epiphany one day when your hammer broke or was it something else?
Anonymous 2023-05-04 (Thu) 11:12:14 No. 15641
>>15636 Heidegger is never an idealist so idk where you are getting any of this from. Heidegger explicitly states that there is an objective material world. Deleuze really says basically the same thing Heidegger does tbh with you but in a far more crudely spoken way. 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.
I don't really see your interpretation of Heidegger's temporality at all. Nor does he talk that much about 'man' at all, Dasein is not man.
It's interesting that you talk about 'finding time' because this is precisely the Proustian project which Heidegger is pointing us towards. Finding time again. It's not a mere making time. I don't see Heidegger as disagreeing with Debord in any way.
Anonymous 2023-05-04 (Thu) 11:14:30 No. 15643
>>15633 >>15634 this is the general level of comprehension we are dealing w on this board
Anonymous 2023-05-04 (Thu) 11:15:38 No. 15644
>>15638 Characterising my position as 'destroy wheelchair ramps' is equivalent to me characterising your position as 'protect the bourgeois police and factories'
Anonymous 2023-05-04 (Thu) 12:48:40 No. 15645
>>15641 >If you actually read Heidegger despite his tone policing of Marx he is eminently critical of capitalism and sounds outright marxist in many areas How do you justify his support for the Nazi state?
Anonymous 2023-05-04 (Thu) 13:22:16 No. 15646
>>15645 what the fuck is wrong with you?
Anonymous 2023-05-04 (Thu) 13:35:14 No. 15647
>>15646 >dodging the question Answer his query you fascist.
Anonymous 2023-05-04 (Thu) 14:33:51 No. 15650
>>15645 Heidegger only became a Nazi because he wanted to tone police the “Cultural Bolshevik” Marxists in Germany who were attacking capitalism, that’s all.
Anonymous 2023-05-04 (Thu) 17:45:07 No. 15651
Just going to leave this interesting little exchange between Heidegger and Marcuse here.
> Concerning 1933: I expected from National Socialism a spiritual renewal of life in its entirety, a reconciliation of social antagonisms and a deliverance of western Dasein from the dangers of communism >t. Heidegger https://www.marcuse.org/herbert/pubs/40spubs/47MarcuseHeidegger.htm Anonymous 2023-05-04 (Thu) 19:25:06 No. 15652
>>15641 >Heidegger explicitly states that there is an objective material world this does not make him not an idealist, or at the very least doesnt mean he doesn't have idealist tendencies in his thought
>I don't really see your interpretation of Heidegger's temporality at all i am giving my interpretation of the ecstases (though perhaps he does not talk much about a projection unto the past explicitly, but following stern's criticism, his understanding of this past is itself rather abstract). this i believe mirrors deleuze's concepts of aion and chronos. the thing is when deleuze takes it up, i think he is more ready to raise the syntheses of time to a sort of metaphysical principle. he isn't just doing phenomenology anymore. repetition is applicable to far more things than just Dasein. of course my critiques thus far have also been directed at the more concrete aspects of. heidegger's understanding of temporality too… don't even get me started on being-towards-death!
>Nor does he talk that much about 'man' at all, Dasein is not man his discussion of Dasein has clear anthropological implications seeing as it is a crucial mode of being for man. yet he does not talk much about its materiality (i.e. its potential for differential manifestation due to material exigencies)
>It's interesting that you talk about 'finding time' because this is precisely the Proustian project which Heidegger is pointing us towards. Finding time again finding-time in my system is more related to death drive i think? also we should also i believe separate the speculative or phenomenological study of our temporal existence from the temporal anthropology that sprouts from that study. i do not know whether the former can be characterized as making-time (though it very likely is in that sphere, as making-time would seem to be a condition of such transcendental reflection). the latter meanwhile, in heidegger's system, is definitely making-time. that is what he characterizes Dasein as essentially involved in
i think you should check out pdf related. it should also be noted that some the marxist critics of heidegger i've brought up (e.g. marcuse) already had the idea of combining heidegger's thought with historical materialism. however, heidegger's decision to side with the national socialist party was a very discouraging turn of events, and forced many to reexamine heidegger's work to see if it is really as concrete as it claims to be. note as well that as this article points out, there is a tendency in heidegger to attribute marxist anthropology as being a consequence of enframing just as much as with capitalism
<Heidegger lumps capitalism and Marxism, America and Russia together, which is no coincidence. Both ideologies, seemingly antithetical to each other, are governed by our concern with material reality in terms of labour, production, capital, consumption and exchange value. Their central distinction concerns the control and distribution of that reality. This conception of materialism, as Heidegger says in “Letter on Humanism”, is the world reduced entirely to the material of labour ([1947] 1993, 243). This is the case in both ideological frameworks in that they are driven by the same metaphysical presuppositions about what the real really is. Both ideologies emerge as part of the disenchanted industrialisation of the world which becomes wholly fixated on what is calculable, what later Heidegger calls “enframing” or “positionality” [Ge-stell] <While Marx is never mentioned in this essay, it is clear that Heidegger’s critical position on the challenging nature of modern technology and its reduction of the world to a store house of energy aligns strongly with the same concerns he has about the Marxist conception of reality. “The Question Concerning Technology” finalised in 1953 from previous versions of his Bremen lectures written a few years earlier, is also the same year Introduction to Metaphysics appears in print for the first time. Those “originary questions” about the meaning of Being so central to Heidegger’s thought, which “intelligence” and “measure” cannot articulate, are rendered unaskable by Ge-stell. Enframing is fully realised in Marx’s reduction of the world to a technological materialism. This singular, dominating revealing of reality is fundamentally incompatible with Heidegger’s conception of Being. Marxism can be interpreted as the ultimate encapsulation of Ge-stell, because it reinforces our forgetfulness of Being through its emphasis that humankind produces itself, and that this “self-production” is all that is real. Yet, for Heidegger our central role is not self-production, but the shepherding and guardianship of Being – reality is not ours to control. Instead we are summoned by and granted our disclosive potential through the call of Being itself, and it is this, our ontological openness to this call which is fundamentally threatened i think another reason why heideggerian marxism fell off is that people started to realize that marx already had an ontology. when you realize that, heidegger becomes far less important. not to say that he is completely useless though
>Lacan, Foucault, Derrida – ALL Heideggerians. Deleuze himself says we must all be Heideggerians while this is true, their inspiration from heidegger is often very creative. nevertheless, to the extent and to the extent that heidegger is limited, we should also be critical of these thinkers as well
Anonymous 2023-05-04 (Thu) 19:36:03 No. 15653
>>15652 >nevertheless, to the extent and to the extent that heidegger is limited *nevertheless, to the extent they are heiddegerians and to the extent that heidegger is limited
Anonymous 2023-05-04 (Thu) 20:38:43 No. 15655
>>15646 Heidegger was literally a nazi.
Anonymous 2023-05-05 (Fri) 21:34:21 No. 15656
>>15655 You should be reminded that this is not an argument. Don't fall into that intellectual laziness trap. Besides it's not like he was part of the Dirlewanger brigade going around setting people on fire with flamethrowers. He sat in his hut and babbled incoherently about metaphysics and "Being."
Anonymous 2023-05-05 (Fri) 21:54:12 No. 15657
>>15656 Heidegger grounded Nazism with his philosophy according Marcuse. It’s his praxis.
Anonymous 2023-05-06 (Sat) 01:11:58 No. 15658
>>15656 \>he was stupid and bad-aligned
\>"this is not an argument against the other things that come out of his mouth"
i think it is, tbh
Anonymous 2023-05-06 (Sat) 11:33:02 No. 15659
>>15656 I think pointing out that Heidegger was a nazi is a strength to his philosophy since it shows the fascistic conclusions his reading of history had.
Anonymous 2023-05-06 (Sat) 14:37:49 No. 15660
>>15659 Does this go for his dogging of the jews and calling them “worldless”?
Anonymous 2023-05-06 (Sat) 14:46:16 No. 15661
>>15652 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dSCJYJ7SHOY Heidegger can be split into two phases, early and late. In the early Heidegger, specifically S&Z, Heidegger was far too focused on the human being. But later he accepts this criticism and moves towards an understanding of all beings. I will check out the PDF, but I don't really see your interpretation as well-formulated. 'Heidegger was a nazi' also not a great reason to move away from Heidegger IMO. I think if you study Heidegger more you'll see an eminent similarity to figures like Deleuze, Marx, Wittegenstein. Heidegger actually saw Marx as the culmination of philosophy (he wants us to go beyond philosophy, but that's another matter).
Anonymous 2023-05-06 (Sat) 14:47:15 No. 15662
>>15657 and some people ground Nazism in Marx, what's your point?
Anonymous 2023-05-06 (Sat) 14:51:45 No. 15663
>>15662 “Some people” isn’t Marx himself…
Anonymous 2023-05-06 (Sat) 15:18:15 No. 15664
>>15663 hegel was pro-colonialism, marx and engels were racists, whats ur point dude
Anonymous 2023-05-06 (Sat) 15:21:32 No. 15665
>>15664 Yeah and there’s a reason we don’t go full Hegelian and as far as I know, Marx never grounded racism in his philosophy. Heidegger does.
Anonymous 2023-05-06 (Sat) 15:22:02 No. 15666
>>15665 using a philosophy to justify racism != using racism to justify a philosophy
Anonymous 2023-05-06 (Sat) 15:23:21 No. 15667
>>15666 you can make anything seem to support anything. i dont really *care* if Heidegger was a nazi
Anonymous 2023-05-06 (Sat) 15:28:33 No. 15668
>>15666 The philosophy did inform his racism. Hence why the Jews were “worldless”. Even Marcuse, his student, noticed this and broke with him to create his own hybrid philosophy that included Marx.
Anonymous 2023-05-06 (Sat) 15:31:48 No. 15669
>>15668 Jews are not 'worldless' even if we assume that they have no inherited 'place' in the world (which is nonsense obviously). This is basically just silly racism from Heidegger and then he pretends his own philosophy justifies it when it doesn't.
This is a stupid argument because no heideggerians other than heidegger actually are nazis. Take your idpol nonsense away from the thread.
Anonymous 2023-05-06 (Sat) 15:35:36 No. 15670
>>15669 To call jews 'worldless' is already predicated on the idea that they are not Dasein and it is not for anyone to say who is Dasein and who is not. Heidegger just took his racism and then twisted his own philosophy to justify it. Jewish people obviously have cultural roots– and for Heidegger to say they don't is clearly just retarded racism and nothing more. There's no philosophy here, just an old indoctrinated dude.
Anonymous 2023-05-06 (Sat) 15:38:30 No. 15671
>>15669 You can write it off as Heidegger just being “silly” and playing “pretend”, but for everyone else it’s deadly serious. If you can’t explain why his philosophy doesn’t fall into supporting fascist sympathies without it being heavily informed by a sort-of fusion with Marxism, I have to assume it’s the case his philosophical praxis is Nazism. It’s not idpol to point out Heidegger was idpol.
Anonymous 2023-05-06 (Sat) 15:40:09 No. 15672
>>15671 I already explained this. Heidegger's belief that Jewish people are worldless is factually untrue. Every Dasein has a world. Jewish people are Dasein because they have linguistic and cultural roots. So does everyone, in fact. There is no basis to exclude Jewish people from Dasein except myopic racism.
Anonymous 2023-05-06 (Sat) 15:41:06 No. 15673
>>15670 How do you twist your own philosophy unless it was somehow not originally your own?
Anonymous 2023-05-06 (Sat) 15:41:25 No. 15674
Heidegger is a jewish nigger.
Anonymous 2023-05-06 (Sat) 15:42:27 No. 15675
>>15673 at this point you're being a pure sophist. 'how do you twist your philosophy? its your own' implies that we need to scholarly take heidegger as a whole author and can't separate him as a person from his texts.
Anonymous 2023-05-06 (Sat) 15:43:27 No. 15676
>>15675 There is a logical inconsistency in *this part* of what Heidegger says (about Jews) with the rest of his writings. I don't know how to make this simpler for you to understand.
Anonymous 2023-05-06 (Sat) 15:43:40 No. 15677
>>15672 Alright, that’s your interpretation, but Heideggers seems to be that they do not.
Am I supposed to take the philosophers interpretation of his own philosophy or yours?
Anonymous 2023-05-06 (Sat) 15:46:10 No. 15678
>>15676 Glad to know Heidegger was a nazi accidentally. Fascism has its own daesin and political beliefs cannot be explained through rationally except as personal quirks of nazis
Anonymous 2023-05-06 (Sat) 15:47:50 No. 15679
>>15677 if you think for a second that jumbling words around to pretend that heidegger must have just 'known better and could never have contradicted himself' is going to change my interest in heidegger's work in the slightest you are sorely mistaken.
Anonymous 2023-05-06 (Sat) 15:48:42 No. 15680
>>15678 Dasein, a central concept in the philosophy of Martin Heidegger, refers to human existence and being-in-the-world. It is a way of understanding the human experience as fundamentally grounded in our relationship to the world around us.
Political ideologies, on the other hand, are abstract systems of thought that are developed to explain and prescribe certain ways of organizing society and governing human behavior. They are not themselves examples of human existence or being-in-the-world, but rather ways of conceptualizing and organizing it.
Therefore, it is not meaningful to say that political ideologies have Dasein in the same way that human beings do. However, it is certainly possible for political ideologies to shape and influence the way that people experience and understand the world around them.
For example, a person who strongly identifies with a particular political ideology may experience the world in a way that is shaped by that ideology. They may see events, interactions, and social structures through the lens of their political beliefs, and may act and make decisions in accordance with those beliefs.
In this sense, political ideologies can have a significant impact on the human experience, but they do not themselves have Dasein. It is important to keep this distinction in mind when analyzing the relationship between philosophy, politics, and human experience.
Anonymous 2023-05-06 (Sat) 15:51:39 No. 15681
>>15675 Because Heidegger is philosophizing about the jews it’s pretty hard to compartmentalize that, yes.
>>15676 Now we’re getting somewhere.
I completely accept it’s possible to throw out Heidegger where you see fit. If you can say that it’s impossible for a people to stand outside the Dasein, you’ve broken with him.
Anonymous 2023-05-06 (Sat) 15:56:45 No. 15683
>>15680 So what happens when capitalism goes into crisis? I was told that capitalism is the natural state of the world and that my people were destined to be the great masters of the world. I was promised luxury but my own country keeps losing wars and are being outcompete by every single capitalist power. No there must be an big Other that is disrupting capitalism, the big Other that is destroying our otherwise harmonious relationship to the world. It is the Jews who are the cause of decline in aristocratic philosophy and they are holding Germany back from fulfilling its duty as the Absolute Spirit.
Anonymous 2023-05-06 (Sat) 15:57:52 No. 15684
>>15682 I don’t compartmentalize things very well.
You got me.
Anonymous 2023-05-06 (Sat) 15:59:31 No. 15685
>>15684 personally when I see 'most influential philosopher of the 20th century' next to 'rabid antisemite' my first thought is 'im probably going to have do some compartmentalisation here'
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: 53