[removed]

Immanence?

Too bad dude was a nazi

[removed]

Of the individual. It’s a big difference. Edit: thought you said agree, not disagree

Italics not sufficient I see...

> The man was a nazi sympathiser and if your anecdote regarding his mentor is true then the man has no redeeming quality whatsoever.

Show your work please.

And as a follow up, I want to see if I understand his two points.

Seinsfrage, the question of being… I think he would reject any answer to that question that was simple enough to be called complete. “What is a door”? A door is more than a description and a purpose. It’s an object and an idea, difficult to define. A door is a door because we see it as a door. It’s defined by its relationship to how it is seen and used.

People are the same. We are an intricate web of relationships, physical identities and interactions, ideas and conceptions. That’s what I would call his Seinsfrage, an attempt to wrestle with that question and try to get to the bottom of it, and to encompass the whole of the being rather than isolate any one or two parts of it that are easier to grab onto.

As for technological vs poetic…that seems straightforward enough. Technological is a utilitarian view of the world, things are defined by how useful they are. But like, yeah, obviously that’s wrong. I’m tempted to accuse him of setting up the opposing side as a straw man. Ask anyone who loves their cat, or child, or car — these things have a significance beyond their usefulness. To argue that people think otherwise is absurd.

But sure, if we accept the premise that people have this technological view of the world, where things are defined by their purpose and usefulness, then obviously there is something missing. Such a perspective on life would be immensely joyless. Such a view of the world would struggle to answer the age old questions “Why are we here? What is the point of it all?” Such a view of the world would have no place for telling jokes with your friends, for loving another person, or for anything that couldn’t be described as useful. Many good things, many joys in life, would be lost in such a technological world view.

Is that supposed to be groundbreaking?

Idk. Y’all think I got him right? Did I miss his point?

[deleted]

Yeah and his journal entries reveal he wasn't just a Nazi because the Nazis were in power and it was required to be a member of the party in his academic position, but a true adherent and horrendously anti semetic.

The methane hydrates are being liberated from the shallow ocean floor in East Siberian Arctic shelf .So that's game over.

“The question of Being has been utterly neglected since the work of Aristotle.

After millennia of neglect, Martin Heidegger made it his life’s work to ask just this question. He called it the “Seinsfrage” — the question of Being — and his work in this field has earned him the reputation among professional philosophers as one of the most profound thinkers of the 20th century.”

So…I may not be a philosopher, and I’m definitely a materialist / objectivist / whatever… but that first sentence rings of hyperbole. The question of being utterly neglected for over a thousand years?

I know nothing in the subject, can anyone back that claim up?

I recommend The Dawn of Everything by Graeber and Wengrow, bac5665. It's fascinating and well supported and I feel has really enriched my perspective on this subject. It comes to a different conclusion than you do here.

[removed]

>Natives are people, and people are the same, everywhere and everywhen.

Have you done much travelling?

I mean he was a literal Nazi, I hope the only thing he's doing in his grave is miserably rotting in it.

It's possible that this opinion about social media is shared by many, many more people than one might expect. We only hear from the humans who use it. Maybe a mass exodus from social media is in our best interest. Including from Reddit.

>The man was a nazi sympathiser and if your anecdote regarding his mentor is true then the man has no redeeming quality whatsoever.

Show your work please.

It also demands the materials used to build the telescope, literally

Do you think the level of broad discussion of "utopian" ideas/goals/etc is too little, too much, or just about right?

He’s a utilitarian. I think pretty much every utilitarian would disagree that the status quo maximizes benefits/minimizes suffering.

"...has destroyed our relationship to the world ....
-
And, now, it has destroyed the actual world.

I’m sorry in advance that I’m not sure how to format as well as you.

I did not mean to imply any value judgment on the covid restrictions, merely stating they heavily favored the Titans of the industries and Greatly hindered the smaller companies.

You mentioned capital and capitalism as an unending movement toward monopolization. Are you implying that inherently fiat money and capitilsm always end at a monopoly? If so can you elaborate as to why you think that?

I really enjoy this discussion so I apologize if you’re picking up a negative tone but if I understood correctly, I don’t think I agree with this.

We use fiat money along with changing rates to control both the supply and the worth.

As for capitalism, ultimately there hasn’t been any company that’s infallible through time. Even something like Amazon isn’t infallible. So on the side of the companies, I don’t think theres any proof of a company that’s lasted long enough to accumulate to the point of true monopolization.

Id be much more inclined to agree if there was a finite amount of money.

I don't take advice from Nazis.

It's not satire. It's Jacobin.

Why is being located at every space and every time better than not being...? Is being six feet tall better than being five tall? Is being 50 years old better than being 40 years old? Is this principle only apply to occupying all of space and time vs. occupying less-or-no space and time at all?