>dis nigga accuses every philosopher prior of mistaking Being of beings for a being among beings>every single classical Platonist is at pains to explain that the One is not a being among beingsWas it retardation or ignorance???
>>23552808>Was it retardation or ignorance???both
>>23552808can you cite where he said Plato made this mistake? genuinely curious as I know heidegger has engaged extensively with him, but haven't really read it.
>>23552808He was only a part-time philosopher. His real passion was hiding eggs
>Was it retardation or ignorance?It was National Socialism.
>>23552808>Was it retardation or ignorance?It's called being german
>>23552808>no quote and no source, just a tranny making a strawmanwow great post
>>23554727Don't pretend that the Heiddegerfags on this board don't justify his whole project by insisting that prior western philosophy does what OP says, because I have seen them insist on this firsthand.
>>23554727ayo this nigga be wanin arguments n shieeet
>>23555086>don't pretend that [strawman]ok>>23555094yes I tend to dismiss low IQ "arguments" made by barely white groypers
>>23555118>yes I tend to dismiss low IQ "arguments" made by barely white groypersNobody mentioned groypers you kike
>>23553597Kek
>>23555128I mentioned groypers, because you're all a bunch of brown faggots who worship a literal Jewyou're a mutt, buddy. you can seethe and dilate about Heidegger but it doesn't change the fact you're a brown shitskin
>>23555151>"you can seethe and dilate about Heidegger but it doesn't change the fact you're a brown shitskin"Nice persecution complex you Jew, we were just talking about Heidegger and you had a brain fart and confused this thread with your other hasbara activities online and thought that this thread is about groyers when that's actually unrelated to the topic of this thread.
>>23552808I'm looking at Plotinus in the O'Brien Essential Enneads, and maybe the Gerson edited translation renders it differently, but at the end of ch. 2 of The Good or The One, Plotinus says of the One that, "It is not Being *because Being is all things*." Insofar as that's a clear point of distinction between Being and the One, I'm not sure how your criticism holds, especially since, at least as far as Being is concerned, Heidegger's criticism seems to be on the mark.
>>23555266How can the One be for Plotinus "another being among beings" if he literally writes that the One is beyond being?
>>23555168the faggot Jew worshipper cries out and projects his Jewishness onto you as you denounce Yeshualow IQ amerimutt faggot doesn't understand that the entire thread was created by christian fags because Heidegger didn't worship a Jewany actual arguments, mutt?
>>23555372I think you're making a certain assumption about Heidegger that might not hold (there's apparently some lecture materials on Plato's Parmenides that might help settle this, but I don't think they've been translated yet). If Heidegger's talking about Being, and Plotinus says that Being is "all things," then Heidegger's contention about treating Being as beings holds. But it may be that Heidegger wouldn't disagree in principle with the role of the One, depending. His critique of Platonism is in largest part devoted to how the Forms and Ideas are discussed in Plato's dialogues, where Forms and Ideas are beings that are eternally present. This gets messy with the Good of the Republic that's said to be beyond Being, but his student Gadamer might be a helpful example of how to see that as something that doesn't fall prey to the Heideggerian critique.
>>23552808I can't take philosophers as ugly and fat as him seriously. He looks like a faggot.
>>23555151Easy there slav. You will never be white and Heidegger saw people like you as subhuman.
>>23555266>>23555512Plotinus is not the only place to look for a discussion of Being and Unity. Aristotle also discusses it at length in Metaphysics where being and unity seem to go hand in hand yet are not quite the same, in ways that are very difficult to pry open (because Unity seems prior but nothing can be prior to Being). And ofc, Plato's Parmenides is full of abstract and contradcitory exercises on the nature of One in a very similar vein. Furthermore, you have to be careful not to think of the One as simply talking about how "all is one" or whatever, because you wouldn't be striking at the heart of what the Platonics are talking about. What they're saying is that for something to even be, it has to be a one, whether it is one apple, one family, one country, one number, the number one, one oneness, etc. Being implies unity. But how and why is very difficult to ascertain because unity can't be prior to being or else it would be nothing.
>>23555559I don't disagree per se, but I was simply talking about OP's criticism, which suggests Being = the One, where Plotinus seems to explicitly disagree. On those grounds, Heidegger would disagree with Plotinus' understanding of Being as equated with the totality of beings, but not necessarily with his understanding of the One.
>>23552808Heidegger recharacterizes Being as that which is unconcealed at the same time as it withdraws.This twist makes revelation something more authentic than the One as something that is revealed. I think this is what he means by "onto" in ontotheology.This goes hand in hand with the idea that the forgetfulness of Being is the essence of Being.The main difference between Platonists and Heidegger is that the later not only fully embrace the impossibility of capturing the essence of the One, but makes this impossibility its hallmark.>>23555086From what I read they take Heidegger's philosophy as a box that contains Being. They are only able to reiterate the Heideggerese – not unlike LLMs – which of course puts in doubt the fact that they even understand it. They barely ever go beyond Being and Time because it is the part of his works that lends itself the most to downgrading Being to a mere being. Picture this: a bunch of scholastic monks stumble upon a telescope and spend their lives arguing about it without ever peeping through the eyepiece.I found something interesting about the intersection of Being as forgetting and Being as destiny.What is unique about the notion of destiny is realizing that you have always had a destiny; you could almost have realized you had this destiny earlier in myriad moments, just as you could have realized it later through the re-confirmations you receive once you have taken it into account. But this forgetting, akin to the idea that the forgetfulness of Being is the essence of Being in Heidegger's philosophy, is necessary to make destiny what it is and not simply a determination to do something particular. Thus, what is common to all destinies is the realization that there is a destiny – you must forget and then remember: that is what, beyond their specificities (and what incredibly singular specificities for each of us!), is the universal criterion of the idea of destiny common to all.
>>23555692I'm so glad that I never read Heidegger. Heidegger sounds like the most pretentious and boring cunt ever.
>>23552808Read up how Scotus characterised God.God is. God knows everything else. God upholds them BY knowing them, as in any Rationalistic ontology. But God can't know himself, or it leads to an infinite regress where God needs to know himself knowing himself. So then where does that leave us? God knows these things as Beings, rather than Existents (this is the disjunction: Being is the rationalistic Substance underlying, and Existence is the totality of all its actual empirical states). Yet this is only possible because God is infinite; a finite entity cannot know a thing's Being from its Existence: they, as Kant said, have to know its Being, the law by which it exists, to then ground its existence. There are lots of ways to read it. The main one should be dialectically. Historically Rationalism in its Platonic vein has handwaved away the natural paradoxical dialectics like those in the Parmenides. This is natural; it's impossible to justify it in a normal Logic, and given that without the principles that lead to this paradox no form of knowledge is possible, it's easy to see why they did so. Yet Heidegger wanted to try to go further by going into the dialectic. The ultimate difference is that Dasein is finite, and thus only a part of the universe, yet presents itself, and epistimologises, as a complete whole. Ontologically this would be silly. Yet the epistemological restraints embedded in Dasein prevent these absurdities from being known, just like in Hegel and Kant, thus allowing this synthesis between two opposites: the finite entity pretending it's a whole, and the fact that this isn't actually true ontologically.
>>23555692Example about destiny:>be me>picks linguistics for uni at random>have a series of synchronicities that make me think there is something important about them that impacts the whole of language (for instance people coming up with the same neologisms at the same time independantly)>some time later, realize the first time I ever got interested in linguistics was when I was 10, listening to a radio show that talked about neologisms I thought I had invented>realize it didn't played a role in my choice of picking linguistics at a major later but that would have made sense.>strong feeling of destiny>realizes that if I hadn't forgotten about that radio show and it actually motivated my choice of picking linguistics as a major>it wouldn't have been destiny but determinationHeideggerfags can't into that. They'll just babble shit about being and time and won't be able to turn it into something more concrete, expressible in simple terms, which I will promptly quote now:>§ 42. Confirmation of the Existential Interpretation of Dasein as Care in terms of Dasein's Pre-ontological Way of Interpreting ltself.TL;DQ Heidegger runs accros an old latin tale that says man was created by Jupiter, Earth and Care (!!!). Saturn (Time) intervenes because the trio is now arguing about what should be the name of this new being.>the pre-ontological characterization of man's essence expressed in this fable, has brought to view in advance the kind of Being which dominates his temporal sojourn in the world, and does so through and through.>the existential-ontological Interpretation is not, let us say, merely an ontical generalization which is theoretical in character. That would just mean that ontically all man's ways of behaving are 'full of care' and are guided by his 'devotedness' to something. The 'generalization' is rather one that is ontological and a priori. What it has in view is not a set of ontical properties which constantly keep emerging, but a state of Being which is already underlying in every case, and which first makes it ontologically possible for this entity to be addressed ontically as "cura".>>23555708Yeah ok go be humble somewhere else I'm sure you'll find a herd of virtuous people like you, you crucifier.
>>23555708Nta, and, while I think B&T is overrated and too terse and I find his later etymological musings deeply questionable, from reading the lecture courses and later essay collections he's one of the most exciting philosophers I've ever read. The frustrating thing about B&T is that it seems causa sui, dry, and arbitrary, but the lecture courses of the early 20s, where he's going through various Aristotle's Metaphysics, De Anima, and Ethics, or Plato's Sophist, make a lot of what appears in B&T make much more sense, since you get to seem him wrestle with the ideas and develop them, tweaking his analyses and correcting himself in a way where you usually get the explanation of why he's coming around to these positions. He makes both Plato and Aristotle come alive in a way reading a standard commentary doesn't--and I don't think he's even necessarily right about either of them. I came at him from an analytic background ready to despise him, but, if you love thinking and aren't afraid of wading through errors you could learn from, he's really one of the best.
>>23555372If its beyond being, then is not being
>>23555692>>23555735These seem to be the exact opposite of what Christian said.Then what led Bultmann to become his friend?
>>23555787What?
>>23555571That's fair. I just felt it was necessary to add qualification. I see Plotinus brought up too often in discussions about "the One" when Plato and Aristotle also wrote prolifically about it and are highly relevant. It could be helpful for future discussions about it.
>>23555692>They are only able to reiterate the Heideggerese – not unlike LLMs – which of course puts in doubt the fact that they even understand it. They barely ever go beyond Being and Time because it is the part of his works that lends itself the most to downgrading Being to a mere being. Picture this: a bunch of scholastic monks stumble upon a telescope and spend their lives arguing about it without ever peeping through the eyepieceReminds me about yesterday's Heidegger thread which commented on how a lot of Heidegger neophytes become obsessed with ready-to-hand when Heidegger is much more concerned (and surprisingly favorable to, in some sense) to present-at-hand and presence in general. A lot of the peripheral details in Being & Time stop making sense after reading Heidegger's critique of metaphysics from the 1930s onward.
>>23555719>But God can't know himself, or it leads to an infinite regress where God needs to know himself knowing himself. So then where does that leave us?So he needs to know himself, then he needs to be aware of the fact that he knows himself, and then he needs to be aware of the fact that he is aware of himself knowing himself. And it could theoretically go on. But honestly? After the first awareness, it seems that no new information is added. Being aware of knowing yourself covers everything, since your self-knowledge covers your awareness, and your awareness covers your self-knowledge. It seems like an empty continuous predicate. Sort of like what Peirce talked about.
>>23555719>God knows these things as Beings, rather than Existents (this is the disjunction: Being is the rationalistic Substance underlying, and Existence is the totality of all its actual empirical states).You make it sound like Existence is a broader and more expansive category than Being. Am I reading you incorrectly? I'm confused.
>>23555857I love Heidegerrese but not so much for the specific sounds - concepts. It's the rythmic hypnotic prose that is so compelling. I have an alien understanding of Heidegger I find almost nowhere and which explains a lot more how I read his work than any concept that lies out there in the world, outside of the act of reading. I think this matches better his ideas about the history of metaphysic having something more fundamental to reveal than any specific moment of it, or the concepts he developed later such as the Turn, the notion of Ereignis, Danger or "Only a god can save us".What I reproach Heidegerrians for is to be unable to talk about what his philosophy points at outside of his own framework and philosophy in general and be unable to bring it down to simple ideas that are nonetheless difficult to spot.Let's take his favorite slogan: "But where the danger is, also grows the saving power"Now let's turn to the verb "to remain": to remain is the goal, mere remains the fate we want to avoid.What is its etymology ? "re-" + "-maneo" (= to remain). Hence to remain = to re-remain. Huh weird. Let's keep on digging, let's keep on *iterating*. It's close to "remano" = to flow back, meaning that you stumble upon again when you go up to the proto-indoeuropean root of re, "wre-" and which means "back" rather than "again". But it doesn't end here, since the origin of "-maneo" is "-mana", which gave "man" and also "mind" and which meant "to think". In "-mana", not only do we find the proximity of "man" to "mind", but also the verb "to mind", in other words, Care. From this it seems we're getting dangerously close to Parmenide's "thinking and being are the same" since from this etymological exploration, it becomes apparent that "to remain" = "to think again". Last but not least, this whole etymological exploration seems to speak about itself, since in trying to think again the meaning of "to remain" we ended up thinking that "to remain" = "to think again".This my friend, is language bringing language to language via language.Heidegger / 10.
>>23555857>Heidegger's critique of metaphysics from the 1930sCan you name exact book or essays on this "favor on presence"? Because I am really into Heidegger since this May
>>23552808But they did believe that Being emanated from the one as part of the intelligible triad. Up until Iamblichus the One had the trinity of being, soul and intellect within it. Being was seen as an emanation that grouped together the many, and as such was in some sense the One participating in becoming. Proclus and Damascius, the last great pagan Neoplatonists were the ones to properly emphasize the One's transcendence with their intermediate henads, but even they ultimately saw Being as an emanation of the henads. Classical Platonism only has historical significance through Plotinus and Christian Neoplatonism only took off from him. Plotinus absolutely believed that the one was a being among beings (the form of the Good).
>>23552808martin "hide egger" hid so many eggs that the nazis changed his name from hiedegger to hide egger. he would hide eggs in the nazi pariliament. many nazis would be like bro wtf where are all these eggs coming from! and there would be martin just chilling and smoking laughing at the pure win that was unfolding unbeknownst to the nazi parliament members. h e even hid an egg in hitlers bunker and hitler called him was like "bruh ur a savage i know it was you!!!!" and heidegger just chilled and lit up a cigar and said "yeah... lol". next day his office placard was changed to hide egger!!!! history of phil... just another win
>>23555863Infinite regress is not a problemhttps://philsci-archive.pitt.edu/8961/1/Fractal_Patterns_of_Reasoning.pdf>Fractal Patterns in Reasoning>David Atkinson and Jeanne Peijnenburg>Abstract>This paper is the third and final one in a sequence of three. All threepapers emphasize that a proposition can be justified by an infinite regress, on conditionthat epistemic justification is interpreted probabilistically. The first two papers showedthis for one-dimensional chains and for one-dimensional loops of propositions, eachproposition being justified probabilistically by its precursor. In the present paper weconsider the more complicated case of two-dimensional nets, where each ‘child’proposition is probabilistically justified by two ‘parent’ propositions. Surprisingly, itturns out that probabilistic justification in two dimensions takes on the form ofMandelbrot’s iteration. Like so many patterns in nature, probabilistic reasoning might inthe end be fractal in character.In other words, from the heights of his ivory tower, as far removed from reality as one can be, the speculations of the metaphysician are still determined by the shape of the justification web he spins before any particular justification.>>23555923>remaneosick
>>23555953The origin of the work of art
>>23555984Bro... What you just say is the ivory tower
>>23555086It is unclear how much he blamed Plato for this personally, I think less than it seems, but he thinks that Plato first set into motion a "metaphysics of presence", which interprets Being on the basis of beings insofar as they stand before us. This isn't to say that Plato didn't appreciate the ontological difference. The problem is that as a result, most of western philosophy, in different historical eras and epochs, DID tend to lose sight of this distinction, noting especially the scholastics and most philosophy post-Descartes. Plato isn't the main issue. >>23555692Ontotheology is this tendency to try to grasp the nature of things from above and below simultaneously, turning God into a necessary being and Being into the grounds of a god, both interpreted via a metaphysics of presence. Its unlikely (but theoretically debatable) that Heidegger was ever gesturing at some sort of supra-historical unity of Being that is freestanding prior to unfolding in particular modes of Being. You are very correct to be skeptical of an over-emphasis on Being and Time. >>23555708Good, more Heidegger for the rest of us. >>23555719Your last paragraph is worrisome. What do you mean by "universe" here. He also makes it a point that Dasein, if properly understood, doesn't function like a sort of entity that undergoes these epistemic operations in the style of the Kantian cognition. You're slipping a little bit between phenomenological claims and metaphysical. >>23555857That thread was a trainwreck and I hope this one doesn't devolve in the same way.
>>23556014> Ontotheology is this tendency to try to grasp the nature of things from above and below simultaneously, turning God into a necessary being and Being into the grounds of a god, both interpreted via a metaphysics of presence. It’s unlikely (but theoretically debatable) that Heidegger was ever gesturing at some sort of supra-historical unity of Being that is freestanding prior to unfolding in particular modes of Being. Why is that a problem? What is metaphysics of presence anyway?
>>23556005>The ivory towerhttps://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tsuYZg8k-Zc>>23556014>Its unlikely (but theoretically debatable) that Heidegger was ever gesturing at some sort of supra-historical unity of Being that is freestanding prior to unfolding in particular modes of Being.See my argument about the necessity of forgetfulness for destiny to reveal itself as such otherwise it degrades into determination, last paragraph in >>23555692Another analogy is the way Penrose and Hameroff are approaching consciousness: via the way it can be extinguished. What is conscious is what can be anesthetized.The problem with a metaphysics of presence is that it presents presence too much like a being. You cannot merely talk about it, you must gesture towards it:From on the way to language:>J: Thus you call bearing or gesture: the gathering which originarily unites within itself what we bear to it and what it bears to us.>I: However, with this formulation we still run the risk that we understand the gathering as a subsequent union ...>J: ... instead of experiencing that all bearing, in giving and encounter, springs first and only from the gathering.>I: If we were to succeed in thinking of gesture in this sense, where would you then look for the essence of that gesture which you showed me?>J: In a beholding that is itself invisible, and that, so gathered, bears itself to encounter emptiness in such a way that in and through it the mountains appear.Which fits quite nicely with my etymological analysis of "to remain" (= being + time) which gathers a huge chunk of Heidegger's philosophy (is it his though ?):>>23555923>in and through it, the mountains appear
>>23556090>Penrose
>>23556119Hameroff is the anesthesiologist. Your penor be like picrel, not great, not terrible.
>>23555863Nope, it's just an infinite regress.You have to distinguish between logical ones and illogical ones. Here it's illogical. The entire Heidegger thing (following Hegel) is permitting a logical infinite regress. The difference is that in Hegel the regress is always mediated by the end. In Heidegger the end is constantly snatched out of sight, allowing a continual appearance of novelty.>>23555864Being: the manner in which a thing IS. 'IS' : the totality of how a thing will be. Being is what tells you how a thing exists. You have to know Aristotle a bit. The idea is that for him a thing's essence is constant and unchanging part of ontological reality. Yet the actual thing can lapse out of existence. If the essence of a thing that's lapsed out of reality is necessary, where is it when that happens? The essence is Being. Being, or the essence, configures a thing's existence as much as it's non-existence. It Aristotle non-existence is as ontologically true as existence, since they're both merely predication unto Substance, with that interaction determining which is true. In Heidegger non-existence (and existence) have reality only in Dasein, ie, only in the mind, not 'true reality', though of course we're not allowed to speak about that. >>23556014I'm speaking in a meta way. In Heideggerian one isn't allowed to speak like that. I find it helpful, since meditations such as these are the actual way in which Hei himself would've reached his conclusions.
>>23555923This is by far the most interesting thing that has been said in this thread about Heideggerian philosophy because it speaks about it in the most authentic fashion. Being is empty and>I: That emptiness demands uncommon concentration.(On the way to language)for being withdraws as soon as it has unconcealed itself. It>is something that occurs only once and is based on a unique necessity; it is unrepeatable.(The beginning of Western philosophy)And delving into the intricacies of Heidegger's terminology is already purposeless and devoid of any content, all the more so metaphysics has ended because it has explored all its possibilities which lead it straight into the reign of Technic. Go learn higher order maths instead than moving stones around in the ruins of byzantine castles.The only thing interesting left lies in exploring Holzwegen, paths that lead nowhere and that Heidegger could have walked on but didn't for the contingencies of his exploration haven't sent him there. You'll be to reiterate what he has done and force Being into revealing itself a few more times. And this is exactly what I have done with this etymological exploration of the word "to remain", which, rather than enunciating being as it has already been shown, show it again.
>>23556574>Nope, it's just an infinite regress."Nuh-uh" isn't an argument.
>>23556574>Being: the manner in which a thing IS. 'IS' : the totality of how a thing will be.So you're treating Being and substance as synonymous. I thought Being was much broader than any particular substance or substance in general.
>>23555266Plotinus got hung up on Platonic language about being. Plato defined being as being in time (Parmenides) or as something capable of acting or being acted upon (Sophist). Neither of those can apply to the first principle, hence "beyond being". Aristotle would have no problem referring to the first principle as a substance because he didn't define being that way.
>>23557400>I thought Being was much broader than any particular substance or substance in general.It is, but since the other sorts of being depend on substance substance is most truly being. The other sorts of being are secondary. There is no single category "being" because then the genus would be predicated of its own differentia Inb4 Scotists jumping down my throat.
>>23552808>"Plato's thought remains mysterious to me." -- t. Peripateticfag to Cassirer correcting him on a blunder after a seminarEmanationism, aoristas dyas be hard sometimes but it do sein>>23555692>This goes hand in hand with the idea that the forgetfulness of Being is the essence of Being.>The main difference between Platonists and Heidegger is that the later not only fully embrace the impossibility of capturing the essence of the One, but makes this impossibility its hallmark.Commonplace and beside the point to Platonisms, a settling for the Negative Infinite in Geist terms, and an adumbration of Kabbala bordering on Qlippotic-- he's interesting, but the stage of understanding is fraught with missteps and perils if tarried with. He was a better poet than philosopher to his credit and discredit.
>>23557422It just wouldn't be a genus then. It would be an arche. At least according to Aristotle. What he means by that, idk. But it's not a genus like something normally is, but it's not nothing either.But at least I know what you mean now.So, why couldn't something's existence shed light on being? You say that not even the totality of its existence is enough, but wouldn't you only need part of its existence to get at least some idea of its being?>Inb4 Scotists jumping down my throat.wdym by that?>>23557413>Aristotle would have no problem referring to the first principle as a substance because he didn't define being that way.He definitely did not think arche was a genus. I'm not sure what you are getting at.>>23557432People keep quoting that Heidegger and Cassirer quote but I doubt it exists.
>>23555541amerimutt still has no arguments, just lashes out in insecurity and falsely accuses you of being a Slav when you denounce Jewish religions
bump
>>23555719I'd love to read Scotus, especially to grasp his understanding of being and God. any good place to start?
