>Only God can save us>but wait, God is actually a human>God is Hitler>We need Hitler and nazis to save us from metaphysics so we can dwell with divinities, sky, oceans and mortals.Why the fuck is Heidegger so popular?
>>23619363God is time
>>23619363>Why the fuck is Heidegger so popular?He made the right move. He interrogated the question of being. Everyone else after him just copies him or unsuccessfully tries to ignore him.
>he hasn't been saved by the Hitlery SpiritEverybody gets one
>>23619363It's "a god", anon, not "God". It's called "figurative speech". Heidegger means: "were fucked".
>>23619363I will now read Heidegger.
I love Heidegger but sadly he wasn't that into Hitler
>>23621455Yes, his famous quote isn’t praising Hitler. Rather he said Hitler was the final barrier against Bolshevism in Germany.
>>23619363He looks like the host of a Mr. Rogers style show, and he just opened the window ready to talk to the puppets.
>>23621455>>23621551Heidegger did praise him in 1933 (see Jaspers' account, with Heidegger going on about Hitler's "wonderful hands"), but by the mid 30s, according to Lowith, he seemed confounded over why people like Streicher were so high up in the hierarchy, and by 1939 he seems to have reached a point of not seeing a substantive difference between the regime and calculative modernity (see especially a passage in Mindfulness, para. 47 on Truth and Usefulness, where he critiques a quote by Hitler).
>>23621584Heidegger's orientation to Nazism always reminds me of the following statement that Jung wrote:>Nevertheless, with the calamitous founding of the Reich in 1871, the devil stole a march on the Germans, dangling before them the tempting bait of power, aggrandizement, national arrogance. Thus they were led to imitate their prophets and to take their words literally, but not to understand them. And so it was that the Germans allowed themselves to be deluded by these disastrous fantasies and succumbed to the age-old temptations of Satan, instead of turning to their abundant spiritual potentialities, which, because of the greater tension between the inner opposites, would have stood them in good stead. But, their Christianity forgotten, they sold their souls to technology, exchanged morality for cynicism, and dedicated their highest aspirations to the forces of destruction. Certainly everybody else is doing much the same thing, but even so there really are chosen people who have no right to do such things because they should be striving for higher treasures. At any rate the Germans are not among those who may enjoy power and possessions with impunity. Just think for a moment what anti-Semitism means for the German: he is trying to use others as a scapegoat for his own greatest fault! This symptom alone should have told him that he had got on to a hopelessly wrong track.
>>23621613Yes. That bit's funny too, since Heidegger himself fell for it for not quite a decade. It seems like it took studying Nietzsche and the Pre-Socratics to shake back to alertness.
>>23621613Jung's dismissal of volkism is easily his weakest point, especially given how authentically rooted it is in archetypal experience and has a vision of holism that embraces the past.At one point Jung was favourable to volkism and against christianity, which he especially ought to be given the way it tries to erase a connection to the past, but he backed down. One wonders if Jung was simply too comfortable, living his life of riches and peace in Switzerland. But given his writings on the matter I suspect he was scared of Wotan, when he should have embraced him. https://www.philosopher.eu/others-writings/essay-on-wotan-w-nietzsche-c-g-jung/
>>23621647One wonders if perhaps you're just not very intelligent when you can't understand something as basic as the differentiation between authentic pagan culture and a modern trend, or identifying the intimate relation between Christianity and European tradition. I don't say this as someone anti-Volkism, but for you to so blindly reject Christianity, and so blindly accept Volkism, just shows you don't have the slightest clue of what you're talking about. And getting huffed up on Nietzscheanism undergirded with no greater cultural complexity is NOT an educated orientation. I understand you're probably a teenager or someone just getting into philosophy, so take this as an instigation to read and study more, and be less restrictive in your thoughts. Jung didn't even quite dismiss Volkism, he just had educated reservations about a cultural transformation on its lines.
>>23621584>a passage in Mindfulness, para. 47 on Truth and Usefulness, where he critiques a quote by Hitler“There is no attitude, which could not be ultimately justified by the ensuing usefulness for the totality” (Adolf Hitler 30. January 1939).Who makes up this totality? (Eighty million-strong extant human mass? Does its extantness assign to this human mass the right to the claim on a continued existence?)How is this totality determined? What is its goal? Is it itself the goal of all goals? Why? Wherein lies the justification for this goal-setting?When is the usefulness of an attitude ascertained? Wherein lies the criterion for usefulness? Who determines the usefulness? By what means does this determination justify itself in each case? Can and should the one who adopts an “attitude” also judge its usefulness and its harm at the same time?Why is usefulness the criterion for the legitimacy of a human attitude? On what is this principle grounded? Who determines the ownmost of the domain of man?From where does the appeal to usefulness as the measure of truth acquire its comprehensibility? Does comprehensibility justify legitimacy?What is “totality”, if not the quantitative expansion of a particular conception of man as an individual?What does attitude mean? Does one arrive at what is fundamental to human being through an attitude? If not, then what does justification of an attitude by the totality and by the ensuing usefulness for the totality mean? Is there not in this concept “attitude” already a renunciation of every fundamental questionability of a human being with respect to its hidden relation to be-ing?Is not man beforehand and ultimately tied here to the pursuit and control of beings in the abandonment by being? And what are “ideas”? Do they not count as names for the final ‘dis-humanization’ of everything that man still and always creates beyond himself, so that through “ideas” he inevitably falls below his ownmost? Are not “ideas” phantoms that serve solely the “eternal” forth-rolling and up-surging of “life” and fully close off man in his animality as a “living being”?Is not all “attitude” together with totality of a “people” shoved down the yawning abyss of “beings” insofar as attitude and totality always merely spin around themselves?And does not such a ‘casting-oneself-away’ to beings entail the ultimate renunciation of every inceptual, fundamental calling of man for struggling – with a knowing leap unto be-ing – for the sway of gods and for ‘the timespace’ of their swaying?
>>23621613>christcuckery>temptations of Satan>scapegoatholy garbage
Didn't Heidegger also say this: "Why should I apologize? It was Hitler who let me down."
>>23619363So two black guys were running from the copsthey run down an allewayone of the guys says to the otherdo you want to get caught?Heidegger
>>23619363Shitty bait thread trying to get the 4 people who have read Heidegger to seethe and effortpoast so you don’t have to do anymore work on your phil 101 essay. Read a book, faggot. >>23620250Doubt it.>>23621613 Where can I find this?
