What are some modern versions (actually used on the internet) of Heideggerian terms?I.e. on 4chan I feel like this terminology is usedZuhandenheit = soullessVorhandenheit = soulSometimes ironically calling poor shitholes soul and anything plentiful and rich soulless, because one is about the current experience and the other is about trying to make it better
>>24988039It's hard to know exactly how far ahead he was. He's always a step forwards, a step back.
>>24988039>Zuhandenheit = soullessExplain yourself.
>>24988039Everybody keeps turning Being and Time into a cheap self-improvement manual. It's funny that you've flipped the usual script on its head.>presence-at-hand bad because overthink>readiness-to-hand good because flow state and zen and such>ackshually, readiness-to-hand bad because soulless, no good thinks or feels, you're just a hammer for das man>ackshually, presence-at-hand good because soul! muh nostalgia muh wonderJust stop. You're missing the whole point.
>>24988039soul/soulless is more Klagesian
>>24988168You are too.
>>24988168Gelassenheit is not suppression or serenity. It is a withdrawal of control that allows something else to come forth with its own power. It's the exact opposite of Taoist flow, which forces you to conform and calls it your own naturalness. Naturalness is in being away from mimicked will.
>>24988190But that anon isn't talking about Gelassenheit?
>>24988182>y-y-you are t-t-tooholy cope batman>>24988190Gelassenheit is not relevant to this particular topic. And even in this sense, you are reading it in the manner of "relinquishing the will" or "negation of the will" in a Schopenhauerian way, which is not what Heidegger thinks is the solution. It's another form of the will to will, the willing willing problem. What are you controlling? What are you withdrawing control from? How is this withdrawal accomplished? These are not questions that you have answers to that do not return us back to the problem of the will.
>>24988195Unleashing, you unleash yourself. Then controlling part is what you absorbed.
>>24988195>Naturalness is in being away from mimicked will.All teachings are a way to control, they come from the will to make submit, to mold. Naturalness is in rejecting all teachings. Then what emerges is your own being, which is different from my being.
>>24988198How is that different from Nietzsche? >>24988205I am not denying that Taoism may be part of the willing willing problem. But you are not giving any solutions. Even Taoism says to withdraw control in at least a superficial way. But what is the means of this withdrawal?
Shut-in nerd philosophers had been trying to dissect qualia into their little midwit boxes and linguological dichotomiesNothing progressed ever since Buddhism calling this out. We only got more deranged combinatorics of vague terms that are lost in vague interpretations anyway. Sad
>>24988208A hint is that masculine being is not controlling, it's the opposite, it's striking. >>24988210By killing want buddhism kills being itself.
>>24988218Striking is controlling. Why do you strike? Every way you answer the question, there is an element of will and thus an element of control.
>>24988220No, it's free, it doesn't come from fear.
>>24988220>>24988221It's in going after what you want. Not what you were told, not what you learned. That's ownmost generated being.
>>24988221>>24988224Going after what you want is a form of control. There is something you want that you don't have. So you do something so that you have what you want. World B is different from World A. You are imposing your will on the world, and ensuring it looks more like World B rather than World A. That is what control is.
>>24988230No, that's corruption. It's not yours.
>>24988230Exactly how you felt when you wrote that is what you have to let go
Being comes from the chest, not from the hysteria to eliminate.
>>24988232Explain how what I said is not the case. A corruption of what? >>24988234Actually, however you felt when you wrote that in response to what I said is exactly what Heidegger is referring to when he said to let go. It's subtle but hard to miss.
>>24988253You don't know what freedom is. You're too duty bound.
>>24988257You have to let go of freedom to be truly free, anon.
>>24988281That's is horrible, you're a lost puppy.
>>24988295>that is is horribleNow you're choking on the weight of your seethe. Do better next time, anon. Stop butchering Heidegger.
>>24988297Making a big deal of a typo like a little girl haha.
>>24988039interesting proposition, but there's a wrinkle. i take it to be your claim that that the modern perception of "soullessness" names the presentation of utility in the form of the object under cartesian consciousness, of which "readiness-to-hand" was supposed to be the existential correlate. I say correlate because for Dasein nothing is yet represented, actually representation is the form appropriate to ready-to-hand things, as which dasein interpellates both itself and the prospective thing as coordinate points in a subject-object pair (Cartesianism as the spacetime of coordination of consciousness, i believe this argument is found near or before the middle of Being and Time). presence-to-hand in contrast would then be the ensouled, living presence of the thing, the hammer in use as opposed to its spatially-agreeable temporaneous representation to consciousness. the wrinkly is that handedness in heidegger is what it is so far as it is structured by the order revelation/concealment to dasein, not to consciousness. for consciousness, it's actually the readiness of the object to hand that gives it "soul," presence in the sense demanded by representational consciousness as spatiotemporal location.
>>24988653by the way, i had started downloading some references to make sure my respective translations of zu- and vorhandenheit were thematically appropriate; however i got too lazy to corroborate by decisions and posted it without checking the reference. its therefore left as an exercise to the reader to characterize the conceptual oppositions appropriately.
>>24988653>>24988657the characteristically heideggerian thought would be something like this - under the order of cartesianism, under spatiotemporal coordination, under the subject-object ordered pair, -all is tacitly revealed-, the hidden is fundamentally lost here. kantianism stretches the understanding to the literal limits of credibility in order to demonstrate that the thing-in-itself is already a structural element projected by the schemata of consciousness - hegelianism is just theatrical irony about the resulting unspeakable non-object or noumenon (platonism, not aristotelianism, of hegel...) at any rate -- noumenon should have, for a genuine phenomenology, stood for something constituted as HIDDEN, as not revealed, not merely as "unknown for consciousness" but as bearing no relation to consciousness whatsoever. noumenon instead, in Cartesio-Kantian rationalism, is the revelation of the blind spot left by the departure of hiddenness, necessitating pseudo-exclusion of the pseudo-hidden as "dark matter". groping back through one's book learning to an original experience of the hidden as hidden, of oneself as that which was hidden before exposure to the revealing light of thinking, that is the experience that heidegger is doggedly trying to zero in on.
You Heideggerian anons sound really smart, i'm glad I got my own copy of Sein und Zeit.
>>24988672the nice thing about heidegger is that he authorizes total abdication of philosophical thought to literary hermeneutics
