Heidegger believed the Western world to be on a trajectory headed for total war...

>Heidegger believed the Western world to be on a trajectory headed for total war, and on the brink of profound nihilism (the rejection of all religious and moral principles), which would be the purest and highest revelation of Being itself, offering a horrifying crossroads of either salvation or the end of metaphysics and modernity; rendering the West a wasteland populated by tool-using brutes, characterized by an unprecedented ignorance and barbarism in which everything is permitted.

What did he mean by this?

Other urls found in this thread:

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Authenticity_(philosophy)
monoskop.org/images/e/e4/Benjamin_Walter_The_Arcades_Project.pdf
newstatesman.com/culture/culture/2012/08/slavoj-žižek-politics-batman
bigtallwords.com/2015/04/27/the-fascist-we-deserve-the-authoritarian-ideology-of-christopher-nolans-dark-knight-trilogy/
medium.com/insurge-intelligence/exclusive-documents-expose-direct-us-military-intelligence-influence-on-1-800-movies-and-tv-shows-36433107c307
youtube.com/watch?v=fZ_JOBCLF-I
youtube.com/watch?v=TxoL3uQbPoc
twitter.com/NSFWRedditImage

He thought the latter possibility would degenerate mankind generally into scientists, workers and brutes; living under the last mantle of one of three ideologies, Americanism, Marxism or Nazism (which he deemed metaphysically identical, as avatars of subjectivity and institutionalized nihilism), and an unfettered totalitarian world technology.[69] Supposedly, this epoch would be ironically celebrated, as the most enlightened and glorious in human history.

He envisaged this abyss to be the greatest event in the West's history because it would enable Humanity to comprehend Being more profoundly and primordially than the Pre-Socratics.

He didn't understand that egotism and an-cap was the best type of philosophy

he was right. that's what happened that's what the West is like now

nihilism has never existed

it's actually worse than what he envisaged because religious and moral principles themselves have been coopted as mere tools rendering an unconcealing of them more difficult. ignorance and barbarism is a mercy compared to having to dance to their tune.

>an-cap
>posts stirner

stirner + hobbes is ancap
stirner + stirner is a psychiatric hospital with no warden

you + you is a fucking faggot

...

me + ur mum = you

not all retards are ancap but all ancaps are retarded

WHat the fuck? Why people have somekind of fetishim about "muh deep profund society, the past is better cuz tradition!" FUcking traditionalfags, grow up and deal with the modern world and the eventual ending with a machine rule over us.

...

>Americanism, Marxism or Nazism (which he deemed metaphysically identical, as avatars of subjectivity and institutionalized nihilism)

What did he mean by this?

people who are already dead

bump

Source? Looks like he was right.

Just taking a stab in the dark here: they're all fueled by ressentiment, but all in turn lack the potential of a transcendent escape from that ressentiment because all are fundamentally materialistic. They make you a bitter spiteful cunt without the ability to stop being one.

how is americanism fueled by ressentiment?

Communism solves ressentiment though.

It's fundamentally materialistic, so it is incapable of solving ressentiment. This is the mistake Marx makes in reworking Hegel.

Land stop posting.

It literally wants the plebs to have their material needs quenched, nothing else. Sounds soul-less and materialistic to me.

He may have been on to something, but arguably contributed to the nihilism he was trying to fight off. Niether Nietzsche nor Heidegger provided adequate antidotes the nihilism they saw coming.

Heidegger literally invented deconstruction.

Heidegger was a kitschy brain..... a feeble thinker from the Alpine foothills, as I believe, and just about right for the German philosophical hot-pot. For decades they ravenously spooned up that man Heidegger, more than anybody else, and overloaded their stomachs with his stuff. Heidegger had a common face, not a spiritual one, he was through and through an unspiritual person, devoid of all fantasy, devoid of all sensibility, a genuine German philosophical ruminant, a ceaselessly gravid German philosophical cow, which grazed upon German philosophy and thereupon for decades let its smart little cow pats drop on it.....

fuck you. Get a life dumb white males

elaborate

That's not Heidegger's criticism. They are all bound by "technicity". That's why they are dangerous.

They all see technology as a way to solve the existential problems of life, and want to use technology to change human beings.

This is why there's talk about post-human modes of being now; Zizek talks about this, as do alot of more right-wing leading people like Alexander Dugin.

It's not necessarily about ressentiment but ressentiment usually is a marker that people aren't living authentically.

What od u mean by living authentically

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Authenticity_(philosophy)

Your countries iq is declining at a rate of 15 points per 2 decades.

Victorian's had a 115 I.

American whites have a 101

Niggers have 80 or less.

Yeah things are declining. Technology is masking it.

so was his name egger because he ate too much eggs or because he looks like one?

His name is means "the edge of the meadow".

Just like Schwarzenegger means "the black edge".

This.

Additionally, they are all forms of humanism, which should be stressed here; liberal humanism, collectivist humanism and evolutionary humanism, to be specific.

The undermining of our traditional religious and moral principles, which are really just metaphorical and allegorical abstracted truths, that apply universally and across time, leads to a philosophical vacuum of sorts, in which shallow ideologies violently clash and compete; this was also predicted by Nietzsche.

Living un-authentically, in this case, may indeed lead to the collapse of civilisation and to the chaotic barbarism Heidegger speaks of.

Sounds like neoliberalism alright.

Will this board ever grow out of existentialism?

>These are facts of experience. Countless people alive today have passed the midpoint of the nihilistic process, the rock-bottom of the maelstrom. They have learned that the mechanism reveals its menacing nature all the more clearly there; man finds himself in the bowels of a great machine devised for his destruction. They have also learned firsthand that all rationalism leads to mechanism, and every mechanism to torture its logical consequence. In the nineteenth century this had not yet been realized.

>The panic so widely observable today is the expression of an emaciated spirit, of a passive nihilism that provokes its active counterpart. Of course, no one is easier to terrorize than the person who believes that everything is over when his fleeting phenomenon is extinguished. The new slaveholders have realized this, and this explains the importance to them of materialistic theories, which serve to shatter the old order during the insurrection and to perpetuate the reign of terror afterward. No basin is to be left standing where a man may feel unassailable and therefore unafraid.

>As we see, predicaments arise that demand an immediate moral decision, and this is most true where the vortex is deepest and most turbulent. This has not been, and will not always be the case. Generally speaking, the institutions and the rules associated with them provide navigable terrain; what is legal and moral lies in the wind. Naturally, abuses occur, but there are also courts and police. This changes when morality is substituted by a subspecies of technology, that is, by propaganda, and the institutions are transformed into weapons of civil war. The decision then falls to the individual, as an either-or, since a third position, neutrality, is excluded. From this point forward, a particular form of infamy lies in non-participation, but also in making judgments from a non-participating position.

>The panic so widely observable today is the expression of an emaciated spirit, of a passive nihilism that provokes its active counterpart. Of course, no one is easier to terrorize than the person who believes that everything is over when his fleeting phenomenon is extinguished. The new slaveholders have realized this, and this explains the importance to them of materialistic theories, which serve to shatter the old order during the insurrection and to perpetuate the reign of terror afterward. No basin is to be left standing where a man may feel unassailable and therefore unafraid.

>It is critical for the dispossessed individual to get beyond the idea of a personal theft perpetrated on him. Otherwise he remains with a trauma, a persisting inner sense of loss, which will later manifest in civil war.

>A very significant event here is philosophy’s turn from knowledge to language; it brings the spirit back into close contact with a primal phenomenon. This is more important than any physical discovery.

Wait, why did he join The Nazi party if he deemed Nazism institutionalised nihilism?

I () was just explaining the idea, as requested by OP.

I'm more of a pragmatist, personally; however, I do share some sympathy for the views expressed above, in as much as they are likely to contain partial truths.

I quite like this even if its completely unfair towards Heidegger.

What a wonderfully creative diatribe.

>I chuckled.

Strauss? Reads like him.

nigga please

Nope. This glorious motherfucker.

Only if there's a God is everything permitted. There's no Holocaust or Gulag without poetry.

>be plato
>ban poetry from the republic
>foster godlike caste of guardian god-kings

surely this will not produce fascism

...

>ban poetry
Plato never stated this. He only wanted to get rid of non-beneficial art.

fascism is a purely aesthetic phenomenon

thats why benjamin concluded that we need to politicize the aesthetics

Fascism is the equivalent of the jealous man whose wife cheats on him. The question is not whether the jealousy is justified (or the hatred of the Juden) but why the jealousy is necessary. It is absolutely pathological.

that's marxism

the republic is pure politics without the aesthetics

>pure politics
in your dreams

also marxism implies a critque of the state and the politics, remember marx called "The Capital": Critique of the POLITICAL Economy

>ban that which does not Make the Good Great Again
>as if it could Be any Better
>somehow not produce propaganda
>also no sophists or jesters or court fools to vent tension
>coal_crushing_sphincter.jpeg

Full disclosure: I'm being a dick here. Zizek is right of course. Poetry is a problem for the state (or Not a Problem if the state loves to quote the Bhagavad Gita, crushing its enemies, hearing lamentations of the women &c). Which is to say it is a problem.

That non-beneficial art is going to be a problem for Republican meme curation. Not insoluble. Get your hoplites hopliting and also tending gardens too. Curbing Last Man tendencies and curbing I Drink Your Milkshake tendencies. All possible. But tricky. The real puzzle is terrorism moreso than fascism, imho.

yep

yep

yep

>pure politics
good googly moogly

pure politics does not require dreams for it is already the dream made real

marxism denies dreams and makes the "real" world the dream

fascism is one crazy af lucid dream by ptsd riddled wwi veterans

t. Beaudrillard

also it's not quite "non-beneficial" art but art that does not speak the truth. pure truth does not need art because it is fully disclosed. it can take the "form" of art sure but it won't be called art nor would most realize it as such. the most truthful art possible would be the world itself of which the state is a microcosm of.

p u r e p o l i t i c s

>marxism denies dreams and makes the "real" world the dream

read this, specially the sections on Marx and Fourier

monoskop.org/images/e/e4/Benjamin_Walter_The_Arcades_Project.pdf

...

>art that does not speak the truth
No, he's more concerned with art that doesn't steer children towards their respective roles in the republic. He doesn't care about the truth.

Furthermore, my god, one of the biggest concepts from The Republic is the Noble Lie. He absolutely is not concerned with truth.

'Causality is a superstition.'

t. Wittgenstein

>and we ain't seen nothing yet

>1k pages
nigga i could've read 3 books

>talking about the noble lie openly in the republic
>telling everyone you're gonna lie
what did he mean by this

children aren't ready for the truth

>...

t. witty

>>talking about the noble lie openly in the republic
>>telling everyone you're gonna lie
>what did he mean by this
What did you mean by this?

>children aren't ready for the truth
The discussion in the Republic about the kind of art that should be allowed in the Republic is specifically concerned with children.

i don't know what he meant by that is what i mean. but pure politics tho. children can't into politics. and he talks about art in relation to forms later on that is not about children, but art being "lesser" than the forms.

The discussion is about Plato. If you haven't read his work, I'm going to refrain from responding.

>furthermore, my god

i'm not convinced this poster is not in fact slavoj zizek himself

"Of what cannot speak, one must remain silent."

Take his advice user.

I have read The Republic. When you were talking about the noble lie, did you interpret it to mean that Plato was saying the means justified the ends?

And I am referring to the part where artists were to be forbidden from the city. It's separate from the part where children ought not to be told tales of the gods "misbehaving".

*ends justified the means

>Heidegger was a kitschy brain.....

What did he mean by this?

It's a slightly edited passage from Old Masters by Bernhard. A decent chunk of that book is one of his characters shitting on certain artists writers and composers.

...

Ends justified the memes.

That swearing on TV is the reverse monolith.

Apologies for the shitposting earlier but I should clarify what I mean. And it has been years since I read Plato so I may get some things wrong.

So the theory of forms is crucial to Plato. Something is just because it takes the form of justice, something is good because it takes the form of the good etc. Now Plato in The Republic is describing a hypothetical immanent city, not a transcendent form of the city. So he's working out the relation between the immanent and the transcendent. Something is true here because it corresponds to a form.

Practically, in our world, we might need to justify the ends by the means (the noble lie). But ideally (in the hypothetical Form of the city) one ought not to justify the ends by the means. So Plato differs from Machiavelli in this regard. The transcendent is not a political issue for Machiavelli.

When I am talking about "pure politics" I am not referring to the city Plato is talking about in the Republic. I am referring to the Form of the City. And in that City the noble lie is not necessary. Under this interpretation, we are "politicizing" the realm of the forms (whatever that means, i'm not sure if that even means something). Is this a constructive way of looking at it?

Doesn't this make sense of why Plato would want to kick out the artists? "Because they might corrupt the children" is a practical reason. The same way telling a noble lie has practical reasons. But he doesn't want the children lied to, and yet wants to make a noble lie. If a practical reason can be made a "principle", then such a principle would be contradictory. So this can't be it. Rather it's because the artists will be nonexistent in the form of the city. And that is a matter of truth, because there can be no contradictions in the forms.

This, more or less. Not only has religion lost its hold and value, but the remaining husk is being used as a puppet to spread disgusting indoctrination, like schools

>Now Plato in The Republic is describing a hypothetical immanent city, not a transcendent form of the city.

Now that's more interesting by far.

>Practically, in our world, we might need to justify the ends by the means (the noble lie). But ideally (in the hypothetical Form of the city) one ought not to justify the ends by the means. So Plato differs from Machiavelli in this regard. The transcendent is not a political issue for Machiavelli.

Not so long as in the end Machiavelli is prepared to receive his just and proper reward for service.

anyone else noticed the parallels between the Lego Movie and plato's republic?

Same nestled fractal like structure. parallels between the city (lego world) and the soul. Lego World is a commodity shrine situated in a suburban basement, much like the famous parable of the cave. Instead of presenting an ideal immanent polis, the Lego Movie seeks to implant the subject with a model of late capitalism. You have the illusory commodity-world of play represented by lego world, and the actual world of economic rationality and state power represented by President Business/Father/Will Ferrell.

How is it used as a tool or a puppet? I think a lot of people see religion as something practical or useful nowadays, but I don't know if this materialization is what he meant.

> that feel when you get official invitation from the niggership of Compton

Liberalism is evil!

And this should put into perspective the cases of *practical reason* where we are told that the hoi polloi should be told myths of their origins (from bronze, silver, gold) or be lied to that their pairing up is predetermined. Since it's a case of practical reason, if we were to immanetize the transcendent today (Buckley rolling in his grave I know) the city need not resort to these measures.

We already have a coherent view of genetics and heredity better than bronze/silver/gold. And i'm sure some (or most?) people would be willing to sign up for a technology assisted "dating service". I mean what is Tinder other than being lied to that your pairing up, albeit with leaving the final decision up to you, is actually the result of algorithmic decision making?

So pure politics. Authoritarian, yes. Trying to conflate this with "fascism" does not work because fascism's end is to perpetuate itself in its current form.

Plato's metaphysics remains a challenge because the city's end is to transcend itself, not merely for the "greater good", but for the Form of the Good. The former will be a tyranny because the tyrant can never be secure for he remains mired in the injustices he commits, but the latter is a case of practical reasoning leading to the establishment of the form of Justice itself.

Or maybe The Republic is one huge metaphor for the process of reason. Got to test out an imperfect hypothesis. Make inferences and inductions that problematically can't quite be justified on their own. But it'll all work out ok in the end.

Machiavelli is the hero we need but don't deserve. Or is it the hero we don't need but deserve? He def the Batman tho.

>tfw your mum throws out your legos freeing you from the shackles of commodity fetishism leading you down the path to enlightenment

>believed the Western world to be on a trajectory headed for total war, and on the brink of profound nihilism (the rejection of all religious and moral principles), which would be the purest and highest revelation of Being itself, offering a horrifying crossroads of either salvation or the end of metaphysics and modernity; rendering the West a wasteland populated by tool-using brutes, characterized by an unprecedented ignorance and barbarism in which everything is permitted

james bond is going to shoot Movie Dugin sometime in the next ten years
>true, it may be a transgendered james bond
>ends/means?
>you know what fuck it just kill me now

No movie can ever compare to what we're getting next. Movies are going to be worse than real life. Pure politics. Obsolescence of aesthetics. It's going to be beautiful tho.

>Machiavelli is the hero we need but don't deserve. Or is it the hero we don't need but deserve? He def the Batman tho.

Yeah. He's arguably a kind of Batman turned inside out. Maybe some good-old fashioned Renaissance meme statecraft. As always satire/reality is hard to gauge.
>remember the good old days? when memes were memes? at machiavelli state farms, we do

You'll enjoy these, if you haven't read them yet.

newstatesman.com/culture/culture/2012/08/slavoj-žižek-politics-batman

bigtallwords.com/2015/04/27/the-fascist-we-deserve-the-authoritarian-ideology-of-christopher-nolans-dark-knight-trilogy/

Batman v Superman was Spectacle but interesting to think about. What happens when your scapegoat is also the ubermensch?
>cinema, numbnuts. obv
>also nolan > snyder

Nolan Batman is a different thing from Snyder Batman, who in his sweaty paranoia is perhaps *more* fascoid than Nolan's version - as it would be, perhaps, being made by (I suspect) more liberal-minded individuals (Affleck). I find that stuff fascinating. But it makes for a worse film...

Bonds are different also. Personally Bond/anarch > superhero/sovereign for me. But.

>No movie can ever compare to what we're getting next.

True. I just sperg out over cinema. Movies tell us not only what we want, but how we want it, and in the end the occasional visionary winds up being confirmed in the future because people take films (as they should!) as cultural touchtones.

Nolan's Batman is only fascist if you're reading it like a Marxist.

Any idea that doesn't glorify the working class, or helps the working class attain class consciousness, can be construed as fascist by a Marxist, because it by definition wants to retain the current order.

You might be interested in this:

medium.com/insurge-intelligence/exclusive-documents-expose-direct-us-military-intelligence-influence-on-1-800-movies-and-tv-shows-36433107c307

What if the movie is seen as a joint collaboration between the State and the Director-qua-cultural-subconscious of the people? It's not quite propaganda nor censorship. Rather it's the state genuinely making art. It coops ideologies and also visionaries. What happens when your ubermensch is a product of the military-industrial complex?

Maybe he saw hope in their goal of preservation of culture or something

Will read! Thx user.

>What if the movie is seen as a joint collaboration between the State and the Director-qua-cultural-subconscious of the people? It's not quite propaganda nor censorship. Rather it's the state genuinely making art. It coops ideologies and also visionaries. What happens when your ubermensch is a product of the military-industrial complex?

Exactly what you would expect, I would think. The collective unconscious memeing itself by way of seduction and spectacle. And shit films with great special effects.

Need *auteurs.* Filmmakers with *vision.* Kubrick/Welles/Kurosawa/insert here. Auteur theory all day every day.

Also note the self consciously featureless protagonist that is simultaneously the 'most important person in the universe'. The influence of videogames on film has been greatly underestimated. Emmet is player 1, ie. YOU.

Dreamworks' Wreck it Ralph (2012) is probably the clearest predecessor to the lego movie. The product placement saturated multi brand crossover animated adventure romp. probably the defining film genre of the last decade, even more so than superhero movies. The upcoming emoji movie (1 Billion USD$ product placement deal) uses the same basic structure and the same character archetypes.

Pixar's Inside Out(2015). Will dissociative identity disorder reach epidemic levels in children ?

The manic pixie dream girl love interest with 'quirky' dyed hair is everywhere. what could that mean?
youtube.com/watch?v=fZ_JOBCLF-I

>Also note the self consciously featureless protagonist that is simultaneously the 'most important person in the universe'. The influence of videogames on film has been greatly underestimated. Emmet is player 1, ie. YOU.

youtube.com/watch?v=TxoL3uQbPoc

Don't forget /pol/'s take on Angry Birds.

Like what did they mean by that? A testing ground for coopting /pol/?

Angry Birds was so redpilled it might as well have been a psyop. Counter-redpilling by over-redpilling? Or just actual redpilling?
>tfw given the sponge to wipe away the horizon

progressivism is a religion, dummy. its neo-puritanism

>The manic pixie dream girl love interest with 'quirky' dyed hair is everywhere. what could that mean?
same thing it means in anime
its easier to identify the girl with the weird colored hair

wtf I hate capitalism now