What Is To Be Done

[Nile577]

as i've said before, i agree we need a new way of thinking, but i don't think we should ONLY be sitting around thinking and writing to eachother on message boards. you provide no concrete strategy or tactics beyond thinking. the quasi animism you speak of could be integral to a new way of thought, but disconnected from strategy and tactics it will be a mere ineffective intellectual endeavor. sorry, but that is just how causality works. you can't think something into existence, you have to do it into existence.

I am nearly certain you have not understood what I have written above.

Philosophy is not a 'toolbox' to be applied to pre-existing 'common-sense.' Again: It is ALL thought. It is a fundamental questioning of the 'how' of Being. That 'common sense' overlooks this question, or brands enquiry into it a 'detached critique' that may be ignored, is the source of its misrepresentation.

Theism posits: Man is before God.
Atheism holds: There is no God.
Activists: There is a need to take action.
Fatalists: There is no need to take action.

None of the statements above demonstrate an awareness of what is meant by the 'is' they employ. So much is already assumed. So certain are we that we understand what we mean by 'is,' we almost skim over reading it, let alone pause to consider the momentous implications of the term. We have a mediocre understanding of Being. Is it important? Is it 'empty critique?' By definition, it is the most every-day, most commonplace, most essential question of all.

 

[Crucified Spartacus]

^How do you propose we get rid of it then?

i made a post earlier in the thread that quoted an article by Kevin Tucker. i see that as a part of a good starting point.

 

[Crucified Spartacus]

I am nearly certain you have not understood what I have written above.

Philosophy is not a 'toolbox' to be applied to pre-existing 'common-sense.' Again: It is ALL thought. It is a fundamental questioning of the 'how' of Being. That 'common sense' overlooks this question, or brands enquiry into it a 'detached critique' that may be ignored, is the source of its misrepresentation.

Theism posits: Man is before God.
Atheism holds: There is no God.
Activists: There is a need to take action.
Fatalists: There is no need to take action.

None of the statements above demonstrate an awareness of what is meant by the 'is' they employ. So much is already assumed. So certain are we that we understand what we mean by 'is,' we almost skim over reading it, let alone pause to consider the momentous implications of the term. We have a mediocre understanding of Being. Is it important? Is it 'empty critique?' By definition, it is the most every-day, most commonplace, most essential question of all.

did you ever think that all this channeling of heidegger is confusing you into thinking too much and acting too little? if you want an understanding of Being, try connecting with the natural world and then you may realize the action that all self-respecting indigenous peoples have realized at one point or another has to be taken to preserve a life outside the megamachine.

 

[speed]

So much is already assumed. So certain are we that we understand what we mean by 'is,' we almost skim over reading it, let alone pause to consider the momentous implications of the term. We have a mediocre understanding of Being. Is it important? Is it 'empty critique?' By definition, it is the most every-day, most commonplace, most essential question of all.

I'm not totally sure we can ever understand the Being through pure thinking or philosophy, or if there even is such an abstract thing. I know I've stated my pessimism about Heideggerian thought before--and I have this pessimism towards all thought--but I am not at all convinced.

Convince me, please.

 

[speed]

Thanks Seditious and Spartacus. I was just curious, as both of you have very interesting backgrounds.

 

[Justin S.]

I'm not totally sure we can ever understand the Being through pure thinking or philosophy, or if there even is such an abstract thing.

Thinking (denken) is not the abstracted "pure reason" it is often confused with. It is not mere pondering or calculation, nor the mathematical/logical cognition that is all too familiar. Rather, it is the sweeping reckoning with Being. Being is nothing "abstract", it is most common yet most unheimliche ("uncanny", literal translation of un-heim is "un-home", something so familiar yet odd, mysterious).

As I stated in my short paper in the post-modernism thread, man hovers in the hyphen connecting intuition and concept (where thinking takes place). Similarly, we hover in the space between line and its asymptotic limit- the irreducible, immeasurable gap between us mortals and "the secret", "the real", "the Truth".

did you ever think that all this channeling of heidegger is confusing you into thinking too much and acting too little? if you want an understanding of Being, try connecting with the natural world and then you may realize the action that all self-respecting indigenous peoples have realized at one point or another has to be taken to preserve a life outside the megamachine.

Nile and I have tried to illuminate what we mean by "thinking", and how it differs from the concept you employ. It is not in opposition to "doing". It is, however, outside such cheap terms as "action", as Nile displayed in his last post.

To think, to grapple with one's existence is no idle pondering- I cannot stress this enough. For the last time, ditch the cognition/action dichotomy. To think is to come to a decisive confrontation of ones historical moment- not mere "understanding", nor "acting" etc. It is much more expansive and fundamental.

 

[speed]

Well thank you for the post Justin S. It helps someone still outside the Heideggerian tradition.

 

[Crucified Spartacus]

Thinking (denken) is not the abstracted "pure reason" it is often confused with. It is not mere pondering or calculation, nor the mathematical/logical cognition that is all too familiar. Rather, it is the sweeping reckoning with Being. Being is nothing "abstract", it is most common yet most unheimliche ("uncanny", literal translation of un-heim is "un-home", something so familiar yet odd, mysterious).

As I stated in my short paper in the post-modernism thread, man hovers in the hyphen connecting intuition and concept (where thinking takes place). Similarly, we hover in the space between line and its asymptotic limit- the irreducible, immeasurable gap between us mortals and "the secret", "the real", "the Truth".




Nile and I have tried to illuminate what we mean by "thinking", and how it differs from the concept you employ. It is not in opposition to "doing". It is, however, outside such cheap terms as "action", as Nile displayed in his last post.

To think, to grapple with one's existence is no idle pondering- I cannot stress this enough. For the last time, ditch the cognition/action dichotomy. To think is to come to a decisive confrontation of ones historical moment- not mere "understanding", nor "acting" etc. It is much more expansive and fundamental.

i think you are full of shit. Obviously you are doing something when you are thinking, but if all you do is think, the world doesn't change. the disaster that is civilization continues on no matter how differently we think in our little cocoons. i think differently, but without attempts to put thought into action, how the hell is thought ever going to achieve anything? or are you not trying to achieve anything beyond thought? keeping all us serious folks enamored in your philosophical games because deep down inside you don't actually care about the fate of the world? just a hunch.

 

[speed]

i think you are full of shit. Obviously you are doing something when you are thinking, but if all you do is think, the world doesn't change. the disaster that is civilization continues on no matter how differently we think in our little cocoons. i think differently, but without attempts to put thought into action, how the hell is thought ever going to achieve anything? or are you not trying to achieve anything beyond thought? keeping all us serious folks enamored in your philosophical games because deep down inside you don't actually care about the fate of the world? just a hunch.

I understand where you are coming from, but... Well, I suppose one of my underlying theses is whether our solutions are really solutions to real problems. Are these really problems? Persons are living longer and healthier than ever before, with more gadgets, etc. And if we actually decide on the problems, and come up with solutions, will they have unintended consequences? Hayek (yes, I know, a Austrian economist, beloved by neo-cons and Thatcherites) wrote quite a bit on these unintended consequences. But lets take the most obvious example, Marxism. Who knew this essentially philosophical and economic analysis, would become so bastardized, it would end up the way it did when it was out in practice?

 

[Blowtus]

So proceeding somewhat blindly, aiming at short term matters, is better because there is nothing 'intentional' in the long term? We should fear 'trying' because we may fail?

 

[Crucified Spartacus]

I understand where you are coming from, but... Well, I suppose one of my underlying theses is whether our solutions are really solutions to real problems. Are these really problems? Persons are living longer and healthier than ever before, with more gadgets, etc. And if we actually decide on the problems, and come up with solutions, will they have unintended consequences? Hayek (yes, I know, a Austrian economist, beloved by neo-cons and Thatcherites) wrote quite a bit on these unintended consequences. But lets take the most obvious example, Marxism. Who knew this essentially philosophical and economic analysis, would become so bastardized, it would end up the way it did when it was out in practice?

well, yes, the crux of the matter is if we think certain things are problems. if we don't, we won't resist them, hence your question "what is to be done?" becomes less and less relavent. however, i obviously take the approach that things are deeply screwed up, and that the propaganda of civilization is set up to keep us in line and be thankful for increasing life expectancies and things of such sort. I on the other hand have lost faith in this orwellian rhetoric. unintended consequences can always happen, however, the likelihood of certain types of drastically destructive unintended consequences are much more likely to happen in certain contexts. for example, when utilizing the hierarchical power structure of the state, these consequences of corruption and authority alwyas appear, which is a fundamental position of various types of anarchist theory. it's about learning from the mistakes and manipulations of past "radicals," such as communists, that those in the present can push the envelope in a more authentic and less domineering manner. the main forms of unintended consequences i'd be worried about are the various effects the technological society has on human animals and the rest of the biosphere. i welcome critiques of my position or anyone else's that may shed light on how to avoid certain undesirable consequences, but i do not value paralysis in the face of uncertainty.