Jump to content
Felix Hoenikker

Explanation Requests

Recommended Posts

Can someone explain to me what the concept of dwelling heidegger talks about is?

 

The simple awnswer: dwelling is your "home".

 

And now I will sketch out what those quotation marks mean.

 

The word "dwelling" is what certain translators have chosen. In legal terms if you look up what constitutes burglary you'll find a long common law definition of what constitutes a dwelling. The main point is you live there. But "live" can mean like you just shit and breathe there. So maybe you "reside" there, "rest your head" there, maybe you "break bread" there. The important thing about Heidegger's dwelling is it does not have a specific definition or dimensions, because it is a component of exisential space(the world) as opposed to the cartesian space of physics that might call it a home(notice the lack of quotation marks making this a somewhat different idea than the "home" of above?) or even more depersonalized: "real estate".

 

Dwelling is where your family and friends are. It is where your shit that you use to take a stance on yourself is.

 

To understand why "dwelling" would be important, just focus on the word "homeless". And all that denotes in our current understanding. A nameless faceless person who you wish to ignore because they will ask you for change or cigarettes. Think of what it is to have that life being invisible because of the knack city-goers have for ignoring you. Think of the dislocation, decontextualization, and disorientation of having no home.

 

 

Dwellings in digger's thinking are things like your "world", earth, your home, your language, can probably apply to lots of ideas.

 

So the summary simple answer: dwelling is your (existential/ontological) home (as opposed to the home of cartesian physical space which would have square feet of floorspace and number of bathrooms etc.)

  • Upvote 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

That concept of dwelling seems very odd. Why would anyone have a dwelling smaller than the entire Earth? Everything that you interact with becomes a very small part of your ontology...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

That concept of dwelling seems very odd. Why would anyone have a dwelling smaller than the entire Earth? Everything that you interact with becomes a very small part of your ontology...

 

Where did I qualify out Earth?

 

Also, consistency is the hobgoblin of simple minds.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I'm not sure what distinction this makes....but this, I believe, is the actual quote:

 

A foolish consistency is the hobgoblin of little minds

 

http://www.bartleby....100/420.47.html

 

1. Note the "foolish consistency" not just consistency

2. This may have just been an argument for flexibility and changing over time--not necessarily contradictions.

 

Or in debate the easier answer is.....thanks for the perm solvency evidence.

 

I'm not him & I'm not sure he commented on this particular quote.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Where did I qualify out Earth?

 

Also, consistency is the hobgoblin of simple minds.

 

You didn't qualify out Earth, but Heidegger's concept of dwelling seems to at least implicitly involve the idea that a dwelling has boundaries. I guess I'm taking issue with the more general idea that Heidegger thinks that certain places lack value just because they don't conform to his ideal version of ontological context. Even if your home is just a place to sleep, that doesn't mean that you're ontologically doomed. It just means that you're different than Heidegger wants you to be.

 

I liked your explanation; I'm not criticizing that at all. I'm just sort of poking tentative criticisms at Heidegger's concepts. Don't feel obligated to reply if you don't want to.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I guess I'm taking issue with the more general idea that Heidegger thinks that certain places lack value just because they don't conform to his ideal version of ontological context. Even if your home is just a place to sleep, that doesn't mean that you're ontologically doomed. It just means that you're different than Heidegger wants you to be.

 

Digger never really says we're ontologically doomed its always the Heidegerrians that say that. Digger doesn't say he wants one to be solely metaphysical, hes just pointing out how the metaphysical is being concealed. We can be solely metaphysical, we can be solely ontic, or we can be some hybrid of the two. He is not saying one is better than the other, but he is saying that the ontic has colonized and is concealing the metaphysical. Digger never says thats the worst thing ever, he just doesn't want the metaphysical to be forgotten.

 

But logically it follows that if your home is just where you sleep, eat, and shit; rather than a place you bond with the ones you love then you are kind of "ontologically" or metaphysically or existentially "doomed". Why be alive in a world where you do not relate with others? It is hard to understand especially for young people who take their connections for granted, but it is easier to see as death severs some of your bonds when you get older. Watch some THX-1138, or read a dystopian novel like 1984, Fahrenheit 451, brave new world, do androids dream of electric sheep, etc. It is not that digger wants us to be a certain way, it is that we have always been this way it is how our genes were formed, we evolved as social animals that need to relate to one another. Sensory deprivation leads to hallucinations, your brain fills in the comportment it craves. You will still be alive but you will be a tool living in a world of illusion, you will no longer be "human" you will be something else, some kind of schizophrenic sense machine. Without friends, family, and "neighbors" you are different than what humans have been as they figured out how to survive over millions of years(I am including species like homo erectus as "human" because these were all tool-using social beings who surely had some type of discourse).

 

I kind of see what you're getting at though, digger is always gushing about this "primordial" way of being. But I think this is because he recognizes that it is in danger of being forgotten forever how metaphysics is a priori to science. To forget this may be a concealing of the greatest criticism of positivism, it may be a forgetting of the one thing that stands in opposition to positivism so it would make positivism impossible to name if it be forgotten.

 

He is also right about the fact that we are paving the world, or as he would say making everything that is revealed ready-to-hand. What he later called gestell

The farther along this historical trajectory we get the more impossible it becomes to recognize that we are building a massive suicide machine, let alone stop the machine and find a different way to be.

 

Digger thinks that there will be a new origin of being after this one reaches its logical extreme, he doesn't think it can be stopped hes just badass for even noticing such a well hidden narrative. So enjoy the party because we're all gonna end up equipment or better yet: we are tools.

 

I think the general idea of digger is things ain't getting better.

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

DnG isn't run any specific way, can you articulate how they are being run?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I need an in-depth explanation of Arthur Schopenhauer and DnG, thanks in advance.

On Schopenhauer,

 

The first part of his entire philosophy is centered around the absolute certainty that quote "life is a sentence of never ending suffering" and that every man desires to die in the end, because suffering ultimately outweighs happiness in life. According to Schopenhauer  Happiness is only temporary, while suffering is virtually permanent in life. Any attempts at happiness will only bring more suffering in the end, and a man's desires will never be fulfilled. (This is from his own writings). He states that the suffering of the world is ultimately due to our living, and that suffering is inevitable in life. He views suicide as a crime, and often cites religious views (such as Judaism) to back up his claims on such matters, giving the solvency he coined as "Antinatalism" which is essentially the position of opposition towards procreation. He's a pretty hardcore Death K philosopher, and it's extremely hard to run anything with him, his critiquing is much like Lanza's, and based around life being bad. That's just the larger part of his philosophy in a nutshell. Benetar and Lanza expand on Schopenhauer, I highly recommend reading them as well. He can be run with a Buddhism K however, as much of his thought is reflected from Buddhism. Keep in mind, he was an Atheist, alot of his writing were quite religious, but he himself was a solid atheist.

 

The second, less well known part, is about hatred and violence. He says hatred is part of what spurs inevitable suffering, a man's life is forever tormented due to his inability at perfection. This ties in with the overall concept of suffering in life.

 

The third part is just about education and intelligence, it's not something unique however. 

 

The fourth part is on women. This is anti-fem K ish. He essentially says two things

 

1) Women must obey men... BUT

2) Women can think more rationally than men. 

 

These two claims seem to contradict each other, why should the more rational being obey one that is less rational? 

 

Politically, he just expresses a system of ethics.

 

Another part is animal welfare, he viewed animals as the same being as humans, essentially both were of equal moral value. 

 

On D and G

 

I don't know what your running, in terms of your kritik, and there's no way anyone can explain D and G in a nutshell (only certain parts, and we would have to know what exactly your trying to say) But I can lay down a few little helpful tips.

 

1st) The two most common solvency's associated with D and G are Nomadism and Art.

 

2nd) You should read Anti-Oedipus and A Thousand Plateaus, the two best and most famous works of Deleuze and Guatarri. 

 

3rd) DnG is complicated, and much higher level philosophy. People that claim to understand all of it are usually bs'ing. Maury definitely knows all D and G, but I myself only know bits and pieces, and the general knowledge of certain issues. I highly recommend Pming Maury, he is the master D and G tactician.

 

4th) Deleuze was for the destruction of Capitalism, and was well versed in Marxist Philosophy. His writings oftentimes reflect an Anti-Capitalist view that relates back to Marx. 

 

Hope this helped for now!

  • Upvote 2
  • Downvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It's late and I really should sleep so I'll add a more in-depth explanation of my interp of Deleuze and my application to debate later. First off, you should watch Edmund's camp lecture on DnG that's available on debate vision. He is my major inspiration as a Deleuze debater.

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

What does this quote by Nietzsche mean?

 

 

 

Whoever battles with monsters had better see that it does not turn him into a monster. And if you gaze long into an abyss, the abyss will gaze back into you.

—Nietzsche— 

 

 

The first part I get.  I think I get the second part, but I'm not sure.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It's poetic so it's difficult to nail down. I think it means that if you fixate on the lack of objective meaning then you'll lose subjective meaning as well. There's also an aspect to it which destabilizes conventional understandings of agency but I don't think that is essential to his point, it just emphasizes it and sort of provides insight into his thought process.

  • Upvote 1
  • Downvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

i just have one request, and it might sound stupid, but could someone explain the Christian / Religious or whatever deity K. 

I'm going to guess that you're talking about the argument used most prominently by Liberty University. If that's not what you're talking about, then ignore the rest of this post.

 

I had posted this in a previous thread, but this is a short answer.

 

 

For those wondering, some of the Liberty college teams read it, saying that questions of politics divorces us from God, and that's bad because He is the ultimate source of value.

 

Here's some cites. opencaselist.paperlessdebate.com/xwiki/wiki/opencaselist/Liberty/Landrum-Siegrist+Neg It's under "Soteriology".

 

The following is a more detailed explanation.

 

As I understand it, their 1NC link card argues that the Obama administration has increasingly become separated from theological questions (here's the article http://www.law.du.edu/documents/denver-university-law-review/copeland.pdf ). It's just "politics as usual". This is because Christians have come to see "Political life" as "brutish and base", what with it's chief concern being the maintenance of power. This makes "The state and its maintenance through political life are incompatible with Christianity."

 

The K goes on to say that the Christian God is the source of all value (He's God, so yeah), and that He exists. As such, anything that goes away from Christianity, the true means of reaching God, divorce oneself from the only Being that's worthwhile in the universe.

 

There's no real alternative (not an explicit one), and it's treated more as a linear DA. However, in the 1NC link, it does talk about how The only safety against its domination is “nonparticpation.â€, so that can be considered the alt.

 

I just want to go on the record by saying that I have a problem with the link. There's no necessary (in my opinion) connection between engaging in politics and divorcing oneself from Christianity. The article only outlines the current trend, but that does not mean that the future, nor the proposed plan, has to follow that route. To be honest, I'm tempted in saying that the neg's attempts to label the aff as anti-Christian (for lack of better term) is an anti-Christian ideal, as a true believer should attempt to incorporate all into the following (hence the perm). In fact, it could be possible to cut some lines from the Bible about converting people as a perm card (it would read something like "Luke in 50 A.D.").

  • Upvote 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Whoever battles with monsters had better see that it does not turn him into a monster. And if you gaze long into an abyss, the abyss will gaze back into you.

—Nietzsche—

 

 

What does this quote by Nietzsche mean?

 

 

 

The first part I get.  I think I get the second part, but I'm not sure.

 

 

 

 

To understand this you need to know the german for abyss. Excuse my spelling I'm not gonna double check all that shit. Its something like "Ab-grund".  Grund obviously shares an etymological connection with the english "ground". And in German philosophy Grund is a foundation (later this can get split in to principial vs. arche ground but i digress).Heidegger's lecture course "der satz vom grund" is translated as "the principle of reason". In german philosophical language it is obvious that the foundation or ground upon which philosophy stands is "reason".  I wish I knew more German because the "satz" part looks like 'Ersatz' makes me think...

 

 

The point is that grund is the german for foundations/ground (as in metaphysical foundations of being/knowing whatever). Its most recent colloquial meaning is "reason"(logic)

The german for abyss is ab-grund or "without ground".

 

 

i'm sure you can figure out that my interpretation revolves around Nietzsche's transvaluation of all values.

 

This abyss is also sometimes called 'the void'. as in "nietzsche philosopher of the void".

  • Upvote 4

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

To understand this you need to know the german for abyss. Excuse my spelling I'm not gonna double check all that shit. Its something like "Ab-grund".  Grund obviously shares an etymological connection with the english "ground". And in German philosophy Grund is a foundation (later this can get split in to principial vs. arche ground but i digress).Heidegger's lecture course "der satz vom grund" is translated as "the principle of reason". In german philosophical language it is obvious that the foundation or ground upon which philosophy stands is "reason".  I wish I knew more German because the "satz" part looks like 'Ersatz' makes me think...

 

 

The point is that grund is the german for foundations/ground (as in metaphysical foundations of being/knowing whatever). Its most recent colloquial meaning is "reason"(logic)

The german for abyss is ab-grund or "without ground".

 

 

i'm sure you can figure out that my interpretation revolves around Nietzsche's transvaluation of all values.

 

This abyss is also sometimes called 'the void'. as in "nietzsche philosopher of the void".

 

 

I realize this is 99% a joke but I still don't think that answers the question.  That just perhaps defines the abyss & the void as the same thing.

 

It seems anyone can impose some semblance of meaning onto the statement--if it has any.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I realize this is 99% a joke but I still don't think that answers the question. 

Do you not understand the problem with this sentence

 

It comes from the sar-chasm.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...

×
×
  • Create New...