Jump to content

Recommended Posts

Could someone explain to me Heidegger's overall thesis? I've heard ArGogate has a pretty good explanation somewhere but the search bar is broken and I couldn't look it up.

 

What articles/books do you start with if you want to get into this form of lit?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Why would you want to read Heidegger on this topic

It's not necessarily that I want to read it on this topic. I just want to read Heidegger.. 

 

It also sorta ties into Burke's K of security and ontology so I wanna understand that more before I read it in a round.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Surveillance renders populations as standing reserve.

Yeah, that makes sense, I'm still thinking of Heideggerian managerialism arguments as specific to the environment I guess

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Heidegger starts his critique by explaining how philosophy has come to ignore the question of "being" in Ontology. Being is assumed to be known within philosophy; people seemingly know what it means "to be." But Heidegger will have none of that: From the early Plato and the late Kant, the question of being has constantly been ignored or rather treated as if we know what it is, yet, Heidegger believes, most of our conceptualizations of being merely skim the surface. 

 

Skipping his other, much more nuanced, work on the subject of being; Heidegger describes history up until the 20th century as the fall of being; the loss of our metaphysical relationship with the world. This is because we started to no longer view the world as an extension of our being, but more so as a tool that we can use; in other words, we lost our "being-in-the-world" and started to conceptualize the world around us as "ready-at-hand," transforming it, in our eyes, into a "standing reserve." Heidegger then traces this loss of being to an inauthentic mode of living known that attempts to control everything: relationships, plants, animals, nature, humans, etc. 

 

By "standing reserve" Heidegger means to explain how things can be reduced, via enframing, to objects; think of Agambens critique of the camp, when people are placed within concentration camps during exceptional times, people are stripped from their juridical rights, as such they are stripped of their status as a subject and are thus able to be subject to violence that objects usually experience; for instance, clearing out a mass of cockroaches is fine in that it requires no moral consideration; but when you want to exterminate entire populations, you're gonna have to need a bit more than just "they scare me. But notice how genocide does happen, and this is because, as Heidegger explains, we view these people as "standing reserve" they are but a mere "means" to an end. The end could be the entire extermination of the semitic race; or it could be to end a bug infestation; the justification is the same in both instances, however, in that neither have moral status (they're reduced to objects). 

 

Heidegger proposes numerous ways to obtain a "being-in-the-world": experiencing death, mediative thinking, anxiety, acceptance of death, loss, trauma; essentially, intense emotions and experiences (I sense Bataille here, and you should too as they're basically making the same critique, except Bataille is better <3). I don't want to get too into this because I'm not too read up on the "alt" debate as I didn't really care much about Heidegger so somebody should come in here and finish this up :D

  • Upvote 4

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Heidegger starts his critique by explaining how philosophy has come to ignore the question of "being" in Ontology. Being is assumed to be known within philosophy; people seemingly know what it means "to be." But Heidegger will have none of that: From the early Plato and the late Kant, the question of being has constantly been ignored or rather treated as if we know what it is, yet, Heidegger believes, most of our conceptualizations of being merely skim the surface. 

 

Skipping his other, much more nuanced, work on the subject of being; Heidegger describes history up until the 20th century as the fall of being; the loss of our metaphysical relationship with the world. This is because we started to no longer view the world as an extension of our being, but more so as a tool that we can use; in other words, we lost our "being-in-the-world" and started to conceptualize the world around us as "ready-at-hand," transforming it, in our eyes, into a "standing reserve." Heidegger then traces this loss of being to an inauthentic mode of living known that attempts to control everything: relationships, plants, animals, nature, humans, etc. 

 

By "standing reserve" Heidegger means to explain how things can be reduced, via enframing, to objects; think of Agambens critique of the camp, when people are placed within concentration camps during exceptional times, people are stripped from their juridical rights, as such they are stripped of their status as a subject and are thus able to be subject to violence that objects usually experience; for instance, clearing out a mass of cockroaches is fine in that it requires no moral consideration; but when you want to exterminate entire populations, you're gonna have to need a bit more than just "they scare me. But notice how genocide does happen, and this is because, as Heidegger explains, we view these people as "standing reserve" they are but a mere "means" to an end. The end could be the entire extermination of the semitic race; or it could be to end a bug infestation; the justification is the same in both instances, however, in that neither have moral status (they're reduced to objects). 

 

Heidegger proposes numerous ways to obtain a "being-in-the-world": experiencing death, mediative thinking, anxiety, acceptance of death, loss, trauma; essentially, intense emotions and experiences (I sense Bataille here, and you should too as they're basically making the same critique, except Bataille is better <3). I don't want to get too into this because I'm not too read up on the "alt" debate as I didn't really care much about Heidegger so somebody should come in here and finish this up :D

Thanks a ton. Any specific articles/books that you'd suggest?

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...