But there is a whole culture of fetishism around these objects, I'm guilty of it myself. Perhaps the people who celebrate the airplane as an object are on the outside so to speak, not the ones operating or purchasing them though.

To think he didn't live to see the the catastrophe that is social media. The platform it gives to idiots and the echo chamber of contracting world views and the abandonment of truth in favour of opinion. He must be spinning in his grave.

I disagree. A plane is still just a plane, a physical object in the physical world. It's not a "blur" of potential. This might be coming from the fact that people are "living" more of their lives in the "digital world" which isn't really the "digital world" it's the normal world while using the internet.

Immanence?

I think 9/11 showed us a plane is more than „it’s potential to transport people“. It’s never that simple.

Well that automatically brings capitalism into the picture if you want to answer any of those questions. The plane is owned by people who only have 1 purpose for owning that plane, if we were to use it for anything else we would be breaking the law

That will happen around the time pigs fly.

[removed]

That's still assigning an instrumental value to things, and thus still the kind of "technology" that Heidegger disliked. Though it would be a much better world than the current one, if that was done.

I love this idea and wish it were espoused more. If the real value of the goods or services were reflected in the cost, people would think a lot more about how they spend their money. Sure, many people might have to deal with less material goods, less luxury, less stuff...but the overall benefit might be that we don't completely render the planet unliveable in so short a time frame.

“Perhaps if companies -and the users of their products and services- were required to pay for ALL the consequences of their operations…”

Fixed it for you.

Why only charge them for the downside?

Let's say that the transport system that runs on oil and coal generates ten times the value (just picking numbers) of the sale price of the oil and coal that powered it. Should the company get a share of that?

Yup, still a genius that more or less defined the early continental philosophical tradition along with Husserl and later Wittgenstein though.

Have to say that, personally, I think his ontology of being-in-the-world as an alternative to the subject/object (or mind/body) system is still revolutionary today though. Hard to understate his contribution to philosophy (massive influence on Satre).

But the man is morally repugnant. His mentor, Husserl, who more or less invented the philosophical system of phenomenology (which Heidegger heavily based his philosophy on) was a Jewish man, who he basically betrayed to get in with the Nazis. Terrible human being, and yet a proper once-in-a-generation type philosopher. Humans are complicated and Heidegger took that truth to the extreme.

And he fucked Hannah Arendt which makes no sense until you read about Hannah Arendt and realize that she was pretty weird in her whole life.

Yeah kind of funny that this is coming from a dead white man Nazi and getting attention when there's so many other sources to get this kind of info from. Like Indigenous peoples the world over who are still actively being genocided.

One could look at some of the religious philosophy of shinto as being a way of connecting that sense of gratitude and a less human-centric veiw of nature. Shinto doesn't have an afterlife like heaven or hell, rather your spiritual stuff sort of breaks down and returns to the world because the world is all there is. There are hidden aspects of it but the afterlife is all around you so the idea of how one treats their environment becomes not something that you use and one day abandon for something else when you die but this is essentially all there is.

In a way that acknowledges the closed system we live in a lot more than a lot if western philosophy/religion does as the idea that we either live on in a separate disconnected realm or cease to be entirely after death doesn't capture that sense of responsibility one might have to previous generations to maintain the world as a living recycling system or to preserve it for future generations. How we conceptualize our connection and dependance on the Earth for our continuation is often subverted in our fantasy storytelling by the existence of other worlds or an eventual escape into space. In a way it feels akin to a denial of death as a very present danger but on a level of our species.

We are thematically made uncomfortable by both our complete dependance on these finite spaces and by extention the idea that we may be failing in a collective responsibility. "To hell with you I got mine" is a very common attitude of a very individualistic type that washes one hands of those anxieties by limiting one's care of something to their immediate personal use.

Those "types of lifestyles" were sustainable for hunter-gatherers and Indigenous peoples, so the amount that we have is not quite the point.

Also, there is no way we are going to survive if people keep thinking they can extract from nature indefinitely. Ecosystem collapse is going to happen and all those people you're talking about are going to die, so we'd better figure it out.

Its also by no means a modern phenomenon or related to technology. I remember learning about the pilgrims and other early American Settlers and how they believed that nature was chaotic and immoral and how they could bring order and Christian values to it by planting farms and settling their families. Medieval zoological texts make similar assertions and generally characterize any animal that is dangerous as immoral and useless and any animal that can be exploited as a gift from God.

This is not Jean Jacques Rousseau, it's an argument against being possessed by the spirit of technology, possessed meaning we see the world only through its eyes and we're not even aware of the framing.

Isn't this even older, embedded in the very nature of life ? I mean, any living organism spreads and exploits resources.

I think it’s worth noting that the Bible has not been ethically translated across time

>but really what we want is a more romantic relationship with nature again

When did that ever exist on a large scale?

It's always feels like that's part of the "noble savage" mythos which didn't actually ever happen.

Poets/writers talking about it? Sure. But not at large.

It may be too late. Much of the world may be turning into a "MadMax" hellscape. I think you're greatly underestimating how central fossil fuel tech is too our global civilization, not just "tech" generally. Forget social media. As far as Boomers, I think you're throwing stones from a glass house. Boomers are intimately familiar with the "romantic relationship with nature" because it was called "being a hippie" back in their day!

You want something that never existed. We have never had a more "romantic" relationship with Earth than we do today.

But that's a second order problem with your comment. The first problem that needs to be addressed is that we need to define "romantic" and we need to understand what outcomes that relationship with nature has that differ from the outcomes of other relationships, and then determine which set of outcomes is more appealing based on predefined criteria. If you say you want something, you need to provide evidence to support why that thing is desirable. Otherwise you're just stating an aesthetic preference.

Your comment was removed for violating the following rule:

>Argue your Position

>Opinions are not valuable here, arguments are! Comments that solely express musings, opinions, beliefs, or assertions without argument may be removed.

Repeated or serious violations of the subreddit rules will result in a ban.

This is a shared account that is only used for notifications. Please do not reply, as your message will go unread.

>level 2BernardJOrtcuttMod · 22 hr. agoLockedYour comment was removed for violating the following rule:Argue your Position

I wouldn't read too far into it. The reception of German philosophy in Japan is a long and fascinating topic--especially in regards to the Kyoto School which has some controversial tensions between technics, nature, and how the two potentially impacted wartime policies. There's even some speculation that Heidegger and philosophers in Japan responded to one another and shaped each other's thought. But I'm going on a tangent and that's a discussion for another day.

As a younger man I wanted my poetry to be new and avant-garde. Now I just want to make something beautiful, and more often than not, I turn toward a time when the world was slower, and people took more care with their lives because their lives were harder and more precious in their difficulty. I try not to get pastoral or fantasize about an idealized past, but there’s no denying that things built with care are the only things which last.

In a modernity defined by consumption, “conservatism” can be anti-capitalist.

Note: there’s a reason that pastoralism is at the heart of most fascism—because it’s enchanting. If you really want to understand the link between nazi rhetoric and Heidegger, you should read Hölderlin.

And as a follow up, I want to see if I understand his two points.

Seinsfrage, the question of being… I think he would reject any answer to that question that was simple enough to be called complete. “What is a door”? A door is more than a description and a purpose. It’s an object and an idea, difficult to define. A door is a door because we see it as a door. It’s defined by its relationship to how it is seen and used.

People are the same. We are an intricate web of relationships, physical identities and interactions, ideas and conceptions. That’s what I would call his Seinsfrage, an attempt to wrestle with that question and try to get to the bottom of it, and to encompass the whole of the being rather than isolate any one or two parts of it that are easier to grab onto.

As for technological vs poetic…that seems straightforward enough. Technological is a utilitarian view of the world, things are defined by how useful they are. But like, yeah, obviously that’s wrong. I’m tempted to accuse him of setting up the opposing side as a straw man. Ask anyone who loves their cat, or child, or car — these things have a significance beyond their usefulness. To argue that people think otherwise is absurd.

But sure, if we accept the premise that people have this technological view of the world, where things are defined by their purpose and usefulness, then obviously there is something missing. Such a perspective on life would be immensely joyless. Such a view of the world would struggle to answer the age old questions “Why are we here? What is the point of it all?” Such a view of the world would have no place for telling jokes with your friends, for loving another person, or for anything that couldn’t be described as useful. Many good things, many joys in life, would be lost in such a technological world view.

Is that supposed to be groundbreaking?

Idk. Y’all think I got him right? Did I miss his point?

A direct relationship with the world doesn't dictate your willingness to destroy it or not. Many cultures claiming to appreciate nature still destroyed it. Using technology as an excuse or proxy doesn't really add up.

Don’t know why you’ve been downvoted. Technology is basically inherent to humanity if we can consider language to be technology (and I think there’s a strong case that we can)

Too bad Plato was a pedophile. Still worth knowing what he had to say.

Yes? this is known

Who the fuck is downvoting this? It’s a stone cold fact.

That's extremely ignorant.

Except it isn't dialectical and it isn't even material.