COMMENT ON HEIDEGGER
You are teaching me about these nutty people, and it’s…. it’s awful.
Its, well….. it’s like talking to a woman that’s trying to get you to engage with her emotionally so that she can manipulate you with those emotions. Like Huck Finn trying to gut us to a paint the fence. Just with more elaborate language.
This is quite separate from the agreement to engage in argument for the pursuit of true statements – understanding the quality of an argument.
Which is quite separate from the agreement to engage in argument for the purpose of cooperation: consent on property (action).
You cannot read this nonsense without FIRST agreeing to the value judgements that he makes about experience. If man seeks to escape the sentimental and rise to the rational, whether the origins of those sentiments be biological, or normative, or uncommon events, he can give himself the option to experience what he wishes, and in doing so may train himself to wish what is good for him. But I can find no circumstance where feminine perspective is of value for other than circular argument. The feminine perspective exists only to forbid outliers (alphas) from gaining too much control and depriving them of choice of mates and survival of offspring. It’s not rational, it’s not a ‘good’ for rational creatures, and in an industrialized society it does nothing except promote dysgenia and overconsumption of the world’s resources.
You can say that a thing is possible, and that it’s possible to gain pleasure from it. But that’s different from saying its a ‘good’ independent of our primitive senses.
I mean we can all seek physical pleasures. We can seek it in liesure, in sex, in food, in acquisition of things, in acquisition of experiences, in conversation, in artificially induced states via drugs, in artificially induced states by repetition of experiences (most eastern tactics), or in artificially induced states by repetition of reason (the western model.) These states can all be achieved.
We are happy to say that many drugs that give us great pleasure damage our bodies. We are happy to say that many sexual experiences give us pleasure at the cost of being ostracized from much of society. We can say that contravening norms gives us pleasure, at the cost of ostracization, and economic hardship. We can say that repetitive internal reflection minimizes the necessity of problem solving through cooperation with others, and therefore the minimization of rejection stimuli. WE can say that repetitive internal reflection can train us to habituate any number of our more primitive, and therefore ‘cheaper’ stimuli such as the feeling of euphoria from pack membership, or the ‘undiscovered valley’ of resource richness.
But each of these actions has a short term cost and a longer term consequence for the individual and for the group. The feeling of using certain drugs is unreachable by any other experience but the body degrades quickly. On the opposite end of the spectrum, excessive training that allows us to obtain cheap internal pleasure has led all societies that operate by that mechanism to ignorance and poverty.
The profit from learning to interact with the physical world so that we may transform it, and how to interact with others to cooperate in transforming it, has few consequences.
So perhaps I do not understand the logic here. Other than from my perspective, like a manipulative woman, Heidegger attempts to seduce us into a form of consent before we know the terms and consequences of doing so.
In other words, Heidegger us using deceptive language as a the intellectual equivalent of a date rape drug.
(PS: Kinda doubt you’ll find that comment elsewhere.) lol