It’s fascinating how far they’re willing to push Enlightenment principles

questions pertaining to any kind of essential, metaphysical distinction between the human and the non-human animal appear obsolete… Heidegger reinstates an outmoded dualism that he ought, on his own terms, to renounce: human versus animal.

In a course he gave between 1929-30 he sketches out this “outmoded dualism”. To situate this some, this is five years after he gave the course on the Sophist that Arendt sat in, and two years after he wrote his chief text. You can scroll through here to get an idea of how prolific he was. I’ve been studying him since I was 17 and I’m still far from an expert.

How responsible is Darwin for our political memeplex?

flies in the face of our more refined contemporary concepts concerning nature as a biological continuum that includes the human

H tries to make the case that an abyss separates the animal from man. I think an abyss separates H from the people of today, so I wouldn’t be surprised if he was right.

To even wonder what the human being is you need some type of contrast. It doesn’t seem as helpful to use a rock for instance as a contrast. And don’t you want to know what a human being is? It’s quite the mystery if you ask me, despite some speculations I know that seem plausible.

H is good at curveballs

An animal is not simply moving down the road, pushed along by some mechanism. It is in the world in the sense of having it.

When you “have” an I, the I also “has” the world. H also conceded that even plants have this in a restricted sense.

Another way to spin this subject which is impossible to articulate is that prior to Plato, human beings spoke FROM nature, and after him they spoke ABOUT nature.

Or if you reflect on Hegel, that’s not a process that has stopped. People like Heidegger help us speak about nature rather than from nature.

What’s the difference between the human and life? That’s another way this question is often framed. The human is contrasted with life. Chirping birds in a hedge, life.

Those birds have at least the first two here don’t they?

the human’s distinctive features—language, sociality, being-towards-death—are best understood as features of a being that ‘has’ world, a being for whom world is ‘accessible’. The characteristic traits of the animal—captivation by environmental stimuli, acute senses, a limited field of action

If you try to catch a bird it’s going to fly away because it doesn’t want to die, so arguably a bird has all three of the named human features stated above. It isn’t an easy puzzle to solve, and we will try.

Let’s use H’s weird way of going about it- DOES a bird “have” the world?

Or is it just part of the world?

I’m not making an indirect joke at the expense of twitter users right now by the way.

While I’m on the subject though, some people have an account from a decade ago. I don’t think they have the world, I think someone has THEM. That type of patsy might as well be a bird in a hedge. Pretty bird, pretty bird.

Let’s just stick with animals for now. Think of a deer here

Claims in which he explicitly denies what he now sees as constitutively human traits to the animal—including worldhood, language, and death—are dispersed across his works.

I wouldn’t want to be a deer. It reminds me of a “pet name” I called my childhood dog- SHTOO-PIT. Well he was. What do you want to say? Oooooh shtoo-pit I used to say while patting his head. I think when you’re a child there’s less of an “abyss” between you and animals. Usually we take it for granted that animals are shtoo-pit and don’t mention it.

Pretty crazy that Europeans are bribed to genocide themselves, eh? Oh wait, that doesn’t fit into this discussion at all does it. Never mind.

Shuch a guh-boy, shtooo-pit, guh-boy!

Just got sick of these golden retrievers, we need a country of chihuahuas and wiener dogs, that sounds better.

What breed of dog is a Jew? Probably a border collie to be fair.

How embarrassing, circling the other dogs and convincing them they’re sheep, I’d rather just lunge out and bite their throat. Tastes better than this shit that they feed us.

Having the world.

Eighth-circuit consciousness, etc. Golem detractors are still only “had” by jews, grats, shtoo-pit. Shuch a guh buh.

I thought poodles had fangs too??

Anyway look at this madman

In On the Essence of Ground, he examined world by questioning the history of the word ‘world’. In FCM, Heidegger says he will embark upon a new approach: he will examine the extent to which different kinds of being may be said to ‘have’ world. This ‘having’, for Heidegger, signifies a capacity to ‘access’ beings as what they are, to access beings ‘as such’

This disconcerting truth is that to access the world is to recognize it as populated mostly by animals. This is an always-already condition- when you speak of it, they will respond AS animals.

This is another way of phrasing what I mentioned recently about “preceding the Source”. The way Heidegger “has” the world is different from the way typical people have the world. He has a more or less unprecedented access to beings as such, or Being. “Moar than Aquinas??” Aquinas was born 800 years ago.

“I don’t care what you say, shut up, I hate white men!!” The Jews have you.

And I have them. Must be tough.

I go out of my way to invite them to my accessibility of beings and they’re unable to budge, being the sort of animal that they are. Herding a border collie, good luck. Hey, my favorite German Jews did it and no one of their calibre exists today due to the “impeccable ideals” of ZOG. It’s a border collie without a shepherd.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: