Who’s excited to learn more about the final shining of the final renaissance?
H himself wrote a critique of the Contributions, so it’s not like even he thought it shone optimally. This is a couple years after he wrote it, in a text titled The Event. I decide to be crazy and brave and jump right into the latter, and already on one of the first few pages he’s trying to scare me away (I haven’t read a couple of these)
Besides, if you read something when you were 20 you might as well stop telling yourself you read it, because you don’t know anything at 20. I’m sure my 20 year old readers will disagree with that statement. And by that same logic, I trust H’s judgment that one cannot understand the Contributions without those 40 courses being understood. Regardless, I’m taking a glance at his critique of it.
He thought of himself as only preparing the way for real philosophy to be possible. Lately I’ve been trying to help prepare the way for preparing the way for us.
Once you realize the bioleninist for what it is (a static being whose hatred of truth, goodness, and beauty is permanent) you move on to finer things.
Ἀλήθεια is the beginning, and thus the essential occurrence of being and the most strange, for “truth” was reinterpreted long ago
He’s trying to say that when we wonder what truth is, our very idea of what it is is wrong from the beginning. We’re using a reinterpretation of the original meaning of truth to ask what truth is.
Ἀλήθεια is more “inceptual” in his language. He uses that word a lot. And I don’t dissuade my reader from thinking of the movie Inception in this context, because I think that actually is one of the more philosophical movies out there and art-references can give you a better idea of what is being spoken of usually. Pretend we’re in the movie Inception. The Romans, Jews, Christians, and Moderns concealed the Greek meaning of Truth. H is trying to show us that we only know lower-case t truth today because of that concealment. Or to restate the paragraph above, when we wonder what the truth is, we’re not wondering what the Truth is, so our question is botched from the outset. He tries to get us to think inceptually about it, to see it before it was concealed throughout the history of being.
His courses are often on one moment in the history of beyng. That’s why it’s probably naive to think we can engage in the twist-free of inceptual thinking without having studied those 40 he suggests. I know reading is Jesse’s favorite activity on the planet- no meth for you then!
Or, if you’re too refined to See things better through a movie, H here reminds me of Nietzsche’s “HOW THE ‘TRUE WORLD’ FINALLY BECAME A FABLE”.
That’s one of the ironies for a neechfreek like me reading this- noticing how much a neechfreek H himself is, i.e. inceptual thinking? You can’t even think more inceptually than one generation prior to yours. I commend the effort though, by all means.
Ahh to be on an island, and to have every trace of the Germans from my memory erased, and to live a normal life. Wait, that’s all postwar people, and their “normal” is a type of illusory barbarism from these Krauts’ perspectives.
Yeah, I know, I’ll probably be writing about this pre-Socratic a lot more in the future
Which is to say, this project is painful. A lot of my posts you might not realize cause me great pain. After I write one I ex out of the PDF I mused on because it caused such pain. This is why people avoid it. I’m not some genius myself, anyone could write about these things, they just can’t face the pain and the struggle. Not to mention the pig-pit I’m thrown into in talking to the rabble rather than writing in a private notebook- another layer of the struggle.
Other times it’s fun, for instance when I pull the rug out from H’s feet
Isn’t he interpreting ἀλήθεια as being?
He’d probably tell me to shut up and finish those 40 courses before I ask questions.
Anyway, this concealment of ἀλήθεια ushers in the reign of machination, a word which I remind you is an antisemitic dogwhistle. Machination IS a form of beingness or truth, and he defines it as “the abandonment of beings by being”.
Gets a little more convoluted than the perceptive fellows at shekina.mybb in my opinion. They tend to be dismissive of western philosophers for their closeness to secularism and distance from Christianity.
sigh… All the machinators reading this right now… I prefer the Christians, at least these Orthodox ones. Which reminds me, there’s a book on H and Orthodoxy I need to check out.
something more originary occurs essentially, the clearing of the “in between.” And precisely this open domain is denied to plant, animal, and everything that merely lives.
Ohohoho H is not speaking even of normies here- in the next breath he targets Rilke and his “modern” conception of the Angel.
Again, two I can think of in the same ballpark as H, Evola and Strauss, do not talk on the level of H in this book, or as he speaks in virtually all of his books for that matter. If you are serious about an Antiversity you will make these things clear.
This is more understandable than I expected
Ἀλήθεια—The essence of truth… indeed forgotten; and if remembered, immediately mistaken as a question of “essence” … the experience of the history of beyng must be infrequent, almost impossible, and quite without effect (abandonment by being)
We can experience that history of beyng through those courses… and possibly without effect.
You might ask how do I find myself here when I’m often talking about historiography. What I see H as doing is incredibly convoluted genealogy.