Martin Heidegger’s poetic line from his later “Letter on Humanism” (1947):
“Language is the house of Being. In its home man dwells.”
Variations:
For those of modest means: “Man dwells in the bungalow of Being.”
For those on the road a lot: “Man dwells in the Holiday Inn of Being.”
For rustic campers: “Man dwells in the Kampgrounds of America of Being.”
For those of exquisite sensibility: “Man dwells in the palace of Being.”
For those down on their luck: “Man dwells in the gutter of Being.”
For lovers: “Man dwells in the heart of Being.”
For tourists: “Man visits the monuments of Being.”
More?
For Woke Activists: How dare you say such a sexist thing! What about women, gays, transgender people, and people of color? And you said nothing about Global Warming and the fight for a higher minimum wage!
Heidegger’s thought should be valued even above the excellence of a dry martini — and I can prove it.
One can only generalize about Being. Heidegger’s specialty was nothingness. The process of specialization is the process of knowing more and more about less and less. Thus, the endpoint of specialization is to know everything about nothing. He reached that. So relish this man’s thought because:
Nothing is better than a dry martini. QED.
Funny one, Ralph.
“Language is the house of Being. In its home man dwells.”
For Inklings: Owen Barfield (1898 –1997), philosopher and fellow Inkling with J.R.R. Tolkien.
I see Barfield, Shaman in his house of bones, gnawing on words, his beloved “fossils of consciousness”…
Thomas Szaz said, “We live in our words.”
An example is that, Hitler did not invade Poland. Hitler evicted Poland out of Prussia. Self-defense is exculpatory.” That’s an intuitive truth, since Prussia is Germany. That changes the whole evaluation of WWII, and who was in the wrong, namely the British who denied Germans the right of self-defense.
The historians pandering to the ruling scum say, Hitler “invaded” Poland.
Holocaust is death by fire, not death by gas. By definition, there was no Jewish Holocaust.
The British and Americans firebombed German (and Japanese) cities, killing unarmed women and children in holocaust after holocaust. The holocaust was against Germans and Japanese. You can’t save civilization by firebombing it.
To shift the mind and maintain their legitimacy, the ruling scum of WASPDOM invented the holocaust narrative of 6 million Jews disappearing in 6 Polish death camps in a 6 year war…666
The dirty old occultist Trump flashes the 666 all the time.
Auschwitz numbers have already dropped from 4 million to 1.1 million. They’ve, basically, admitted its a hoax.
https://www.chicagotribune.com/news/ct-xpm-1992-05-07-9202100662-story.html
No working gas chambers or designs have been produced. Numerous Jews were moved from one “death” camp to another. Numerous “survivors” collected checks.
No one survives a DEATH CAMP, just as, no chicken survives a slaughterhouse. If the holocaust of Jews was real, why do you go to jail if you deny it, in most of Europe? What about free speech?
I haven’t heard Objectivists defend the rights of Holocaust-deniers.
When will Objectivists abandon WWII atrocity propaganda? If you uphold the facts of reality, one must uphold the fact that the narrative is anti-German atrocity propaganda designed to milk Germans post-war to de-nation and destroy them, and subsidize Israel, while soothing the conscience of the WASP public.
In the Ominous Parallels, Peikoff says gassed Jews turned blue. In reality, people would turn cherry red. Another factual error.
Zyklon-B was designed to delouse Jews, their clothes, and shoes, and hair, i.e., to keep them alive to support the war effort as slaves. Thus, millions of survivors. That fits the facts. And it explains the atrocity propaganda of gassing Jews with Zyklon-B. Why else would that be brought up?
Hitler used Jewish slaves to fight Bolshevik-Jew communism. Considering the survival of Europe was at stake, who could blame him?
No one would industrially gas Jews with Zyklon-B. It’s ridiculous. Steam is a lethal gas and poses no wider toxicity risks. Driving Jews into a grinder from 5 stories up is also far more practical. No gas needed at all.
The Jewish encyclopedia numbers don’t show a reduction of 6 million Jews during wartime.
We can call the hoax a hoax at this point.
Can Objectivism survive, if the Holohoax NEVER happened? What will Objectivists do without Hitler?
Why did the Objectivist Standard hail Trump’s recognition of Jerusalem? I thought Objectivism was secular. Tele Viv should be good enough as a capital. Why is official Objectivism nothing more than ATHEISTIC ZIONISM?
Zionism is the subjugation of Gentiles to the Noahide laws. Under the Noahide laws atheists and Christian Gentiles are subject to Kosher-slaughter.
I thought Objectivists were about individual rights? Why are they Zionists?
Here’s my article refuting Objectivism. https://tinyurl.com/y5px6j4a
Objectivism claims to uphold the facts of reality, but it rejects the facts of race.
It rejects facts that debunk the official story of the Holocaust. Just as Aristotle’s philosophy was tied to a cosmology that was debunked and fell into disrepute, Objectivism has tied itself to the axiom that Hitler is evil. If Hitler is a defender of European civilization from communism and WASP imperialism, how will Objectivism survive? Racial teleology (species-serving/volk-serving behavior) seems to be the only sustainable philosophy at this point; which was the message of National Socialism.
Lorenz Kraus has given us a show-stopping parody of the Nazi mentality in the abuse of language but as a comment on Heidegger I think it goes too far. I think it’s fair to attribute Heidegger’s Nazism to the subjectivism that is inherent in his philosophical premises, but it would be a stretch to attribute the rise of Nazism to any influence Heidegger’s floating abstract thought may have had at the time. So the bulk of the parody is just a rehash of the same neo-Nazi fantasies we have all come to know and love for their laughable crudeness of thought, the only novel twist being the concrete-bound attack on the ‘holocaust’ metaphor and the delusional attack on non existent ‘Objectivist’ errors, such as not defending a person’s right to deny the received account of the holocaust. In short, Kraus’s contribution misses the the humorous parody mark by so great a distance that I am tempted to conclude he is actually a Nazi sympathizer himself, but merely of the knuckle-dragging variety.
For neo-Nazis: Man dwells in the rubber-room of being.
was an effort to protect his Christian faith from attack by early Enlightenment philosophy. In an exquisite historical and intellectual overview of German philosophy, Hicks follows the bloodline from Kant to Hegel, Kierkegaard, Schopenhauer and Nietzsche, and ultimately to Martin Heidegger, who was in turn a key influence on the twentieth-century postmodernists. The author proceeds to do the same with socialism, which started with Jean-Jacques Rousseau, a contemporary of Kant, and worked its way through the ages in the writings of Hegel, Herder, Marx, Fichte, Spengler and Junger, all of whom provided fertilizer for the writings of Heidegger. In case you were wondering why this list includes “Men of the Right”, that’s because Hicks identifies the collectivist Left and Right, correctly in my opinion, as merely two sides of the same coin. The difference is that national socialism was left entirely discredited in 1945, while its equally ugly twin brother wasn’t until at least 1956, when the Soviets crushed any illusion about their true intentions one might still have had at that point in time. It would seem paradoxical for postmodernism to marry socialism: After all, the former denies any claim to impartial knowledge or absolute truth, so one would expect its adherents to be found all over the political spectrum. Nevertheless, the two strains ultimately came together in the twentieth century, when all the great postmodernist thinkers, Derrida and Foucault included, were hardcore socialists at the same time. Hicks argues that the crisis of socialism lay at the root of this phenomenon. While Marx had argued that the rise of capitalism would inevitably lead to an ever greater schism between the rich and poor in society, in reality the opposite was true and the middle classes were prospering. In fact, by the mid-twentieth century the middle classes were living lives of which the kings and emperors of yesteryear could only have dreamed. At the same time, it became patently obvious to any impartial observer that life behind the Iron Curtain was an absolute nightmare. The house of cards came thundering down when the Soviets invaded Hungary in ’56 to crush the popular uprising against the socialist rulers in that country. Socialism had always been the product of reason and logic, starting from the idea that the Marxist revolution would inevitably follow in every capitalist society and ending with the illusion that smart technocrats could engineer their nations into workers’ paradises. When all that got shattered, postmodernism proved the refuge for the disillusioned socialists. It became, in Hicks’ words, “a symptom of the far Left’s crisis of faith,” and “a result of using skeptical epistemology to justify the personal leap of faith necessary to continue believing in socialism.” Some of the reviewers of
p. 312 from Strauss’s essay at the end of Essays on the Scientific Study of Politics (New York: Holt, Rinehart and Winston, 1962, Herbert J. Storing, ed.:
One may wonder whether the new political science has brought to light anything of political importance which intelligent political practitioners with a deep knowledge of history, nay, intelligent and educated journalists, to say nothing of the old political science at its best, did not know at least as well beforehand.
The main substantive reason, however, for the revolt against the old political science would seem to be the consideration that our political situation is entirely unprecedented and that it is unreasonable to expect earlier political thought to be of any help in coping with our situation; the unprecedented political situation calls for an unprecedented political science, perhaps for a judicious mating of dialectical materialism and psychoanalysis to be consummated on a bed supplied by logical positivism. 😂
Just as classical physics had to be superseded by nuclear physics so that the atomic age could come in via the atomic bomb, the old political science has to be superseded by a sort of nuclear political science so that we may be enabled to cope with the extreme dangers threatening atomic man; the equivalent in political science of the nuclei are probably the most minute events in the smallest groups of human beings, if not in the life of infants. 😂
Yikes:
“a judicious mating of dialectical materialism and psychoanalysis to be consummated on a bed supplied by logical positivism.”
Take an awful metaphysics and a weird psychology and mate it with a self-destroying epistemology — what a recipe.