Philosophy as a Managerial Concern (Heidegger)

Quantum Est In Rebus Inane

In the phenomenology of spirit, as consciousness’s becoming-other-to-itself and coming-to-itself, “forms” of consciousness emerge, as Hegel says; but this emergence of forms of consciousness has nothing to do with the procedure, now becoming routine and stemming from various motivations, of classifying the so-called types of world views and types of philosophical standpoints according to just any schema.  These typologies and morphologies would be a harmless way of passing time, if at the same time the odd idea were not in play that, by placing a philosophy in the net of types, one has decided on the possible and of course relative truth of that philosophy.  This urge toward classification and such like always begins at a time when the lack of the power to do philosophy gets the upper hand, so that sophistry comes to dominate.  But sophistry provides itself and its own barrenness with some respectability by first catching…

View original post 338 more words

10 responses to “Philosophy as a Managerial Concern (Heidegger)

  1. Does anyone really hear this stuff. Seems to me H, as well as the re-post, is was just talking to the air for as much as its undetstood. Thx.

    • sure speaks quite clearly to lots of folks, some things I post (hopefully not most) are technical in nature, feel free to skip whatever doesn’t suit your interests.

      • I was being funny. Thats what lol means i thot.

        But maybe you could be more clear the reason why you chose to repost that, rather than assume.

        Do you agree with the shutting down the yogi session?

      • not sure what “lol” yer referring to ( afraid you have a certain tangential tendency to yer comments that often eludes my grasp), just a reflection of my general interests in the tyranny of means, mistaking gossip for thinking, and antinomianism.

      • ok, I actually a reply to your post: Might we discuss, even for a minute?

        I see the excerpt here as quite similar to Laruelle’s point, indeed, his whole non philosophical elaboration.

        I see that there is a situation (perhaps of a kind of Badiou truth procedure) that is conveying a particular notion, a particular consistency of meaning. This situation is ‘usurped’ by what Heidegger here is calling ‘sophist’ philosophy that has by now and still been made into another (Laruelle) philosophical object, (what we could call an institution), and this all for the purpose of justifying the particular career theorist without any true concern for its meaning beyond the authors own lifestyle, beyond the production of material capital; which is to say that academic philosophy is based in a premise that the material production of capital is the only type of production that has any weight or truth value.

        Do you see this also? Or at least something similar?

        Also; I would say that the notice of Heidegger saying this near 70 years ago (?) speaks to the misappropriation of time, and not so much to some ‘era’ that seems to have similarities to our own. I am suggesting that the movement of time where Heidegger is seen to have produced a now ‘historical’ or ‘anachronistic’ proposal, such that it is interesting of not odd that he could have said it now with the same meaning and significance, is itself a concept of time that is based in a misunderstanding. Indeed, is this not at least one of the points of “Being and Time”?

        Will you discuss this with me?

        What do you say?

        • ah sorry not really up on the Laurelle/Badiou situation, maybe T.Blake could be of some help? he seems to find them worth reading, couldn’t hurt to ask he’s generally quite generous on these matters.

            • just really what I said earlier, interested in how what starts as an innovative/attuned interest (and or process) gets turned into mere manners, Rorty gets at this a bit in his Contingency book, but where Heidegger has a misplaced faith in deep tap roots Rorty sees it more as matter of innovation being understandably routinized/bureaucratized and so made useful/public and than in need of renovation, both really gave up on academic philo but than were unfortunately seduced by literature/poetry. hope that helps some.

Leave a Reply

Please log in using one of these methods to post your comment:

WordPress.com Logo

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

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google 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