File spoon-archives/heidegger.archive/heidegger_2003/heidegger.0306, message 75


Subject: RE: Death of God for Kids
Date: Thu, 19 Jun 2003 17:00:49 +0200
From: "Bakker, R.B.M. de" <R.B.M.deBakker-AT-uva.nl>




-----Oorspronkelijk bericht-----
Van: GEVANS613-AT-aol.com [mailto:GEVANS613-AT-aol.com]
Verzonden: donderdag 19 juni 2003 15:29
Aan: heidegger-AT-lists.village.virginia.edu
Onderwerp: Death of God for Kids


In a message dated 19/06/2003 13:40:59 GMT Daylight Time, 
R.B.M.deBakker-AT-uva.nl writes:

Subj: RE: the death of god for kids Date: 19/06/2003 13:40:59 GMT Daylight 
Time From: R.B.M.deBakker-AT-uva.nl (Bakker, R.B.M. de) Sender: 
owner-heidegger-AT-lists.village.virginia.edu Reply-to: heidegger-AT-lists.village.virginia.edu To: 
heidegger-AT-lists.village.virginia.edu

Jud: 
May I in all courtesy ask 3 questions?

(1) What exactly is meant by "faggotism?" I Brit. Eng it either means a 
bundle of wood with which to light the fire or a form of fried food.

Rene: 
Faggots are those who sacrifice others to save themselves. I limit myself to 
the philosophical variant. 

Jud: 
Where did this philosophical variant usage come from? I mean when did it come 
into use with this meaning?
I know it is used in USA as an offensive term for an openly homosexual man, 
but I find it difficult to believe that the millions of people who once 
belonged to the communist parties of the former Communist bloc countries, or the 
thousand million or so members of the Chinese CP., etc., are gay?
What's wrong with being gay anyway? I understand it's quite a natural state 
to be in for those who are born that way?
The use of the word to describe communists or religious fanatics may well be 
successful as a slur, but isn't this at the expense of the millions of gays in 
the world, who, as far as I can see haven't offended anybody?

rene:
It's my use. I took the word from Eminem, who treats faggottism at the 'ontic' basis.
But all philosphers have their faggots. Nietzsche calls the faggot: the inner cattle.
Heidegger: the great pretender (Vormacher) with his/her idols. He couldn't say much
anymore though after 1945, so now I am making that up. 

I've already said, that homosexuality is not intended. 



Rene: 
Philosophy is not without engagement, or responsibility. It is though, when 
used for one's own sake. Because I've already written on it very very much, 
dear Jud, I'll limit myself to the fagottism called atheism, and to a 
biographical remark of Botho Strauss: the first thing the 'others' want to take away from 
a child, is his God. the God of a child does not fall under an atheist 
verdict. It's like stealing from the blind.

Jud: 
Does this mean that there the alternative form of faggotism which applies to 
religiosity, where the polluting of children's minds with weirdo ideas and 
taking away its ability to think rationally is considered reprehensible? Surely 
one doesn't need to look far to see that it is the struggle to the death 
between Christianity/Judaism and Islam which is threatening our world with oblivion? 
I don't wish to argue, I am simply interested in your point of view.  Does 
believing in Heidegger presuppose being anti-happy or anti-successful in one's 
career or in business?

Rene:
Worried about happiness? We're in a world, of which the oil is happiness,
consumerist happiness. That's disastrous. Not religion. Islam is not
terrorism, Jud. Christianity is not terrorism. Consumerism just needs an
enemy, as every power. 
A new notion of man brings with it another notion of happiness, not an
egocentric notion. But that is an illusion anyway: faggot happiness.

Jud: 
Why this Heideggerian emphasis on angst and unavoidable future death? Do the 
H-crowd believe that to be happy is to be in some way inauthentic? Does the 
H-crowd hold that if someone is happy or successful that they can only be in 
that state because they haven't "got the message" of doom and gloom as per the 
comportment towards death theme that runs through Heidegger's writings like a 
spoilsport at a children's party?

Rene:
On the contrary: Heidegger is the only one to break through the doom, that to
the deniers of death can only grow. He shows another way, precisely into the
other direction: earliness. (Trakl) It's really surprising. I'm an extremely
optimist and cheerful person, Jud. 



Jud [earlier]
(2) Is not the state of being happy [and rich too, if one works hard enough 
by hand & brain?] not something which most human beings on our planet strive 
for?


Rene:
Happiness, as victories, can be despicable.

Jud: 
I wasn't talking about happiness as a victory, but rather as an achievement 
which humankind of all races and nationalities strives toward.

Rene:
Sorry. Happiness, LIKE victories, can be despicable.
Meanwhile, when you want to talk about the aims of mankind, you've got
to have an idea of what man is. But you "faggotly" are forgetting that all
the time, because of your ontological angst to commit.. Nietzsche is more
consequently: the end of God is the end of man.  And of his happiness.
Happiness as a pseudo-religious end is faggottish nihilism, uncomparingly
worse than all religion so far.


Jud:[earlier] 
How can "God" be dead if "he" [like all the other countless millions of  
"Gods" throughout history] has never existed?

Rene:
A god has probably something better to do than 'exist', that is: satisfy the 
needs of humans.

Jud: 
If "he" is not interested in the "needs" of humans, then why did he create 
the earth and send his "only begotten son" with a message to mankind re: how to 
behave properly, [don't steal - don't shag the neighbour's wife, etc.,] if he 
was disinterested in the needs of humans?

rene:
I know nothing of all that. You brought up the existence of a god , or God,
or whatever, many many times. Then you must know what you're talking about.
  

hurried,

rene



     --- from list heidegger-AT-lists.village.virginia.edu ---

   

Driftline Main Page

 

Display software: ArchTracker © Malgosia Askanas, 2000-2005